Skip to main content

View Diary: Scientology: A Religion, but a Threat to Mental Health? (291 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's a religion................. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brit, SeekCa

    of course it has "plotted assassinations, destroyed people's lives through coordinated terror campaigns, and killed people."

    There are few religions that are exempt from these practices.


    "Just because you win the fight, don't mean you're right," - Funkadelic

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:51:04 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  no. people kill and act in the name of relgion. (11+ / 0-)

      Scientology is a criminal enterprise.  The 'religion' nonsense was just to save cash and generate revenue.

    •  Debatable (8+ / 0-)

      I'm Canadian.  Scientology is not recognized as a religion here.  The same is true of many other countries including Germany and Australia where they are in danger of having their "religion" status revoked.

      •  Yeah, I have trouble seeing the "religion" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, bevenro

        dimension in Scientology. It's a techno-psychology with a weird backstory, but nothing about god or gods, nothing about transcendence or the sorts of things that religions generally deal with. It's more similar to Buddhism, whose practitioners often say it is not a religion but a practice and a philosophy.

        Just being involved in power and money doesn't make it a religion either or capitalism and communism would both be religions. Some of course say that they are.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:33:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yet the original "thugs" were a religion despite (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brit

          pretty much being based on nothing but robbery and ritual murder.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:47:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They were devotees of Kali, actually. (3+ / 0-)

            Since Kali is in part the goddess of destruction, it makes a certain weird sense.



            Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

            by Wee Mama on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:01:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  They were sort of like contemporary (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wee Mama, Brit

              Bhairavites or Aghoras, actually. If you were to draw an analogy to something recognizable today, you could say that Thuggees and Bhairavites and Aghoras were or are similar to Satanists: they worshipped the dark side of the religion. The difference is that Hindus don't see an absolute divide between good and evil, per se (I might argue that some, like Brahmins, do see a divide here). Now here's something I know much more about. Most of these worshippers came from Southern India, mainly Tamil Nadu, where Saivism and Shaktism -- and Tantra -- are still more practiced than something like Vaisnavism or Brahminism in the North (granted, there are plenty of other sects of Saivites in the North and through Nepal -- mainly Naga Babas, naked and covered in ash, ascetics). Most Bhairavites and Aghoras are still in Southern India. They worship Kali and also Shiva's darker aspect. Depending on which sect one is discussing. Some even live in cremation grounds and eat corpses. This is true. I know several people who have encountered those sects. They tend to be either brahmacharya (celibate) or engage in Tantric sex. Often they are naked and ash-smeared. They tend to have dreadlocks, a few distinct tilaks (facial markings), and some do wear bones or carry a human skull cup that is ritualistic.

              At any rate, they aren't very organized and aren't out legislating mental health care for U.S. citizens -- or any others. There's nothing that they do which is harmful to others that I'm aware of. Bit surly, and they keep to themselves because they're antisocial. I could explain their views in more depth, but it's neither here nor there. Thuggees were a more extreme sect, IMHO, sort of like a Satanist might be viewed by a Christian, kind of, and with all the degrees that come with that. Do Thuggees still exist? No clue. But again, they were never taken seriously by U.S. Congresspeople and also, they never undertook massive, capitalist-driven global initiatives that had a deleterious impact on other peoples' lives. Just to put things in perspective about sadhus, of which there are about 85,000 sub-types. They have never had political goals, which the Scientologists do, and they have the money to advance their goals, as well as political alliances, and in fact, they are advancing their goals, so there's that.

              Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

              by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:13:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (6+ / 0-)

      When have, say, the American Baptists done that?
      The Methodists?
      The Church of the Nazarene?

      All of which, I believe, have more members than Scientology.

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:49:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Southern Baptists (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        ...are certainly capable of it, if they haven't already.

        One of the big differences in the US, though, is that individuals go crazy and do things based on their religious beliefs. Except Scientology. In Scientology, the carnage is directed straight from the top. The whole organization is culpable.

        The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

        by lotusmaglite on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:40:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The post to which I replied stated that (0+ / 0-)

          all religions are capable of this sort of behavior.

          I cited counter-examples. Additional examples of those who can or might - and I'd like specifics on the Southern Baptists if you can supply them - don't change the fact that the generalization has been falsified.

          If you say "All fish are carnivores" and I supply examples of herbivorous fish, citing the Great White doesn't make me wrong.

          Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

          by blue aardvark on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:00:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, no, I wasn't disputing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blue aardvark

            ...your counter. I agree that "all" is a generalization, and that doesn't work.

            SB is steeped in some seriously backward beliefs, particularly when it comes to LGBTs and women. It's not hard to imagine the kind of violence that would result from such a repugnant philosophy.

            The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

            by lotusmaglite on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:10:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, the SB have some backwards thinking (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lotusmaglite

              Which is to be expected considering that the SBC was formed from the Baptist churches that embraced slavery, while the American Baptist descend from those who rejected it.

              But they are also a congregational polity, which means that they lack any equivalent to Bishops and certainly don't have a Pope. That makes the SBC President a lot less capable in purely practical terms of ordering a hit on someone.

              Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

              by blue aardvark on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:17:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blue aardvark

                Without a strong central authority, there is less chance of some kind of institutional action. I was thinking more along the lines of churning out loose cannons.

                The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                by lotusmaglite on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 09:37:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site