Slashdot Mirror
Scientology vs. Panoussis Ruling
leto writes "The Swedish High Court upheld the ruling today in the case of Scientology
vs Panoussis, where Scientology accuses Panoussis of copyright
infringement of religious trade secrets. Panoussis believes the public should be warned against Scientology, and is therefore trying to legally publish various materials that would warn people against Scientology. He is the guy that submitted the secret OT's to the Swedish parliament, which caused quite a
diplomatic incident when the US interfered with the Swedish legal system because the Swedish Offentlighetsprincip then caused these documents to be available to everyone, but has also done other things as reported by slashdot such as protecting the
Flashback site as reported by slashdot before.
Having lost now means that apart from needing to pay the (minimal) damages of $2000 for copyright infringement, he needs to pay an additional $40,000 on legal costs for the Scientology lawyers, on top of the $150,000 of legal costs that were the results of the previous episodes in this court case.
There was a minority opinion from one of the judges. She regards the OTs to have been legally published, something Panoussis focussed on in this case, because in Europe, the right to 'fair use' depends on the texts having been published. Panoussis has already appealed to the Supreme Court.
Regardless of which party is right, this case shows clearly that anonymity is a right you need, to fight the denial of services practices that large institutions apply towards individuals in the current legal systems. Though Panoussis will disagree with me on this. He has always told me that if you believe in something, you should be willing to make the sacrifice, or as he put it, you need to defend freedom, and not take it for granted, but I can't
help but feel that it should not be necessary for one person to sacrifice his life for other people's freedom.
If we only had micropayments properly working, I'm sure he would be able to pay the legal costs from contributions all over the net.
More information can be found either
here,
here,
here and in the newsgroup
alt.religion.scientology
Panoussis's latest project is an advanced search engine to help locate information about Scientology at search.freewinds.cx."
The following is fromf en tlighet.html
;-)
http://www.lysator.liu.se/(print)/nordic/div/of
(which also describes offentlighetsprincipen, the same principle that also made this letter public.)
Posting anonymously as I have moderated on this story. Also note that I have edited this somewhat (excluded part of the header) as Slashdots lameness filter did not allow it
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0527
October 28, 1996
The Honorable Birgitta Dahl
Speaker of the Riksdag
100 12 Stockholm
Stockholm, Sweden
Dear Speaker Dahl:
I write as one member of a national legislature to another and ask your immediate assistance in defending the interests of an important constituent of mine, the Religious Technology Center (RTC). Certain special, advanced scriptures of the Church of Scientology are being made publicly available by the Chambers Office of the Swedish Parliament in violation both of copyrights held by RTC and of the deeply held beliefs of Church members in America and throughout the world. I ask that you do all in you power to ensure that these copyrighted materials are immediately returned to their rightful owner, RTC.
The Swedish Parliament received these copyrighted materials from Mr. Zenon Panoussis. Mr. Panoussis is the defendant in a copyright infringement suit brought by RTC in Swedish court. The Stockholm District Court and the Svea Appeals Court have both ordered that the copyrighted materials be sealed; have ordered seized all manner of RTC's copyrighted material in Mr. Panoussis' possession; and have denied Mr: Panoussis' request for a copy of the material in question. It is obvious from these proceedings that Mr. Panoussis gave to the Swedish Parliament RTC mterial that the Svea Court had ordered seized; that Mr. Panoussis had no legal right to possess RTC materials, much less give them to the Swedish Parliament; and that the Svea Court intended, by its sealing order, to keep this material confidential.
These RTC materials have also been the subject of several copyright infringement cases in the United States. The U.S. courts in these cases found RTC to have a copyright in these materials and have allowed RTC to maintain the confidentiality of the materials.
In spite of these facts, the Chambers Office of the Swedish Parliament continues to make the RTC materials available to the public. This action by the Swedish Parliament infringes the copyrights held by RTC under U.S. and Swedish law and under the Berne Convention, to which Sweden is a signatory. Furthermore, this action violates the deeply-held belief of members of the Church of Scientology that these materials should be revealed only to individuals who have achieved a certain level of spiritual preparedness.
I hope that you understand my grave concerns regarding the actions of the Swedish Parliament. If our positions were reversed, and the U.S. Congress were infringing the copyrights and violating the religious sensibilities of a Swedish citizen, I am confident you would demand that I take corrective action. And I can assure you that if the evidence of copyright infringement was as clear as it is in this case, I would use all my authority to have the U.S Congress stop such infringing actions.
I hope that you recognize both the illegality and injustice of the Swedish Parliament's refusal to return the RTC material to its legal owner, and I trust you will take all action necessary to correct this problem.
Respectfully yours,
[signature]
Carlos J. Moorhead
Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property
United States House of Representatives
cc: Justice Minister
Laila Freivalds
Fax: 011468202734
Justice Chancellor
Johan Hirschfeldt
Fax 0114687230357
A ruling like this has a chilling effect on free speech.
n tlighet.html
We need this concept in the U.S., but without this latest court ruling.
http://www.lysator.liu.se/(print)/nordic/div/offe
brainwashing in scientology's rehabilitation project force
> PS. Anyone know why all those Hollywood "stars" are suckered in?
yep
move ZIG, move ZIG, move ZIG.
you know what you're doing; take off every ZIG!
Basicly, Scientology is founded on secrets, secrets that seem ludicrous when examined by a person who hasn't been through the full course of "auditing" (which many people would describe as "programming" or "brainwashing"). Keeping those secrets from being examined in such a manner is just about the highest priority the CoS has, and the Internet is a place where *everything* is subject to scrutiny.
The CoS has used just about every legal and extra-legal means possible to try to prevent those secrets from being widely known, and at this point it's basicly a draw. If you really *want* to find out their secrets, you can do some digging and you'll find them. But you're unlikely to run across them casually, and people who will go digging are unlikely to have been potential converts anyway. A holding action currently in favor of the CoS, but with the potential for change.
They're big on secrecy because they charge big money to people for the privilege of being "taught" crap about being possessed by alien ghosts. Go read some of the published accounts of their beliefs and you'll find yourself thinking that Battlefield Earth was well-written by comparison. It reads like poorly written science fiction by a second rate author.
What better point to recount a story from Harlan Ellison. How it came up, isn't too clear. We were eating guava paste and cream cheese after dinner, obviously talking between bites about various topics. If L. Ron Hubbard came up, it's generally because the conversation has drifted to mediocre sci-fi writers or kooks who think science fiction is good basis for a modern religion. Harlan had known Hubbard personally, and had plenty of stories to tell. Back before dianetics, and Hubbard's various financial successes, he hung out with various authors. Often he'd whine to Harlan about how difficult it was to make a good living writing. Harlan understood this; he was also on the verge of poverty and success. Harlan suggested that if Hubbard wanted to make money, he should start his own religion. Well, that's the start of scientology, dianetics and more than 3 decades of constant litigation. Harlan and his wife (Susan) was at a dinner party at Roddie McDowell's house. He liked telling the previous story. Scientolgy came up. Harlan recounted the story. Another guest (some actress) stood up and screamed that it wasn't true, that Harlan was a monster. She would have taken silverware after Harlan if she had thought she could get away with it. Religion is any belief that enables the believer to accept with complete faith all the lies they tell themselves.
Ok really slowly ... the case is not about t r a d e s e c r e t s, it's about c o p y r i g h t. OK, and anyone, religious, agnositic or atheist, who creates an original literary (ie written) work has copyright over it.
Slow enough?
The official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses. The main featured article goes into what JW's really believe. :)
There was far more preservation of the classical world under Islamic rule than any other contemporary civilization. It is enjoined in the Q'ran: "Seek knowledge, even unto China (the ends of the earth.)"
Remember this when you use terms like "algorithm", "algebra", "azimuth" and "apogee".
Jeremiah
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
This comment contained copyrighted text and was removed at the request of the copyright owner under the terms of the DMCA.
Holy cow, that all sounds so familiar!
