4 ms·

I don't really understand what it is about Scientology that pisses people off that much. You seem to be able to rally people against it more easily then you can

by netsp 17y ago

I don't really understand what it is about Scientology that pisses people off that much. You seem to be able to rally people against it more easily then you can against skinheads. What gives?

blhack 17y ago
They're an easy target and they are very weird. Watch some of the videos of dissenters interacting with them. It's bizarre.
anr 17y ago
Info here: http://www.xenu.net/ http://www.xenu.net/ "in respect and honour to all victims, and those who dare to stand up for them".
- netsp 17y ago
  Some bits from that site which contain the closest thing to an answer to my questions. "What I have against the Church of Scientology (CoS) is its deceitfulness, its lack of compassion for its members (especially the hard-working staff), its aggressive hard sell, its arrogance, its attack on free speech, its litigiousness, its harassment of its critics, its lack of concern for families, its gross neglect and abuse of children, etc." "The Church of Scientology is a vicious and dangerous cult that masquerades as a religion. Its purpose is to make money. It practices a variety of mind-control techniques on people lured into its midst to gain control over their money and their lives. Its aim is to take from them every penny that they have and can ever borrow and to also enslave them to further its wicked ends." "On the surface the Church of Scientology seems reasonable. The insane content of it is only revealed to a person when the early stuff has done its work and made them more susceptible. After a short while a person "believes" that Scientology is doing them good. They are then persuaded to help their new-found group further by donating money and/or working for the organisation for almost no money. Many people do exactly that."Ethics" is used to good effect to trap a person. A person�s natural tendency to do good is worked upon. Yes - they want to be more ethical, but what is ethical? This is where a clever trick is pulled! "Ethics" is redefined by Scientology in such a way that to be ethical is to be a better Scientologist and obey the "church"." I don't have concise quotes for the other point so I'll try to explain them. The centre of the beef seems to be about how the church protects itself using litigation, influential contacts to control the information about it available to the public. It is very difficult to "prove" that Scientologists believe in any of that southpark stuff because their documents are copyright protected. "By using copyright laws the Church of Scientology withholds information about the teachings of its founder from the public. The public sees only a limited amount of information, information the "Church" feels will not harm its reputation to any great degree. Thus people are attracted into it based on this limited information and its seemingly fascinating possibilities. Once in, the existing members of that organisation have the opportunity to possibly erode the critical thinking faculties of the new member over a period of years. After that, the person has either left, been evicted or possibly their critical thinking faculties have been eroded to the degree where the absurd is accepted as spiritual truth."
jonny_noog 17y ago
I think one of the main things that pisses people off about Scientology as opposed to skinheads (to use your example) is that no one really thinks that skinheads and their associated organisations are legitimate despite any efforts to make themselves seem so. No one is clamouring to give skinheads tax exempt status as non-profit/religious outfits. Scientology tries to maintain a veneer of legitimacy while in reality, being pretty damn shady. By and large, I suspect they seem far more hypocritical to Anonymous, et al than many other questionable fringe groups, such as skinheads. If there's anything that really sets off activism on the Interwebs, it seems to be hypocrisy. Plus have you actually read about the beliefs and teachings they push while demanding that people pay for the privilege of receiving them? Have you read about the "Sea Org" and so on? Whacky stuff.
- aarongough 17y ago
  Exactly. I get pissed off because they stand on the street and smile at you, trying to hand you a leaflet, while others inside quietly work at helping their fellow converts shut down contact with their family and friends, then encourage them to pay their way to enlightenment. I think Scientology is a cult, and I think that it's acceptance as a religion by government gives it a sheen of legitimacy and makes it more accessible than it ought to be.
  - netsp 17y ago
    Let me play devil's advocate. People with new found faith often become alienated from their friends and family outside this circle. Sometimes it is because the conversion process is similar to rehabilitation and it is necessary to be removed from some of the problematic context. Sometimes it is lack Church fund-raising is something quite common. Many of the most benign religious communities manage to raise significant portions of their devotees' incomes. You might not agree with the ends of some of these religious groups. But when I agree with their 'mission,' I usually don't see this as a bad thing. We live in a time of plenty. I assume few Scientologists starve. What is the actual difference between a cult and a religion? It certainly isn't about the specifics of the beliefs. It isn't about size. If you want to make 'they are a cult,' your argument you should probably define cult and explain what is wrong with a cult. If it a specific practice or practices (cut ties, raise money) you object too and think should result in lost legal status, why not base your argument on that and drop the label. What gives the government the right to decide what is a religion and what is not anyway?

