PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religion

[Panda Termint]

If a given person were to truly believe that scientology was a religion and that it was their religion of choice, would you deny them the right to practice that religion? If so, how would you justify it? Just curious.

 

[ClamSource]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

If a given person were to truly believe that scientology was a religion and that it was their religion of choice, would you deny them the right to practice that religion? If so, how would you justify it? Just curious.

In two ways, one where they try to impose their beliefs onto you. And secondly, where their beliefs intrude into the secular domain.

If people stick purely to metaphysics, then that's entirely religiious and they're free to believe whatever takes their fancy. Unless they try imposing those beliefs on other people.

Where their beliefs intrude into the secular domain and require things like medical malpractice, defrauding people, denying people freedom of speech, and rights to association and reputation, then you have every right to object.

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

Would this apply to any religion or just scientology?

Assuming that a "New Era Scientologist" (coined phrase) was not doing any of the reprehensible things you describe, how would you feel about that person practicing scientology?

 

[Mystic]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

If a given person were to truly believe that scientology was a religion and that it was their religion of choice, would you deny them the right to practice that religion? If so, how would you justify it? Just curious.

Evil is a right????

 

[degraded being]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

If a given person were to truly believe that scientology was a religion and that it was their religion of choice, would you deny them the right to practice that religion? If so, how would you justify it? Just curious.

When politicians are asked "if" questions, they usually refuse outright to answer them.

But FWIW,

Is DM a given person?
Is Jan Eastgate a given person? If so was she a given person at the time she is accused of having covered up sex abuse of a minor. If she did what she is accused of, and was a given person, could we ask if she may have done similar things over the years and perhaps is doing such things now. If so, is she still a given person?
Are the people who run Narcocon, theoretically at arms length fron the "religion" of scientology, and put narcocon attendees in danger, "given" persons? I wait with baited breath.

 

[ClamSource]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

Would this apply to any religion or just scientology?

Assuming that a "New Era Scientologist" (coined phrase) was not doing any of the reprehensible things you describe, how would you feel about that person practicing scientology?

This would apply to all religions, or anything claiming religious prerogative. The issue is as pertinent today as it ever was since the Enlightenment. The issue is the age old issue of the need to separate church from state (the religious from the secular) all over again.

There is perhaps the even older instances of this tradition where Jesus Christ recognised the secular right of the state (render unto Caesar what is Caesars) and his saying "my kingdom is not of this earth".

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

When politicians are asked "if" questions, they usually refuse outright to answer them.

But FWIW,

Is DM a given person?
Is Jan Eastgate a given person? If so was she a given person at the time she is accused of having covered up sex abuse of a minor. If she did what she is accused of, and was a given person, could we ask if she may have done similar things over the years and perhaps is doing such things now. If so, is she still a given person?
Are the people who run Narcocon, theoretically at arms length fron the "religion" of scientology, and put narcocon attendees in danger, "given" persons? I wait with baited breath.

You sound like a politician! LOL
Either answer the question or don't.
For the sake of argument, let's say the "given person" is your mother.

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

Evil is a right????

Are you saying that all scientologists are evil?

 

[Veda]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

You sound like a politician! LOL
Either answer the question or don't.

Fraud, deceit, manipulation, and abuse including psychological abuse, permeate the Scientology applied philosophy. You're a victim yourself Panda Termint, and you're still recovering.

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

Would this apply to any religion or just scientology?

Assuming that a "New Era Scientologist" (coined phrase) was not doing any of the reprehensible things you describe, how would you feel about that person practicing scientology?

This would apply to all religions, or anything claiming religious prerogative. The issue is as pertinent today as it ever was since the Enlightenment. The issue is the age old issue of the need to separate church from state (the religious from the secular) all over again.

There is perhaps the even older instances of this tradition where Jesus Christ recognised the secular right of the state (render unto Caesar what is Caesars) and his saying "my kingdom is not of this earth".

The separation of Religion and State is a given.
What is your answer to the main (second) question?

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

Fraud, deceit, manipulation, and abuse including psychological abuse, permeate the Scientology applied Philosophy. You're a victim yourself Panda Termint, and you're still recovering.

LOL, you old Manipulator, you.
How about addressing the question rather than the person asking it?

 

[degraded being]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

You sound like a politician! LOL
Either answer the question or don't.
For the sake of argument, let's say the "given person" is your mother.

I don't get why you would even ask the question.
Do people really care what people believe if they are not causing any harm.?

Some people annoy me with the stupid things they say they believe, but to take that seriously enough to make it a question of whether or not I want to prevent them believing it sounds bizarre. Can anyone prevent anyone believing anything?
I don't think so.

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

I don't get why you would even ask the question.
Do people really care what people believe if they are not causing any harm.?

Some people annoy me with the stupid things they say they believe, but to take that seriously enough to make it a question of whether or not I want to prevent them believing it sounds bizarre. Can anyone prevent anyone believing anything?
I don't think so.

I was just curious about what posters on this thread thought.

I don't "really care what people believe if they are not causing any harm".

I don't care if people want to think of scientology as a religion and I have no objection to them practicing their religion as long as they do no harm.

I'm interested in how others view this, hence the question.

