Scientology: What do you think of people who are apathetic about religion and ethical values?

Steph asked: What do you think of people who are apathetic about religion and ethical values?

Peoples' attitude to religion is their own choice. No one can successfully enforce a belief system on another. Even if extreme duress is used and the victim says they believe, they don't really. I think it is important for a person to have some religious belief, even if it is different to my own, but other than that I think it is up to them.

In Scientology, ethics is defined as the actions one takes towards survival. For example: if one takes harmful drugs then that is unethical because it harms ones survival. So if a person is apathetic about ethical values then they are apathetic about living and won't survive well or for very long. I guess a quick answer to your question is that I think they need help.

.

Scientology: How is it a religion?

JR said in a comment ... it doesn't seem like a "religion" to me. It seems more like a philosophy, or a self-help program. So where does the "faith" come into the equation? (the full comment is here)

Hey JR,

You ask a really good question.

Most people in the West were brought up in the Judeo-Christian tradition and so they quite naturally think of religion in Judeo-Christian terms. This tradition revolves around two fundamental concepts — a belief that there is a personal creator God separate and distinct from man, and that man’s highest activity is the worship, supplication and veneration of this god.

So when a religion comes along that isn't like that, people raised with those concepts have a hard time seeing it as a religion.

Luckily for Scientology there are plenty of existing, recognized religions with long histories, that don't follow the Judeo-Christian norm. In the East there are religions that don't have any god and some that have almost no belief structure. Examples would be Zen Buddhism, Hindu Bhakti, Theravada Buddhism and Jainism. The last two have no supreme being yet predate Christianity by five centuries.

So Scientology is more comparable with Eastern religions than Western religions. In fact most Scientologists regard Buddhism as the existing religion most similar to Scientology, and most religious scholars agree with that.

If you want to get the full concept of what I'm talking about above then there is an entire book on the subject online here:

- Scientology: Theology & Practice of a Contemporary Religion (HTML)
- Scientology: Theology & Practice of a Contemporary Religion (PDF)

What the world needs now: Spiritual Values

Here is an awesome news story. Not anything to do with Scientology, but a story that shows the sort of spirit that could make this world a paradise. And I'd like you to notice that the people who did it were religious people. Religion, incorrectly and unfairly, gets a bad rap for "causing wars" and other horrors, but the truth is that truly religious people of whatever faith with spiritual values are what this world needs a lot more of.

So now read this heart-warming story: Cheering for the other side

Scientology and Christmas

Scientology is not a spin off of Christianity so Christmas is not a special day as such in the religion. However, many Scientologists are Christians or were raised in the Christian tradition so they celebrate it.

One of the great things about Scientology is the fact that you can be a Scientologist and a member of any other religion. Scientology is not an "exclusive" religion like the traditional western religions - In the west you are a member of one religion and no others.

Scientology follows the tradition of some eastern religions where you can be a member of as many religions as you like because the key thing in Scientology is wisdom. Scientology deals with things that an individual can "take or leave" because it is practical. You can try it out and see if it works or not. So, for example, you can try out the Study Technology that was developed in Scientology and see for yourself if it works or not. Meanwhile, you can believe in God, or not as the case may be, because Scientology doesn't have any dogma on that subject. It leaves it up to the individual.

So you can be a Scientologist (someone who uses Scientology in their life to improve their life and the lives of others) and you can also be a Christian and worship God in the Christian manner.

It's a new concept for the west, but a good one, because it promotes tolerance and harmony and isn't that what Christmas is all about?

Religious Tolerance and Human Rights

I find it amazing the lengths that anti-religious extremists will go to in their attempts to convince Scientologists of the error of their ways. They make up all sorts of stories, like a comment I just received from "Petra" who has a hidden profile. She starts off with how much her son liked Scientology and that he passed away some years ago and that she found confidential Scientology materials amongst his belongings and how she knows that it is forbidden for Scientologists below a certain level to be told this confidential stuff but here it is anyway.

I mean, come on, does the writer really think I'm going to fall for it? First of all the confidential materials are kept very secure. They are not handed out to anyone. They are studied at the Advanced Organizations and nowhere else. So saying she found them in her sons belongings is an obvious lie - unless he stole them. Then to pretend she likes Scientology yet she's going to pass on this confidential stuff to me, when she doesn't even know where I am on the spiritual levels of Scientology - wow, that's a really friendly act.

The final clincher is that she gives me a link to the website of this guy, David Touretzky, a man who lives off tax payer dollars mapping the brains of rats (amongst other things), a man who has terrorist bomb making instructions on his web site (put there in the name of "freedom of speech") and who also happens to be rabidly anti-Scientology. From his racist and anti-religious comments it appears he is also anti-Muslim, anti-Black, anti-Hispanic and, from other comments he has made, he likes amputee porn (I'm not kidding - just click on the link above to see all the gory details). When you read the data on this guy and then you look at the Creed of the Church of Scientology, you can clearly see why he would oppose Scientology.

