Currently, Scientology is recognized as an official religion in an handful of countries (Italy, Spain, Sweden, and U.S.A. to name a few) but also considered a negative organization in others (Chile considers it a cult, while Germany almost banned it outright in '07)
Honestly, what do you think? Should more countries recognize Scientology as a legitimate religion? Or should more countries follow suit with Chile and Germany, and decry that notion.
I personally think that it should be no longer recognized as a religion. Because, in all honesty, the crimes committed by members and the philosophy of the church in general are both absurd. In addition, the organization has a history of scandal, involving disappearances, and other crimes. This is too much to go unnoticed, and as an official religion they must respond to these issues, like any other religion should. I find it idiotic that any country considers this organization as a legitimate religion.
That being said, banning it is not what I would do. That is just an infringement on human rights. However, I don't think it should be officially recognized by any country at all.
We would first need to define what "recognized religion" means in the context of the US, and I cannot seem to find any sort of government resource on that.
There's no denying they're a cult, but I cannot answer your question without a definition of the term we're talking about.
Honestly, what do you think? Should more countries recognize Scientology as a legitimate religion? Or should more countries follow suit with Chile and Germany, and decry that notion.
It could be that people do not recognize any religion other than the one they follow as legitimate.
I personally think that it should be no longer recognized as a religion. Because, in all honesty, the crimes committed by members and the philosophy of the church in general are both absurd.
Their claims may be absurd. I'm not going to deny that such a sentiment has merit but people should defend scientologist right to hold such a religious view. We can defend their right to believe what they want even though we might wholeheartedly disagree with them.
That being said, banning it is not what I would do. That is just an infringement on human rights. However, I don't think it should be officially recognized by any country at all.
What do you exactly mean by recognizing?. Don't ban but do not recognize it either. What does that even mean?
Isn't it able to get more a favorable tax bracket for its incomes if it is defined as a religion and therefore a church rather than a massive privately owned self help empire?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
^agreed. i don't think any religion should be recognized as official. especially not in the united states. some countries have state religions and such, so i guess that'd be their call.
Because, in all honesty, the crimes committed by members and the philosophy of the church in general are both absurd. In addition, the organization has a history of scandal, involving disappearances, and other crimes. This is too much to go unnoticed, and as an official religion they must respond to these issues, like any other religion should. I find it idiotic that any country considers this organization as a legitimate religion.
Ha, for a moment here I forgot you were posting about Scientology and thought you were talking about Christianity...
All religions are cult like (I would say this idea could probably be applied to any semi-isolated group of people, religious or not). If your reasoning for picking Scientology out of the bunch is the damage that it has caused its membership, then I think there are literally millions of children that have been raped by Catholic priests that would like to have a word with you about the crimes of the Catholic Church. Most religions have a history of exploitation. Scientology is just another example among ones that have been around for thousands of years.
Of course the government shouldn't recognize Scientology. They also shouldn't recognize Christianity, Islam, Judaism, so forth and so on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Because, in all honesty, the crimes committed by members and the philosophy of the church in general are both absurd. In addition, the organization has a history of scandal, involving disappearances, and other crimes. This is too much to go unnoticed, and as an official religion they must respond to these issues, like any other religion should. I find it idiotic that any country considers this organization as a legitimate religion.
Ha, for a moment here I forgot you were posting about Scientology and thought you were talking about Christianity...
All religions are cult like (I would say this idea could probably be applied to any semi-isolated group of people, religious or not). If your reasoning for picking Scientology out of the bunch is the damage that it has caused its membership, then I think there are literally millions of children that have been raped by Catholic priests that would like to have a word with you about the crimes of the Catholic Church. Most religions have a history of exploitation. Scientology is just another example among ones that have been around for thousands of years.
Of course the government shouldn't recognize Scientology. They also shouldn't recognize Christianity, Islam, Judaism, so forth and so on.
You do raise a fair point. Honestly, as an Anti-Theist, I'm against any country recognizing a religion as well. I merely chose Scientology due to it being the most likely to be considered a cult by the general public, compared to other religions.
