Scientology: Good for laughs

[Matt]

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=191776&n_date=20051215&cat=entertainment

Cruise draws flak from New York firefighters!
Washington | December 15, 2005 2:27:10 PM IST

After drawing flak for his comments on post-partum depression, actor Tom Cruise has now been dropped from the good books of firefighters, for advising them to ignore their doctors' orders and turn to the Scientology method of getting well.

Cruise's encouragement to emergency services victims, suffering from the effects of smoke inhalation from the World Trade Center terrorist attacks, to leave their medication and inhalers and turn to the Scientology treatment of sauna sessions, ingestion of cooking oil and large doses of niacin, has drawn the wrath of the Deputy Fire Commissioner Frank Gibson who said that Cruise's method had been judged as potentially harmful by members of the medical profession.

"If our doctors are prescribing medication, and they (Scientologists) are saying 'don't take it', that's a problem for us," Contactmusic quoted him, as telling the New York Post.

He added that the department's deputy chief medical officer Dr David Prezant was also critical of the treatment.

"He (Prezant) is not pleased when patients are advised to disobey doctors' orders. That's where he drew the line," he said.

Cruise, however, has defended the venture, and said that it had helped more than 500 people to become fit once again.

"More than 500 individuals have recovered health and job fitness through this project," the actor said.

The "War of the Worlds" star is the co-founder of the New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project and has been supporting a new Scientology clinic preaching these remedies near the Ground Zero site. (ANI)

Seriously... How can any individual this deranged be allowed to walk the streets freely?

Oh well, at least he and his 'religious' crackpot colleagues are good for a laugh now and then...

[SUPERECWFAN1]

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=191776&n_date=20051215&cat=entertainment



Seriously... How can any individual this deranged be allowed to walk the streets freely?

Oh well, at least he and his 'religious' crackpot colleagues are good for a laugh now and then...


Thats his beliefs man. Yes thier wacky but hell...what can ya say ? Least he finally came outta the closet.*
















* This if anyone remembers was a funny episode of South Park recently.

[west3man]

I still fail to see how mocking Scientologists is any better than mocking Jehovah's Witnesses is any better than mocking Wiccans...

[Jared_Humpherys]

I still fail to see how mocking Scientologists is any better than mocking Jehovah's Witnesses is any better than mocking Wiccans...

I agree, although the topic feels more like a focus on Tom Cruise. If the title had been phrased as such(Tom Cruise: Good for a Laugh), I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it.

[Crinos]

I still fail to see how mocking Scientologists is any better than mocking Jehovah's Witnesses is any better than mocking Wiccans...

Well lets see:

Jehovah's witnessess are a divergant branch of Christianity.

Wiccans are the modern incarnation of ancient pagan religions that have been around just as long or longer than christianity and the other big name religions.

Scientology was made by a Science fiction writer and claims that we are haunted by the brainwashed ghosts of aliens who were killed in volcanoes on earth in our pre history, and that psychology is dangerous and harmful to people.

Which religion is more mockable?

[Alex]

I still fail to see how mocking Scientologists is any better than mocking Jehovah's Witnesses is any better than mocking Wiccans...
You don't have to pay money to follow those beleif systems, and they weren't started by a science fiction writer?

[Jared_Humpherys]

Well lets see:

Jehovah's witnessess are a divergant branch of Christianity.

Wiccans are the modern incarnation of ancient pagan religions that have been around just as long or longer than christianity and the other big name religions.

Scientology was made by a Science fiction writer and claims that we are haunted by the brainwashed ghosts of aliens who were killed in volcanoes on earth in our pre history, and that psychology is dangerous and harmful to people.

Which religion is more mockable?

But should ANY religion be mocked? Hell, I'm an agnostic who really REALLY wants to see people like Jerry Falwell attacked by sharks with frickin laserbeams on their heads, and I don't think the belief systems of any one group should be mocked.

That said, Scientology, like many religions, does have some questionable practices(like abductions of former members, etc). Debating these flaws is one thing. Simply poking fun is quite another.

[Tadhg Adams]

But should ANY religion be mocked?

If it was created solely to fleece people and is often quite harmful. Then yeah, I have no problem mocking it. But then I don't really have a problem with mocking any religion.


Should Scientologists themselves be mocked? No, well not for their belief in Scientology at least.

[Alex]

But should ANY religion be mocked?
Normaly, i would say no...really, but scientology is just obviously a scam.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I'm no big believer in or defender of Scientology, but it is in poor taste to mock another person's deeply held religious beliefs. After all, if you truly examine the foundation of many belief systems with a critical eye, you could probably mock them too. For example, the Mormons believe that in 1820, God showed Joseph Smith a vision of where to find a chest containing gold plates and seer stones which enabled him to read what he claimed to be the foundation for the Mormon religion.

Often, it's not how the religion is started that is important, it's what the collective faith and actions of its adherents make it.

[Nate C.]

Normaly, i would say no...really, but scientology is just obviously a scam.

Hubbard was being paid a penny a word as a sci-fi writer when he made the comment, "You know, if a man really wanted to make some money, he would start a religion."

[Gaz]

I'm no big believer in or defender of Scientology, but it is in poor taste to mock another person's deeply held religious beliefs. After all, if you truly examine the foundation of many belief systems with a critical eye, you could probably mock them too. For example, the Mormons believe that in 1820, God showed Joseph Smith a vision of where to find a chest containing gold plates and seer stones which enabled him to read what he claimed to be the foundation for the Mormon religion.

Often, it's not how the religion is started that is important, it's what the collective faith and actions of its adherents make it.
In this case, a glorified pyramid scheme... :p

[Alex]

Hubbard was being paid a penny a word as a sci-fi writer when he made the comment, "You know, if a man really wanted to make some money, he would start a religion."
It's not so much how it started, which is hilarious on it's own, it's what they do now.

[Tadhg Adams]

I'm no big believer in or defender of Scientology, but it is in poor taste to mock another person's deeply held religious beliefs. After all, if you truly examine the foundation of many belief systems with a critical eye, you could probably mock them too. For example, the Mormons believe that in 1820, God showed Joseph Smith a vision of where to find a chest containing gold plates and seer stones which enabled him to read what he claimed to be the foundation for the Mormon religion.

Yeah but the South Park episode mocking Mormonism was really funny.

Often, it's not how the religion is started that is important, it's what the collective faith and actions of its adherents make it.

Oddly enough, that's the moral to said South Park episode.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Oddly enough, that's the moral to said South Park episode.

Now I suppose you'll go start your own religion based on South Park.



...and if you do, I demand a cut.

[Nate C.]

I'm no big believer in or defender of Scientology, but it is in poor taste to mock another person's deeply held religious beliefs. .

I respect your position, Dr. Fartenfurher, but I would suggest that the idea that all beliefs are equal doesn't hold water under close scrutiny. Most people's B.S. meter goes off when the ideas are simply too unbelievable.

Heck, Jeffrey doesn't offend me when he says that the miracles of the bible are unbelievable. (doesn't make me believe them any less either. :) )

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I respect your position, Dr. Fartenfurher, but I would suggest that the idea that all beliefs are equal doesn't hold water under close scrutiny. Most people's B.S. meter goes off when the ideas are simply too unbelievable.

Heck, Jeffrey doesn't offend me when he says that the miracles of the bible are unbelievable. (doesn't make me believe them any less either. :) )

I didn't say all beliefs are equal. Of course not. I just think it's in bad taste to mock someone else's religious beliefs. At least, to their face. Personally, I love to make Episcopal jokes with my fellow Catholics.

[cable guy]

Besides hearing things here and there about it; :confused:

What Is Scientology?

[Gaz]

Besides hearing things here and there about it; :confused:

What Is Scientology?
Ooohboy. Who wants to explain? And who can do it without laughing?

[Nate C.]

I didn't say all beliefs are equal. Of course not. I just think it's in bad taste to mock someone else's religious beliefs. At least, to their face. Personally, I love to make Episcopal jokes with my fellow Catholics.

I agree.

And I salute you and West (always West whose willing to defend the defenseless) for the effort.

(you did notice the color of the name of the thread starter, right?)

[Nate C.]

Ooohboy. Who wants to explain? And who can do it without laughing?

I nominate Dr. Hedughisownholehecangetoutofitrrrr

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

(you did notice the color of the name of the thread starter, right?)

I don't subscribe to the theory of mod infallibility.

[Alex]

Besides hearing things here and there about it; :confused:

What Is Scientology?
http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/index.html
Vague, isn't it?

[Nate C.]

I don't subscribe to the theory of mod infallibility.

you keep that kind of talk up, Mr., and I know somebody who'll be getting a CBR nomination for Christmas.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

you keep that kind of talk up, Mr., and I know somebody who'll be getting a CBR nomination for Christmas.

or a lump of BANNED in my stocking.

[cable guy]

http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/index.html
Vague, isn't it?

This is exactly why I asked.

About a month ago, I searched for about a 1/2 hour, and found only sites like that.

[Gaz]

This is exactly why I asked.

About a month ago, I searched for about a 1/2 hour, and found only sites like that.
Yeah, that's about the best you'll do.

[LtK-Dragon]

This is exactly why I asked.

About a month ago, I searched for about a 1/2 hour, and found only sites like that.

Try wikipedia

Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)

also
the Xenu story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu#Summary_of_the_Xenu_story)

[Boldido]

Often, it's not how the religion is started that is important, it's what the collective faith and actions of its adherents make it.

Which in the case of Scientology is rabidy litigious, financially exploitive, and medically dangerous to the point of killing a young woman a few years ago.

I believe that "Should religions be mocked?" would be an interesting thread, however, this thread is intended to be a thread for mocking Scientology. Please either mock or go.

