Religious Exceptionalism

This past week, something of a furor was kicked up over The Atlantic's placement of a paid advertorial - a paid advertisement in the form of an editorial - on the front page of its online edition.  The advertorial in question sang the praises of the Church of Scientology's "Ecclesiastical Leader," David Miscavige, crediting him for the record expansion of the religion's foothold in modern society.

Now, advertorials are nothing new; they've been around for quite a while, now, and almost every time someone realizes they've been reading a paid advertisement presented as an authentic piece of news or opinion, they get pissed.

Why?  Primarily because the basic premise of the advertorial is deception.  Knowing that readers enjoy opinion pieces or stories that speak of fantastical claims, they create an advertisement that specifically plays upon readers' desire to learn more about the headline.  To some degree, then, isn't all advertising duplicitous and subversive?

Well, yes and no.  Advertising is really about making your product as appealing as possible to as many people as possible while spending as little money as possible.

But, the anger directed towards this advertorial had less to do with the content of the ad, and more to do with the timing and intent behind its placement.  The ad was specifically timed to coincide with the release of an exposé by Pulitzer Prize winner, Lawrence Wright, Going Clear - Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Church of Scientology, I apologize that I simply don't have enough time, effort, space, or patience to explain the tenets of their belief system to you - South Park did a rather fine job of attempting to explain their beliefs several years ago, which led to Isaac Hayes, the singer and actor who voiced the character Chef leaving the show in a huff about their portrayal of his religion (though not a peep was heard when they lampooned other religions).

Regardless of their beliefs, Scientology is known for one thing: vigorously defending themselves when faced with any sort of opposition or whistleblowing.

Anyone who leaves Scientology is branded an "apostate" - someone who abandons their religion or political cause - which is interesting, given the title's long history with the Roman Catholic Church.  Those who have been branded apostates are, according to Scientology, not capable of telling the truth about the religion.  They are liars, manipulators of the truth, and are simply attempting to besmirch the reputation of this fine religion.

In the case of Lawrence Wright, they insisted that a handful of minute factual mistakes are indicative of a large conspiracy of lies designed to take down the church.

<hr>

But honestly, how does this make Scientology different from any other religion?  The answer is simple - most Americans believe Scientology to be a cult.

From my view, however, there is little daylight between a "religion" and a "cult."  For the most part, they function in very much the same ways:

Both claim to provide answers to people looking for them;

Both claim to be the one great truth;

Both expect their adherents to believe their ideology;

Both set forth lists of rules and guidelines dictating the behavior of their followers;

Both require some suspension of disbelief in regards to their belief systems ("faith").

When you break it down into what defines both structures, there really is very little difference between the two, save for a cultural acceptance of one over the other.

Take, for example, the unspoken criticism of the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.  On the front page and in the media, both Romney and party officials went to painstaking lengths to avoid any mention of the fact that he was a Mormon.  Any time the issue of religion was brought up, they were very quick to dismiss any talk of the subject, making certain to redirect the questioner down a path that was more acceptable to the voter base of the Republican party.

Why?  Because many Evangelical Christians consider Mormonism to be a cult.

<hr>

What does hold true in America is that, when asked if they felt religious freedoms are being taken away, and that the free exercise thereof is at risk, many Evangelicals respond with a resounding, "YES!"

...Until that question applies to religions other than Christianity.

In the past four years, we have seen a significant rise in proposed legislation to outlaw "Sharia Law" from being implemented in the States, despite no evidence that such encroachment is even threatening to occur.  The irony of this is that the same people who find Sharia Law to be the greatest threat to America's Freedom of Religion are the very same people who find it perfectly acceptable to author bills enshrining Biblical law into their state constitutions.

One may ask if this smacks of hypocrisy; do the people who so greatly fear the religious tenets of Islam being pushed upon them not recognize that they are foisting their beliefs onto everyone else?

No, they do not.

<hr>

Most religious (just shy of all, really) practice what I like to call "Religious Exceptionalism."  Much like American Exceptionalism, most religious believe that it is they are different from every other religion in that they have a specific holy world mission to spread the faith to everyone who is not a follower of their doctrines.  They all believe that their beliefs are correct, that no others stand up to scrutiny, and that historical documentation and research have proven beyond reproach that their religion is the only real truth.

But why do we, as Americans whose nation was founded upon religious liberty, have the need to fund their crusade by allowing them exemption from paying taxes on income and property?  What makes them so special that they should be bankrolled on the backs of the American tax payers?

Well......nothing.

Many believe that churches have always been exempt from Federal taxes in America, when in fact, that has only been the case since the passage of the Wilson Tariff Act of 1894, nearly 120 years after the establishment of our nation.  In 1954, after enjoying 60 years of tax exemption, religions were specifically prohibited from backing a specific candidate in an election from the pulpit.

However, since 2009, the IRS has halted all auditing of religious organizations to suspend or revoke their tax exempt status.

As someone who is an Atheist, gay, and who falls well below the poverty line, I frequently wonder why I am expected to allow my tax dollars to support religious organizations who advocate for positions, propositions, and candidates who have nothing but the worst of intentions in mind for my sort of people.

As someone who advocates for sexual and reproductive health causes, why is my money being spent to support religious organizations who actively attempt to force scientifically incorrect (and often entirely false) information about reproductive health and contraceptives into our schools and public health systems?

As someone who believes in science, why should my money be spend supporting religious organizations who believe that an invisible, unprovable God magically created the universe, and that all people should believe that he did so, and that scientific evidence to the contrary should be dismissed out of hand because, well, it's their faith, and faith trumps science and reality?

It is high time we reexamine our priorities, in this country, and begin to ask ourselves, "What do these organizations really do that makes them worthy of bankrolling their operations," and demand of our government that the moratorium on IRS audits be lifted, and allow the government to rightfully demand that these scofflaws pony up the tax dollars they've been improperly hoarding while specifically breaking the law to do so.

And if they don't like it, they can find somewhere else to live.