I used to work for Nielsen (just north of clearwater), and one of the guys I worked with used to work there (it sounds like the same place to me). He even got one of those packages where the company will pay $10,000 toward training if you agree to stay for a year. Him and his wife aren't very religious, but he said that he could feel the evil there, and would listen to christian radio on the way to work and on the way back, and they were praying all the time for his safety. He even went to his bank to get a loan to pay off the contract. But then the SEC thing happened, and they let him go, so he didn't have to pay the money back (that was like just a little bit before her started at Nielsen, like May 98). He believed they let him go because he was the only non-scientologist working there...
lsd
Hey! This sounds like The Phatom Menace!
mitaclorians == body thetans!
Now it allmakes sense!
http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/alex.htm
Christians Retaliate
It may well be imagined how Alexandria continued to be shaken by social strife during such a period. After a mere twenty years since the abdication of Diocletian, Canstantine became Emperor and declared Christianity Rome's official religion. By 391, the Emperor Theodosius had reversed Diocletian's edict and commanded all paganism to be stamped out, signalling the end of the Museum.[56] For, throughout the fourth century the power of the church grew; an army of Gnostic monks became the main tool of the Patriarch of Alexandria and enforced his will. After the edict of Theodosius, the mob was led by the Patriarch Theophilus to demolish the Serapeum.[57] Perhaps the library at the Caesarium survived; while references to Alexandrian scholars persist a little while longer, no sources actually mention its destruction. In 412 Theophilus' nephew Cyril succeeded him. The Patriarch exercised ever more control of the city, and the conflict between secular and religious authority was decided in 415, when the Roman prefect Orestes, officially still in charge of the province, objected to Cyril's order that all Jews be expelled from the city. Cyril's army of monks murdered the prefect and were cannonized by him for this deed; marauding through the city they came across Hypatia, daughter of the Museum's last great mathematician Theon. She was a Neoplatonist philosopher and astronomer whose teachings are partially recorded by one of her admirers and pupils, the Christian Synesius, and she was also supposedly an advisor to Orestes and one of the last members of the Museum. Driving home from her own lectures without attendant, this independent woman and scholar epitomized the suspect nature of Paganism and its heretical scientific teachings. She was dragged from her chariot by the mob, stripped, flayed, and finally burned alive in the library of the Caesareum as a witch. Cyril was made a saint.[58] After her death Alexandria became steadily less stable, overrun by the monks who evolved into the Copts, who incorporated the old Alexandrian prejudices towards foreigners with the new prejudice towards any scientific or classical knowledge. Too turbulent even to bow to the Emperor, Alexandria eventually revolted against Constantinople, wound up with two factions contending between two Patriarchs, and eventually fell to Arab conquerers, who had the last of the Library burned as fuel in the bath-houses of the city in 686.[59]
And no, I'm not going to bother to use HTML formatting.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
OK, fess up, who thought that was flamebait?
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
. I have no doubt that the victims of the Spanish Inquisition, for example, would have greatly preferred to be sued.
They were sued. They lost.
the Vatican, notably, have lots of secret doctrine
Secret Catholic doctrine? Can you tell more about this or is it,... ehem..., secret?
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
But mormon "religion" is also a cult. It is true that is was based on Christianity but is certainly is far from it.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
awesome link
Mwahahahaha. The guys who "professionally" picket $cientology oughta use that on their signs.
"I have no doubt that the victims of the Spanish Inquisition, for example, would have greatly preferred to be sued."
On the flip side, I wouldn't be surprised if the CoS wouldn't rather torture and kill its opponents rather than sue them.
For one thing, hit men are cheaper than lawyers.
c.
Log in or piss off.
P.S. I can't recall any non-believers being killed by Bhuddists or other non-deistic religions. Care to back that up?
Sadly, this is not entirely true. The Zen establishment in Japan did a lot of nasty things during the second World War, although it might not have been done in the name of Buddhism. I think it is documented in the book Zen at War.
Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond
You're right. It should be +1 funny.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Do you have any evidence Freemasonry is a religion? From what I hear, they make a special point to not even allow people to talk religion (or politics) in meetings.
Of course, that could all be a cover for the Illuminati satanically trying to take over the world or something. ;)
Anyway, relgious orders that have kept secrets are traditionally viewed with distrust, for very good reasons. First, half the time, they're some sort of plot to destry another religion/government/way of life, and second they often claim to have one believe system but actually have another once you go far enough in, and third they often secretly or openly attack enemies, like organized crime does, with quasilegal and outright illegal tactics.
Scientology apparenly has the second one, when you get into aliens invading the planet and other stuff further in, and they certainly have the third one, where they attack peole with lawsuits, spread rumors people are child molestors, lie to police, etc...
The great thing abut this site is I don't have to worry about that, as it is certainly possible someone from Scientology will call me some horrible names, but get quickly modded down as a troll. ;)
Of course, another bad thing about Scientology is that they're apparently in it for the money, which is not a traditional mode of operation for secret societies.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Doesn't matter, even if he did write it, most copies of the bible agree he died almost 2000 years ago...copyright law doesn't mention you getting your rights back if you come back from the dead. ;)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Why "MUST" we conclude one of those three things?
Why is it necessary that a supreme being behave in a manner that is explainable or understandable by humans?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
At least according to the ambassadors of such religions. The native peoples exploited by churches may have a differing opinion.
IMHO, the difference between a "religion" and religion is that in the latter case so long time has passed since its founding that there no longer are anyone left who know the truth about their Hubbard.
Yes, there is. Just point out to some militant Moslem organization their attempt to convert Moslems to Christianity, and watch the bombings. :-)
Can someone mod that up? This is the OT3 from the fishman affidavid. It's hilariously silly.
Read it. Think about it. Roll of your chair laughing.
Actually, Co$ can't so anything about this, because the fishman affidavid can be freely published, according to my lovely Dutch law system. Thank miss Karin Spaink for that ;)
--
Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org will!
Can't remember the URI, someone help me out here?
--
Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org will!
Nah, -1, Flamebait is good enough for you :)
--
Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org will!
OK Hubbard was a good sci-fi author but he'd clearly lost it when he decided to believe his own stories.
Battlefield earth was interesting... Unfortunately Hubbard was going nuts when he wrote it, so by about the 4th book it was seriously beginning to do my head in (lesbian bondage scenes with cheese graters?).
Obviously he continued on the path of senility and became a serious looney towards the end.
The great shame is people actually believe his lunatic ramblings...
Spoken like a true cult member. 'You don't understand, otherwise you would realise we are right'.
I suffered at the hands of a cult. It took me nearly 10 years to get over it. My wife suffered from a different cult. She still has nightmares.
I never understood the difference in the law. If I beat the crap out of someone, I will be prosecuted and probably do some jail time. If I do it by emotional manipulation and blackmail, it's perfectly legal. If I do it in the name of 'religion' I get legal protection to continue doing what I'm doing!
Ok, now all the world texts need to be GPL'd???
I find Scientology as much of a cult as the next guy, but when did being of one organization or another give force you to give up the right to copyright.
Ok, and whats with the rest of this post? It goes from "I should be able to post what ever the gawd damn fucking hell I want to" to "we should fight for anonynmity because of this". What? So a common burglar should be able to claim rights of anonynmity because the gov't shouldn't be able to pull of his mask when caught in stealing. Try that when someone is caught in disguise stealing you radio.
The minute a 'church' can have its assets taken, it also means that any other organization can have its assets taken for similar reasons. M$ is a big bad company, can I post Windows XP on my site and say that I'm just doing it to expose their hypocracy?
Ok, enough complaint. At least Michael wasn't moronic enough to post this under the YRO heading as most of these do...
clif
Harassing such people is not "asserting copyright".
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
"He doesn't love you. He just wants all your money."
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Some of the more interesting attacks on scientology detractors were against people who were only QUOTING BITS of the OT Manuals, trying to make a point. This practice is known as "fair use" and copyright does NOT prevent it. Harassing such people is not "asserting copyright".
Can someone explain to me how this is offtopic? Oh, wait, I know. A scientologist has gotten moderator priveledges and I'm being suppressed for expressing relevant details that are unflattering.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
If you're going to give lessons you should get the lessons RIGHT. It's "Promethean Fire".