Now back to the mocking...

I fear for Katie Holmes when she gives birth considering Scientologists believe that the birthing room has to be completely silent. No crying or outbursts indicating pain. If I'm not mistaken, this will also have to be without benefit of an epidural since they are against the church's beliefs as well. Nice religion choice Katie...I hope you survive the experience.

[cable guy]

Try wikipedia

Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)

also
the Xenu story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu#Summary_of_the_Xenu_story)

This is by the best explaination I've heard so far.

[west3man]

I agree, although the topic feels more like a focus on Tom Cruise. If the title had been phrased as such(Tom Cruise: Good for a Laugh), I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it.
Mocking Tom or his statements is one thing. The thread title and the last line of the first post go beyond that, though.

I can't help seeing a disconnect between acceptance of this kind of thing, but wild rage in response to someone criticizing other religions that THEY consider to be a joke or a fad.

To be clear, criticizing certain beliefs within the religion is one thing. Blanket mocking of the religion itself and all of its followers is another. If that's cool, though, fine. That means blanket mocking of Christianity ought to be just as cool.

[Boldido]

To be clear, criticizing certain beliefs within the religion is one thing. Blanket mocking of the religion itself and all of its followers is another. If that's cool, though, fine. That means blanket mocking of Christianity ought to be just as cool.

So we can't mock a religion, just its beliefs?

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Which in the case of Scientology is rabidy litigious, financially exploitive, and medically dangerous to the point of killing a young woman a few years ago.

A moment before recommencing the mocking: As a Catholic, I think we as Catholics lost our moral authority to mock other religions when the priest sex abuse scandal hit the papers. Not that Catholics were all that pristine before that...

So, in the spirit of mocking, a couple Catholic jokes:

A nun at a Catholic school asked her students what they want to be when they grow up.

Little Suzy declares, "I want to be a prostitute."

"What did you say?!" asks the nun, totally shocked.

"I said I want to be a prostitute," Suzy repeats.

"Oh, thank heavens," says the nun. "I thought you said 'a Protestant!'"

Or:

An Irish priest is driving down to New York and gets stopped for speeding in Connecticut. The state trooper smells alcohol on the priest's breath and then sees an empty wine bottle on the floor of the car. He says, "Sir, have you been drinking?" "Just water," says the priest, fingers crossed. The trooper says, "Then why do I smell wine?" The priest looks at the bottle and says, "Good Lord! He's done it again!"

[Slam_Bradley]

I still fail to see how mocking Scientologists is any better than mocking Jehovah's Witnesses is any better than mocking Wiccans...


I like to mock all three. Preferably at the same time.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I like to mock all three. Preferably at the same time.


OK, a Scientologist, a Jehovah's Witnesses and a Wiccan walk into a bar...

[west3man]

So we can't mock a religion, just its beliefs?
I see a difference between criticizing specific tenets or beliefs and outright mocking them.

But mostly I just think that either all religions are above mocking or none are.

[west3man]

I like to mock all three. Preferably at the same time. If none of them are above mocking, that's an even standard.

Right or wrong, at least it's consistent (which is just this side of "fair," in my book).

[Charles RB]

But should ANY religion be mocked?

Debatable. But cults should be and do get mocked, and Scientology is very much a cult.


Often, it's not how the religion is started that is important, it's what the collective faith and actions of its adherents make it.

And here, the actions of its adherents are trying to stop people who inhaled smoke at Ground Zero from using medication.

[Boldido]

How many Scientologists does it take to change a light bulb?

None: the lightbulb must find $80,000 dollars to become clear, then it will have the selfdeterminism to change itself.

[Slam_Bradley]

If none of them are above mocking, that's an even standard.

Right or wrong, at least it's consistent (which is just this side of "fair," in my book).


I firmly believe that nothing is above mocking.

In the keeping with Dr. Puffenstuff's Catholic joke, here's a lawyer truth...

The kindergarten teacher was asking the children what their Daddy's did for work. Little Annie said her daddy was a car salesman. Little Stevie said his daddy was a doctor. When it came to little Billy he kinda shrunk down and then said his daddy was a male prostitute. Luckily the bell rang and as they went out the teacher took little Billy aside and told him how sorry she was and that she shouldn't have asked. Little Billy replied, "It's all right. My daddy is really a lawyer. But I was too embarrassed to admit that."

[Boldido]

Move over Tom Cruise, Mayor McCheese is Scientology's new favorite son.

http://www.scientomogy.info/mccheese.htm

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

How many Scientologists does it take to change a light bulb?

None: the lightbulb must find $80,000 dollars to become clear, then it will have the selfdeterminism to change itself.

If I knew anything at all about Scientology, that'd probably be funny. But you may as well be making a joke about particle physics.

So I'm ignorant. Sue me.

[west3man]

Dr. Puffenstuff'sThis never gets old -and I hadn't heard that one, so ... *tips hat*

[Boldido]

If I knew anything at all about Scientology, that'd probably be funny. But you may as well be making a joke about particle physics.

So I'm ignorant. Sue me.

If I was a Scientologist I probably would.

[Sabrinaset]

Well, I think I can support any religion that worships Xenu...
http://www.autolycus.de/xena/pics/misc/XENA001.JPG

On the origins of Scientology, Harlan Ellison claims to have been there when L. Ron Hubbard invented it...

http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857

Other L-Ron facts...

http://altreligion.about.com/library/faqs/bl_scientologyfaq.htm

[Slam_Bradley]

Well, I think I can support any religion that worships Xenu...
http://www.autolycus.de/xena/pics/misc/XENA001.JPG

On the origins of Scientology, Harlan Ellison claims to have been there when L. Ron Hubbard invented it...

http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857

Other L-Ron facts...

http://altreligion.about.com/library/faqs/bl_scientologyfaq.htm


Interestingly, John W. Campbell, who knew Hubbard as well as anyone and certainly should have known better, bought in to it.

[Guapo Méndez]

Any religion that creates "Operation Snow White" deserves all the derision it can get.

[Matt]

I reserve the right to mock any organisation/movement/cult/group/association/etc that is so obviously made up of people out to make a load of cash at others expense and really stupid people.
Which sums Scientology up quite nicely.

The best site I've come across which explains why Scientology would be funny if they weren't so dangerous is this one:
http://www.clambake.org/

[Boldido]

If none of them are above mocking, that's an even standard.

Right or wrong, at least it's consistent (which is just this side of "fair," in my book).
How about these cupcakes?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wcotc1.htm

Sorry West, but I don't buy into this if one then all, all are equal B.S.

[west3man]

How about these cupcakes?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wcotc1.htm

Sorry West, but I don't buy into this if one then all, all are equal B.S.
You don't have to.

I just don't expect to see the same people jumping all over others for mocking or even criticizing a religion BECAUSE it's a religion.

That's what makes it an all or nothing proposition for those who'll mock today and complain tomorrow... or who complained yesterday and mock, today, or just fall silient. If you're not one of those people, cool.

[Alex]

To be clear, criticizing certain beliefs within the religion is one thing. Blanket mocking of the religion itself and all of its followers is another. If that's cool, though, fine. That means blanket mocking of Christianity ought to be just as cool.
Is there a law against that? I see people mocking christianity semi constantly, in real life and on the boards.

[Iangould]

I still fail to see how mocking Scientologists is any better than mocking Jehovah's Witnesses is any better than mocking Wiccans...

I don't think leading members of either of those religions (yeah I know Wiccans don't really have leaders) were ever convicted of conspiracy to murder IRS agents and I don't think either of those religions ever ran their own prisons for dissident members.

[west3man]

Is there a law against that? I see people mocking christianity semi constantly, in real life and on the boards.
Never said there was. I was talking about consistency.

[west3man]

I don't think leading members of either of those religions (yeah I know Wiccans don't really have leaders) were ever convicted of conspiracy to murder IRS agents and I don't think either of those religions ever ran their own prisons for dissident members.I wasn't just talking about those religions.

But if a religion is worthy of mockery whenever its members do bad things, then it should be open season on EVERY religion - even the big'uns.

[Mike Smith]

Christianity itself typically takes a lot of flak in media, even being a faith-based institution, it's just that it is so common we are immune to it.

Scientology is interesting as it applies a scientifically advanced species over the condition of Earth, which begs for scientific picking and can make something seem directly fallible. I'm just waiting for someone to merge Raelianism with Scientology to see the brainchild of such an event. The father of scientology was a scifi writer, which ripens the fields for much satire/cheap jokes. Regardless, it is disrespectful to directly insult anyone for their belief system, but in modern times you have to expect your religion/belief system to get some mockery in various forms of media, especially when you send Tom Cruise as a missionary/evangelist

[Guapo Méndez]

From the Scientology Manual of Justice (http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/man_just.htm).

If you are being investigated or if the Central Organization is - sit tight, don't co-operate.
Be legal according to the laws of the land in the first place. After that kick investigators or reporters downstairs.

Press interviews usually end up as entheta or they are cover-ups for an investigation. Never co-operate. Be indifferent. Don't let the central organization co-operate with "press" ever. That's a lesson hard to learn. Press people are so persuasive. They are going to "help" so much. Look at a newspaper. Is it helping anybody?

Yep.
Nothing to mock here.

[Boldido]

I wasn't just talking about those religions.

But if a religion is worthy of mockery whenever its members do bad things, then it should be open season on EVERY religion - even the big'uns.

West, where have you been? Its been open season on Catholicism around here for years.

[Guapo Méndez]

West, where have you been? Its been open season on Catholicism around here for years.


I still have the scars from the last 2. And there was a poster that took a personal leave on account of other threads.