Here are a couple of quotes from the creed that Touretzky appears to be against:
"We of the Church believe: That all men of whatever race, color, or creed were created with equal rights; That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance;" - see Touretzky's comments on Blacks, Arabs, Muslims and Hispanics.

"That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives; That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity;" - see whose theories and experiments Touretzky refers to in his own work and who he models his work on - men who had absolutely no interest in the lives and sanity of others.

I could get rather angry about these attempts to convince me that my religious beliefs are wrong but what would be the point? It saddens me to see that there are people in this world who are so intolerant and bigoted that they will go to any lengths to destroy any other ideas. That is one of the reasons I so strongly support Human Rights and especially the 18th point of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Freedom of thought. We all have the right to believe in what we want to believe, to have a religion, or to change it if we want." I strongly support that right. If you are not a Scientologist then I say you have a right to believe what you see fit to believe and neither I nor anyone else has the right to enforce other beliefs upon you or try to invalidate or take away your beliefs.

Who out there agrees with me?

Definition of Religion

My friend Max has written a great article that clarifies the definition of religion as it applies to Scientology: Fun With Dictionaries: The Definitions of "Religion".

I also dug up a scholarly article on the definition of religion and how it relates to Scientology by James A. Beckford, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick in England: Scientology, Social Science and the definition of Religion.

Scientology versus the world - Part 2

DocORock said: I've only been looking at the Scientology site for a day or so now and I've tried to stay away from the one-sided views (although many Internet roads lead to Lisa McPherson). If I were to consider becoming a part of that institution, my first apprehension would be the statements the organization makes with an undertone of "anyone who opposes our religion (and practices their own?) is a suppressor and therefore an enemy of the church. Wow - even the rightest winged Christians don't damn other religions that way!

Once more, I have to say you've been reading too many anti-Scientology sites. Your statement "the statements the organization makes with an undertone of ..." is a generality. I need specifics. Why don't you post another question/comment with links to the specific pages you are referring to and how come you get this impression from them? That way I can address specifics.

To answer the rest of what you say, let's go over this "enemy of the church" thing logically: The word "enemy" means "somebody who hates or seeks to harm somebody or something". If someone decides to "hate or seek to harm" my Church or my religion then they are an enemy by the very definition of the word and please note that they have elected themselves as an enemy, we didn't.

If someone has a disagreement, upset or grievance with my religion or my Church then there are plenty of ways to handle grievances without resorting to "hating" or "seeking to harm". The Church is always trying to improve and do better so if someone finds something wrong we have lots of ways of correcting it. For example there is an online report form to make the reporting of problems very easy.

If someone has no interest in Scientology then that's not a problem. Your religion (or lack thereof) is your own choice. The Creed of the Church of Scientology says: that "all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance."

In his article, Religious Influence in Society, L. Ron Hubbard stated how important religion is to mankind. He said: "When religion is not influential in a society or has ceased to be, the state inherits the entire burden of public morality, crime and intolerance. It then must use punishment and police. Yet this is unsuccessful as morality, integrity and self-respect not already inherent in the individual, cannot be enforced with any great success. Only by a spiritual awareness and inculcation of the spiritual value of these attributes can they come about. There must be more reason and more emotional motivation to be moral, etc., than threat of human discipline." You will notice that he is not saying "Scientology" he is saying "religion." In other words he's covering all religions here. They are all important to the future of mankind.

My personal viewpoint mirrors this. When I meet a person who has a different religious belief than mine, I don't mind at all. I have no problem with it. The right to believe as you see fit is a basic human right. It is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "ARTICLE 18... Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

I have friends who are Christian, Mormon, Jewish, Hindu, new-age spiritual and atheist as well as Scientologists. I don't have a problem with them and they don't have a problem with me. Why should we? All religions have the same basic goals of peace and salvation. We all have the same basic idea that man is a spiritual being. So why should we be in conflict?

Other references:
What does Scientology have to say about other religions?

Getting An Apology from the BBC

The BBC makes a trailer that some in the media interpret as showing the Queen getting annoyed at a photographer and the BBC falls over itself to apologize to Her Majesty: BBC apologizes to Queen Elizabeth II. I think that's great. It's about time the media showed some respect for the people they feed off. But what about an apology for this?

I think that little outburst from BBC reporter John Sweeny is rather more serious than a trailer some sensationalism seeking reporter manages to twist to something derogatory to the Queen.