I don't know about you, but don't you think Scientology has been a little more "open" about these kind of crimes though? It's not like I get stalked when I attack the Roman Catholic Church, but if I publish anything that's considered a threat to Scientology, and I am getting stalked by members of that particular church. It just seems to me like this organization has gotten away with too many crimes, because it masquerades itself as a "religion" when in reality it's a cult.
I agree that all religions are cult-like, I just wanted to discuss Scientology as it seems the most likely to be unrecognized by any given country.
Because, in all honesty, the crimes committed by members and the philosophy of the church in general are both absurd.
Religions who's members commit crimes should no longer count as religions? That doesn't sound right. Also, what do you mean by the philosophy of the church is "absurd?"
I'm for separation of church and state, so I'm against anything being "recognized" as an "official" religion.
Agreed. In a secular society, it isn't the job of the government to determine what is and is not a "legitimate" religion. How a group of people choose to congregate together (or separately, as the religion might require) and what claims they make about their beliefs is not something government should be making judgements about, short of anything law breaking.
Being a religion doesn't mean Scientology can't also be a criminal organization. The group systematically engages in extortion, intimidation, and litigation abuse, and there's strong evidence that they've conspired to commit worse crimes. And the First Amendment doesn't (or at least shouldn't) protect them from prosecution for anything. Honestly, I think the FBI is being way too timid around them.
Some religions have also committed crimes as organizations. The Catholic child abuse scandal, for instance, really did involve an institutional cover-up, and the Church was held responsible. But if some random Methodist preacher embezzled from his congregation or whatever, that would not be an organized crime, and would not be a strike against the Methodist Church at large.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm for separation of church and state, so I'm against anything being "recognized" as an "official" religion.
Agreed. In a secular society, it isn't the job of the government to determine what is and is not a "legitimate" religion. How a group of people choose to congregate together (or separately, as the religion might require) and what claims they make about their beliefs is not something government should be making judgements about, short of anything law breaking.
Maybe, but I see the value to the state in offering incentive for religions (e.g. tax exempt status).
All religions seem to have at least one thing in common: A sense of community. That much is beneficial to everyone, provided the religion is not founded on principles of violence (no specific religion jokes here, please; Islam/Christianity et al have peace at their foundation).
If Religions are to be recognized (as they currently are), then it should not be the job of the state to recognize which ones are based on 'valid' beliefs and which ones aren't.
We recognize Christianity. We recognize Islam. We should recognize Scientology.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
^agreed. i don't think any religion should be recognized as official. especially not in the united states. some countries have state religions and such, so i guess that'd be their call.
Except there's a difference between something being an official religion and something being a state religion.
Agreed. In a secular society, it isn't the job of the government to determine what is and is not a "legitimate" religion.
Actually, it is. For starters, religious institutions get things like tax exemption, and followers of religions can get a certain amount of legal leeway due to freedom of religion.
Anyway, we still haven't established any criteria for what is or is not an officially recognized religion in the US, or what that even means. Until we do that, this is nothing but idle chatter.
Because, in all honesty, the crimes committed by members and the philosophy of the church in general are both absurd.
Religions who's members commit crimes should no longer count as religions? That doesn't sound right. Also, what do you mean by the philosophy of the church is "absurd?"
How are you defining "absurd" in this context?
Very simple.
Look at the links I've provided, and you'll see some of the policies I was talking about plus more, to shorten it, this:
This is correct procedure:
Spot who is attacking us.
Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.
Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way
This kind of stuff is the absurd philosophy I'm talking about. This is purely criminal behavior, and this is official church policy/philosophy. An organization that has policies that demand mandatory malicious crimes to be committed by it's members.
I'm defining "absurd" as: "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate", which is the oxford dictionaries meaning. My emphasis here is inappropriate and illogical, based on the circumstances of the actual church policy itself.
I'm just wondering how you can call it "absurd" in the context of religion.
