At one point during the interview Tyson is asked about the HBO documentary "Going Clear" an expose on Scientology.
Here was his response:
DB: I’m curious what your take on Scientology is, because the intergalactic story of Xenu does encroach on your territory a bit.
NDT: So, you have people who are certain that a man in a robe transforms a cracker into the literal body of Jesus saying that what goes on in Scientology is crazy? Let’s realize this: What matters is not who says who’s crazy, what matters is we live in a free country. You can believe whatever you want, otherwise it’s not a free country—it’s something else. If we start controlling what people think and why they think it, we have case studies where that became the norm. I don’t care what the tenets are of Scientology. They don’t distract me. I don’t judge them, and I don’t criticize them.
Now, where the rubber hits the road is, since we are a free country where belief systems are constitutionally protected—provided they don’t infringe on the rights of others—then how do you have governance over “all” when you have belief systems for the “some”? It seems to me that the way you govern people is you base governance on things that are objectively true; that are true regardless of your belief system, or no matter what the tenets are of your holy documents. And then they should base it on objective truths that apply to everyone. So the issue comes about not that there are religious people in the world that have one view over another, it’s if you have one view or another based on faith and you want to legislate that in a way that affects everyone. That’s no longer a free democracy. That’s a country where the few who have a belief system that’s not based in objective reality want to control the behavior of everyone else.
DB: The documentary essentially argues that Scientology shouldn’t be granted tax-exempt status as a religion.
NDT: But why aren’t they a religion? What is it that makes them a religion and others are religions? If you attend a Seder, there’s an empty chair sitting right there and the door is unlocked because Elijah might walk in. OK. These are educated people who do this. Now, some will say it’s ritual, some will say it could literally happen. But religions, if you analyze them, who is to say that one religion is rational and another isn’t? It looks like the older those thoughts have been around, the likelier it is to be declared a religion. If you’ve been around 1,000 years you’re a religion, and if you’ve been around 100 years, you’re a cult. That’s how people want to divide the kingdom. Religions have edited themselves over the years to fit the times, so I’m not going to sit here and say Scientology is an illegitimate religion and other religions are legitimate religions. They’re all based on belief systems. Look at Mormonism! There are ideas that are as space-exotic within Mormonism as there are within Scientology, and it’s more accepted because it’s a little older than Scientology is, so are we just more accepting of something that’s older?
The line I’m drawing is that there are religions and belief systems, and objective truths. And if we’re going to govern a country, we need to base that governance on objective truths—not your personal belief system.
This is essentially what I have been saying for years.
The length of time that a belief system or religion has existed should have no impact on its acceptance. However we tend to trick ourselves into thinking that once something has aged over time, and attracted a number of adherents, that it somehow becomes more acceptable to empty our minds and accept it as truth.
Having said that I also feel that the impact ANY of these religions have should end at the exit doors of their church, synagogue, or temple. There is really no justification for forcing your sense of morality, or faith in an afterlife, on others unless you have quantifiable evidence to support your point of view.
Neil de Grasse Tyson is being way to kind to the scientologists. We watched the documentary last week and Hubbard admitted that he started his "religion" to avoid taxes. It's a complete hoax. That guy laughed his way to the bank and his successor is doing the same thing, all the while running a bizarre organization like a quasi-Nazi extravaganza. The followers allow themselves to be blackmailed by confessing to all sorts of real and made-up things. And the stories of the punishments for straying from the path are outrageous. It's not a religion; it's a failing tax dodge con scheme that only benefits the leader and a few of his chosen elect. It's hard for me to believe that the IRS caved in during the 1990's.
ReplyDeleteBeaglemom
It's a complete hoax.
ReplyDeleteHow would you objectively, qualitatively, differentiate between L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith?
I first started research Scientology a few years back, after someone here at IM mentioned that Greta van Susteren, and her politico/lobbiest lawyer husband, who had help SP (ha! Sarah Palin = Suppressive Person!) start SarahPAC, were Scientologists.
ReplyDeleteScientology was a 'fringy cult from the 60's' I had thought...
Then I noticed that Lawrence Wright, author of such insightful articles at The New Yorker and the amazing history of 9/11, The Looming Tower, was writing about Scientology...why would he? and then I saw him interviewed about his book, Going Clear, and saw him weep about the effect this 'cherch' can have on those who run up against them...and he is a really stoic kind of guy...
As I researched more on the Internet it was becoming familiar with Tony Ortega's investigative work into Scientology at his blog, The Underground Bunker, that has been a real world changer for me.
Jesse has been very out-spoken over the years about the negative impacts of religion and politics; all of us, I now realize, can become 'prisoners of belief'.
Critical thinking skills...we need them to survive as a nation...
And in a ps, this is an interview with the director of the Going Clear documentary, Alex Gibney, that was published today at Salon.com:
'But in my judgment Gibney’s films are slowly filling in a much larger portrayal, one news story and one controversial figure at a time. It’s the incremental depiction of a country that rose up to rule the world, a country founded on promises it has never fulfilled, a country that squandered the fruits of that victory and drove itself off the rails into chaos, corruption and mendacity.
If the delusional worldview and paranoid internal culture of the Church of Scientology depicted in “Going Clear” is an especially dramatic example of American grandeur and craziness...'
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/03/alex_gibney_on_scientology%E2%80%99s_culture_of_vitriol_and_hate_if_you_do_leave_they_go_after_you_hard/
2:39 PM: Their both pretty much the same except LRon's way is causing actual bodily harm for a great # of his members.
ReplyDeleteI wonder when or if we'll ever see an atheist President? They put JFK through the wringer because he was catholic, now it seems any rwnj can get a pac and toss their name in the ring.
ReplyDeletede Grasse Tyson isn't "defending" Scientology. He's drawing a distinction between belief systems which, in our law, everyone is free to indulge, and government based on objective truths. It doesn't matter what the tenets of anyone's personal belief system is, as long as all citizens are granted equal rights.
ReplyDeleteBut he's clueless as to what he's talking about. Many religions have strange impossible-to-prove beliefs, but it isn't Scientology's bizarre beliefs that they should be judged on. It's the incredible psychological and even physical damage that they inflict on their rank & file (read: not rich) members that makes them so dangerous.
DeleteI don't care what is a religion and what is a cult and what is just some lunatic speaking in a rented out strip mall. They should all pay taxes.
ReplyDelete10:00 - Agree 100%
DeleteAt least Scientology didn't not carry out the Crusades or persecuted Jews in the previous centuries.
ReplyDeleteYou are aware of that double negative, aren't you? And I think the "at least he's not Hitler" defense has been pretty much been dismissed as the moral tripe that it is.
DeleteFuck off 7:31.
DeleteI'm not sure religion should be rational. I think it appeals to the part of our minds- or souls, if you prefer- that is irrational, that recognizes our existence as part of a universe that we don't understand. It's a bridge between the physical universe and our nonphysical spirits. It can be helpful and supportive, or it can overwhelm us and become destructive... but I agree that we can all believe as we like so long as it does not negatively impact others.
ReplyDeleteI once read of a bigot (and no, I did not keep the link, I don't keep links much) who said, "So you're walking down the street and there's a group of white men coming out of a church... and a group of young black men at the corner. Which makes you nervous?" I felt that the young black men aren't going to give a rat's ass about me, but those white men coming out of a church make me nervous because they want to control society including me. Believe in a religion if you want, but if you gang up and try to force others to behave in a way that you approve of, it's not religion, it's a hunger for power.