Skip to main content

View Diary: Scientology: A Religion, but a Threat to Mental Health? (291 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for your reply (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive

    But while my father is useful data point, I'm actually pretty sanguine about what happened to him. Absolutely, he exercised his own freedom of choice in seeking out his solutions, but they had a much more catastrophic impact than I've outlined here. There will be more in my book. To point out that scientology was emphatically not a solution to his problems is not authoritarianism - unless you call my own freedom of speech an act of tyranny - a circular argument familiar on the fringes of libertarianism, but not relevant here.

    Indeed, I will actually explore how scientology did, in part, fulfil some spiritual needs, exemplified by my father, but present in us all. The fact that some think I'm defending scientology as a religion shows that the argument is more nuanced that would think.

    The Fall of the House of Murdoch -with Eric Lewis and all the latest Leveson evidence out now!

    by Brit on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:06:18 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The authoritarianism mentality is sutble and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brit

      rarely pointed out.  Snake Oil Salesmen have been around forever, claiming so many things.  Many have been conditioned to accept that idea that the State's position is "secular" and is meant to protect us from ourselves.  The Church today still claims it will save your soul if you do what they tell you.  Buyer beware.

      When it comes to "faith healing" the line is crossed from secularism to authoritarianism in regards to State powers.  "Science" has become its own self-fulling religion backed by the State.  We see it in mandatory vaccinations, mandatory mental health "screening" for our children in schools and now within the gun debate.  The State decides what is good for you and you must comply.  The mechanics, mentality and control are no different than any other "religion".  

      The psychiatrists & doctors today stand in place of priests and clergy. They are the water bearers of their religion. They tell you what is good for you and you must comply. They indoctrinate you into their belief system and anyone whom dare question it's validity is obviously against science and will harm society as a whole.  You are not allowed to decide for yourself what is right for you.   The very foundation of freedom is the freedom to chose.  That is denied to us in so many ways.

      Today, We are not allowed to decide our own fate, whatever it may be.  That simple choice is denied "to protect society".  That choice is now a crime.

      Our Supreme Court has made that perfectly clear, you cannot refuse the dictates of the State on personal religious grounds, to do so is endangering the welfare of the child and putting society, as a whole, in mortal danger.

      Heresy re-established in today's "modern world".  Instead of it being defined against the doctrines of the Church, it's now defined against the doctrines of the State.

      I posit for your review, this understanding you've presented to us here today is the same as it's always been throughout human history.  Authoritarian control wrapped up in a nice neat little package for the masses to greedily consume.

      I've enjoyed this exploration with you, may we continue it again.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:13:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm afraid I find the binary.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive

        ...authoritarian versus libertarian axis a blunt tool in these circumstances.

        One of the reasons violence has massively declined in the last 300 years (and read Stephen Pinker- the evidence is overwhelming) is that giving the state a monopoly of violence turned out to reduce violence overall. Add to that monopoly democratic control and you have, in effect, a massive increase in individual liberty.

        The power of psychiatrists to abuse their profession for social control is well attested by the Nazi doctors and gulags of the Soviet Union, but today the restraints on individual liberty are only because someone 'may be a threat to themselves or others'.

        Surely this is the proper liberal view of liberty. Individual liberty is not absolute. Or rather, it is absolutely competitive, and your liberty is always constrained when it inhibits the liberty of others.

        Most modern psychiatry takes that point of view: respect the rights of the individual in terms of sexuality, belief and lifestyle, and take most patient care as voluntary demand for assistance: only intervene if there's a massive threat to the individual's well being (i.e. they cannot support themselves or can self harm).

        The Fall of the House of Murdoch -with Eric Lewis and all the latest Leveson evidence out now!

        by Brit on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:21:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I defend neither here, I'm trying to point it out (0+ / 0-)

          for you to understand that there is no difference.  The argument's premise is invalid. Authoritarianism versus liberty.

          Authoritarianism enforced by State power, does it matter if it's from religion or science?  The English Bill of Rights of 1689 elucidate this for us perfectly. It protected the Protestant power monopoly.

          There is no difference today.  We are still fighting the American Revolution:

          Hamilton's Federalist 84:

           it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason

          Men of reason have claimed a power not granted.  They justify its exercise through "science".  

          I wish your final thoughts were true, they clearly are not:

          only intervene if there's a massive threat to the individual's well being (i.e. they cannot support themselves or can self harm).
          How does one hurting themselves hurt the State or society?  Lost revenues?  That does seem to be the only motive, nothing else.  I've never understood how or why suicide was made illegal or prima facia evidence of a mental illness, really.

          As for the claim that society has become less violent by surrendering to the State is not legitimate.  The State in less than 100 yrs has killed millions.  The State's monopoly on power has created nations of slaves, see China.  Manipulated and brainwashed into subservience.  Their ideal is that the individual exists to serve the State.

          I politely disagree.

          Humans do not exist to serve. Again, instead of serving the will of God, they serve the will of the State.  NO difference.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:17:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site