[Boldido]

From the Scientology Manual of Justice (http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/man_just.htm).

If you are being investigated or if the Central Organization is - sit tight, don't co-operate.
Be legal according to the laws of the land in the first place. After that kick investigators or reporters downstairs.

Press interviews usually end up as entheta or they are cover-ups for an investigation. Never co-operate. Be indifferent. Don't let the central organization co-operate with "press" ever. That's a lesson hard to learn. Press people are so persuasive. They are going to "help" so much. Look at a newspaper. Is it helping anybody?

Yep.
Nothing to mock here.

Er...actually, that's one of the things they got right.

[Guapo Méndez]

Kick investigators down the stairs? Sweet!

I might convert.

[K'Nort]

I'm in the "it's fine to mock Scientology because I can't see any way it qualifies as a religion" camp. More specifically, I lump it in with conspiracy theories.

[Sabrinaset]

You beat me to it, Boldido! :)

Oh, and here's the official spokesrobot for Scientology...
http://www.metagame.com/includes/image.aspx?s=200512651&c=DJL-053&m=1

[Dan Apodaca]

But should ANY religion be mocked? Hell, I'm an agnostic who really REALLY wants to see people like Jerry Falwell attacked by sharks with frickin laserbeams on their heads, and I don't think the belief systems of any one group should be mocked.

Yes, absolutely. All religions should be mocked. Everything should be mocked. Let no one think they are infallible.

[Perry Holley]

Seems as good a time as any to repost this...

http://img251.echo.cx/img251/117/diagram26uz.jpg

[Sabrinaset]

Yes, absolutely. All religions should be mocked. Everything should be mocked. Let no one think they are infallible.

What about CBR? Should that be mocked?

[Smoogis]

What about CBR? Should that be mocked?


Yes.

.

.

[Crinos]

In all seriousness, I hold the belief that nobody currently alive on this planet has the real answer to the whole universe, so everyone's theory about what its all about is equally valid. (I should also note that I believe that I think all the major monotheistic religions all filter up to the same supreme being, but thats for another thread.)

But I would like to say that the Scientoligists DO lose some points based on the fact that their founder was a SCIENCE FICTION WRITER.

Still, they have as much of a chance about being right as anyone, so they're entitled to whatever (dumbass) opinion they want about the world.

[Alex]

In all seriousness, I hold the belief that nobody currently alive on this planet has the real answer to the whole universe, so everyone's theory about what its all about is equally valid. (I should also note that I believe that I think all the major monotheistic religions all filter up to the same supreme being, but thats for another thread.)

But I would like to say that the Scientoligists DO lose some points based on the fact that their founder was a SCIENCE FICTION WRITER.

Still, they have as much of a chance about being right as anyone, so they're entitled to whatever (dumbass) opinion they want about the world.
I give some of the ancient religions a step up, we know places in the bible and koran are real, but i have yet to meet a single thetan.

[Crinos]

I give some of the ancient religions a step up, we know places in the bible and koran are real, but i have yet to meet a single thetan.

Well I dont give the old religions any more weight because they were created thousands of years ago. I mean if we did that then the religions of ancient egypt and Greece would trump Christianity and Islam.

They do get points for having a shitload of evidence (sort of) to back it up however.

[Alex]

Well I dont give the old religions any more weight because they were created thousands of years ago. I mean if we did that then the religions of ancient egypt and Greece would trump Christianity and Islam.

They do get points for having a shitload of evidence (sort of) to back it up however.
I just ment that since they mention real places, and were started by people who we can't really examine, they have an air of....well, lets say we can't attack them as easily.
Scientology was started by the guy who wrote Battlefield earth.

[Crinos]

I just ment that since they mention real places, and were started by people who we can't really examine, they have an air of....well, lets say we can't attack them as easily.
Scientology was started by the guy who wrote Battlefield earth.

Yeah, nuff said.

I actually read fear by Hubbard when I was in High school. Its actually pretty good from what I remember. And apparantly it isnt connected to scientology at all either.

[Alex]

Yeah, nuff said.

I actually read fear by Hubbard when I was in High school. Its actually pretty good from what I remember. And apparantly it isnt connected to scientology at all either.
From what i've been told (haven't sought out all the guys books or anything, im not a huge sci fi fan) he wrote plain, old fashioned books before he created a religion.
Though, the alien ghost story and the end of battlefield earth....

[Crinos]

Well, I think I can support any religion that worships Xenu...
http://www.autolycus.de/xena/pics/misc/XENA001.JPG

On the origins of Scientology, Harlan Ellison claims to have been there when L. Ron Hubbard invented it...

http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857

Other L-Ron facts...

http://altreligion.about.com/library/faqs/bl_scientologyfaq.htm

Actually, from what I understand Xenu is the devil of scientology, or something like that.

[Alex]

Actually, from what I understand Xenu is the devil of scientology, or something like that.
Xanadu was pretty horrible.

[DarkSoldier]

That said, Scientology, like many religions, does have some questionable practices(like abductions of former members, etc).
How about using the legal system to discredit and harass its critics and ex-members, and to get its tax-exempt status back from the IRS?

Actually, Scientology isn't a religion, it's a bait-and-switch scam: "Join Scientology and we'll give you salvation! Oh, we don't have any salvation, but if you give us $500 and attend some mandatory classes, we can get some for you! Oh, we still don't have any salvation for you, but if you give us $600 and attend more mandatory classes, we can get some for you!"

[DarkSoldier]

Actually, from what I understand Xenu is the devil of scientology, or something like that.
From the Scientology creation myth, which members aren't allowed to know until they reach the level of OT-III in the organization:

75 million years ago, the evil galactic emperor Xenu had an overpopulation problem; every one of the 76 planets he ruled had about 178 billion people. He used psychiatrists to convince the people to come for "income tax inspections," paralyzed them with alcohol/glycol injections, stuffed them into spaceplanes that look just like DC-8s without propellors (even though the DC-8 has jet engines) and sent them to the planet Teegeeack, which we call Earth. Xenu stacked the people at the base of volcanoes and dropped H-bombs into them, killing them all.

Xenu used electronic ribbons to capture the free-floating "thetans" (souls) and stuck them in three-dimensional viewing theatres, where he showed them the whole of history (thus making human history a fabrication). The process destroyed their sense of identity, making them cluster together in colonies of several thousand, infecting the few bodies that survived the H-bombs. Those thetans continue to exist and plague humanity, except for the Scientologists that have purged themselves.

Hubbard wrote OT-III in 1967-68 while under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and said that knowledge of this "true history," which he called "Incident II," would kill by pneumonia anyone who learned it too early.

[Crinos]

How about using the legal system to discredit and harass its critics and ex-members, and to get its tax-exempt status back from the IRS?

Actually, Scientology isn't a religion, it's a bait-and-switch scam: "Join Scientology and we'll give you salvation! Oh, we don't have any salvation, but if you give us $500 and attend some mandatory classes, we can get some for you! Oh, we still don't have any salvation for you, but if you give us $600 and attend more mandatory classes, we can get some for you!"


But wait, there's fucking more.

Scientology claims to be compaitable with other religions, but in these mandatory classes they teach that Christianity and Buddhism are just lies concocted by Xenu to keep us in the dark.

These guys are bullshiters deluxe.

[Hiromi]

From the Scientology creation myth, which members aren't allowed to know until they reach the level of OT-III in the organization:

75 million years ago, the evil galactic emperor Xenu had an overpopulation problem; every one of the 76 planets he ruled had about 178 billion people. He used psychiatrists to convince the people to come for "income tax inspections," paralyzed them with alcohol/glycol injections, stuffed them into spaceplanes that look just like DC-8s without propellors (even though the DC-8 has jet engines) and sent them to the planet Teegeeack, which we call Earth. Xenu stacked the people at the base of volcanoes and dropped H-bombs into them, killing them all.

Xenu used electronic ribbons to capture the free-floating "thetans" (souls) and stuck them in three-dimensional viewing theatres, where he showed them the whole of history (thus making human history a fabrication). The process destroyed their sense of identity, making them cluster together in colonies of several thousand, infecting the few bodies that survived the H-bombs. Those thetans continue to exist and plague humanity, except for the Scientologists that have purged themselves.

Hubbard wrote OT-III in 1967-68 while under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and said that knowledge of this "true history," which he called "Incident II," would kill by pneumonia anyone who learned it too early.

Why'd you put that bit at the end?! I'm gonna get pneumonia and die now! Curse you DS!

[Crinos]

From the Scientology creation myth, which members aren't allowed to know until they reach the level of OT-III in the organization:

75 million years ago, the evil galactic emperor Xenu had an overpopulation problem; every one of the 76 planets he ruled had about 178 billion people. He used psychiatrists to convince the people to come for "income tax inspections," paralyzed them with alcohol/glycol injections, stuffed them into spaceplanes that look just like DC-8s without propellors (even though the DC-8 has jet engines) and sent them to the planet Teegeeack, which we call Earth. Xenu stacked the people at the base of volcanoes and dropped H-bombs into them, killing them all.

Xenu used electronic ribbons to capture the free-floating "thetans" (souls) and stuck them in three-dimensional viewing theatres, where he showed them the whole of history (thus making human history a fabrication). The process destroyed their sense of identity, making them cluster together in colonies of several thousand, infecting the few bodies that survived the H-bombs. Those thetans continue to exist and plague humanity, except for the Scientologists that have purged themselves.

Hubbard wrote OT-III in 1967-68 while under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and said that knowledge of this "true history," which he called "Incident II," would kill by pneumonia anyone who learned it too early.

