logo


realitybasedcommunity.net - writings on establishment clause, free exercise, free speech, free press, copyright, trademark, right of publicity, media law, defamation, new media law. about scott pilutik.


"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state." - George W. Bush, slipping freudianistically to the press on January 29, 2001.

August 25, 2006

Religious Correctness

The title of Russell Shaw's piece at Huffington Post is unambiguously titled: "Tom Cruise's Firing: Anti-Scientology Religious Bigotry". I tried to post a comment there, but the login server appears to be having difficulties, so I'll rant, briefly, here instead.

The author and a few commenters rely on the mistaken notion that the defining aspect of a cult is 'belief', when in reality, it is the degree of *control* exerted over adherents that separates a religion from a cult. In order to establish the amount of control necessary to create a fanatical base, cults rely on a greater degree of 'us v. them' rhetoric, in order to separate its target from the mainstream, and more closely bind it to its tendered replacement.

Scientology exhibits this sort of control in a number of ways: by the fact that it routinely requires its members to disconnect from their families (those families that ask uncomfortable questions about where all that money disappeared to); adheres to a "greater good for Scientology" mentality, by which nearly any action can be justified, so long as its goal is to "Keep Scientology Working," or "KSW" in Scientology's dense, insular, extensive lexicon; maintains something called the "Rehabilitation Project Force" ("RPF"), which is essentially a labor camp for members who are being punished for violations, which can include "bad thoughts about Scientology" or its current leader.

Shaw's platitudinous argument that criticism of Tom Cruise is bigotry has a simplistic appeal, but cannot withstand scrutiny. What's interesting about this argument is its similarity to arguments raised by Evangelical Christians that the prohibition on teaching creationism in science class is some form of religious persecution. It's part of a larger "Religious Correctness" movement that is slowly becoming visible, the rules of which require that religions be shielded from criticism by charges of "Bigotry!" What's especially ironic about this, of course, is that many religious beliefs intrinsically sanction bigotry and discrimination. And the same people who now cry "bigot!" at every slight are the same people who were only snarling about "Political Correctness" only a few years ago.

posted by scott pilutik at August 25, 2006 03:08 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

contact  |  site powered by movabletype
Site content licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License