So the silly Scientology movement is just organised fraud. At least, that’s what a French court has found.
The “Church” of Scientology reckons this is just another Inquisition and says it’ll appeal.
Inquisition, eh? The one that dreamed up all manner of excruciating tortures for the kinky, sadistic delight of Catholic inquisitors, who did it under the guise of protecting the faith? (Some did think they were protecting the faith, of course, but I have my doubts about others, knowing a little about human nature and, notably, the kind of evil that religion is capable of engendering in people – not just engendering, but legitimising.)
At least two of the comments on that story I’ve linked to above talk of the poor “suckers” who have been duped by this huge con trick called Scientology, whose founder, L Ron Hubbard, is supposed to have joked that the best way to make vast amounts of money is to invent a religion.
But they do say a fool and his (or her) money are soon parted. If people are going to let themselves be taken in by these con artists, they have only themselves to blame. The likes of Tom Cruise can afford it, of course, but Joe and Jane Public can’t. If Joe and Jane are going to part with money that would have otherwise brought them healthier pleasures or fed their families, they must look to their own morals.
However, it’s hard to criticise Scientology, if by criticise you mean demonstrating, as we saw back in May 2008 when a demonstrator had to dump his placard. See also here and here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.