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
We may not understand your beliefs, but we base our judgements on your actions. Get thee out then.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Y'all should note that I didn't say that none occurred--I said I didn't know of any. Thank everyone for educating me. I *am* dubious about how many wars between "rival" sects can be called killing non-believers, and somewhat less so about whether the other slaughters were "in the name of religion" rather than just coincidental, but I consider myself corrected.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Scientology's explanation is that all religions have elements that are generally kept secret until a person reaches a certain level in them, and that trade secrets are just a "secular" way for them to enforce this.
Because who would want to remain when they heard the story of...Xenu?
(* -- 'Clams' are a derogatory term for scientologists. Its origin comes from another part of the 'church' scripture, in which Hubbard theorized that human beings evolved from clams. Folks, I could not make this up.)
:)
But if you were a paranoid nut like Hubbard, it might have occurred to you.
Hmm, no, I still don't see what it has to do with computers, just Scientology and Copyright stuff. But if you point out the computer stuff I'll admit I'm wrong.
I'm with everyone else...
Who cares?
What the hell has this to do with anything that a geek should care about?
Or are we going to change this site to:
litigatedot
News for Lawyers. Stuff that we can sue.
P.S. I can't recall any non-believers being killed by Bhuddists or other non-deistic religions. Care to back that up?
Don't know much about the history of Central Asia, do you? The Tibetans were a pretty bloodthirsty lot of empire builders, Buddism or no.
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
Well, the Buddhists in Tibet and China most definitely persecuted the Manichean clergy, among others, forcing conversions, seizing assets, etc. This is in addition to the various brutal wars fought over less lofty ideals, like imperial expansion.
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
they frighten me.
One of the central tenets of communism and Bakunin anrachism is atheism. Sure the anarchists and the communists leaders could be considered aberations, never the less they killed people because of their religion. The same could be said of the Iniquisators(sp?) and crusaders. The general theme of communism and christianity is the betterment of man, but there are always greedy people who clothe themselves in a movement to gain power for themselves. A few bad apples do not spoil the whole bunch. There are good christians and atheists like there are bad christians and atheist.
Q.
Although the EU laws cover all of the EU, don't local laws override that?
Unfortunately it's the other way round. i.e. EU laws have precedence.
To quote the founder of the cult^H^H^H^Hchurch of scientology... If you want to make a million dollars, start a religion. -- Ron L. Hubbard
Well. Actually, the problem isn't so much with members of a religion committing an atrocity. It's when the *organization* *endorses* the atrocity. Members of any group can do bad things. It's when those members are working in concert that we get things like the Spanish Inquisition.
Which is why I would like to suggest that Athiests have *never* committed an atrocity of this kind, simply because Athiesm isn't an organized religion. There is no organization that could arrange such an atrocity.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Atheists, even.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
See, that's just funny. I *do* judge Judaism by the JDL, and I *do* judge Christianity by Jim Jones.
The post you replied to suggests, similarly, that all of these religions preach violence.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
This is me.
This is me looking humble.
Thanks for the correction! I should have paid more attention.
The lameness filter sucks big pointy rocks.
YHBT HAND...
"All those tubes and wires and careful notes!"
"All those tubes and wires and careful notes!"
It is a
C u l t.
end of line
Actually none of the links that this article links to are in Swedish.
Agreed, there's some *Dutch* articles in there, but there's always an English translation on the same page.
In God We Trust, Others We Monitor
Aww, no more Keanu movies? =(
This was a funny thread, thanks for the laugh :)
I don't think we "feverishly" believe there is no god. We don't have any evidence, and as such, we consider it folly. I'm sure you'd agree to that. But you're right: not all religions are evil cults.. Though I don't consider atheism a religion.
Lowmag.net
The central theme of communism, etc could have been christianity, and the results would have remained the same. A lot of those people who followed through with the atrocities were probably closeted religious. Even though a regime is officially atheist (actually atheist with a thin shroud of flavour of the day) it does not make what they do in any way in the "name of atheism".. atheism was only a part of the equation.
Lowmag.net
Here is a good one. Prepare to be shocked and amazed.
Oh wow, look at the generous religious man. They tax the people in the form of tithes, order huge temples and monastarys built, and among this, copy a few books. We should be *so* grateful to them for this...
The rich church officials lived better than kings and had incredible power of live and death, which they traditionally used in manipulative ways ("Do this, or I'll declare you to be possessed and kill you.")
They achieved this lifestyle by taking from the actual producers of wealth, the lower and middle classes. What did they produce on their own? Elaborate religions designed to keep people down, complex heirarchies, and secret rules whose violation was punishable by torture.
During that they copied books, mainly their books of fables, but also some few others that didn't conflict with their books.
Oh yes, we should be so thankful to these wise and benevolent men. If only they'd tortured and taxed even more to death, just think of the neat things we'd have today!
There's *NOTHING* good in the world which can be attributed to religion, which could/would not have happened without it. But there are many bad things which nobody would have been driven to do without power-mad popes and other religious figures forcing them to do.
Scientology is just more blatant about it, most other religions are lying low now and building up a little good will by spreading around a tiny fraction of the wealth they stole over the years. When it really comes down to it, see how helpful they are... show your membership card at the door or get thrown out on your ass.
Members of especially damaging religions should be tried for crimes. I'd especially love to grab a few mormon elders and try them for extortion (tithe or I'll tell your wife to leave you, our religion-influenced government will take your children away, and your mormon boss will fire you.) Ditto with JWs and scientologists.
Personally, if I see a Co$ member of the street I'll harass him because if he supports that religion, he's showing that he's supporting their illegal tactics which have resulted in the death of many people.
Religion exists JUST to coerce people into doing what the people in power tell them to. That's not a good thing. Maybe every now and again they happen to do good, but that's just a fluke event between centuries and raping and pillaging.
Any good that came out of them was because of the people, not because of the religion. The people would have been good people without the religion. The religion on the other hand existed just to exert a controlling force on people. What good ever came out of death threats and forced service?
So now, ask yourself why anyone not brainwashed by the whole religion thing is just a little bit down on the idea.
and guess who helped draft that lovely 100 year copyright law ?
that's right, Sonny Bono, a scientologist.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
There was ONE Battlefield Earth BOOK
and I thought it was pretty good
or are you thinking of Mission Earth?
wich was composed of 10 books?
wich I also liked
http://Lenny.com
You are thinking of MISSION EARTH
battlefield Earth was ONE book
http://Lenny.com
Yo, MOD this up even higher. This is the smartest post I've seen on /. in ages.
Would these be the same wise Islamic scholars who torched the library at Alexandria?
Maybe. Could also be the the ones who invented algebra, too.
I've heard that the JW's have backed off the strict "only 144,000 will make it" doctrine, which makes more sense. Especially since a strict reading of revelations reveals that . . . actually, I think I better let the bible speak for itself here. Quoting from Revelations 14, the KJV:
Well, I'm married, so I guess that leaves me out.
G0del
I could be wrong, but I believe there are some patents on the "E-meter" that the Scientologists use to measure thetans or some crap like that.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Actually, you can say all medicine is bogus, but you will be proven wrong. Medicine is mostly based on empirical evidence. I can claim all faith healing is bogus. Can you show me empirical evidence it isnt?
L Ron Hubbard was a nutcase, was embedded in the sci fi he wrote and I believe, like many in that realm, really disliked humanity as a whole.
:) Are you referring to science fiction authors, or just nutcases? Because I belong to one of those groups (arguably both), and I think humanity's just dandy. :)
Whoa, kemosabe.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Your response the post was not acceptable. You are stateing that religion is good because of the people who are associated with religion. It cannot be said that these people chose their paths because of their faith, unless their faith is their path. AKA pastor...
The poster was indicating that the system of religion itself was a bruital cold corperate entity used to suck its masses dry. The poster was half right about all religions. They all want something from the individual joining, but to classify all religions, one can only say that they all want "something".
Religion is much like nationalism, or any other formation of people. Its main objective is to hold a group of people together as a rational unit in order for survival. Just think of a wolf pack. They could all run free, but their chances for survival are diminished.