Well, I've known this for a few weeks now, and I havent died yet.

so SCREW YOU HUBBARD YA DEAD BASTARD! THE ONLY THINGS YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN ME ARE SUCK AND DIE!!!! :p

Oh, and if this info is top secret, how come its all over the internet nowadays?

[Tadhg Adams]

Oh, and if this info is top secret, how come its all over the internet nowadays?

A clever guy named Zenon Panoussis posted the information on the net and when he was sued by CoS and had his apartment raided by them, he filed 224 pages of material with the courts in Sweden which means they are now considered public documents in Sweden. The Church's litigous nature backfired on them.

[Crinos]

A clever guy named Zenon Panoussis posted the information on the net and when he was sued by CoS and had his apartment raided by them, he filed 224 pages of material with the courts in Sweden which means they are now considered public documents in Sweden. The Church's litigous nature backfired on them.

Ha! Scientology got pwned!

[lonewolf23k]

If you don't mind some some mature humor, check out YAAFM #11: Scientology (http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/263120)...

[Paradox]

Scientology is NOT a religion, it's a mockery of religion. And therefore, I find it not only OK to mock, but nealy required.

[west3man]

Scientology is NOT a religion, it's a mockery of religion. And therefore, I find it not only OK to mock, but nealy required.
So, anything anyone considers to be a mockery or short of "real" religion is fair game.

Got it.

[Gaz]

So, anything anyone considers to be a mockery or short of "real" religion is fair game.

Got it.
West, I get that you're trying to be fair, and I agree that religion should be fair game for humor, but can you honestly say that Scientology doesn't raise your eyebrows as to the intent of those who control it and their practices?

[Harry Angel]

So, anything anyone considers to be a mockery or short of "real" religion is fair game.

Got it.



All religions should be fair game for mockery and ridicule as they ask their followers to believe in the unbelievable and the impossible.

The ability of a religions tenants and beliefs to stand against this kind of criticism and sarcasm and still sway their followers is a sign of the strength of those particular religious teachings.

If however those so-called beliefs completely collapse under their own ridiculousness when mocked, that also gives a demonstration of the particular weakness of those religious teachings.

Mormonism, the Unification Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Wicca, the Church of Christ Science and Scientology are all fine examples of religions whose origins when mocked clearly demonstrate the weakness of their theological base.

So yeah, it’s perfectly acceptable to make fun of Tom Cruise and company for the utter ridiculousness of their beliefs.

And for the record, "Real" religions should be mocked whenever possible too.

[Naldo]

Late to the party but my $.02.

Scientology has got to be the most ludicrous "religion" ever invented.

I mean this whole operation reeks of bad James Bond Villainry, secret languages, floating command centers, I mean really!

It's no wonder that L.Ron Hubbard hated psychiatry. Anyone that believes in scientology needs intense mental therapy.

[Harry Angel]

Late to the party but my $.02.

Scientology has got to be the most ludicrous "religion" ever invented.

I mean this whole operation reeks of bad James Bond Villainry, secret languages, floating command centers, I mean really!

It's no wonder that L.Ron Hubbard hated psychiatry. Anyone that believes in scientology needs intense mental therapy.


You forgot about the part where the mysterious leader lives on a secret base off shore from any nation, or the part where his followers break into a government agency and raid their computers.

Where's Roger Moore when you need him?

[Naldo]

You forgot about the part where the mysterious leader lives on a secret base off shore from any nation, or the part where his followers break into a government agency and raid their computers.

Where's Roger Moore when you need him?

Yes! Thank you! Somewhere ol' Ronnie is laughing and pointing saying.."JEEZ, I'm a SCI FI writer you nitwits!...it's a JOKE!"

How about the fact that David Miscavige (their current leader and mob boss) is 5'7" and had his home (mansion) in the Hemet California compound built to scale that makes him appear 6' tall! You just can't make this crap up!

[Paradox]

west3man is concise:

So, anything anyone considers to be a mockery or short of "real" religion is fair game.

Got it.

Yup.

Actually, I'm from the "everything is fair game" school, anyway. I don't see sacred cows when it comes to smart mouth humor and mockery. I take it as well as dish it out, though. That's one of the requirements of such a view in order to stay non-hypocritical.

[Paradox]

Naldo is too nice:

Yes! Thank you! Somewhere ol' Ronnie is laughing and pointing saying.."JEEZ, I'm a SCI FI writer you nitwits!...it's a JOKE!"

Sadly, my picture is more him rubbing his hands together evilly and thinking "HA! Suckers!". :(

It's not like he didn't do this on purpose, you know.

[Alex]

From the Scientology creation myth, which members aren't allowed to know until they reach the level of OT-III in the organization:

75 million years ago, the evil galactic emperor Xenu had an overpopulation problem; every one of the 76 planets he ruled had about 178 billion people. He used psychiatrists to convince the people to come for "income tax inspections," paralyzed them with alcohol/glycol injections, stuffed them into spaceplanes that look just like DC-8s without propellors (even though the DC-8 has jet engines) and sent them to the planet Teegeeack, which we call Earth. Xenu stacked the people at the base of volcanoes and dropped H-bombs into them, killing them all.

Xenu used electronic ribbons to capture the free-floating "thetans" (souls) and stuck them in three-dimensional viewing theatres, where he showed them the whole of history (thus making human history a fabrication). The process destroyed their sense of identity, making them cluster together in colonies of several thousand, infecting the few bodies that survived the H-bombs. Those thetans continue to exist and plague humanity, except for the Scientologists that have purged themselves.

Hubbard wrote OT-III in 1967-68 while under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and said that knowledge of this "true history," which he called "Incident II," would kill by pneumonia anyone who learned it too early.
...
Ok West, i know you like defending almost everything that gets attacked, but did you read this?
I know it's fake, because i haven't died from pneumonia.
BAM! Scientology, fake, ok to make fun of!

[meethraa]

can you honestly say that Scientology doesn't raise your eyebrows as to the intent of those who control it and their practices?
Replace Scientology with any other western religion I know and my answer would be a resounding yes.

[Alex]

Replace Scientology with any other western religion I know and my answer would be a resounding yes.
"Hubbard wrote OT-III in 1967-68 while under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and said that knowledge of this "true history," which he called "Incident II," would kill by pneumonia anyone who learned it too early."
Are you dead yet?

[meethraa]

"Hubbard wrote OT-III in 1967-68 while under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and said that knowledge of this "true history," which he called "Incident II," would kill by pneumonia anyone who learned it too early."
Are you dead yet?
Inside? Yes.

[PatrickG]

You see the irony of using the term "fair game", right?

Here's my cutoff for "bad religions".

Any religion which lobbies government for laws explicitly for the purpose of benefiting their practices/beliefs.

Several Christian denominations make my list there. Mormonism and Scientology do.

Mormons set up infrastructure in Mexico to make it easier for them to operate in secrecy.

In general, I don't have ANY tolerence for secrecy in religion and I refuse to even consider any faith which prominantly keeps secrets.

I'm aware of the "pearls before swine" thing in Christianity. And how do I interpret it?

Don't stand on ceremony. Don't hide behind ceremony. Don't say fancy things to people that you don't think they'll get.

In my mind, "casting pearls before swine" is what happens when some evangelical goes up to an atheist and asks them if they've walked with Jesus lately. The atheist is going to look at them like they're crazy.

"Pearls before swine", IMO, relates to failing to communicate. It's when you have something good to say but the audience won't get it/isn't receptive.

It's about saving that really good in-joke for the audience who will get it rather than get heckled. It's about not asking out the prom queen unless you think she might say yes.

The American flag... Beautiful thing. Wearing it around North Korea? Bad idea. THAT'S what "pearls before swine" is about.

Not rituals and ceremonies and dogmas as most modern religions practice them.

I mean, the ceremonies may be beautiful in ways that outsiders won't get. So hide the embarassing details where you hop around on one foot. I get that. But I feel it behooves the church to characterize what they're about and offer as much information as the person asking questions is ready for. Allow for people to evaluate your faith in a way that they are free to disagree as long as you aren't open to attack.

And at the heart of this, religious people are too fragile. They try to shelter their beliefs, hide their convictions, withold their ceremonies... And I believe this to be immoral with all my heart. Not that I'm in favor of the other extreme where people shove their beliefs on eachother...

In the end, I believe faith and conscience are a private matter but they should also be the kind of thing we could discuss fully and openly with a stranger over a beer or a cup of coffee.

Repressed sexual deviants and fetishists are to sex what most people are to religion.

And I want that to change.

[Alex]

Inside? Yes.
He never said inside.
In fact,that suggests namby pamby psycology talk, and they are the great satan in scientology.

[west3man]

Yup.

Actually, I'm from the "everything is fair game" school, anyway. I don't see sacred cows when it comes to smart mouth humor and mockery. I take it as well as dish it out, though. That's one of the requirements of such a view in order to stay non-hypocritical.
It can sound good "on paper," but how many people's kids would you openly mock, in front of the parents?

[meethraa]

In fact,that suggests namby pamby psycology talk, and they are the great satan in scientology.
I don't entirely disagree with them on that...

[west3man]

...
Ok West, i know you like defending almost everything that gets attacked, but did you read this? No, you don't.

I could say, "Ok Alex, i know you like attacking almost everything that gets defended," but that doesn't mean it's so. Maybe there's more to you than one might think. Maybe there's more to me than you assume.

I know it's fake, because i haven't died from pneumonia.
BAM! Scientology, fake, ok to make fun of!There are a ton of things in various elements of this life that turn out to be false or to have false elements. If "rude" has any meaning, at all, then some of those things ought not be mocked.

...or mock them, but do so knowing that this is what is commonly considered to be rude behavior.