BTW, I'm not asking about their right to believe, I'm more talking about their right to practice their religion.

 

[degraded being]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

I was just curious about what posters on this thread thought.

I don't "really care what people believe if they are not causing any harm".

I don't care if people want to think of scientology as a religion and I have no objection to them practicing their religion as long as they do no harm.

I'm interested in how others view this, hence the question.

I do care if people if want to think of scientology as a religion.
Thinking of it as a religion has been the way to allow all sorts of things to be done with that religious cloaking that could not have been done otherwise. If they want to think of it as a religion per se is not really my objection, my objection is having legal protection which they would not have otherwise. Let them think of themselves as a business. Or let them be officially thought of as a business. Or if we want a politically correct "win-win" lets have the "religion" thinking recognised with absolutely no special status tax wise, or in regard to labor laws, abuse etc.
The word religion is just a word. But it currently has power which is misused....not just by scientologists.

 

[anonomog]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

I was just curious about what posters on this thread thought.

I don't "really care what people believe if they are not causing any harm".

I don't care if people want to think of scientology as a religion and I have no objection to them practicing their religion as long as they do no harm.

I'm interested in how others view this, hence the question.

BTW, I'm not asking about their right to believe, I'm more talking about their right to practice their religion.

I started to answer earlier then decided to think about it.

My first feeling is if they are away from the abuses of the church, its a good thing and they can practice whatever they like.

Then I thought further.
If I found out my doctor was a Scientologist, in or out of the church, I would immediately find another doctor. I can see no way anyone can combine practising medicine and practising scientology into a whole that would satisfy my requirements for a medical doctor.
I cannot understand how anyone can do 7 or more years of extensive medical training and still swallow Hubbard's nonsense like the purif, the introspection rundown, smoking, radiation...and if they don't swallow that, but believe everything else is truth, then I'm not so confident in their judgement as a whole.

Yes, it is discrimination, but if I don't trust their judgement, no way will I put my life in their hands.
I wouldn't rush my bleeding haemophiliac friend to a Jehovah's witness doctor either.

:confused2: Do I really believe they can freely practice their religion? :confused2:

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

Thanks for this response, Anonomog.

I think it's a question worth considering, a question that a lot of people are going to be asking themselves (and others) in the ensuing years.

I think I know what I'd hear if I asked a CofS scientologist how he/she felt about the right of a given person to freely practice scientology outside of the CofS.

It's a question which is definitely going to come up more frequently in the near future.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

I started to answer earlier then decided to think about it.

My first feeling is if they are away from the abuses of the church, its a good thing and they can practice whatever they like.

Then I thought further.
If I found out my doctor was a Scientologist, in or out of the church, I would immediately find another doctor. I can see no way anyone can combine practising medicine and practising scientology into a whole that would satisfy my requirements for a medical doctor.
I cannot understand how anyone can do 7 or more years of extensive medical training and still swallow Hubbard's nonsense like the purif, the introspection rundown, smoking, radiation...and if they don't swallow that, but believe everything else is truth, then I'm not so confident in their judgement as a whole.

Yes, it is discrimination, but if I don't trust their judgement, no way will I put my life in their hands.
I wouldn't rush my bleeding haemophiliac friend to a Jehovah's witness doctor either.

:confused2: Do I really believe they can freely practice their religion? :confused2:

Good point! - And to specify: According to Hubbard, sicknes of almost any kind is a 'mental' (spiritual) problem.. And an 'out ethics' problem at that. Meaning the 'patient' is a criminal (sinner) and/or an SP. Scientologists believe he will get well when he stops comitting sins and crimes, and with some 'auditing' and maybe being locked up and held incommunicado until he can convince his jailers that he is well again..

Erh.. In fact, as I read it, the above would be the 'in tech' treatmet for nearly anything. From Lung Cancer to a bunion.. Correct me if I'm wrong..

A doctor believing that shit!? - Dr. Mengele has been outclassed by orders of magnitude!!!

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

It's not about whether or not I think it's a religion, I no longer do. I agree that the religious cloaking is a sham but that's not what I'm asking about. I'll repeat the original question (lol);

If a given person were to truly believe that scientology was a religion and that it was their religion of choice, would you deny them the right to practice that religion? If so, how would you justify it?

The fact is that scientology is already officially recognised as a bona fide religion in many parts of the world. That horse has bolted and no matter how many nails you drive into the stable door, it's too late. Perhaps you think that scientology's religious status may be revoked (I believe that actually happened somewhere recently). I think anything is possible but scientology being reclassified as a non-religion in the US and elsewhere seems highly unlikely at this stage of the game.

 

[Veda]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

-snip-

The fact is that scientology is already officially recognised as a bona fide religion in many parts of the world. That horse has bolted and no matter how many nails you drive into the stable door, it's too late. Perhaps you think that scientology's religious status may be revoked (I believe that actually happened somewhere recently). I think anything is possible but scientology being reclassified as a non-religion in the US and elsewhere seems highly unlikely at this stage of the game.

Then your question is irrelevant. Scientology has won. Take your marbles and go home.

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: Reports from Marty's Hamburg visit

Then your question is irrelevant. Scientology has won. Take your marbles and go home.

But... but... but... you didn't answer the question!!!