We should ban the church of scientology
The church of scientology was founded in 1952 by the controversial science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. And since then has grown to a multinational religion (although some countries only recognise it as a non profit organisation) with many outreach and self help programs. However there have been large amounts of protest over this group and plenty of discussion over its legitimacy. Is it a church or a cult? Is its good in society outweighed by its harm to its critics? Should scientology be banned?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
It is stealing money from the weak.
the church of scientology requires regular sessions of "audit counselling" Which requires payments on a sliding scale gradually getting more expensive as people have invested money and are anxious to move up to the next level in scientology’s hierarchical system. Many scientologists go bankrupt and sell expensive possessions (such as cars or houses) to keep up with the churches program which yields no tangible results.
In society People pay for goods/services that, although offering no tangible benefits, offer enjoyment and fulfilment, this is called capitalism. you can not ban something simply because you disagree with the way it makes people feel good, otherwise you would have to ban movies you feel aren’t smart or children’s toys that are not educational. The freedom to choose how you enjoy life and develop your mind is a personal choice and we have no right to say that somebody has done this in a wrong way. People selling their cars or houses have gone a bit far, but scientology does not force them to do this and at the end of the day that is their property to do with as they wish.
It neglects those in desperate need of psycological help.
Scientology has a noted hatred of psychiatry and psychological methods of solving mental problems, and regularly incites hatred towards psychology within its members (this goes as far as opening a "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death" museum). This radical opposition to psychiatry has been a main factor in a large amount of mental breakdowns and insanity within scientology and in the most extreme case a young man stabbing his mother 77 times, cited as a failure of the process of audit counselling as a way of achieving mental wellbeing.
Scientology’s opposition to psychiatry stems from many instances of psychiatric abuse which have been recorded and denounced by the church, this hatred of psychiatry is shared by many secular sources. Psychiatry is flawed and disagreeing with a treatment is a citizens right. In a hospital a person has the right to opt out of a procedure they disagree with and other religions have ethical objections to these procedures, such as Jehovah’s witnesses turning down blood transfers and Jewish people refusing pigs hearts. Why should it be different to inform people of your moral stance and hope they see things your way?
Scientology has a hideous record of harrrassing critics.
There have been many documented cases of those critical of scientology being physically attacked as well as being investigated by scientology's independent detective department (known as the guardians office) with the aim of causing public embarrassment, sacking from their jobs and in some cases criminal prosecution. this is known in scientology as fair game policy, and was most famously shown when the FBI obtained documented evidence of a scientology operation known as "operation freakout" which attempted to plant evidence in government offices in order to levy a conviction against oppositions to the church, this lead to the arrest of 7 higher members of scientology including Mary Hubbard, (L Ron Hubbard’s wife)
The Church of Scientology in the UK (the only one relevant to this forum) has committed no such offences. Harrassment, unless proven in court, is highly subjective, some would say that proposing to ban the Church of Scientology is harrassment.
it is counter-productive
As history has taught, religions can not be simply banned, religions are a person’s belief and by banning them all you are doing is driving the religion underground and harbouring resentment. If you disagree with a religion the only way to challenge it is through information campaigns and disillusionment, although it is a slow process it is much more ethical as it puts faith in human beings to choose their beliefs for themselves as well as providing an ongoing productive debate.
Scientology is not a traditional religion, its hierarchal structures and flows of capital give it the nature of a business. Banning it will result in closing of scientology centres and restriction on flows of income and information, preventing new converts and gradually reducing the numbers of "underground" supporters. On top of this using information campaigns and disillusionment would be a good strategy for unethical businesses or government policy; however scientology has a history of harassing those who initiate these campaigns against them as well as censoring arguments against them thus discouraging ongoing debate.
This is Tyrrany of the majority
In society, just because the Majority don't believe, doesn’t mean it should be banned, if the majority always dictated the law black people and women wouldn’t have the vote. All religions start as small followings and its acceptability is only a cultural infringement on its right to exist. Christianity started as a small sect of Judaism and was regularly persecuted by others but over time it moved into the mainstream and was considered legitimate. Just because a belief is new and "weird" doesn’t mean we should ban it.