[Naldo]

It can sound good "on paper," but how many people's kids would you openly mock, in front of the parents?

If they're scientologists, I'd mock the parents in front of the kids.

[PatrickG]

It can sound good "on paper," but how many people's kids would you openly mock, in front of the parents?

I think it depends on how harshly you're mocking and what you think of the parents. And what the parents are like.

I assume the metaphor here being God as the parents?

So it depends on whether you believe their parents exist, in part.

I know some people who can swear and drink flip off their parents without the tension level in the room going up. Some people's parents might high five you for a cool diss.

I can't think of any gods like that but now that I think of it, there really should be a few.

[Smoogis]

No, you don't.

I could say, "Ok Alex, i know you like attacking almost everything that gets defended," but that doesn't mean it's so. Maybe there's more to you than one might think. Maybe there's more to me than you assume.

There are a ton of things in various elements of this life that turn out to be false or to have false elements. If "rude" has any meaning, at all, then some of those things ought not be mocked.

...or mock them, but do so knowing that this is what is commonly considered to be rude behavior.

Not saying that everyone adheres to it, but mocking of people and mocking of ideas are different things. We live in a country where we can say "...Dude, that's fucked up." People that put themselves in a spotlight where we get to hear about their every aspect of their lives, such as Tom Cruise or the President, is fair game because that's the type of world we live in. But its not rude to state that you believe some idea is a fraud.

[Alex]

No, you don't.

I could say, "Ok Alex, i know you like attacking almost everything that gets defended," but that doesn't mean it's so. Maybe there's more to you than one might think. Maybe there's more to me than you assume.

You could, and i could copy and paste all the times you have done this, and asked why you don't just come out and say "I think you are all hypocrites, and i am much more intelligent and open minded then you."

[west3man]

You could, and i could copy and paste all the times you have done this, and asked why you don't just come out and say "I think you are all hypocrites, and i am much more intelligent and open minded then you."
You could, and I could copy and past all the times you have defended offensive behavior and draw conclusions based on that, then present them, not just as suspicions, but as out-right fact.

When you suggest that all I'm about is defending the indefensible, you're suggesting that I don't actually have any reasons for what I believe and what I say - or that, if I do, I don't actually believe them. You're wrong about that.

By the same token, I think you're wrong about this and a ton of other things, but each time, I do two things you don't acknowledge or appear willing to reciprocate:

1) I give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that there's a chance you actually BELIEVE what you're saying, for what you consider to be good reasons

and

2) I consider the very real possibility that you might be right and I might be wrong.


That flies in the face of the arrogance you attribute to me.

[west3man]

I think it depends on how harshly you're mocking and what you think of the parents. And what the parents are like.

I assume the metaphor here being God as the parents?

So it depends on whether you believe their parents exist, in part.

I know some people who can swear and drink flip off their parents without the tension level in the room going up. Some people's parents might high five you for a cool diss.

I can't think of any gods like that but now that I think of it, there really should be a few.
No need for a metaphor. Saying everything's fair game ends the need for a metaphor. One exception disproves the rule.

[west3man]

Not saying that everyone adheres to it, but mocking of people and mocking of ideas are different things. I agree.

We live in a country where we can say "...Dude, that's fucked up." People that put themselves in a spotlight where we get to hear about their every aspect of their lives, such as Tom Cruise or the President, is fair game because that's the type of world we live in. To some degree, I agree with you, but that's circular, don't you think?

The behavior is fine because that's the world we live in? Isn't that the world we live in because we exhibit the behavior?

But its not rude to state that you believe some idea is a fraud. I agree.

When someone truly believes in it, though, the way we express our disagreemnt with the idea makes all the difference, I think.


I could say I disagree with everything associated with Catholicism (overstated, for convenience). I don't think that'd be rude.

If I said everything associated with Catholicism was stupid, I think that would cross a line.

[Slam_Bradley]

I could say I disagree with everything associated with Catholicism (overstated, for convenience). I don't think that'd be rude.

If I said everything associated with Catholicism was stupid, I think that would cross a line.


Why? It's your opinion. And we all know the old adage about opinions and assholes.

If you're saying that Catholics are stupid then you've crossed the line. That is an attack on an individual. An attack or a mocking of an institution, so what?

[Naldo]

I think part of the problem with Scientology may be attributed to L. Ron Hubbard himself.

Hubbard claimed to be both a Nuclear Physicist and a Naval War Hero. Both claims were patently untrue.

He was in fact a poor student and in 1931 was placed on probation for deficiency of scholarship due to poor grades.

His naval record shows him to be "lacking in essential qualities of judgment, leadership and cooperation" as well as a thief (he stole a submachine gun).

L. Ron Hubbard was a con man and a failed pulp sci-fi author who became aware of the money making opportunities that the business of religion presented and took full advantage of them.

Scientology is a cult of money and greed and should be exposed and ridiculed at every opportunity. To give it even a modicum of credence by "respecting" this religion is to buy into and continue to perpetrate the fraud.

[west3man]

Why? It's your opinion. And we all know the old adage about opinions and assholes. The fact that a statement is someone's opinion has nothing to do with whether it crosses the "rude" line, imo.

If you're saying that Catholics are stupid then you've crossed the line. That is an attack on an individual. An attack or a mocking of an institution, so what?
When I say everything associated with them is stupid (hypothetically), I also meant the people, but my phrasing was lacking. Still, as stated, I think that saying an idea is "stupid" isn't just an attack on the idea. After all, ideas aren't truly stupid. It's the people who come up with them who are or aren't.

I think, and I could be wrong, that when we say some idea is "stupid," we're also making a statement about those who believe in that idea - especially those who believe in it strongly enough to change their lives and the way they live them.

That's not to say every "stupid idea" comes from a 100% stupid individual, though, I admit.

EDIT: But, the more the idea is a part of the person, the more of the person we're mocking when we mock the idea.

[west3man]

I think part of the problem with Scientology may be attributed to L. Ron Hubbard himself.

Hubbard claimed to be both a Nuclear Physicist and a Naval War Hero. Both claims were patently untrue.

He was in fact a poor student and in 1931 was placed on probation for deficiency of scholarship due to poor grades.

His naval record shows him to be "lacking in essential qualities of judgment, leadership and cooperation" as well as a thief (he stole a submachine gun).

L. Ron Hubbard was a con man and a failed pulp sci-fi author who became aware of the money making opportunities that the business of religion presented and took full advantage of them.

Scientology is a cult of money and greed and should be exposed and ridiculed at every opportunity. To give it even a modicum of credence by "respecting" this religion is to buy into and continue to perpetrate the fraud.
It's not the religion that I'm concerned with, so much as the religious.

[Paradox]

west3man twists the angle:

It can sound good "on paper," but how many people's kids would you openly mock, in front of the parents?

Any kind of humor has to be tempered for the "audience". That's more a matter of manners than whether something is "fair game" or not.

In this case, probably not, because they'd probably not old enough to be making the decisions or not. The parents themselves, however? Probably after the kids have left.

[Slam_Bradley]

Any kind of humor has to be tempered for the "audience". That's more a matter of manners than whether something is "fair game" or not.

In this case, probably not, because they'd probably not old enough to be making the decisions or not. The parents themselves, however? Probably after the kids have left.


Exactly. It's a question of manners. It is ill-mannered to mock individuals.

However, organizations and particularly belief systems should be able to defend themselves against mocking. If they can't...they must not be very well developed belief systems.

[west3man]

Any kind of humor has to be tempered for the "audience". That's more a matter of manners than whether something is "fair game" or not.

In this case, probably not, because they'd probably not old enough to be making the decisions or not. The parents themselves, however? Probably after the kids have left.
Mocking isn't always about decisions. People's appearances are often mocked.

In the case of Scientology, the appearance or assumption is that everyone who believes in it believes in the elements that some people have a problem with. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think that's necessarily the case, as not everyone who calls himself a Catholic believes in all the tenets of Catholicism... and so on.

In other words, Scientology may have flawed elements (and I'm confident it does) but that doesn't mean all Scientologists agree with all of them... I think that ought to factor into our opinions of them - especially since we don't know them all.

[Paradox]

It's also a case of the intent of humor, of which mockery is a subset.

I'm not going to tell cancer jokes in a cancer ward, not because it's rude, but because it's not going to get the desired result, which is laughter. Gimme a cancer ward where they openly make fun of it, and I'll be right there (not that I know if such a place even exists, but people have been known to be resilient in the face of adversity).

[west3man]

Exactly. It's a question of manners. It is ill-mannered to mock individuals.

However, organizations and particularly belief systems should be able to defend themselves against mocking. If they can't...they must not be very well developed belief systems.
Individuals can just as easily defend themselves from mocking, if not moreso.

Why would mocking a person be less rude than mocking a group of persons?

[Paradox]

west3man tends to waft towards the overgeneral:

Mocking isn't always about decisions. People's appearances are often mocked.

In the case of Scientology, the appearance or assumption is that everyone who believes in it believes in the elements that some people have a problem with. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think that's necessarily the case, as not everyone who calls himself a Catholic believes in all the tenets of Catholicism... and so on.

In other words, Scientology may have flawed elements (and I'm confident it does) but that doesn't mean all Scientologists agree with all of them... I think that ought to factor into our opinions of them - especially since we don't know them all.

Nope, sorry. To belong to this group, it's REQUIRED to believe in their secrecy, paying them money, etc. Most of the things mentioned in this thread are things that you can't disbelieve if you're an adherant. Sure, the more ridiculous parts can be dismissed, but there's real world problems with the group that every dollar into the coffers just increases.