This was why religion was started; it was used to bind the sparely connected populations of the world into a connection with one another. Think of WW1. When it was christmas, everyone stopped shooting eachother, and sang christmas songs. It was a religious connection that both sides shared, even though they were bitter enemies outside of their religion.
Thus Spake ADRA
Bye!
The proxy bit still bothers me. Yes, a proxy is well established in Christian lore, as Jesus was a proxy for the rest of us. However, we are not the Son of God, and he was. We're ordinary people.
The final thing, which I forgot to mention earlier, that still bothers me, is the idea that the Prophet is on God's speed dial. And he always is, no matter who the current prophet may be. That seems more than a little quirky to me.
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
Dunno if he knew about them or not, but I most certainly feel that I have enough reasons to say it: Mormons who knw the full teachings of their church, and believe them to be accurate, are serious whackjobs.
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
However, you're right in general about the teachings of the Bible itself. I just wish I had more time to explore the theology, and research my own translation from the oldest texts I can find, so that I could gain some peace of mind about the teachings of the various Christian religions.
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
As I recall, on entry into the temple, you change into a nice white gown after bathing. Dangit, I can't remember the name of the specific ritual. Anyway, the idea is that on death, you will travel through space to a veil which separates you from heaven. On the other side of that veil will be St. Peter(?), who will ask you to show the signs of the Lesser and Greater Aaronic and Melchezidek priesthoods, which involve various hand gestures. These hand gestures are what I meant by the secret handshakes.
As for the proxy bit, I was referring to the fact that this particular ritual is used to allow deceased relatives to pass through the veil, by allowing the Mormon to stand in at the veil for the relative who was never shown the priesthoods, and therefore can never enter heaven without assistance.
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
Scientologists make me laugh.
I thought that was all governments...
And it's really just a crappy ohm/skin resistance meter.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Actually, the problem with Hubbard is not that his religion is drivel. It is that his religion is a very nasty cult. The fact that it is drivel is almost incidental in comparison.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
See what happened to Lisa McPherson. Sure, Christianity might have been this bad several hundred years ago. But then, that was *very* bad.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
det er ikke bare Sverige ... Operation Clambake in the Netherlands has suffered similar legal attack, and Scientology gets tax-free status in the US. Only Germany seems to take the problem seriously.
Dunno but they apparently pay large sums of money to go and study on a boat riddled with blue asbestos, so I guess they are genuinely brainwashedperl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Yeah but many also claimed the earth was the center of the universe, that it was flat and that the world is about 6000 years old... if they were created by God, they wouldn't be so full of stupid and wrong affirmations.
Hummm... since religion is the creation of man, and since man is weak... you can draw the conclusion yourself.
You are heir to thousands of year of Western culture (do the names Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Solomon, Moses, et al mean anything to you?)
Hmm, excuse me, doc!
Let's see: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle: greeks. Solomon, Moses: hebrews. Who is the Westerner here?
"et al" must be it.
few well known con artists
Again: Jesus was poor(*), Mahommed was poor(*), Buddha ran from his wealth into the poverty(*)
Show me a religios text that says: "get rich quick - make your followers give you money".
For a real troll you use the term quite frequently...
(*)poor as in no earthly possessions.
Keep in mind, that the entire purpose of scientology being portrayed as a religion, was so that Hubbard could throw the IRS a curve ball.
Scientology is trying very hard to keep everyone in the world from hearing all about the B-movie script that forms the basis of their mythology. Before Scientology tried to gag their critics on the net, most people would have had to pay about three hundred grand to hear all about Xenu and the Marcabs. Today, you can read all about it at xenu.net, and hundreds of other sites, for free.
Scientology is Napoleon, and the internet is the road to Moscow.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I just want everyone to remember that the book of mormon was first published as a novel... That in its self says sooo much to me
Also, the authors of the bible, koran, and most other religious texts have been dead for quite a while, which means they're public domain.
Although certain translations can still be copyrighted..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Hell.
--
This is not my sandwich.
Despite its near-total destruction, it still has small pockets of fanatical, violent adherents.
It meets every standard of cultism I have ever heard. But if my smartassed grandfather is right that a religion is just a cult with an army, it was very nearly the most successful religion to come out of the Western world.
--
This is not my sandwich.
But the other part is: the right, whomever it may be, to anonymously and without giving any reason, immediately and on the spot read public papers in courts and agencies of the municipalities and the state, and to get copies, and publish them, irrespective of the wishes of the original author.
3rd paragraph
So we can read DECSS code into swedish public record and make it "officially" legal (again), as well as PGP code, proprietary source code to broken authentication algorythms (MSKerberos anyone?)
Of course, this depends on your definition of "public", because if it's already public, then it's presumeably already in the public domain...but this is worth considering.
Imagine reciting the lyrics to "oops - I did it again" with the defense that it is a public document of record in Sweden.
Hubbard a good sci-fi author? Have you been drinking Drano(tm) again? Hubbard SUCKED! His religion sounds like bad science fiction because the only thing he could write was bad science fiction.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Well, there is the obivous reason why they are using legal means to hide there doctorine. They have somethign to hide. Maybe it's the shock therapy. They wouldn't want the stars that fund their cult to look bad you know. I bet they have a lot to hide. Hmm... all you need is a place that doesn't recognise US trademarks etc. and we can all se what they are hiding.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Which article?
Ahh, but there are tons of experiments to look for any miraculous happenings, or any magical "faith" based healing, whatever. One CAN prove God exists -- seeing large numbers of miraculous cancer heals when people prayed would be one such simple proof.
I hardly think that would prove that god existed. Are these people also going for cancer treatment? Maybe the body found a way to fight the cancer itself. Some people seem immune to heartattacks, why not cancer?
Also, lets not forget that alot of people DO pray, but their prayers go unanswered.
So i don't think that's any proof.
You could call them foolish or ignorant. Yet i don't think that you have disproved their beliefs. Are you so arrogant that you cannot accept the possibility that they may in fact be right? Its possible you know.
I wouldn't say that; i'm sure there are some out there. Unfortunatly it seems that when things get big, they attract corrupted people to them.
Do you know how Christianity became popular? When it was still a cult during the Black Plague, and everyone else was running away to save themselves while leaving the sick and dying, some of cult thought that wasn't right, and stayed to take care of them.
Also remember, just because of those practices, Martin Luther began the Reformation.
Finally, i'm sure you would agree our government is corrupt. Do you believe then that the Constitution is corrupt, and thus that is why we have a corrupt government? Or did some corrupt people twist and take advantage of some of the docterine.
Oh, well then. From our vantage point on the ground, the earth appears flat, so therefore, it must be true.
Right. You have to look at each case. The guy on TV with the fancy jacket and nice car probably is a charlatin. But the priest passing around collection plates in church to fix the leaky roof is probably not. He might not be right but he's probably not in it for the money.
I'm sure people saw this for hundreds of years, yet still believed the earth is 'flat.'
At any rate, maybe this would be a better example.
In the desert, you see a mirage. Does that mean there really is water or an oasis, just because it appears there is one?
Some might say that. I don't know why, since i can't think up an experiment to prove or disprove whether god exists. And any logical arguements seem to be at a stalemate.
Now if you're talking about creationism vs evolution (and other such things), i don't think that goes to disprove god either. In 6th grade before i transfered to public school, we asked our teacher about that very problem. She replied that as long as god setup things to evolve, there was not conflict with the religon. You have to keep in mind that the bible was written by men, possible men with a social/political agenda. Does that open it to skeptism? Yes. Does it completely invalidate it? I don't think so.
Actually i was being quite serious. And legitimate religon would proceed as i outlined. As far as the brainwashing goes; i can't believe that they can do that to everyone that expresses interest. It doesn't seem like you can just change someones moral outlook like that. But then, i've never attempted to join them either.
I wouldn't call it free. He's providing people with a service they want. I don't think you'd say a therapist is getting a free ride. For some people, thats what religon is for. It helps them deal with life, much like a therapist would.
What are the odds that The CoS will try to get /. to remove this post?
How refreshing to see that, despite the constant and unending abuse of the "Anonymous Coward" option when posting, some actually *do* use it for legitimate purposes.......