I mean, I think the idea of the reincarnation of a mindless soul as inane, the idea of a Trinity as nonsensical, 'God's chosen' coming from one small part of Earth unreasonable, and dying 'right' for 72 virgins completely cockamamie.
Why are the ideas in Scientology more absurd than someone washing away the sins of mankind with their blood, and then coming back from the dead to rein over the Earth?
I'm just wondering how you can call it "absurd" in the context of religion.
I mean, I think the idea of the reincarnation of a mindless soul as inane, the idea of a Trinity as nonsensical, 'God's chosen' coming from one small part of Earth unreasonable, and dying 'right' for 72 virgins completely cockamamie.
Why are the ideas in Scientology more absurd than someone washing away the sins of mankind with their blood, and then coming back from the dead to rein over the Earth?
It seems like the bar is already set pretty high.
The idea that life can come from nothing. The universe having no cause and unguided evolution sets the bar even higher. If we are going to talk about cockamanie that would be right up there with the best of them.
All religions seem to have at least one thing in common: A sense of community. That much is beneficial to everyone, provided the religion is not founded on principles of violence (no specific religion jokes here, please; Islam/Christianity et al have peace at their foundation).
There's enough religion bashing in other threads, so I won't go into your last statement, but what if it is a religion that emphasizes practicing in private by oneself? Why should the government decide that solitary practice isn't "real" religion and isn't deserving of tax exemption?
I don't necessarily think that religious organizations should be given tax exempt status by default exactly because it leads to government determining what is and is not a religion.
All religions seem to have at least one thing in common: A sense of community. That much is beneficial to everyone, provided the religion is not founded on principles of violence (no specific religion jokes here, please; Islam/Christianity et al have peace at their foundation).
There's enough religion bashing in other threads, so I won't go into your last statement, but what if it is a religion that emphasizes practicing in private by oneself? Why should the government decide that solitary practice isn't "real" religion and isn't deserving of tax exemption?
The government shouldn't. However this solitary practice is organized, that organization still has operating costs and locations. If it truly does not have any organization at all, then like a work from home office, the sanctuaries in practitioners' homes could be written off.
I don't necessarily think that religious organizations should be given tax exempt status by default exactly because it leads to government determining what is and is not a religion.
A religion is a not-for-profit group of individuals sharing beliefs and practices. The government doesn't need to determine anything beyond that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
The idea that life can come from nothing. The universe having no cause and unguided evolution sets the bar even higher. If we are going to talk about cockamamie that would be right up there with the best of them.
And that's--quite frankly--a fair point on your part.
If you break ANYONE'S worldview into small enough pieces it will look crazy to everyone else. Whenever I explain to someone my guess on how "everything works" I know I sound like a raving lunatic by the end, and whenever I question someone deeply enough the reverse also becomes true.
All of peoples' ideas on 'the nature of reality' start to sound more and more cockamamie the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, especially to other's that don't share them.
The idea that life can come from nothing. The universe having no cause and unguided evolution sets the bar even higher. If we are going to talk about cockamamie that would be right up there with the best of them.
And that's--quite frankly--a fair point on your part.
If you break ANYONE'S worldview into small enough pieces it will look crazy to everyone else. Whenever I explain to someone my guess on how "everything works" I know I sound like a raving lunatic by the end, and whenever I question someone deeply enough the reverse also becomes true.
All of peoples' ideas on 'the nature of reality' start to sound more and more cockamamie the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, especially to other's that don't share them.
That may be tru about the "idea that life can come from nothing" leap that seems to get made, but unguided evolution is not so cockamamie. I mean, we can see evolution working on the small scale; it's very easy to extrapolate that.
Honestly, I just wanted an excuse to say 'cockamamie' like everyone else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
A religion is a not-for-profit group of individuals sharing beliefs and practices. The government doesn't need to determine anything beyond that.
It is interesting that, under this definition, most recognized religions fare fine as a "religion" whereas scientology does not.
