Scientology

[technodad]

So, the Supreme Court have said that Scientology is a real religion and you can legally get married in a church.

uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE9BA0CQ20131211?irpc=932

So, what do people think about this?

Well, Scientology makes as much sense as Christianity or Islam (which is....none at all), so I can't see a problem. Getting a mythical being to sign off on your marriage is no different to getting aliens to do it.

Although, I really think France has the right idea - get married in a registry office, then top up the celebration if you want to with the faith of your choice.

Um, that's what you have to do in this case. Only marriages celebrated in a Church of England (or in Scotland, Church of Scotland) church can also be registered at the church. Otherwise the marriage has to be registered at a Register Office in a separate ceremony.

Since all religions are based on made-up woo and nonsense designed to control the masses and make the institution rich I'm not sure why Scientology should be treated any differently just because it is more blatantly made-up, nonsensical and entirely based on brainwashing and money making than, say, the Catholic Church or Church of England...

No, it isn't. They can get married in the chapel. No need for a separate ceremony in a registry office.

celestialsquirrels, beautifully put!

I think it makes complete sense. Lump all the unfounded beliefs in together. No one religion is any more believable than any other.

I have no problem with it either for the same reasons. Is there much difference in the ceremony I wonder? Do they get blessed by a guy in a pointy hat or a lizard?

Otoh I imagine there will be some furious believers who will feel insulted by the implication that theirs is no different to a religion that was invented pretty much by one guy for questionable motives.

But who cares what Scientologists think.

So, do people of other religions think it is OK, or do they think Scientology is a con?

These are different questions, Technodad.

The judge's decision explicitly excluded questions of truth: it was a 'if it wags its tail and barks then it is more likely than not a dog' kind of judgement. The judge concluded that Scientology looks and behaves like a religion, and so should have the right (which it, as an organisation, had not sought by the way the case was brought by individuals) to conduct weddings in its 'chapel'. But this judgement does not conclude that any moral benefit derives from this Scientology does not have charitable status, as other religious groupings do.

Whether Scientology is a religion as it would generally be understood is debatable (the judge's decision was in some respects an odd one, because his definition of what a religion is could be contested in so many ways). Certainly it is anti-theistic, and values rationality and science (the clue is in the name). The claim to be called a religion was bitterly contested within the organisation itself.

Do I think it is a con? As far as I know, becoming a Christian is entirely free of charge, and any donations you make are entirely voluntary. There is no such thing as paying in order to access higher levels of the organisation. There is no hidden knowledge, no secrets that one must be a member of the inner circle to learn -- on the contrary Christians are happy to tell anyone all about their faith (a fact that many people find objectionable, but it shows Christianity doesn't do occult secrets). And the bottom line for me is that Christianity is true, and Scientology is a load of hokey.

However, I don't much care whether they can celebrate weddings on their premises.

By the way, there is a thoughtful piece by Andrew Brown, one of the most intelligent commentators on matters of religion (and not himself a believer) in the Guardian.

Andrew Brown says:

There are several obvious objections to Scientology, compared with more conventional religions. Its doctrine contains palpable falsehoods which have to be concealed from the non-paying public: it is not in fact true that we are the spiritual survivors of an ancient alien race.

No one disputes that Mormonism is a religion, yet their scriptures are clearly made up – semi-literate biblical fanfic – and the early history of the Mormon church is not a morally edifying story.

Is he joking? I despise scientology, but is he suggesting that the other proper religions are telling the truth and that's how you tell them apart?

Should we break it to him that it's not in fact true that we are the descendents of a man and a woman made from his rib and that the early history of the christian church is not a morally edifying story either.

I can't think about the alien lizards without laughing, but actually the possibility of us being descended from an alien race - while perhaps remote - is not quite impossible.

I wouldn't call the book of mormon semi-literate either. A long time since I read it, but it's pretty much in the style of the bible - for obvious reasons.