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
There's fairly good evidence that Hubbard didn't believe his own bullshit when he first created scientology. Harlan Ellison has an essay somewhere about how he was there when Hubbard came up with the idea to create a religion because it was an easy way to sucker people out of money. Whether he went nuts and started to by his own crap later on is a different question.
This so-called reglion has as much to offer to the higher ups in the organization as dark ages roman church, since they charge larger amounts as you gain "enlightenment" written by a hack sci fi writer, who made the dogma up on a $20 bet. It is a cult and their donations for teaching are insulting, but in hollywood it is the cool thing to become as they have lack of common sense to begin with. They should go back to drugs and spending sprees, instead of stupid reglious attempts that prove them to be truly hollywoodian. The silence birth is one of the outrageous teachings that Scientology promotes. That gave me a good laugh when I heard of it. I believe that Mr. John "Why can't I do good movies in a row" Travolia inflicted that on one of his children. His wife must not be very bright either. I really wonder what they have to hid of their teachings and use of lawyers that would make a leftist socialist twitch. Any group that runs a reglion as a corporation can't be trusted and should be treated as a cult.
Why not spend this summer relaxing in sunny Afghanistan??
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
Many Communists have been, are, and will be religious. And many athiest. In each category, many do good and many do evil. May I remind you that earlier this year the Vatican proclaimed a Communist as patron saint of politicians? Marx claimed that organised religion was used as a social tool to suppress unrest among the workers (which was true for the Church of England in the 19th Century), but if he ever made any statements about the existence of God they are much less famous. In any case, Marxists don't believe unquestioningly in everything Marx said, and many Communists are not Marxists.
The people that were murdered were murdered in the interest of furthering the cause of Communism, therefore, indirectly Atheism.
How did murdering Trotsky further the cause of Communism? He was assassinated purely for Uncle Joe's personal gratification. Stalin purged vast numbers of prominent Communists, and the killing fields didn't promote Communism much. You could add the Cultural Revolution to that list.
if you're Agnostic, you don't care
Being agnostic means you don't claim to know whether any deities exist. I've never heard an agnostic claim not to care about the subject.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
I think Japan is the only country where the total of believers in the various religions is greater than the population. A majority of Japanese people practices both Buddhism and Shinto, but there are significant numbers of athiests and Christians. If you want precise statistics, check the CIA factbook.
I always thought that the imperial ideology of Japan in the first half of the last century was based partly on Shinto but mainly on nationalism, imperialism, feudalism and capitalism, but I'm as ignorant as the next slashdotter.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
Ah, a sensible an informative reply. How often do we see those here? I expect you're right that Stalin's hatred for religion stemmed from his brutal religious upbringing.
I would like to add that Stalin was very anti-semitic and so his disproportionate slaughter of Jews may have been more on racial than religious grounds. This may be due to his rivalry with Trotsky (Lev Bronstein to you), who was of Jewish extraction although I don't know if he had any religious beliefs. Trotsky, meanwhile, hated Stalin for being 'Southern' i.e. from one of the Asian Republics.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
The word 'pogrom' is most often applied to persecution of Jews by the Tsars. However, Stalin also killed many Jews, and the term is also used for his purges.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
I wish someone had told me that before I read it!
"No you don't!"
Huh? Who said that?!
Euro socialists will never learn. By banning association w/ Scientology you create a world in which you only have to kowtow to the media and gov't to keep your scams open.
I have yet to hear of any physical laws that counter corruption.
Let me know when you find them. Oh and look out here comes yet another civil war. Maybe you ought to clean up one thing at a time.
Good luck.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
There are also a number of books about the modern practices and history of Hubbard and Scientology. Generally unflattering.
You're wrong on two counts.
Karin Spaink
I write, therefore I am:
I write, therefore I am:
http://www.spaink.net/
As a religion, the idea of 75 billion (or trillion) years is not so far off when you consider that the universe may be cyclical: Big bang -> Expansion, cooling -> Stability -> Entropy -> Final collapse -> Big bang -> etc. It is certainly no harder to swallow than what other religions claim.
Finally, one must separate the technology from the religion. Some of what they do is purely scientific, like the lower-level courses and Dianetics auditing. The religion part of it is in the upper levels. Also keep in mind that the Church of Scientology is not the whole of Scientology, any more than the Catholic Church is the whole of Catholicism.
It should be obvious that all those religions you listed WOULD sue for copyright infringement if they held the copyright to the bible,etc. Unfortunately, the copyright JUST ran out.
-HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
You obviously don't know much about Scientology. Science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, who wrote such jems as "Battlefield Earth", started it. Like, in the late 1970s.
Coincidentally, if I'm not mistaken, Scientologists would argue with my use of the word "fiction" in describing Battlefield Earth. If I'm not mistaken, they believe that all of L. Ron's works are historical documents - kind of like in Galaxy Quest. Scary, huh?
Education is the silver bullet.
Gnosticism was a "secret" religion because if anybody found out you were a Gnostic you'd be killed. Scientology is a secret religion because if everybody found out what the core of their beliefs was, they'd have a hard time converting people.
I mean, which sounds like a better pitch to you:
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Then, as history teaches us, the next step is usually to kill the non-believer.
:)
Yepp, that's history. (Albeit just 60 years ago in Germany). Let's try to not repeat it. Let's try to prevent religious groups from terrorizing non-believers. (And from terrorizing believers, for that matter.)
Also, if an organization wants to copyright their material or mark it as a trade secret, that's their business.
Business. Precisely. That's what they are treated like in Germany: a business.
(Emphasis in quotation mine.)
Believe what you want and shut up. I believe I'll have another beer.
I'm not going to argue with that believe
--- The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a burning truck.
Ok, I'll bite. What's the difference between a Religion and a "religion?"
Does that make Tron evil?
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Ummm... DC8s have jet engines, not propellers. Unless this is referring to some older model? (But the DC8 has been around since the late fifties, IIRC.)
Not that it makes one lick of difference, it's all poorly written sci-fi misconstrued as being meaningful.
Random Musings at Rum Smuggler
Have a look at xenu.net. Basically, a 'religion' started by a nutter SF author, L Ron Hubbard which involves giving away scads of money to be let into the secret that we're all covered in little dead aliens which... oh heck, just read it. They're well crazy and well dangerous. Extremely litigious and scourge of usenet (the scientologists were probably the first to systematically abuse newsgroups to supress dissent and criticism).
What is it about people? Why do they make up such stuff? Are we that far removed from the caves and jungles after all?
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
The Fishman Affidavit was always suspect. Take it with a grain of salt. Interesting reading tho. I'd rather hear about the McPherson Trust or the Mark Bunker case in Chicago; those stories have honest-to-Xenu day by day really real harrassment by the Sci organization which would make the most paranoid Slashdotter's toes curl.
It ain't a religion, it's a floor wax.. no, it's a dairy topping...
He was "ex-" at that point. Very ex. Let's be fair.
Which explains quite well why Joey wanted to get rid of the Jews, the Russian Orthodox Church, and the nascent Muslim population of the trans-Caucasian republics. Religion in particular represented a threat to his rule, as did intellectuals of all stripes, because it implied that there existed a power higher than Stalin (and by extension, the State) himself. Bear in mind, also, that Stalin was a rather unbending Marxist -- and believed strongly that religion could be the downfall of any Socialist or Communist state because it took people's minds and thoughts away from where they belonged (the State) and placed them in the realm of "fantasy" (i.e. God).
Stalin's aggression wasn't just aimed at religous folk, but they were certainly one of his primary targets. And the fact that *all* his victims weren't religious doesn't in any way alter the fact that he was an atheist, committing crimes writ large against, in large part, theists.
I hope this makes my point somewhat more clearly, though I should point out that I feel little to no need to "convince" you - I merely provide information. You may take it or leave it at your leisure, and to nobody's detriment but your own.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Chris Tembreull
"My karma just ran over your dogma."
Actually, that's not quite true - as I stated in another post, Stalin was psychotic, true, but he wasn't lacking his faculties. He had a particular mad on for religion (in part, I believe, due to an unhappy childhood in a fairly religiously observant family in a fairly religiously observant republic - the Georgian R.S.F.S.R.). Being a strict Marxist, he viewed religion and its practicioners as the paramount threat to any socialist or Communist state. Therefore, they had to go.