The question then becomes, is this definition of religion a ad-hoc attempt to cut scientology out of the category of "religion" or is a legitimate definition? Further, with regards to tax exempt status, is there some benefit to be achieved from excluding for profit religions from not-for profit religions from the status?
That may be tru about the "idea that life can come from nothing" leap that seems to get made, but unguided evolution is not so cockamamie. I mean, we can see evolution working on the small scale; it's very easy to extrapolate that.
Right, but I'm not talking about ideas we can provide experimental evidence for (which Abiogenesis is one, BTW); we're talking about things like Tarski's undefinability theorem, or Zero-energy universe theory, or how physical laws came into being, or the nature of consciousness.
A religion is a not-for-profit group of individuals sharing beliefs and practices. The government doesn't need to determine anything beyond that.
It is interesting that, under this definition, most recognized religions fare fine as a "religion" whereas scientology does not.
The question then becomes, is this definition of religion a ad-hoc attempt to cut scientology out of the category of "religion" or is a legitimate definition? Further, with regards to tax exempt status, is there some benefit to be achieved from excluding for profit religions from not-for profit religions from the status?
It's interesting to me that under this definition, lots of things do count as religions that we'd never call religions.
I mean, is a union a religion? They probably share beliefs and a union is not a for-profit organization. It's interested in economics and collects fees, but the Catholic Church runs an entire country and collects tithes.
Honestly, what do you think? Should more countries recognize Scientology as a legitimate religion? Or should more countries follow suit with Chile and Germany, and decry that notion.
I personally think that it should be no longer recognized as a religion. Because, in all honesty, the crimes committed by members and the philosophy of the church in general are both absurd. In addition, the organization has a history of scandal, involving disappearances, and other crimes. This is too much to go unnoticed, and as an official religion they must respond to these issues, like any other religion should. I find it idiotic that any country considers this organization as a legitimate religion.
That being said, banning it is not what I would do. That is just an infringement on human rights. However, I don't think it should be officially recognized by any country at all.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
There's no denying they're a cult, but I cannot answer your question without a definition of the term we're talking about.
It could be that people do not recognize any religion other than the one they follow as legitimate.
Their claims may be absurd. I'm not going to deny that such a sentiment has merit but people should defend scientologist right to hold such a religious view. We can defend their right to believe what they want even though we might wholeheartedly disagree with them.
What do you exactly mean by recognizing?. Don't ban but do not recognize it either. What does that even mean?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Ha, for a moment here I forgot you were posting about Scientology and thought you were talking about Christianity...
All religions are cult like (I would say this idea could probably be applied to any semi-isolated group of people, religious or not). If your reasoning for picking Scientology out of the bunch is the damage that it has caused its membership, then I think there are literally millions of children that have been raped by Catholic priests that would like to have a word with you about the crimes of the Catholic Church. Most religions have a history of exploitation. Scientology is just another example among ones that have been around for thousands of years.
Of course the government shouldn't recognize Scientology. They also shouldn't recognize Christianity, Islam, Judaism, so forth and so on.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
You do raise a fair point. Honestly, as an Anti-Theist, I'm against any country recognizing a religion as well. I merely chose Scientology due to it being the most likely to be considered a cult by the general public, compared to other religions.
I don't know about you, but don't you think Scientology has been a little more "open" about these kind of crimes though? It's not like I get stalked when I attack the Roman Catholic Church, but if I publish anything that's considered a threat to Scientology, and I am getting stalked by members of that particular church. It just seems to me like this organization has gotten away with too many crimes, because it masquerades itself as a "religion" when in reality it's a cult.
I agree that all religions are cult-like, I just wanted to discuss Scientology as it seems the most likely to be unrecognized by any given country.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
How are you defining "absurd" in this context?
Some religions have also committed crimes as organizations. The Catholic child abuse scandal, for instance, really did involve an institutional cover-up, and the Church was held responsible. But if some random Methodist preacher embezzled from his congregation or whatever, that would not be an organized crime, and would not be a strike against the Methodist Church at large.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Maybe, but I see the value to the state in offering incentive for religions (e.g. tax exempt status).
