Via Hungry Beast.
Are some religions more loopy than others? Not intrinsically. I happen to think that all religions fall within a narrow band on the loopiness scale. If Scientology seems intrinsically wacky to you, then you’re probably just more familiar with stories about talking snakes, people made out of clay, dead people coming back to life, ritual cannibalism, and people floating up to heaven.
But are some religions more evil than others? Again, I’d say not intrinsically. Whether a religion is one of the ‘nice religions’ is more a function of who’s running it at the present moment. Giving someone the license to claim they’re acting in the name of a supreme being is just inviting abuse — which may or may not be exercised. The nice pastor of the Mild-Mannered Christian Church won’t be around forever. All the ‘bad scriptures’ will be in that bible, waiting for a charismatic extremist to come around. (Tick tick tick.)
Here’s where I disagree with the Beast: At the present moment, yes, some religions are much much worse than others, including fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Christianity, and probably fundamentalist anything else. And of course Scientology, for reasons mentioned in the clip. These religions are affecting lives and minds by controlling the information that reaches their people, and by not allowing them to leave.
So, for people keeping score at home:
Scientology: Bullshit.
Other religions: Also bullshit.
Criticising Scientology’s doctrines: Not bullshit.
Criticising Scientology’s doctrines more than other religions: Bullfuckingshit.
Criticising crimes done to promote Scientology: Not bullshit at all.
Being wary of the tendency for all religions to become oppressive: Quite a good idea, really.
Update: Blogger layouts narrower than the minimum YouTube video size: Total bullshit.
16 April 2010 at 5:55 am
you can narrow the width of the embedded video manually in the html code of the post.
16 April 2010 at 6:13 am
So I can.
I was worried about breaking it, with nasty flaming explosions.
Thanks!
17 April 2010 at 3:21 pm
Criticising Scientology's doctrines more than other religions: Bullfuckingshit.
It's not the doctrines that most critics have a problem with. Other than getting a minor chuckle over the Xenu stuff, most recognize that it's not really that much more far fetched than the mystical stuff of other religions. It's the behavior and practices of Scientology that most have a problem with. Do you know what "Fair Game" is? How about the "Rehabilitation Project Force"? What other church can you name that has its own ruthless paramilitary wing that will destroy the lives of anyone who criticizes it? Name a church that has prison camps for members who are thinking about leaving. Is there any mainstream religion where ex-members on average need ten years of therapy to recover while they are repeatedly being mercilessly hounded by their former leaders to return? Do you think there are any journalists out there right now who are afraid the Pope is going to sue them, have them followed and hassle their families for writing about the current abuse scandals? Someone trying to write about Scientology won't be so lucky. Indeed, the bullfucking shit is people defending something they know little or nothing about. If anything, criticizing Scientology's doctrines over other religions is stupid only because Scientology isn't a religion. It's a fascist crime synidicate that has and continues to destroy the lives of thousands of people. If you think that's hyperbole, look it up. It's all out there on the internet. If you can't bother and are happy to remain ignorant about the subject, that's fine. But consider refraining from opining on a subject you clearly don't understand and know little about.
18 April 2010 at 1:38 am
Hey, take it easy, PYM. I'm agreeing with you. It's the crimes they're doing which are entirely appropriate to focus on. The doctrine, not so much. That's hardly defending Scientology.
Are you an ex-Scientologist? I'd love to hear more about it from your perspective.
18 April 2010 at 11:09 am
I have to agree with PYM (whose pseudonym nonetheless worries me a little)that there are degrees of bad, much as I hate fundamentalism in any form. I would put Scientology somewhere higher on the list of 'bad' than say, LDS, which to an outsider always looks pretty harmless, and Catholicism. Further, I am involved in a charity that deals with drug/ alcohol rehabilitation and also related psychological issues such as depression and bipolarism. I have found a significant number of rehabilitation patients join mainstream churches – fair enough if you need it to help keep your feet on the ground. Mainstream atheism needs to take this type of 'need to believe' into consideration when it formulates its rationalistic views of how to run a better world.