While not every single one of Stalin's victims (and again, here, history denies us a true accounting since we will never truly know just whose deaths were at Stalin's express or implied command) was religious, a disproportionately large number were - particularly in a country that had, at that point in time, no official religion and virtually no tolerance for even its former dominant religion, the Russian Orthodox Church.
You're right, though, when you say that Stalin killed anyone who might have threatened his power. What you're leaving out is his personal motivation - his distaste for religion was fostered in his childhood, amplified by the teachings of Marx, and elevated to infamously genocidal levels by his paranoid psychosis and absolute power in Russia.
It's correct to state that not *every* one of his victims was a Jew, nor even religious. But it's incorrect to say that his depredations were in any way ecumenical.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Chris Tembreull
"My karma just ran over your dogma."
I should point out that it is generally *assumed* to be this way. We know that the Georgian R.S.F.S.R. was a rather heavily religious region (though diverse - Orthodox Christians, Muslims, and some few Eastern Jews shared the region), and we know that Stalin's family was, by all accounts, fairly religiously observant. We draw the conclusion, therefore, that Stalin was reacting violently to an unhappy childhood. But I don't think we'll ever truly know for certain - like all "cult of personality" leaders, he engineered his own past, changed the facts to fit what he wished them to be.
This may be due to his rivalry with Trotsky (Lev Bronstein to you), who was of Jewish extraction although I don't know if he had any religious beliefs
Actually, it's generally presumed that Stalin's hatred for the Jews and other religions was fairly firmly in place by the time of Lenin's death in 1924 (it might have been 1927?). Stalin and Trotsky were the two most prominent contenders for Lenin's position. Trotsky, you're correct in stating, had a certain hatred for Stalin, though this was not totally socio-ethnic. It was also firmly rooted in Trotsky's personal standing as a realist - he knew that Stalin, with his hyper-extremist views, would be the worst possible leader for the fledgling Soviet Union. Trotsky knew that to promote Marx's view of "World Communism", Communists had to present an organized, successful, and even openly friendly front, and Stalin's psychoses made this an impossibility. Trotsky placed himself in the contention for the mantle of leadership of the Soviet Union more to make sure that Stalin didn't acquire it, I think, more than out of any real desire to possess it for himself.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Chris Tembreull
"My karma just ran over your dogma."
According to the Constitution of the United States, Dianetics, by one L. Ron Hubbard might just fit that bill.
OK, I know it doesn't come right out and *say* that, but I've heard a few things about the prices of those OT levels...
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Chris Tembreull
"My karma just ran over your dogma."
The numbers may never be known, but they killed some thirty million Chinese in Manchuria from 1932 to 1939. Note that this is in no way a reflection upon modern Japanese, nor upon the corporation for which I work.
It's almost interesting, though, that you *could* call the Japanese deists, because of their belief (in that time, I don't know if it prevails today) that their Emperor was a god. Regardless, Shinto is a non-deistic religion having much to do with the spirits of one's ancestors. This, however, did not insulate the Japanese from succumbing to the general madness in the world around the middle of the last century.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Chris Tembreull
"My karma just ran over your dogma."
I have things firmly in perspective. If I had said "scientoligists are forming a new inquisition and drinking the blodd of their foe's babies!" that would be out of perspective. Stating "they are a controlling abusive cult" is not. The question of the blood on their hands is still very much in debate, and you still seem to be laboring under the assumption that having worse examples out there makes a groups behavior ok. If this is perspective, I am glad to lack it.
Secondly, he was sued (not "beat up", "his house burned down", "abused", "threatened", "terrorized", or even "otherwise punished") which, no, I don't believe is "punishment". It's the way our "modern western culture" resolves differences of opinions. Relax, get off the Jolt! cola, and read the fscking comments next time before you spout off.
Hmmm.... my opinions are "spouting off on Jolt cola" (which I havn't drank since high school, does that crap still exist?) but you are an expert on moern western culture. How odd. have you talked to your shrink about this hypersensitivity where you assign extream emotions to anyone countering your opionon? It seems common on the net and usenet. maybe there's a paper in this.
Anyway, if you are unaware of the use of lawsuits as harrasement, and actually think that their use by the sci cult is meant to "resolve differences of opinion" rather than bankrupt their critics, if you simply ignore the many stories of threats, blackmail and psychological abuse, well, what can I say. Live in your world, it sounds real nice there.
"you're way out of line"? *snort* ooohhh, I'll just go home now...
Ah well, flame off and have a nice day. And don't count on emoticons to get you out of rediculous ideas.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
As one of JW I can say with certainty that this is FALSE. Members are not "discouraged from pursuing post secondary education". I myself Went to college along with many other JW's. They do encourage members to dedicate themselves more fully to the full-time preaching work. To be "difellowshiped" means you must have been baptized. This involves you asking to be baptized, were thourly questioned on Bible pricples, and warned for not fallowing them. Your girlfriend knew exactly what she was getting into. No one ever forced another to become a JW. We don't want people in our religion that have doubts or are unclean morally. That's why becomming a JW is allot of work. You don't just "sign up". Our scheduled meeting are usually 3 times a week. (Heb 10:24-25) Someone asked about what's the "144,000"? Rev 7:3-8 speaks of such ones, they are the heavly class that will rule with Jesus. Then Rev 7:9 speaks of a "great crowd" that "no one could count". These are the others that are of the earthly class. The earthly class will live in paradise on earth forever just life God's original plan was, untill Adam and Eve sined. I recommend you ask for a free Bible study from JW's before you start spreading lies. There is never an obligation, no collection, and no can force you todo anything.
Scientology is the only religion I know of that actually has a dirty tricks department or hired private investigators to dig up dirt on IRS agents investigating THEM. It's also the only religion I know of that requires members to pay to gain knowledge of the religion.
I presume you mean the Black Death in the 14th Century
It may suprise you that Christianity was introduced into Europe as the major religion well before this, not as a minor cult. For your information, here is a comment on the Church's benevolance during the plague:
"One of the groups that suffered the most was the Christian church. It lost prestige, spiritual authority, and leadership over the people. How? The church promised cures, treatment, and an explanation for the plague. They said it was God's will, but the reason for this awful punishment was unknown. People wanted answers, but the priests and bishops didn't have any. The clergy abandoned their Christian duties and fled. People prayed to God and begged for forgiveness. After the plague, ended angry and frustrated villagers started to revolt against the church. The survivors were also enraged at doctors, who didn't cure patients, but said they could."
Please explain how this ties in with your statement. I'd say it contradicts it personally.
Finally, I'm not from the USA so I wouldn't comment on your government. Also, I don't think your constitution is the wonderful be-all and end-all document you do. Read Magna Carta for a much earlier, potentially more significant document.
I would say religion is the interpretation of the FAQ. Therfore the interpretation can be wrong, and it is those that are imposing that interpretation who are at fault.
I think what you are saying (in my terms) is that it is not BELIEF that is at fault. Agreed. Religion is the interpretation and implementation, and (IMHO) rarely implements what it says it does
I take it you're not a fan of organised religion then?
Uh? This was the official line of the official branch of what claimed to be the official religion of the one true god. How is that the weakness of man rather than the religion itself? You (or A N Other AC) claimed that real religions such as Christianity didn't behave like that. I showed you an example of when they did.
I think that depends no the religion and on the priest(*) you are in contact with. We have people living next door to us who belong to an off-shoot of Christianity. Their particular church does try and control sections of their lives. Not total control, but it does try to impose a particular life style, and discourage independent thoughts (concerned with the beliefs of the religion). Personally I would have thought a true religion should encourage asking questions. (*) for want of a better phrase. My caffeine is low and my internal thesaurus is failing. Also note, I am not particularly against religion. I'm not keen on big organised religion, because it seems more concerned with rubbishing other peoples beliefs than with doing anything positive.
It doesn't claim to be one, but it acts like one. Pull the cover off your Volume of Sacred Law, to reveal... the Christian Bible!