by netsp 17y ago

I don't really understand what it is about Scientology that pisses people off that much. You seem to be able to rally people against it more easily then you can against skinheads. What gives?

blhack 17y ago

They're an easy target and they are very weird. Watch some of the videos of dissenters interacting with them. It's bizarre.

anr 17y ago

Info here: http://www.xenu.net/ http://www.xenu.net/ "in respect and honour to all victims, and those who dare to stand up for them".

netsp 17y ago
Some bits from that site which contain the closest thing to an answer to my questions. "What I have against the Church of Scientology (CoS) is its deceitfulness, its lack of compassion for its members (especially the hard-working staff), its aggressive hard sell, its arrogance, its attack on free speech, its litigiousness, its harassment of its critics, its lack of concern for families, its gross neglect and abuse of children, etc." "The Church of Scientology is a vicious and dangerous cult that masquerades as a religion. Its purpose is to make money. It practices a variety of mind-control techniques on people lured into its midst to gain control over their money and their lives. Its aim is to take from them every penny that they have and can ever borrow and to also enslave them to further its wicked ends." "On the surface the Church of Scientology seems reasonable. The insane content of it is only revealed to a person when the early stuff has done its work and made them more susceptible. After a short while a person "believes" that Scientology is doing them good. They are then persuaded to help their new-found group further by donating money and/or working for the organisation for almost no money. Many people do exactly that."Ethics" is used to good effect to trap a person. A person�s natural tendency to do good is worked upon. Yes - they want to be more ethical, but what is ethical? This is where a clever trick is pulled! "Ethics" is redefined by Scientology in such a way that to be ethical is to be a better Scientologist and obey the "church"." I don't have concise quotes for the other point so I'll try to explain them. The centre of the beef seems to be about how the church protects itself using litigation, influential contacts to control the information about it available to the public. It is very difficult to "prove" that Scientologists believe in any of that southpark stuff because their documents are copyright protected. "By using copyright laws the Church of Scientology withholds information about the teachings of its founder from the public. The public sees only a limited amount of information, information the "Church" feels will not harm its reputation to any great degree. Thus people are attracted into it based on this limited information and its seemingly fascinating possibilities. Once in, the existing members of that organisation have the opportunity to possibly erode the critical thinking faculties of the new member over a period of years. After that, the person has either left, been evicted or possibly their critical thinking faculties have been eroded to the degree where the absurd is accepted as spiritual truth."

jonny_noog 17y ago

I think one of the main things that pisses people off about Scientology as opposed to skinheads (to use your example) is that no one really thinks that skinheads and their associated organisations are legitimate despite any efforts to make themselves seem so. No one is clamouring to give skinheads tax exempt status as non-profit/religious outfits. Scientology tries to maintain a veneer of legitimacy while in reality, being pretty damn shady. By and large, I suspect they seem far more hypocritical to Anonymous, et al than many other questionable fringe groups, such as skinheads. If there's anything that really sets off activism on the Interwebs, it seems to be hypocrisy. Plus have you actually read about the beliefs and teachings they push while demanding that people pay for the privilege of receiving them? Have you read about the "Sea Org" and so on? Whacky stuff.

aarongough 17y ago
Exactly. I get pissed off because they stand on the street and smile at you, trying to hand you a leaflet, while others inside quietly work at helping their fellow converts shut down contact with their family and friends, then encourage them to pay their way to enlightenment. I think Scientology is a cult, and I think that it's acceptance as a religion by government gives it a sheen of legitimacy and makes it more accessible than it ought to be.
- netsp 17y ago
  Let me play devil's advocate. People with new found faith often become alienated from their friends and family outside this circle. Sometimes it is because the conversion process is similar to rehabilitation and it is necessary to be removed from some of the problematic context. Sometimes it is lack Church fund-raising is something quite common. Many of the most benign religious communities manage to raise significant portions of their devotees' incomes. You might not agree with the ends of some of these religious groups. But when I agree with their 'mission,' I usually don't see this as a bad thing. We live in a time of plenty. I assume few Scientologists starve. What is the actual difference between a cult and a religion? It certainly isn't about the specifics of the beliefs. It isn't about size. If you want to make 'they are a cult,' your argument you should probably define cult and explain what is wrong with a cult. If it a specific practice or practices (cut ties, raise money) you object too and think should result in lost legal status, why not base your argument on that and drop the label. What gives the government the right to decide what is a religion and what is not anyway?