It's a con, west, and such an obvious one that my only feelings for it's adherants are either pity or disgust. IMHO, anyone who falls for this crap doesn't deserve more. Frankly, I don't see them as any different than the followers of David Koresh or Charles Manson, just that they're not violent.

[Slam_Bradley]

Individuals can just as easily defend themselves from mocking, if not moreso.

Why would mocking a person be less rude than mocking a group of persons?


It wouldn't be. And I don't believe that I implied that it would.

An individual shouldn't have to defend themself. A belief system should have to. It should be put to the test. If it cannot withstand that test it is unworthy of the belief of it's members. The probable exception to this is an individual who thrusts themselves in to the public fora. If you do that, you leave yourself open to what you get.

I consider organizations to be just that, organizations. And within religions, in particular, they aren't even that necessarily. There is no monolithic Christian organization. If a church wants people to believe its teachings it should be prepared to have those teachings challenged. If it is unable to meet those challenges it may well not be worthy of the belief.

[Paradox]

west3man wonders what the difference:

Why would mocking a person be less rude than mocking a group of persons?

Because religious organizations, like corporations, are not people. Insulting Microsoft and insulting Bill Gates are two different things.

And then, sometimes you just don't give a shit if it's rude or not. I certainly feel that way about Scientology.

[Paradox]

Here's one more difference, west, that will probably always keep us on opposite sides of issues like this.

You've indicated more than once that we need to try and understand each other better.

I feel, in many cases, I already do understand well enough. Understanding where someone's coming from doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to agree with it or even consider it a "legitimate" way to think. Sometimes it just reveals how stupid something/someone is.

And, yes, since I'm the one formulating the opinion, I'm the one who makes that call.

[Alex]

You could, and I could copy and past all the times you have defended offensive behavior and draw conclusions based on that, then present them, not just as suspicions, but as out-right fact.

When you suggest that all I'm about is defending the indefensible, you're suggesting that I don't actually have any reasons for what I believe and what I say - or that, if I do, I don't actually believe them. You're wrong about that.

No, what im suggesting is, you always defend what is generaly popular to attack, for no other reason then it is popular to attack.

[Gaz]

No, what im suggesting is, you always defend what is generaly popular to attack, for no other reason then it is popular to attack.
That's EXACTLY what he said you're suggesting, but worded different. If he has no other reason, then he doesn't have any reasons or believe what he says to defend it, right?

[Alex]

That's EXACTLY what he said you're suggesting, but worded different. If he has no other reason, then he doesn't have any reasons or believe what he says to defend it, right?
...
Gaz, i'm going to be honest, i didn't understand your second sentence.

[Gaz]

...
Gaz, i'm going to be honest, i didn't understand your second sentence.
If he's defending X for the sake of defending it, then he either has no reasons apart from "it's being attacked" and/or doesn't believe the ones he does present. Which is what he said, and what you said too, but in different terms.

[Alex]

. Which is what he said, and what you said too, but in different terms.
Oh, well if he said that, then we're done.

[Gaz]

Oh, well if he said that, then we're done.
Well, he said it, saying that you suggesting that was insulting, and you just reiterated it, as though he'd misunderstood.

[Paradox]

**pats li'l Alex on the head**:

...
Gaz, i'm going to be honest, i didn't understand your second sentence.

'Sokay, we don't expect much from you, watchy. ;)

He's saying that it's not the ONLY reason he does so. And I believe west. He honestly wants to figure out people's motives and understand them better, and likes to promote the idea to others. Whether or not he goes overboard on the point...eh, that's gonna be different to everyone. But he's not disengenuous, at the very least.

And remember, it's ALWAYS O.K. to mock Alex. :D

[west3man]

Nope, sorry. To belong to this group, it's REQUIRED to believe in their secrecy, paying them money, etc. Secrecy and donations aren't exclusive to this group.

Most of the things mentioned in this thread are things that you can't disbelieve if you're an adherant. Sure, the more ridiculous parts can be dismissed, but there's real world problems with the group that every dollar into the coffers just increases. The same could be said about every other religion that's either flawed or false.

It's a con, west, and such an obvious one that my only feelings for it's adherants are either pity or disgust. IMHO, anyone who falls for this crap doesn't deserve more. Frankly, I don't see them as any different than the followers of David Koresh or Charles Manson, just that they're not violent.
That seems like a pretty significant difference, to me.

[Alex]

Secrecy and donations aren't exclusive to this group.
.
Ahh, very true.
Name another religion that requires donations to move forward in the religion though.

[Gaz]

Secrecy and donations aren't exclusive to this group.

The same could be said about every other religion that's either flawed or false.
.
Difference. Scientology wants you to pay. Donations to church are optional, these aren't.
And that comment could actually apply to most institutions, let alone religions, false or not.

[Paradox]

west3man confuses me:

Secrecy and donations aren't exclusive to this group.

Um, so what? There's lots of scam operations around. Doesn't make Scientology any less of one.

The same could be said about every other religion that's either flawed or false.

Again, so? Look, Scientology isn't just "flawed". It's an obvious made-up scam. Plenty to show that in this thread. This is one of those cases where I won't even let someone claim this is just "my opinion". Literally, perhaps, but for all practical purposes, it's pretty much fact.

That seems like a pretty significant difference, to me.

Well, of course, that's why I mentioned it. But the mindset is still very similar.

[west3man]

A belief system should have to. It should be put to the test. If it cannot withstand that test it is unworthy of the belief of it's members. This isn't a question of "testing" a belief system. This is a question of ill-mannered or rude behavior.

[Paradox]

Gaz has me add a little:

Difference. Scientology wants you to pay. Donations to church are optional, these aren't.

And while there are churches that really push for people to tithe, I don't think there's any that actually INSIST upon it.

[west3man]

Because religious organizations, like corporations, are not people. Insulting Microsoft and insulting Bill Gates are two different things. And religious organizations are unlike corporations in very significant ways.

Insulting Bill Gates and insulting a deity are two different things.

And then, sometimes you just don't give a shit if it's rude or not.I know.

[west3man]

Here's one more difference, west, that will probably always keep us on opposite sides of issues like this.

You've indicated more than once that we need to try and understand each other better.

I feel, in many cases, I already do understand well enough. Understanding where someone's coming from doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to agree with it or even consider it a "legitimate" way to think. Sometimes it just reveals how stupid something/someone is.

And, yes, since I'm the one formulating the opinion, I'm the one who makes that call.
I think what actually keeps us on opposites sides is that you don't give a shit whether it's rude or not.

[Paradox]

west3man focusses:

This isn't a question of "testing" a belief system. This is a question of ill-mannered or rude behavior.

Your threshold for this kind of thing seems to be a lot lower than most of us. Any insights as to why?

[Paradox]

west3man shouldn't polarize:

I think what actually keeps us on opposites sides is that you don't give a shit whether it's rude or not.

**shrugs** Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. I deal with life on a case by case basis, not on an "I should always..." basis. In general, I tend to be more polite than most people I meet in real life. I let my hair down a bit more here, is all.

[west3man]

No, what im suggesting is, you always defend what is generaly popular to attack, for no other reason then it is popular to attack.
What I'm suggesting is that you don't let a lack of information stop you from drawing a faulty conclusion.

A perfect example of this is to suggest that you know my motives when you truly don't. I tell you what they are and I've shown where my values are. Instead of accepting that, you'd rather say I'm lying about my belief in those principles.

Apparently, you'll feel this way despite what I say or do. That's an unfortunate choice on your part, but it's one I'll try to accept, from this point on.

[Paradox]

west3man stretches:

And religious organizations are unlike corporations in very significant ways.

Insulting Bill Gates and insulting a deity are two different things.

Heh, we're straying into generality, again. It's Scientology. There's no deity being mocked. Made up scam, remember?

[west3man]

Difference. Scientology wants you to pay. Donations to church are optional, these aren't.
And that comment could actually apply to most institutions, let alone religions, false or not.
If a member has the option to be a Scientologist or not, then he or she opted to pay or not to make those donations.

It's still optional when you really get down to it, just like the religions which tell their members that 10% or 20% tithing (sp?) is one of the keys to salvation. It's not something I endorse, but I don't think the difference is SO huge.


Both make money a factor when, in my opinion, it shouldn't be. I disagree with that practice and a lot of other ones (religious and non-religious) but I try to resist the urge to mock in most situations. The mocking (or "ill-mannered" or "rude" behavior) is the issue, for me, right now.

[west3man]

Um, so what? There's lots of scam operations around. Doesn't make Scientology any less of one. I'm suggesting that they're on the same or similar levels, with regard to the elements you (or whomever) implied made them worthy of mockery. So, if one believes that it would be ill-mannered to mock those other institutions, it'd be similarly ill-mannered to mock Scientology.



Again, so? Look, Scientology isn't just "flawed". It's an obvious made-up scam. Plenty to show that in this thread. This is one of those cases where I won't even let someone claim this is just "my opinion". Literally, perhaps, but for all practical purposes, it's pretty much fact. Plenty of people say the same things about other "real" religions which others (but not you, apparently) believe it would be rude to mock the way Scientologists and Scientology are.

[Paradox]

west3man tries very hard:

If a member has the option to be a Scientologist or not, then he or she opted to pay or not to make those donations.

It's still optional when you really get down to it, just like the religions which tell their members that 10% or 20% tithing (sp?) is one of the keys to salvation. It's not something I endorse, but I don't think the difference is SO huge.

Again, the tithing is more of a suggestion. Payments to Scientology are REQUIRED. BIG difference.

Both make money a factor when, in my opinion, it shouldn't be. I disagree with that practice and a lot of other ones (religious and non-religious) but I try to resist the urge to mock in most situations. The mocking (or "ill-mannered" or "rude" behavior) is the issue, for me, right now.