Gee, ever checked out a Hindu lodge? Betcha they don't use a King James...
Unmask your Great Architect to reveal... the Christian God!
No. The Great Architect is the creator of the universe. Whether you call the GAOTU God, YHWH, Allah, etc., is irrelevant. As we are not a religion, we do not dictate who you must follow. While outside the Lodge, a Muslim may pray to Allah, and a Catholic to "I am who am", each can pray to the GAOTU together, and not worry about praying to the "wrong" god.
Next thing, you'll be advocating misogyny like St Paul.
I pray that sometime in my lifetime, men and women will be able to sit together in "regular" lodges as equals. It's a damned stupid rule, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm honor-bound to follow it.
For a more coherent description, check out http://www.freemason-ri.org/articles/secrets.htm.
FoxPro Home Page
Hey! There's no plans for VisualFoxPro.NET.
Good.
This is the end, my friend.
*snort* Dream on, pal.
FoxPro Home Page
The Freemasons went after judges, politicians, and so forth.
Hey, don't even think of trying to compare Freemasonry (or at least US Freemasonry) to the Co$ -- we don't run around trying to ruin people's lives. We just try to make ourselves and our communities better.
FoxPro Home Page
Also, Freemasonry does not claim to be a religion.
FoxPro Home Page
Incidentally, there is an interesting document at the gross-out site Rotten.com about Lisa McPherson who died due to Scientologist mistreatment.
Also Slashdot ran an article a while back about how the CoS sued to remove e-meters (which are little boxes with antennae purported to sense bad "engrams" in you while being asked questions)from EBay.
Do you have a reference to this dare from Robert Heinlen? It's the first I've ever heard of it...
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Seemingy intelligent people???
Hey! Don't desecrate my oil rig! I'll sue you!..
Cheers... .*rc is
--
$HOME is where the
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
That people concentrate on its religious aspect is highly misleading. The organization is the problem. The Freezone is Scientology minus the organisation - the mafia as a belief about strong families, not the crime, if you want an analogy. They're still misguided, IMHO, but that's not a crime.
If you live in London you might like to voice your concerns at the Scientology shop on Tottenham Court Road (number 68) tomorrow (Saturday) afternoon. I'll be there, having a word with them ;-)
Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
me a number based on the order in which I joined
Indeed. But then people taking the test with nervous sweaty hands are obviously the true belivers and should be elevated to the higher planes (at their own expense, of course).
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
"atom bombs (not thermonuclear weapons, mind you - we're talking Fat Man and Little Boy here"
I suggest we get the UN involved here. These non security council member organisations are suspected of owning weapons of mass destruction. A Thetan spokesalien said in their defense "Its all lies; the most we have are a few low megatonnage atom bombs, nothing bigger than a medium-sized town could get wiped out with one of them"
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
I believe he is referring to the fact that the files are held in the . c x TLD, infamous for containing a site about animal abuse.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
This is way different from christianity. Bible is/was not meant to be interpreted literally. Most of the stories are nothing more than moral lessons, that you get only after interpreting them. Aliens catching souls is quite a bit different...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
(I'm sure some atheiests have committed an atrocity in the name of atheism at some point in history.)
Care to share?
"These are not the body thetans you're looking for..."
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Just because your a dork doesnt make you a geek.
The Quran and the Bible are both used for such things as denouncing other religions and even justifing genocide (look at Rwanda). People have gotten so fanatical about their point of view being "right" that anything that is "wrong" is sought out and destroyed by people who tell you to convert to the way of peace and love or die. Excuse me?
Scientology, however, I don't view as a religion. What kind of religion requires you to send in millions of dollars before you can find out what it is you espouse to believe in? This "church" uses tactics against their critics similar to what the Catholic Church used against supposed "witches" hundreds of years ago, short of killings. Ironically, the more The Church of Scientology tries to stamp out publicly available copies of the OT and higher works, the more copies show up.
Sure they do, now. But not that long ago, you would be labelled a heretic and burned.
Not entirely different from CoS responses these days.
Religion is opium for the masses. Marx, I believe.
This happened to a friend of mine as well.
It wasn't a personality test, it was an IQ test.
Doesn't this seem alot like how kidnappers use candy to entice young children to get into their vehicles?
Makes you wonder if those kidnappers are really recruiters for Scientology...
> Were it not for those monks, all those great classical texts (which made the Renaissance possible) would probably have been lost forever.
...optics, agriculture, medicine, math... all the knowledge which has brought us to where we are today. If I am remembering the histroy correctly, the Frenchman had been exiled by the Catholics in France. What a wonderful irony.
Not entirely true. You can trace much of the knowledge that sparked the Renaissance to the library of Medina (sp?) in Spain. When the Crusaders came to take the city, a Frenchman who had been exiled there knew the someone in a position of power in the Crusaders and was able to negotiate a peaceful surrender of the city. Thereby leaving the library intact
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
Disregarding the fact of religion having trade secrets, how can you have copyrighted trade secrets? I thought, by the very act of copyright'ing something, you brought it into the public eye. Otherwise, why bother copyrighting it?
I've seen a lot of the phrase "all your [word] are belong to us!" I think I missed where this came from and why it's funny, and I've seen it a lot now, anyone care to explain it? :)
Or is it that I have the wrong opinion?
- Tom
- Tom
"O, to grace how great a debtor daily I'm constrained to be."
I appreciate the concern of dfenstrate. I'm going to go out on a limb here myself, though, as someone who fits the above description (minus the "whackjob" from my own point of view, though). I'll be short. Just to say that not everything that everyone says we believe is actually doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I could ascribe some really weird beliefs to any Christian, if I wanted to interpret the Bible however I pleased.
Oh, and, yes, we do believe in the Bible, and we share more in common with other Christians than most people realize. What differences exist are significant but at a simple level. For instance, "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." That makes a big difference.
For more information, try the link that dfenstrate gave to the articles of our faith.
- Tom
- Tom
"O, to grace how great a debtor daily I'm constrained to be."
I'm not too much of a guru of Hebrew or Greek, but I have read the Bible and studied various religions, Christian and otherwise. My willingness to accept other people to believe what they want stems from that a little. That's sort of what bothers me about all this Scientology bashing.
Anyway, if you want to continue the dialog, I can be reached at tjpalmerATtjpalmerDOTcom (with the usual anti-spam word replacements). I'll try not to be more than a few days delinquent in responding to questions.
- Tom
- Tom
"O, to grace how great a debtor daily I'm constrained to be."
Without first-hand experience, I'm not willing to automatically condemn. At the same time, I've got my own life. Unless I'm a judge in a legal case, which I don't ever intend to be, I wouldn't have a need to learn whether the anti-Scientology is true or false.
I just think we shouldn't take all the bashing on faith and spread it as if it were our own experience.
- Tom
- Tom
"O, to grace how great a debtor daily I'm constrained to be."
I've read that scientology members sit for hours with a lie detector that they believe cleanses them from the alien-demons that inhabit their bodies. They believe that these demons hinder a successful life, so anyone that is popular in our culture is considered a leader in Scientology.
The fact that EU hunts scientologists is part of a plan to ban sectarism.
As, on WW2, anti-semitism fall to Holocaust, we, EU-citizens, tend to avoid such organizations.
Here, in France, everyone is free to choose a religion, or not, as there's no "in god we trust" on money head.
"Tolérance".
That's the point.
When we have an holiday in US, we must fill a questionary with an OBLIGATORY question of religion.
As I have none, I will never go to USA.
But I don't want to.
If memory serves me right, that was an act of the early Catholic Church, not of Islam.
----
http://www.msgeek.org/
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Best of luck.
If "faith healing" doesn't exist, why do medical studies bother including the placebo effect? Same thing, different name.
Let's see: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle: greeks. Solomon, Moses: hebrews. Who is the Westerner here?
ALL of them, you friggin moron! What do you think Western thought comes from, California?
Eastern would be Asia Major. Western is Asia Minor, Africa and Europe.
Again: Jesus was poor(*), Mahommed was poor(*), Buddha ran from his wealth into the poverty(*)
Show me a religios text that says: "get rich quick - make your followers give you money".
