In case you’re still lost as to what the heck is going on, a Scientology Run is when people film themselves charging into a Church of Scientology building to see how far they can get before being caught and booted out. It’s a notoriously secretive religion, so it turns the whole place into an action-movie set piece where the protagonist is trying to infiltrate a compound while fending off its legion of foot soldiers, clad in terrifying white button-ups with black vests.

  • Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    5 days ago

    I dunno. These are cracking me up for some reason and even though this article is a bit shallow, I think a decent point was made at the end: power charging religious buildings is kinda bad taste I think - even if Scientology is full of complete asshole weirdos.

      • theherk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        5 days ago

        Sounds like something a religious person would say to feel like their religion is more sensible.

          • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            Give it a few more generations, and it’ll look like Mormonism (originally an obviously scammy personality cult with a problematic founder, but now a respectable pillar of conservative society). Another century or two and it’ll be like Lutheranism or Episcopalianism: so much part of the background that people don’t even notice the weird stuff in its doctrines.

        • DearOldGrandma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          5 days ago

          It’s pretty well documented that L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology to serve as a financial tool. Hence the financial controversies and the IRS battles from the 70s-90s

          • theherk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 days ago

            I agree, but that doesn’t prevent a social club from being a religion, does it?

            • FishFace@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 days ago

              There’s a clear difference between an organisation intentionally created as a cult in living memory and one which, as far as we all know, arose organically from the sincere beliefs of people.

              It doesn’t make the beliefs of one more true or something, it’s just a useful categorisation.

              • architect@thelemmy.club
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 days ago

                You just said the difference is time and the fact no one can remember the religions founding. Which is no clear difference at all.

                • it_wasnt_arson@awful.systems
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  Time tends to sand off the rough edges of any organization that wants to keep pulling in new members and that doesn’t need a framework of total control to protect itself from fizzling out early. It’s an evolutionary process, not just historical whitewashing. Though it’s also historical whitewashing.

                • FishFace@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  Well that’s not quite what I said. But either way, I think it’s pretty clear. What are some examples you think lie in the grey area?

        • architect@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          It’s whether the person you’re talking to just happens to be a part of that religion or not, typically.

          They are all cults to me. Some just have better pr.

    • iegod@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      On the other hand, all religions are complete weirdos and not a single one of them deserves special status or protections.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Control. Generally speaking a religion and a cult are differentiated by how much they demand or control in members lives. Scientology, Mormons, and even a lot of Southern Baptists are generally cults or really cult like. For comparison Anglicans, Quakers, and progressive Neo-Pagans are on average not cults even if they are insane and playing with the dynamics at times.

          • NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 days ago

            The hallmarks of cults is: separation from friends or family, a person or ruling body that delivers the one and true version, punishment for rule breaking, and a difficulty separating. Also, it almost always devolves into sex slavery and/or arranged unions.

            Those things give you control of course, but they are the basic guidelines of cult like behaviour.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              Yeah there are probably dozens of definitions of cult with tonnes of overlap but without complete agreement. Just a notable example is there are some cults which pop up wherein they don’t necessarily have a ruling body since it’s basically a cavalcade of idiots feeding into each other.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 days ago

              Depended on region and what period of the medieval era, for example Iceland around 1000 absolutely not, but in France during the crusades absolutely was. Remember the medieval era lasted about a thousand years and was spread across Europe so there’s lots of nuance.

    • architect@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      No. No it’s not at all.

      Religion is in bad taste. And before you come at me, go witness a few religious atrocities first. Like Gaza.