Crazy invented religious beliefs
Inside Scientology: The Story of America’s Most Secretive Religion, by Janet Reitman.
 |
A fascinating subject. The weirdness of Scientology’s believe system is summarized quite briefly, but that’s not the main thing; I have learned more interesting facts reading the book. The atmosphere of control described, the newspeak they use (“religious technology”, “ethics”), and the personalities of the two leaders this cult has known: Hubbard the founder, and current leader David Miscavige, who succeeded astonishingly to gain control of the organisation being barely a 20-year old man.
Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith: Jon Krakauer
 |
Krakauer's story follows the trail of the perpetrators (the Lafferty brothers) of a horrible crime (mother and child killed by fundamentalist mormon relatives), and from that point, it goes back and forth in history, tracing the history of Mormonism, its "prophet" tradition and the very particular history of polygamy within the cult. Astonishing the similarities between Islam and Mormonism.
Both religions/cults are very much clearly fabrications of a couple of manipulative leaders. Most of the faithful in other religions would agree with that. But, then, the obvious question is: well, they're made up religions but... opposed to WHAT?
Recently, a crime has stunned the main Basque city, Bilbao. A buddhist monk killed (at least) two women. Someone who called himself a Shaolin monk, taught kung-fu and said he had founded a monastery. He has been immediatly branded as a "false" monk, because allegedly he hasn't any certification from China. But, he is false, as opposed to what? He is as false as the Lafferty brothers are false prophets: moreover, I would say that the nature of the Shaolin monk's murders, if anything, point to the a true believer's zeal and illumination.
Ezjakin hutsa naiz ni ere eta zu bezainbeste galdera baditut gutxienez gai horretan, baina interesa badut hartan, pixkat ere irakurri dut haren inguruan, eta zure post honetako galderari eratzuten diolakoan, gauza bat bakarrik esan nah dizut:
Ez da gauza bera, inondik ere, zuk aipatzen duzun sasierlijioa eta ehunka edo milaka urtetan gizaki asko eta askoren ekarpenekin sortutako eta doitutako erlijio bat (Hinduismoaren oinarria diren Vedak, adibidez, batzuen ustez bi mila urtetan zehar eta, beste batzuen ustez, askoz gehiagotan idatzi zituzten hezur-haragizko pertsonek), gero beste ehunka eta milaka urtetan miloika eta miloika pertsonek onartu, doitu, zabaldu zuena eta duena (Vedekin “hasitako” Hinduismoa Ka 2.000 urtetik hona, batzuen ustez, eta beste batzuen ustez, Ka ehunka urte gutxi batzuk lehenagotik dago indarrean bizi-bizi).
“Orduan, jende kopuruak ematen dio “sinesmen” bati erlijio edo sekta estatusa?”, galdetuko didazu. Ez dakit zer definizio ematen dituzten hiztegiek, baina historia eta jende kopurua aipatu dizkizut, gutxienez gaiak errespetu bat merezi duela ikusarazteko, zeharo harrigarria egiten baitzait gizakiok sortu ditugun beste hizkuntzekiko errespetua eskatzen dugunok nola jokatzen dugun maiz arinegi beste kultur-aberastasun eta giza-komunitate historikoekin.
Dena dela, gehiegi luzatu naiz eta ez dut segiko, baina ikusi nahi duenarentzat (ez sinistu, baizik eta ikusi), alde benetan ikusgarriak daude erlijio eta sasierlijioen artean, kasu jakin batzuetan mugak lausoak izango diren arren. Eta iruditzen zait lanbroa zabaldu edo dena kea dela esatera jolastu nahi duenak zuk atera duzuna baino brotxa nabarmen finagoa atera behar duela.