Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic
"Buddhists, Moslems, Taoists, Oranges, Satanists, atheists... they all deserve the tolerance of the masses."
Does that look correct. No!
.
|
It *looks* malconstructed because it *is*, and deliberately so. Replace "oranges" with "people who like oranges" or "people who worship oranges" and you'll be more on-target, but less convincing.
The argument that *any* belief system "isn't a real religion" is a very common tactic of attack.
Scientology *claims* to be a religion. Most people who consider themseleves Scientologists (which isn't quite the same thing as professing publically to be one) belive it is a religion. And whether Scientology (or Islam, or Roman Catholicisim) actually *is* a "real religion", or merely an elaborate way to separate people from money and power is completely beside the point being made in the essay. The motivations or sincerity of Hubbard, or any of current advocates of Scientology have no bearing on whether it's a "school of relgious thought".
The fact that *you* think Scientology is a cult and/or a scam (a point I probably agree with you on) doesn't mean it doesn't belong in Smith's enumeration; far from it. I'm sure Smith was seeking to create a list that would push as many buttons on that topic for as many readers as possible That's why it's there. He was trying to elicit a response that probed the limits of your belief in personal freedom.
The question Smith is asking is "Are you willing to respect *all* of everyone else's freedoms in an agreement that guarantees your own? Or only the ones *you* like personally? Do you see how your willingness to limit other people's freedom limits your own?".
The piece is in fact a pitch for the LP, of course.