Tuesday, June 1, 2010

blog entry #2

Hey all,
I hope everyone had a great weekend :)

Last week during class we did a group exercise that involved each group being given a discussion question. My group's question dealt with whether or not Arty's manufactured following quantifies a cult or a religion. I found this to be an interesting question warranting further analysis. Our group reached the conclusion that is was in fact a cult and not a religion. That being said, however, I am not completely convinced. The reason for my dissention stems from the Hollywood fad religion, Scientology. Scientology was created by L. Ron Hubbard, a science-fiction , in New Jersey in 1953. There are many apparent parallels between Arty's, what we decided was a cult following, and Hubbard's Scientology. For instance, prior to the birth of the 'religion,' Hubbard went on record stating that he was going to create a completely false religion and that everyone would pay him lots of money to be a part of it. Within Scientology there are also levels of membership which signify exclusivity even among its members. This is similar to that of Arty's as he alluded on many occasions that he was effectively doing this to bilk his followers out of their money. Arty also discusses the idea of exclusivity among his following as well.

With this in mind, one can't help but wonder why we classify Scientology as a legitimate religion but relegate Arty's following to cult status. This begs the question of whether the difference between a cult and a religion is simply social acceptance.

1 comment: