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?

It's the Equality Act 2010. There's a discussion on the latest case law here

worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity and/or conflict with the fundamental rights of others

Good luck to them applying that.

That's the definition of a philosophical belief rather than a religion- the same legislation covers both. The definition of religion in the statute is totally useless and case law keeps changing. Guidance at the moment is that " Religion or belief should be taken to mean the full diversity of religious and belief affiliations within the UK, including non-religious and philosophical beliefs such as atheism, agnosticism and humanism."

I think that the only difference between a religion and a cult is size. When it stated Christianity was a Jewish cult. Sometimes cults are called New Minority Religions. There is an organisation called Cultwatch which is quite interesting. Steve Hassan investigates cults.
Many years ago I was close to the leaders of a cult, or NMR, called Children of God'. They were seriously weird. They believed in free love and there are now groups of adults on the internet trying to find out who there parents are, because they were conceived and brought up in communes.

at new minority religions, we are just so nice to everyone these days.

Yeah Jehovah had the right idea. He used to say in the old testament that if you saw someone following another god you should kill him, kill his family, kill his friends, his neighbors, his canary, and anyone else he ever spoke to.

"I the Lord your God am a jealous God!"

It was much simpler back then

Not all Christians are homophobic bigots you know Hetti and I'm as appalled as you at the ones that are

Of course not, Lottie. But they adhere to a homophobic religion - ignoring, or explaining away as "metaphor" the homophobic bits.

Perhaps some people do follow their parents No perhaps about it. The vast, vast majority are of the same religion as their parents. That tells us rather a lot about childhood indoctrination.

Surely even the least "religious" spiritualist (someone who says "I am not religious, but I just believe that something all powerful and intelligent must have created all this") falls into this "homeopathic" category. In that they believe in something with no evidence. It is almost worse than following a religion, in that they haven't even got the excuse of a book and preacher that they have followed, they have just made it up themselves.

Some people are going to find this offensive, but here it goes:

People have said on this thread that the only difference between a cult and a religion are the number of followers. But often, people who have their own individual beliefs (say, in alien abduction) are seen as being mentally unstable - but surely this is just a cult of 1. So, what separates religion, a cult and the cult of 1?

I think the difference between a cult and a religion is less to do with what is believed, but how the leaders and followers conduct themselves.

Just found this definition of a cult. It has to fulfill all of these characteristics:

• Uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain members
• Forms an elitist society
• Founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, charismatic and unaccountable
• Believes "end justifies the means" in raising funds and recruitment
• It's wealth does not benefit members or society

A religion, on the other hand, is merely "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

So, a religion can be a cult and a cult can be a religion. But not all religions are cults (even if they began life that way).

So - a cult can be a religion, but whether it should be given the attendant privileges of a religion is down to whether it's recruitment practices are harmful & whether or not it benefits society.

CofE is not a cult. Catholicism is less certain, imo.

In fairness, the C of E ticks most of these boxes too. The Queen was hardly voted in as the head of the C of E was she.

Apparently, a cult has to tick all the boxes.

I'm no royalist - but is the Queen dogmatic & messianic? . She's also not unaccountable.

I think the CofE do benefit society. An an organisation, they are pretty good at reaching out to the homeless & needy. It's just a mammoth shame that they do it under the umbrella of a belief system that is a) wrong and b) fundamentally horrible.

Catholicism also reaches out to the needy - their own version of "needy". They won't support Children in Need because it supports gay charities, for example.

I think Catholicism can be viewed as a cult - childhood indoctrination (confessing sins at 7, ffs), wealth that benefits no one but itself (no excuse for those golden palaces when half the world is starving) and a leader who is apparently "infallible".

And whether it benefits society - it takes far more than it gives when looked at overall.

George Orwell said that the definition of a lunatic is "a minority of one".

So numbers equals respectability, in that context.

definition of a cult- for what purpose, hettie? The definition of a faith I posted is only a valid definition in the context of legal protection. That definition you posted could just be someone's opinion?

I have been quite impressed by the new pope. I think he has much the same opinion of catholic behaviour as hettie does, when it comes to wealth.

Lets see if he can undo some of the self indulgent and corrupt behaviours that the "princes of the church" have been getting up to.

He's also markedly less homophobic than the average pope.

There has to be some definition of cult & religion, Beast if we're going to legislate in favour of one over the other. This particular definition is according to The Cult Centre in London, apparently.

Yes, as Pope's go, he seems to be quite a sensible one. Still in charge of one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet though, so he has his work cut out.

So numbers equals respectability, in that context

No, it doesn't. Numbers gives the illusion of respectability. This is a logical fallacy & in any discussion trying to get to the nitty gritty, we need to avoid logically fallacious positions.

Jesus walking out a of a tomb is not given any credibility at all based on the fact that lots of people believe it.

If it's wrong, it's wrong.

No, no, hettie,you misunderstand me.

Orwell was saying exactly that- numbers do not equal respectability. But people think they do.

This is the man who used his Etonian schooling to write Animal Farm and 1984 - not exactly hymns of praise to the idea of following majority opinion.

Agree on legislation, but I think you don't have to define a cult, you just have to define a religion, and everything else, including cuts, golf clubs, dogging circles etc, are "not religions".

Agree the Pope won't be able to do much- I have just been interested to see that he clearly finds some of the status quo appalling, so it's not just us atheists

Hello crafty! Welcome.

Do you think that if you were a poor woman living in a buddist country, your buddism would be practiced in a way more like a religion?

I'm interested in whether the ability to isolate the philosophy behind a religion, but reject the social and judicial structures, is something educated westerners can do. I have heard from many people who sy they are Christians but actually follow their faith in much the same way as you do.

That does give me some hope that we might manage to get organised legion to become a purely private matter in the future. I don't mind religion at home; I object to it in schools, the house of lords, etc etc

No, I know what Orwell was saying, Beast - I thought you were misapplying it - but I misunderstood what you meant, I think.

As far as I'm concerned (personally speaking) they are all the same - believe xyz & marvelous things will happen.

If we're going to give any of these groups privilege within our society, it should be on the basis of what they do, and not what they believe.

I think they have to demonstrate a benefit to society as a whole to be granted those privileges - such as tax exemption and so on. On this basis, I don't mind CofE getting these because they are very charitable in their purpose.

Catholicism.....not so much. They are very particular about who they decide to help, in a way that CofE are not.

So for me, the difference between a cult & a religion (in the legal sense of the word) is not numbers and/or particular beliefs, but about behaviour and benefit.

Crafty I wouldn't class Buddhism as a religion, generally speaking. I think there are some (minority) forms of it that could meet that definition, but by and large not. It's much more of a philosophy.

But if Buddhist groups here in the UK are benefiting society in some way, then I think they should be legally classed as a religion.

It's my fault hettie, that post by me was very unclear. Rubbish drafting, sorry. :)

I don't think that we ought to say that every group that benefits society is worthy to be called a religion.

Gives religions way too much recognition. Far better IMHO to say that philosophies other than religions also benefit society, so religion isn't all that. I don't think Humanism would fancy being classed as a religion, for instance.

I would remove any privilege specific to being a religion and have a much more general test, if there are any benefits we want to preserve, for public benefit.

Actually, I think what I'm basically saying is - are these religions charities as well as religions.

If they are just religions, then they shouldn't automatically be afforded rights. It's the charitable bit that matters to society.

Yeah - I think that's what it boils down to for me.

Is Scientology charitable in a way that benefits society? I've no idea.

Looks as if we agree totally, Hettie!

I think any definition is going to be too arbitrary. I can see some committee creating a list and saying "Oh hang on. That makes Catholicism a cult. We'll have to rewrite line four". We'd be creating the definition to fit what religions and cults already exist. Ensuring that the ones we approve of go on the right side of the line.

And what if the one we designate a cult follows the one true god? :)

How would the early christian church fare. I mean the Romans, who knew a thing or two about government and stable societies, took one look at Jesus and executed him - allegedly.

Creating a definition is interesting in itself and instructive, but I do think the only way is for the government to have no laws about religion at all. To not admit its existence in a legal sense.

I mean there are a group of people who like soap operas, but I'm pretty sure there are no laws about them and liking East Enders is not a factor in court.

They would still exist as a historical and sociological phenomenon of course. We could still teach children about religion in school as we do other things.

I don't think that we ought to say that every group that benefits society is worthy to be called a religion

No, of course not. The NSPCC is not a religion.

A religion is a religion - that's all.

If it's also a charity, that's the bit that you should be given the privileges. Their motivation for their charitable deeds is their business.

So long as they are not using their good deeds to recruit.

Maybe it's impossible to find the difference between a cult & a religion because, when all is said and done, there isn't one.