Andrew Brown is an accommodationist par excellence...one of the "Well, of course I don't believe it, but religion is still perfectly marvelous for the world" brigade. New atheists just don't get religion & want it banned from the world.....according to Andrew Brown.

He's about as intelligent as my left toenail.

He wrote a blog a little while ago claiming that rationality is irrelevant to religion - and seemed to think that was a good thing.

I agree - rationality is entirely irrelevant. That's what makes it so bloody stupid.

Of course Scientology is a con. But so is Christianity. They may not be conning anyone financially any more (in this country, at least) - but they still make claims & promises they cannot support.

There's no point having a conversation with people who prefer mud-slinging and invective to conversation. By all means, slur Brown's integrity and intelligence - I'm sure he's used to it - but if you want to talk solely to your own reflections in the mirror, you won't need me around.

Mud slinging and invective?

Bit OTT. But no more than usual

niminypiminy don't you agree that it was a bit of an odd and poor argument to say that scientology isn't a religion because it isn't true? I'm pretty sure you have made much better arguments in the past than that.

I think the difference (now) between Scientology and other religions is that IMO they are an obviously manufactured, money making cult with some very nasty practices and extremely litigious. Clearly this is only my opinion...

Now clearly, various religions have a nasty past and some have a nasty present, but the world has moved on, we are not by and large illiterate peasants beholden to educated priests and so frankly they ought not to get a pass for their behaviour.

Back, I didn't say that: you're conflating two different points. In point of fact I didn't say whether I thought it was a religion or not. I said that the definition of religion that the judge used was debatable, and that whether Scientology is a religion as the term is normally used is questionable. In the next paragraph (one paragraph, one point) I said, in answer to Technodad's question about whether people of other religions think that Scientology is a con, that it is a load of hokey, in contrast to Christianity, which is true.

Scientology is a cult and is in no way comparable to Christianity, which is upfront about what it is. There have been discussions about Scientology on here before where people have talked about their experiences of it and then asked for their posts to be withdrawn because they are afraid of the possible repercussions for them.

Actually, niminypiminy , I wasn't referring to that. You were angry at criticism of Andrew Brown so I was asking if you thought his argument was sound.

Money making, exactly. Unless you're willing and able to part with thousands of pounds, Scientology is not for you.

No, I wasn't angry at criticism of Andrew Brown. I was hacked off that I bothered to think about the questions TD posed and to do my best to make a considered and thoughtful response and that got ignored.

Nim

I do think you can say that Scientology is hokey, but Christianity is true.

Both are made up by humans, Christianity was just made up a lot longer ago.

Woman gives birth to baby having not had sense vs. lizard people.

Both are nonsense.

I don't think we can argue that Christianity is a religion because it is true and Scientology isn't because it is not true.

We are all entitled to argue that we are, individually, Christians or scientologists because we believe that Christianity or Scientology are true.

But if someone has individual beliefs that are not shared with anyone else, this tends to be called illness, delusions, hallucinations, etc.

S the best we can say is that a religion is an unprovable belief that a certain number of people share, and which has a certain structure of shared doctrine and required behaviour.

W may dislike much about Scientology, I think we would also dislike much about the Taliban, or UK Christianity under the Tudors.

So far I can't see any way to argue against Scientology being a religion.

I see what you thought I meant now niminypiminy. I could have phrased that more carefully :)

I meant that YOU have in the past made much better arguments than anything Andrew Brown did in that article.

You did say further back "bottom line for me is that Christianity is true" but the 'for me' is fair enough.

TD -- I think you probably meant don't not do in your first sentence?

I'm sorry, I can't get into all that right now. I've had an utterly shit day, and it's not going to end well for me if I bite that particular worm.

It's nothing to do with how true something is. Scientology thinks it's ok to punish people who leave. I heard a former member of Scientology talk on radio 4 about her experiences of Sea Org. It's scary stuff If you go to a C of E church you will not be persecuted for leaving.

I really don't see how it's possible to compare a cult with a mainstream religion, generally.