All religions seem to have at least one thing in common: A sense of community. That much is beneficial to everyone, provided the religion is not founded on principles of violence (no specific religion jokes here, please; Islam/Christianity et al have peace at their foundation).
If Religions are to be recognized (as they currently are), then it should not be the job of the state to recognize which ones are based on 'valid' beliefs and which ones aren't.
We recognize Christianity. We recognize Islam. We should recognize Scientology.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Except there's a difference between something being an official religion and something being a state religion.
Actually, it is. For starters, religious institutions get things like tax exemption, and followers of religions can get a certain amount of legal leeway due to freedom of religion.
Anyway, we still haven't established any criteria for what is or is not an officially recognized religion in the US, or what that even means. Until we do that, this is nothing but idle chatter.
Very simple.
Look at the links I've provided, and you'll see some of the policies I was talking about plus more, to shorten it, this:
This kind of stuff is the absurd philosophy I'm talking about. This is purely criminal behavior, and this is official church policy/philosophy. An organization that has policies that demand mandatory malicious crimes to be committed by it's members.
I'm defining "absurd" as: "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate", which is the oxford dictionaries meaning. My emphasis here is inappropriate and illogical, based on the circumstances of the actual church policy itself.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
I mean, I think the idea of the reincarnation of a mindless soul as inane, the idea of a Trinity as nonsensical, 'God's chosen' coming from one small part of Earth unreasonable, and dying 'right' for 72 virgins completely cockamamie.
Why are the ideas in Scientology more absurd than someone washing away the sins of mankind with their blood, and then coming back from the dead to rein over the Earth?
It seems like the bar is already set pretty high.
The idea that life can come from nothing. The universe having no cause and unguided evolution sets the bar even higher. If we are going to talk about cockamanie that would be right up there with the best of them.
I don't necessarily think that religious organizations should be given tax exempt status by default exactly because it leads to government determining what is and is not a religion.
The government shouldn't. However this solitary practice is organized, that organization still has operating costs and locations. If it truly does not have any organization at all, then like a work from home office, the sanctuaries in practitioners' homes could be written off.
A religion is a not-for-profit group of individuals sharing beliefs and practices. The government doesn't need to determine anything beyond that.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
If you break ANYONE'S worldview into small enough pieces it will look crazy to everyone else. Whenever I explain to someone my guess on how "everything works" I know I sound like a raving lunatic by the end, and whenever I question someone deeply enough the reverse also becomes true.
All of peoples' ideas on 'the nature of reality' start to sound more and more cockamamie the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, especially to other's that don't share them.
That may be tru about the "idea that life can come from nothing" leap that seems to get made, but unguided evolution is not so cockamamie. I mean, we can see evolution working on the small scale; it's very easy to extrapolate that.
Honestly, I just wanted an excuse to say 'cockamamie' like everyone else.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
It is interesting that, under this definition, most recognized religions fare fine as a "religion" whereas scientology does not.
The question then becomes, is this definition of religion a ad-hoc attempt to cut scientology out of the category of "religion" or is a legitimate definition? Further, with regards to tax exempt status, is there some benefit to be achieved from excluding for profit religions from not-for profit religions from the status?
Right, but I'm not talking about ideas we can provide experimental evidence for (which Abiogenesis is one, BTW); we're talking about things like Tarski's undefinability theorem, or Zero-energy universe theory, or how physical laws came into being, or the nature of consciousness.
I blame the Münchhausen trilemma for making everything seem absurd in the end.
It's interesting to me that under this definition, lots of things do count as religions that we'd never call religions.
I mean, is a union a religion? They probably share beliefs and a union is not a for-profit organization. It's interested in economics and collects fees, but the Catholic Church runs an entire country and collects tithes.
Except by stating this, you're proving exactly why it is necessary for a government to determine what is or is not a legitimate religion.