Last March, actor Jason Beghe made news by publicly leaving the Church of Scientology. He was a cause celebre in some circles, and, no doubt, condemned as a "Judas" or a traitor in others.
Yesterday, in its Idol Chatter spot, BeliefNet ran a follow-up piece. It can be found at: http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2008/08/exscientologist-actor-jason-be.html#more.
In the piece, Beghe is quoted as saying, "In my humble opinion, Scientology is not a religion. It's a dangerous religious cult: a cruel, sadistic business practice. Just because the IRS gave it tax exempt status does not make it a religion. Ninety percent of ex-Scientologists--and there are millions out there--do not consider it a religion."
I know that Beghe is speaking from personal conviction and with great emotion based on his experience. He is not giving a precise textbook defintion of the distinction between a religion and a "dangerous religious cult." That being said, his comment does raise some questions.
I have long contended that a comprehensive definition of religion is nigh unto impossible. The varieties of religion found around the world are so diverse that establishing a single statement that includes all of them, but excludes all groups that most people recognize as not being a religion has proven fruitless. I know that many religious texts include such a definition, but I think a careful consideration of them will point up the flaws in the definition.
I also know that folks use the term religion in very prejudicial ways. By that I mean that they would define religion in such a way as to include their faith stance and exclude others, as in "my church is the true religion; all others are flawed." OR, they see religion as a flawed human enterprise and believe their faith is the true spirituality established by God, as in "Christianity is not a religion; it was established by God."
With all of this, I wonder. What distinguishes a "religion" from a "dangerous religious cult?" How much difference between your faith and the views of the others are you willing to grant a group before you dismiss it as a "cult?"
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Religion or not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I would think that the first criteria for a religion, is that it makes a positive contribution to mankind's time on earth. That does not mean that anyone should try to outlaw religions that don't though, unless they are hurting someone. I guess that it is like "my right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose".
I suppose that much of the trouble comes in when you consider the IRS rules for tax exemption. It seems that the government has decided to support religion with public policy as long as it does not due two things, act as a tax dodge, or participate in political election campaigns. The first rule makes more sense to me than the second, because churches in general could probably help keep public service from straying into temptation and corruption quite so often.
I think that giving religions a tax exemption does far more good than would be done by taking it away, even if some of the benefit accrues to rogues and scoundrels.
I also think that having freedom of religion is better than trying to protect people from their own decisions. With all freedoms, people are just as free to make bad decisions as good, but for the most part goodness and justice seem to prevail in free societies. Perhaps this in itself is evidence of the guiding hand of the Lord, and His intention that all men should live free!
Post a Comment