Female Genital Mutilation is also something that is a minority practice. As is cannibalism. There are some standards that can be understood and held together on the basis of a prevailing majority belief that works or is cohesive enough, in a utilatarian way, to keep society together. Scientology causes harm and dupes people - like many other cults. Such irrational beliefs exist in all religions; but that isn't an excuse for this particular one to be acceptable. As was said by Bertrand Russell [Russell, Marriage and Morals, 1929]], that following a multitude into doing evil is bad; but stopping a multitude from doing good is worse. There is no inherent value in allowing Scientology merely because a minority follows it. And since it causes harm as argued above, it should be banned. There is no tyranny of the majority or otherwise in reasonable exercise of power in the search for wider happiness and efficiency.
this is a personal belief
A person’s personal belief and personal choices should not be banned if they do not impinge on anyone else’s rights. These people have the right to decide how to life their lives and we have no right to say they are doing that wrong. The church of scientology is an individual personal decision and does not harm those who are not members so why should we be scared enough to ban it.
What the self-righteous writer to my left has ignored, is the huge disparity between drugs and Scientology. Illicit drugs harm the 'user' directly, without a doubt. And the harm to others comes from the subconscious actions of the user, independent of the actions of the 'other'.
The harm from Scientology comes from the political and physical backlash to critics. This relies on the generally ignorant and violent actions of these critics. Critics who are well aware of the consequences of their actions.
Meanwhile, the bigot ignores any possible gain from Scientology, dismissing scientologists by likening them drug addicts. Scientologists aren't necessarily naive and dumb, any more than the average supermarket shopper isn't. These are normal people with normal beliefs. And the sooner people put aside their own personal beliefs, and accept this as a different one, the sooner we will end calls for bans and essentially, tyranny of the majority.
First and foremost, it is not a religion recognized by any conventional legal means. Lord Denning, a celebrated House of Lords justices said "No, this can't be seen as a religion under any circumstances". And this is coming from the same court that found the Moonies to be a accepted religion.
It is all very well for people in the Scientology persuasion to gather, but its persistence in trying to get religion status is damaging the very fabric of the legal system. As a religion status in this country means the group can enjoy tax benefits and support from the government.
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". Though people are free to believe Scientology, when it starts to burden anyone associated with it, that is when a definitive line needs to be drawn.
My learned friend on the right ---> seems to think it is fine as long as "those who are not members" are not harmed, and it is a personal autonomy. But would you have the same thoughts on Drugs? Drugs are banned because it is anti social, damaging to health and can have harmful effects on the people around users.
Scientologists are encourage to cut out those non believers from their lives and harrasses anyone who has a negative view towards them as a result many families have been broken. We should not condone a group that encourages this kind of behavior.
this would create a precedent for religious intollerance
By banning a religion you are saying that if you think somebody’s belief is stupid, wrong or harmful you can step in and override that persons personal belief, this can transfer on to other religions and open up legal space for people to subjugate religious minorities.
Essentially what the person to my left is saying is 'I don't believe it, so OBVIOUSLY we should persecute it'. Great argument
There is already religious intollerance in all countries- but at least most conventional religions are somewhat believable- Jesus lived, Mohammed lived etc. Scientology has no basis.If you're going to persecute a religion, persecute the most inane.
It is a mockery of religion.
All religion is a mockery of other religion. All religions mock the prevailing belief system to gain adherents. Nothing wrong with that.
By saying what the writer to my left did, they demonstrated the intolerance of the public, and hence why we should allow Scientology to continue. Because otherwise we cave to the stupid and weak minded...
Who the fuck believes in this shit, anyway? It's a mockery of religion, pretty much one guy said, well I can be like mohammad and jesus, and make a following. They did it why not me? Its garbage. They cant accept that what they do is ridiculous in every aspect of what they believe in. Scientology didnt save Jet, Scientology doesn't make tom cruise look cool. Its a bogus religion and the money people give to the church should be invested in a church of starwars and startrek combined.
its just another nonesense claim. but you can't dismiss it until you can also get rid of nonese.
a religion depend only on faith or believe... if you say they can't be one and you have one you are a hypocrite.. if you are honest and just you must accept it... but to be honest .. all fundamentalim is bad.. ... its the religion per say that rather a lack a distinquishable critera of truth...
What do you think?