dog$

So there's a new movie out starring that queer that had a jumping orgasm on Oprah's couch that one time. Reviews for it come as every other movie to all the usual spots, among which is the Onion's AV Club.

They have a comment section for all articles posted and sure enough some threads of discussion come up about his involvement in Hubbard's Cult. With the wonder of the Internet I really shouldn't be surprised - but, nevertheless, I am - that there are some people who defend the Cult without actually being members thereof on the grounds of referring it to as "a religion, which is just as nutty as any other religion".

Yes, religions are basically built on total bullshit. Yes, most religions have a very long history of human abuse and other disgraceful actions. After looking into what the Cult did to Lisa McPherson did, though, my perception of it changed from "goofy group that calls itself a religion and suckers stupid people into joining" to "evil cult that deserves to have every member wiped off of the face of the Earth". To me, there is a drastic difference between fictional text which has been passed through millennia and fictional text which some guy just came up with 50 years ago, particularly since only the former seems to have any kind of moral message (which, last I checked, was the kind of thing which a religion is supposed to be concerned with). I also think there is no comparison to what the Cult did to Lisa against how most any other religion would currently treat someone who donated thousands of dollars to them in their lifetime. I simply do not see how the Cult's actions are in any way defensible. I don't see how what the Cult does can be rationalized simply by considering it "no different than any other religion" and not giving it further thought. I just find it reprehensible that this Cult is able to amass such wealth for doing nothing humane and have people who are willing to defend them for doing so.