So this is Grace, Tiffany, and Mary live from D.C. We actually got here early and decided to check out this place called the Church on Scientology (mainly because it offered free IQ and personality tests). I have to admit that at first, we went in there because we were kind of making a joke out of it and we wanted to get out of the wind. Personally (Mary) I thought that this was a bit paradoxical. I don't know, but science and religion seem to be opposites to me. Anyway, when we got in their, this lady brought us into a room and started talking about human rights. We even watched a DVD about scientology and different people who were 'scientologists'. While watching it, I couldn't help but notice all the different types of propaganda. It even got to the point where people were saying how scientology helped raised their grades. Next, we were allowed to ask questions. However, no matter how we asked it, the lady never really gave us a clear answer. She wouldn't even give an exact definition of scientology is. When we asked about the religious part of scientology, she said that there was no specific 'god' that they advocated. Essentially, people could believe in anything they want. A person can be an athiest or a Buddhist and still be a scientologist. So my theory on this is that this is all just a hoax for people to buy their books and DVDs about different theories. Also, they call members of their group scientologists, but I don't think there is really just any difference between them and any other person. Honestly, most of them just said over and over again about their responsibility about protecting human rights.
This is Tiffany here:
When the lady at the Church of Scientology was talking about the humanitarian aspects of Scientology, I couldn't help but admire their version of brainwashing. They were clearly aware of the fact that the large contingents of students were Model UN delegates. Thus, they centered the presentation around the humantarian aspect of their church under the pretense of catering to our interests. Honestly, were we expected to believe that Scientology only had its humanitarian aspect? When we finally directly inquired about the actual religious aspect of Scientology, the presenter replied with an vague statement about how all religions are evaluated using three conditions. Why were they avoiding the issue? Considering the amount of press that Scientology gets, she was clearly trying to avoid all controversy by making statements at the highest levels of abstraction that she could get away with.
Grace checking in...
In addition to the comments that Tiffany and Mary mentioned, I couldn't help but notice that Scientology seems to reject most "signs" of traditional religious institutions. There were various books available (and DVDs, like Mary mentioned) but they resembled science fiction novels more than the Bible or other "holy books." They also had, among other odd places, a cruise ship as a place of worship. Are they trying to position themselves as a mainstream yet alternative religion? Honestly, I felt like I was being mislead most of the time--the presentation at the open house made Scientology seem more like a secular charity or NGO more than a religious institution. They actually even mentioned the word "secular" more than the word "religious."
Also, the presenter mentioned that one could be an athiest and a Scientologist. One requires the absence of religion while one requires the presence of religion. Thus, is Scientology some weird form of paradoxical agnosticism? Or are they just "campaigning" (/lying)?
One last question: If Scientology had been introduced in 50AD instead of 1950, would it be considered as a religion instead of a cult?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"I couldn't help but notice that Scientology seems to reject most "signs" of traditional religious institutions. There were various books available (and DVDs, like Mary mentioned) but they resembled science fiction novels more than the Bible or other "holy books." They also had, among other odd places, a cruise ship as a place of worship." -- Grace
This whole "Church of Scientology" idea seems a little out of the ordinary, to say the least. As the three of you mentioned, it doesn't necessarily have the traits of a typical religion. But, what are traits of a typical religion, and are those prone to change? How is religion defined? It doesn't make sense to me how people of multiple religions can belong to this religion. And, if there is no 'god' in scientology, then what are they worshipping? Unfortunately, I'm assuming you couldn't get answers to those questions out of the lady who was "answering" questions.
Emily T.
Frankly, I don't have any background knowledge when it comes to Scientology. I just went online and read a bit about it, and like you guys, I picked up on some contradiction. The Church of Scientology is meant to preserve the spiritual values that come along with this belief, that we are souls trapped in bodies searching for infinite survival. On the other hand, however, Scientology also aids our larger, secular society by its humanitarianism/promotional campaigns.
The lady responsible for leading you in the discussion was well-armed and ready to fight fire with fire. Knowing that Model UN students would be good debaters, she had to retaliate with similar tactics (i.e. abstraction).
To answer your last question:
If Scientology had been introduced so early, then it may well have developed into its own religion. The only problem, though, is its ambiguity. I still don't quite understand whether it is religiously or secularly based, but perhaps that has been done on purpose. When covering both aspects, a greater audience is targeted. A larger audience means a larger profit.
(Sam Maliha)
I am not sure about this, but don't you have to pay a ton of money to be a scientologist? They try to suck you in with the free IQ test that they gave you and then they tell you that you're life isn't as great as it could be or you could be much happier etc. I know a few years back, scientology was very controversial and scientologists were being accused of trying to make money out of the religion, which is why some people consider them a cult.
They are basically selling a product and they lure you in with something that is free. They don't care what religion you are because they bascially just need your membership, which costs money.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
P.S: Most of the information in this comment is from South Park, but I'm pretty sure its accurate...
"I still don't quite understand whether it is religiously or secularly based, but perhaps that has been done on purpose. When covering both aspects, a greater audience is targeted." -- Sam
I'm just wondering... by covering both aspects, are they really targeting a larger audience? Wouldn't people opposed to religion be opposed to scientology because of its religious aspect, and wouldn't those supporting religion be opposed to scientology becaues of its secular aspect? Maybe that's too much of a general statement, but it still makes me wonder...
In addition, after thinking about it for a little while, I'm beginning to wonder if scientology is successful to a certain extent because you must pay a lot of money to be a scientologist, as Arvind put it. There could be people who want to be part of a religion "just in case", but don't want to make a commitment or put their faith in anything. If that's the case, maybe it's easier for them to just pay money, thinking that will save their souls. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with it, so it's just a thought...
Emily T.
Hmm, interesting point. On a whole, though, I think that as humans, we are pretty good at contradicting ourselves. But because Scientology encompasses both areas, new members (whether religiously or secularly inclined) have room to weigh out a pro and con list. Couldn't this also be some sort of propaganda technique? It reminds me of the "Buster the Dog" post we responded to a while back. The audience will therefore think that the Church of Scientology is catering to its members. This is merely a thought, though.
(Sam Maliha)
I was also in D.C. this weekend and heard the amazingly abstract statements made by advocates of the Church of Scientology. Mary, Grace, and Tiffany perfectly summarized the comments all of us Model UN-ers could not help but make following our visit to the church. I especially agree with Grace that Scientology seems to be a form of "paradoxical agnosticism."
I find Grace's last question quite intriguing. In agreement with Sam, I think that if Scientology had been introduced earlier, then it could potentially be acknowledged as a religion rather than a cult. Perhaps it would gradually have specified to include a more "typical" religious viewpoint.
(Janet Lee)
As a follow-up note, I should include the fact that scientology is in fact officially recognized as a religion in the US, although it is still disputed whether it is more appropriately named a "cult" or the like.
(Janet Lee)
Well, as Janet stated above, Scientology is considered a religion. After all, a religion is is a system of values and beliefs concerning human existence and meaning and is based on faith. Scientology certainly fits this requirement. It may seem especially esoteric to us now, but that mostly is because it is a new religion that we are unfamiliar with. Certainly, we can scoff at the more illogical elements of Scientology (we are all the reincarnated souls of beings from other planets?), but frankly, almost all religions contain elements that are incomprehensible without faith (a man walking on water, people coming back from the dead, nirvana, etc...). But because Scientology is so new and because modern society has actually witness its founding (by Hubbard), we are especially skeptical of its doctrines.
-Eric Wei
Post a Comment