And there's the crux of the bisquit right there. You strive to be polite and well-mannered in all things, seemingly. Others of us don't see it as necessary to be so unfailingly polite, especially to things/people we don't respect. Different life philosophies, man. You seem to think we should always be polite, others think not when it comes to what we percieve as bullshit.

[Sabrinaset]

Getting back onto the topic of Scientology...

A previous poster stated that it loses points because it was invented by a science-fiction writer, and I have to give him props for that. It's true.

Would I go up to a Scientologist and laugh in his face for his personal beliefs? No.

Would I, if ASKED what my opinion of Scientology is by Tom Cruise, tell him what I know about it based on the links I provided many posts ago? Yep.

Would I, if the topic came up, meaning if he tried to convert me, ask Tom to defend Scientology? Sure.

Would I tell Tom Cruise that he behaved really wierdly on Oprah? Yeah.

[Gaz]

If a member has the option to be a Scientologist or not, then he or she opted to pay or not to make those donations.

It's still optional when you really get down to it, just like the religions which tell their members that 10% or 20% tithing (sp?) is one of the keys to salvation. It's not something I endorse, but I don't think the difference is SO huge.


Both make money a factor when, in my opinion, it shouldn't be. I disagree with that practice and a lot of other ones (religious and non-religious) but I try to resist the urge to mock in most situations. The mocking (or "ill-mannered" or "rude" behavior) is the issue, for me, right now.
See, rudeness is a matter of respect to me, and my respect has to be earned. Once it's earned, it's hard to lose, but still, you have to do something which merits it, in my eyes. Scientology (not necessarily it's followers, I'd say that this may include the leaders, but not strictly the members, like the Catholic church might include the Pope and bishops, but not your Catholic on the street. YMMV though.) has done the opposite, I now have less respect for the institution than I had when I first learned of it, which means even a base standard of politeness is out the window. (I'd never mock someone because they dress a certain way. If they're obnoxious or something, I may mock the clothing, but that's a byproduct, not the cause.)

[west3man]

Your threshold for this kind of thing seems to be a lot lower than most of us. Any insights as to why?
"The rest of us" sounds like "everybody else," but actually it's just a number of vocal CBRians.

There are all sorts of other things that one person, family, religious group, or culture might find rude, while others find them perfectly acceptable. A lot of the things I've considered to be rude are things that those I was raised around or who come from similar backgrounds agree are rude. A lot of the more vocal CBRians that disagree with me on these points come from very different backgrounds. I think that's a major factor.

Just very different standards of behavior. But my standards aren't all that make me speak up. I tend to evaluate people's choices based upon their own standards or apparent standards. Around CBR I've seen people get their asses handed to them, so to speak, for making remarks about one religion/group or another - and not just by me.

A whole lot of CBRians have gotten pissed over this kind of thing, in the past. When exceptions are made simply because they don't think a particular religion is "real" enough, that amounts to a double-standard, in my opinion - again, by those CBRians own standards.

[west3man]

Heh, we're straying into generality, again. It's Scientology. There's no deity being mocked. Made up scam, remember?
Fair enough.

I maintain that the two entities are different in significant ways, though.

[Paradox]

west3man is now nitpicking:

I'm suggesting that they're on the same or similar levels, with regard to the elements you (or whomever) implied made them worthy of mockery. So, if one believes that it would be ill-mannered to mock those other institutions, it'd be similarly ill-mannered to mock Scientology.

The etc. kind of indicates there's more to it. I'm not going to list every problem with Scientology in every post. Trust me, any organization with as many problems with it as this group is equally mockable to me.

And there's not a rule book to anything like this, west. You can't lock down a line of "when to mock, when not to". I mock what I don't respect. Plenty of reasons given in this thread to not respect Scientology.


Plenty of people say the same things about other "real" religions which others (but not you, apparently) believe it would be rude to mock the way Scientologists and Scientology are.

Agreed. Funny how that works, huh? This is how individuals behave. We have different levels of tolerance for everything.

Here's another way to look at it.

I've investigated quite a lot about religions (I'm not Paul McEnery or Jade Dragon, but I can hold my own). Most of them have long lists of credits for good things they've done or achieved for people beside the list of bad effects they've had.

Scientology has a VERY short list of credits, if any at all.

They don't get respect because it's not about spirituality at all. It's a money making scam and it doesn't deserve any in my opinion.

Again, case by case, not general. In general I do respect the beliefs of others. In specific, there's always exceptions.

[west3man]

Again, the tithing is more of a suggestion. Payments to Scientology are REQUIRED. BIG difference. It's a difference, but not as big, in my opinion.

After all, both amount to making one's salvation dependent upon one's monetary contributions. I don't know if Scientologists believe in an eternal soul, but other "major" religions do. What's worse - a lifetime or torment or an eternity?

In either case, money (and sometime secrecy) is key.

And there's the crux of the bisquit right there. You strive to be polite and well-mannered in all things, seemingly. Others of us don't see it as necessary to be so unfailingly polite, especially to things/people we don't respect. Different life philosophies, man. You seem to think we should always be polite, others think not when it comes to what we percieve as bullshit. It's not just different life philosophies, but that certainly is a major factor. Often, I evaluate someone's actions based on their own values, not just mine.

In Alex's case, for instance, he taught me that there are people who don't think motive matters, if someone does a great thing. Anything he says or does, for as long as (I remember that) he holds this opinion, will be relative to his own standard.

[west3man]

See, rudeness is a matter of respect to me, and my respect has to be earned. Once it's earned, it's hard to lose, but still, you have to do something which merits it, in my eyes.
I try to start off with an offering of basic respectfulness until I'm given a reason to stop.

[Gaz]

I try to start off with an offering of basic respectfulness until I'm given a reason to stop.
I have a neutral gear. I'll call you Mr West until you ask me not to, I'll act as deemed generally "appropriate" to the location and situation. I may make a gentle joke to someone I know about something you did, to my friends the next day, but nothing vicious. You lose that level, I'll get less polite. But even people I respect, or am neutral to, aren't beyond some joking.

[west3man]

And there's not a rule book to anything like this, west. You can't lock down a line of "when to mock, when not to". I mock what I don't respect. Plenty of reasons given in this thread to not respect Scientology. There are plenty of reasons to not respect a lot of things and people around here. Resisting the urge to be disrespectful, even in the face of such evidence, was one of the goals, I thought.

Not just my standards, but those expressed by others and by the rules of this forum.


Agreed. Funny how that works, huh? This is how individuals behave. We have different levels of tolerance for everything. Not quite.

I'm talking about this kind of situation:

A: Crows suck.
B: People shouldn't say bad things about birds.
A: But I don't like crows.
B: So? People shouldn't say bad things about birds.

. . .

B: Pidgeons are awful.
A: I thought people shouldn't say bad things about birds.
B: Yeah, but I don't like pidgeons.


For those who display this behavior, that's not just people having different standards for different things. It's something else.

Here's another way to look at it.

I've investigated quite a lot about religions (I'm not Paul McEnery or Jade Dragon, but I can hold my own). Most of them have long lists of credits for good things they've done or achieved for people beside the list of bad effects they've had.

Scientology has a VERY short list of credits, if any at all.

They don't get respect because it's not about spirituality at all. It's a money making scam and it doesn't deserve any in my opinion.

Again, case by case, not general. In general I do respect the beliefs of others. In specific, there's always exceptions.
Well, I guess that's that.

Thanks for the exchange.

[west3man]

I have a neutral gear. I'll call you Mr West until you ask me not to, I'll act as deemed generally "appropriate" to the location and situation. I may make a gentle joke to someone I know about something you did, to my friends the next day, but nothing vicious. You lose that level, I'll get less polite. But even people I respect, or am neutral to, aren't beyond some joking.
Okay.

"Some joking" is one thing. Statements like "Seriously... How can any individual this deranged be allowed to walk the streets freely?

Oh well, at least he and his 'religious' crackpot colleagues are good for a laugh now and then..." are another.

[Paradox]

west3man goes into detail:

"The rest of us" sounds like "everybody else," but actually it's just a number of vocal CBRians.

Well, by "most of us", I meant most of the people posting in this thread, which is demonstrable, but fair point.

"There are all sorts of other things that one person, family, religious group, or culture might find rude, while others find them perfectly acceptable. A lot of the things I've considered to be rude are things that those I was raised around or who come from similar backgrounds agree are rude.

True enough. Nothing weird about people having different thresholds of things.

A lot of the more vocal CBRians that disagree with me on these points come from very different backgrounds. I think that's a major factor.

Probably. Depends a lot, I suppose, on what you think of as "background". Is it just what you were taught as a child or things you learned as an adult? Because, frankly, my mother would be APPALLED at some of the things I say, but I outgrew her "teachings" a long, long time ago in favor of investigation and honesty. She's a Methodist and always votes Republican merely because that's what her mother always was/did. Nothing more to it. She constantly tried to get me to conform to societal norms with a "What would people think?" attitude. I love her to death, and she's one of the nicest people in the world, but we don't exactly match up philosophically.

But then, she's got quite a different background that me, too. :)

Just very different standards of behavior. But my standards aren't all that make me speak up. I tend to evaluate people's choices based upon their own standards or apparent standards. Around CBR I've seen people get their asses handed to them, so to speak, for making remarks about one religion/group or another - and not just by me.

Yeah, and I was probably right there holding a cheek or two myself, if not in text, than in spirit.

All I can tell you is that it's different here, because it's so demonstrable that this ISN'T a legitimate religion. C'mon, west, this is "flat earther" stuff.

I made up my own religion and have certainly had my share of derisive or mocking comments sent my way from time to time. Eh, I just look at it as part of the game. 'Course, I'm not trying to get anyone to "join" either, nor am I charging them for the "privilege".

A whole lot of CBRians have gotten pissed over this kind of thing, in the past. When exceptions are made simply because they don't think a particular religion is "real" enough, that amounts to a double-standard, in my opinion - again, by those CBRians own standards.

I think this exception is allowed merely because of the obviousness of the "unreality" of this alleged religion, is all.

It isn't like there was a Scientoligist posting their views and we all mocked them (although I can see that happening). That's personal and that'd probably get shut down.

[west3man]

I wanted to just answer your question, but I'm too weak! :o I gave in and addressed another point, too. *sigh*Probably. Depends a lot, I suppose, on what you think of as "background". Is it just what you were taught as a child or things you learned as an adult? Both. A foundation was presented to me, as a child. I kept the things that made sense to me and discarded most of the rest. As I got older, I built upon that foundation and branched out in ways that I suspect would shock most of my family.

I think this exception is allowed merely because of the obviousness of the "unreality" of this alleged religion, is all. To some atheists, ALL religions are unreal. To people of religion X, all OTHER religions are unreal. To people of Religion Y, MOST other religions are unreal... and so on.

If the loophole's almost as big as the rule, the rule is anything but.

It isn't like there was a Scientoligist posting their views and we all mocked them (although I can see that happening). That's personal and that'd probably get shut down.That's the same thing people have said to me when I complain about some of the anti-gay things they say in a chatroom I visit occasionally.

Much later, they found out that the youngest chatroom regular is gay.

I don't think it matters that they didn't know they were saying things that applied to someone right there in the room, but I think it also matters that they didn't care about the possibility.

In my opinion the same thing applies to people who mock whites because they think the Black folks around them won't care. If or when it turns out that one of those Black people is bi-racial, the comments were just as disrespectful.

I know there are difference between ethnicity and religious affiliation, but it all comes down to whether we choose to be respectful toward each other despite our differences - especially if we're not hurting anyone else.

[Gaz]

I wanted to just answer your question, but I'm too weak! :o I gave in and addressed another point, too. *sigh* Both. A foundation was presented to me, as a child. I kept the things that made sense to me and discarded most of the rest. As I got older, I built upon that foundation and branched out in ways that I suspect would shock most of my family.

To some atheists, ALL religions are unreal. To people of religion X, all OTHER religions are unreal. To people of Religion Y, MOST other religions are unreal... and so on.

Um,West? *waves* Atheist here, and no. I may not believe, and even think that religion causes more problems than it solves, but the general basis of most religions is altrusitic. So I have some respect for them, and depending on how they follow that, their adherents. Denominations that twist that into trying to make everyone adhere to dogma or put a theocracy into place, or denying others rights, I have much less respect for and I'll treat the as such. Look at it like this, the current Pope has much less respect from me than the current Archbishop of Canterbury.


If the loophole's almost as big as the rule, the rule is anything but.

That's the same thing people have said to me when I complain about some of the anti-gay things they say in a chatroom I visit occasionally.

Much later, they found out that the youngest chatroom regular is gay.

I don't think it matters that they didn't know they were saying things that applied to someone right there in the room, but I think it also matters that they didn't care about the possibility.

In my opinion the same thing applies to people who mock whites because they think the Black folks around them won't care. If or when it turns out that one of those Black people is bi-racial, the comments were just as disrespectful.

I know there are difference between ethnicity and religious affiliation, but it all comes down to whether we choose to be respectful toward each other despite our differences - especially if we're not hurting anyone else.
So, say a black comedian makes jokes about whites, and the white people watching laugh, is that bad? Should I be offended that Chris Rock disrespected me, or does motive have a place?

[Paradox]

west3man just can't help himself:

I wanted to just answer your question, but I'm too weak! :o I gave in and addressed another point, too. *sigh*

Heh! Discussion addict! :p

Both. A foundation was presented to me, as a child. I kept the things that made sense to me and discarded most of the rest. As I got older, I built upon that foundation and branched out in ways that I suspect would shock most of my family.

Ha! I certainly understand THAT. That's EXACTLY the way I dealt with religion in my life. :)

To some atheists, ALL religions are unreal. To people of religion X, all OTHER religions are unreal. To people of Religion Y, MOST other religions are unreal... and so on.

If the loophole's almost as big as the rule, the rule is anything but.

True, but those are all "to those people" and "but not to those people". I think the mods just make the assumption (and probably rightly) that the few people that have any respect for Scientology or consider it a "real religion" as to be insignificant. And "not a real religion" means something different in this case than most. Most of the time it's used it means "that's what you believe but not me". In this case it means "most obvious bs scam involving religion in our modern times" (EDIT: O.K. second. I completely forgot about that bunch that committed suicide in order to get on the passing comet, but it only worked if you wore the right tennis shoes).

That's the same thing people have said to me when I complain about some of the anti-gay things they say in a chatroom I visit occasionally.

Much later, they found out that the youngest chatroom regular is gay.

I don't think it matters that they didn't know they were saying things that applied to someone right there in the room, but I think it also matters that they didn't care about the possibility.

In my opinion the same thing applies to people who mock whites because they think the Black folks around them won't care. If or when it turns out that one of those Black people is bi-racial, the comments were just as disrespectful.

I know there are difference between ethnicity and religious affiliation, but it all comes down to whether we choose to be respectful toward each other despite our differences - especially if we're not hurting anyone else.

Well, first of all, I don't consider someone being offended by my statements as hurting them.

Secondly, well, I said you have to pick your audience. Sometimes you get surprised, and not in a good way.

And for me, it all depends on what the "difference" is. And, yes, there are some people whose feelings I don't care if I hurt. Bigots, trolls, Leifeld fans (oh, shoot, now I've gone and hurt Alex's feelings), etc. In this case, I don't care if I hurt the feelings of sheep, scammers or power-hungry nuts.

[Justin Davis]

Admittedly, I only read the first 80 or so posts in this thread, but are people saying that we can't mock Scientology because it's uncool to mock other religions? Do those same people saying that get upset whenever a stand-up comedian, television show, movie, book, or whatever else satirizes different religions? What's the quote about humor and offense? Most good humor offends some people? Something like that. I can't find the exact quote now though.

What's the best way to deal with a discussion on whether or not we should mock or satirize Scientology? With satire.

YAAFM (http://firstdistributorsnz.com/scientomogy/YAFM.htm)

This Week in God (http://firstdistributorsnz.com/scientomogy/ingod.htm)

By the way, for those that don't know, This Week in God tackles different religious topics each week.

[Alex]

What I'm suggesting is that you don't let a lack of information stop you from drawing a faulty conclusion.

A perfect example of this is to suggest that you know my motives when you truly don't. I tell you what they are and I've shown where my values are. Instead of accepting that, you'd rather say I'm lying about my belief in those principles.

Apparently, you'll feel this way despite what I say or do. That's an unfortunate choice on your part, but it's one I'll try to accept, from this point on.
Yes, we go about things different ways.
And therefor, will be butting heads.
I see your urge to understand both sides as having an inability to hold an opinion, and you see me thinking that as ignoring or not seeking facts of the situation.

[west3man]

True, but those are all "to those people" and "but not to those people". I think the mods just make the assumption (and probably rightly) that the few people that have any respect for Scientology or consider it a "real religion" as to be insignificant. And "not a real religion" means something different in this case than most. Most of the time it's used it means "that's what you believe but not me". In this case it means "most obvious bs scam involving religion in our modern times" (EDIT: O.K. second. I completely forgot about that bunch that committed suicide in order to get on the passing comet, but it only worked if you wore the right tennis shoes).Just so you (plural "you") know, I wasn't criticizing the mod response so much as the general response by CBRians to this kind of mocking, which has not been limited to this thread, of course.

Well, first of all, I don't consider someone being offended by my statements as hurting them.I wasn't suggesting that when I said "especially if they aren't hurting anyone else."

I was basically saying that a religious choice, political choice, sexual orientation, or a cultural background that hurts no one else maybe doesn't deserve disrespect from anyone else.

[Gaz]

Yes, we go about things different ways.
And therefor, will be butting heads.
I see your urge to understand both sides as having an inability to hold an opinion, and you see me thinking that as ignoring or not seeking facts of the situation.
How is wanting to understand why the other side feels that way not holding an opinion? I'd say that NOT doing that is so dismissive as to render discussion pointless.

[Paradox]

west3man will allow one more comment on this and I'll quit?:

I was basically saying that a religious choice, political choice, sexual orientation, or a cultural background that hurts no one else maybe doesn't deserve disrespect from anyone else.

Definitely a case by case thing for me.

And there have been several things in this thread that may suggest that Scientology indeed "hurts" others, mostly those in their own congregation.

[Slam_Bradley]

This isn't a question of "testing" a belief system. This is a question of ill-mannered or rude behavior.


I fail to see how you can be rude to a belief system or to an organization.

[Alex]

How is wanting to understand why the other side feels that way not holding an opinion? I'd say that NOT doing that is so dismissive as to render discussion pointless.
Because in certain cases, such as this one, the other side is evident.
PErson A mocks scientology because they think it's a scam, they give reasons why it is a scam, which is where their opinion comes from.
I fervently disagree with Mike Smash on almost every political issue, but through talking with him, i understand why he feels the way he does, and for his part, he understands why i feel the i do.
Asking over and over and over again isn't going to make his position more clear to me, and in fact, it would seem like i'm ignoring what he's saying.
It is possible to understand another persons opinion, where they are coming from, learning their background and w