I happen to agree with the original poster here, often institutionalized religious practices corrupt. By centralizing beliefs into a figurehead (the pope) you often create corruption (the pope's are reknowned for their corruption in the renaissance). The problem is that many outsiders see that corruption and discard all religions as a result, insisting that their ideologies and beliefs are also corrupt. Baby, bathwater; you get the idea.
And Mohammad wasn't very poor by the time he died, why don't you look into that. (and Jesus' last supper doesn't look like crusts of bread and water to me).
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
I consider it a simple fact of human nature that people do evil things, and they justify it using the most celebrated moral arguments available. If there were no religions, there would still be all the horrible things you mention... they would simply be done in the name of "patriotism" or "humanism" or whatever.
Organized religion is a source of comfort for a lot of people, and an organizing force for a great deal of charity and kindness, but all religious organizations are still organizations of people, and people are fallible.
Anyway, this thread has been going on in a day's-old discussion, so I doubt that anybody is reading it but you and I at this point. It was nice discussing this with you.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Religions don't act. People do.
A religion is just a philosophy that concerns itself with man's relationship to some concept of divinity. The fact that some people commit acts that are inconsistant with the philosophy which that religion promotes, does not mean that the religion can be said to promote the act of that person.
Quite the opposite... it means that the person in question is what the muslims call an "infidel" (break down the latin, and "infidel" means, roughly "a person who is not purely faithful"). My evaluation of Islam is not dictated by the actions of nut-jobs like Khadafi, nor does the failure of one Pope to speak out strongly against Hitler change my view of the Catholic dogma, nor do punks like Oral Roberts color my understanding of Southern Baptists. The typical faithful worshiper of any of those three belief systems is a kind and compasionate person, who I would much rather spend a day fishing with than the typical angry anti-religion champion.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
If it came out in the early 1900s, hasn't the copyright expired?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Please read before you post. I was talking about:
Nobody rants endlessly because the Urantia Foundation holds a copyright on the Urantia Book (another Third Testament of the Bible that came out in the early 1900's, in case you're not keeping up.)
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
I read it online a few weeks ago. It was so gripping that I literally spent 5 days at work doing NOTHING but reading it.
It is the sad story about L. Ron Hubbard, the people he tortured, the lies he told and the destructive organization he founded.
BTW - Scientology is NOT a religion. It is a commercial enterprise that masquarades as a religion and is only devoted to separating you from your money.
I agree with you. Completely.
But would you describe people who believe that there are pixies as "evil", as the person I responded to did? I think if you did, you'd be guilty of a superstition that could only be described as feverish and religious in nature. An aversion to holy water to me is no different a thirst for it. If someone wants to sprinkle me with holy water, I take it in the spirit intended (their love), just without the Spirit intended (His Love).
And in a like manner, I judge religions one by one for the spirit they intend: I'm flattered that Christians want to go to the trouble to save my soul, I'm irritated that Jews think I'm not one of the chosen (but happily admit it goes down a lot easier with cream cheese and lox). I think nothing of Zen nothingness, and while perhaps in a former life I found comfort in Hindu reincarnation, I don't this time around; rather, I'm scared of any sporadic Islamic urge to hasten my ascendence to the final reward that they, not I, believe in, and in just the same way that they once feared heretical Christian crusaders who seemed to be unwilling to render unto God that which they said was God's.
I capitalize his name, God, as well as Zeus's, but neither his pronouns nor gods collectively. I capitalize the name of the Roman Catholic Church and the Nazi Party, but not atheism or theism. Buddhism: capitalize or not? I don't know, so I just try to put it at the beginning of the sentence :)
As a Christian, I respect your blind faith in NO God, as you respect my blind faith in God.
mmm... you say that a little stronger than I would. I respect you, but not particularly your specific beliefs. If someone tried to convince me that they just "knew" that 2 + 2 = 5, I would smile at them and try to say something nice; I wouldn't spit on them. But I'd be hard pressed to come up with actual respect for the idea.
Some parts of religion that I do respect have to do with the traditional aspect of community. Many people yearn for the "spiritual" aspect of religion, but hate the idea that there would be any particular rules that would limit their own behavior in way. They say, "I believe in God, but I disagree with organized religion." I am the opposite; I think that their belief is simply narcissism. I don't believe in God, but I do "believe in" organized religion. I think a community of people coming together, agreeing on some boundaries of behavior, admitting and forgiving transgressions, celebrating life and praying for each others' future is a community worth living in. The average person knows almost nothing about science and medicine, and they undoubtedly know equally little about philosophy. But they put band-aids on cuts and join hands and sing about a brighter future and what's wrong with that?
well, I don't consider the "plum-pudding" model of the atom total folly, just a first pass. And should evidence emerge that quarks are bound up in pudding, I'll have a bowl.
Though I don't consider atheism a religion.
I don't consider atheism a religion either, but people who feel compelled to actively ridicule or "blaspheme" (using the other side's word) strike me as highly superstitious. They seem to be afraid of something they don't believe in.
as an aside, while I was reading your post I was struck that "we" aren't necessarily a cult, except perhaps when we start to think of ourselves as "we" :)
I said "in terms of their theology", a qualifier that mutes the original statement and which you are conveniently ignoring.
BTW, some Mormons never take the holy underwear off, even while bathing. They hang one foot out of the tub with the garment dangling from the ankle while they wash one side, and then pull 'em up and down to switch sides.
And what about the part of the theology that used to be explicitly racist till that became publicly untenable and a very convenient revelation revealed itself. I can respect a theology that gets tested in focus groups, but lying (in my belief) about its origins is bad, and being gullible enough embrace the lie... well, words like "wacky" come to mind.
In a way that's pronounced kinda like "focus groups", I am down with the whole polygamy thing, though. :)
I believe that many people feel extra religious simply when they use weird or archaic turns of phrase. Think about it for a minute and, abracadabra, you realize that "called of God" doesn't particularly mean anything in English.
sounds like you are saying something very close to "whackjobs in terms of their theology" which is what I said.
Since you agree with that part of what I said, I imagine that your real beef was about being considered more out there than the Roman Catholics. While there are certainly cults within Roman Catholicism that have embraced nutty ideas over the years (e.g. martyrs blood and bones), to the extent to which familiar, once you get past the virgin birth and resurrection (which Mormons also embrace), the Catholics stick to a lot of abstract ideas.
yes, including the cult that feverishly believes there is no God, and without a whisper of proof or any evidence whatsoever.
I'm an atheist, but think you go too far. Religions comprise many well-meaning, good hearted people.
I liked the "scritcha-scritcha" bit, though, a lot :)
A Religion is a "religion" which has achieved some degree of respectability, deservedly or not.
Yes, this si the stuff I was RAIDED sued for posting to the net, in RTC vs Lerma in 1995. See December 1995 Wired magazine. " Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their ruler, Xenu, over 75 million years ago. These spirits attach themselves by "clusters" to individuals in the contemporary world, causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives of their hosts ". USDJ Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion, RTC vs Lerma See http://www.lermanet.com/cos/raid.html and current news as the war with scientology continues on the homepage. lermanet.com and Hi Karin!... Arnie Lerma 'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak. The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers The internet is the liberty tree of the Millenium Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
Without stepping into the middle of the inevitable flame war that erupts on this subject, their are interesting elements for discussion here as far intellectual property rights.
Points for discusion include:
- should there only be intellectual property rights at all?
- If there are any intellectual property rights, who has a right to them.
- If people we despise have intellectual property rights, what do we do about it?
- Do Religions have Intellectual property rights? (nb your agreement/dis-agreement with the religion will color this, of course
- Hubbard (founder of Scientology) was a published author in his life time, and set up an organiztion to look after and maintain the rights to his works. Does he have any intellectual property rights?
- How does this relate to the rights of authors, artists, and organizations, if they have any at all.
- Does the Church of Scientology have a right to the copyrights of the works of its founder, ever? under any conditions at all?
- How much of this is FUD on the part of one party about the other?
- How much FUD will be issued in discussing the parties in this discussion?
Basically, it comes down to:Does any one have any rights at all, regardless of who they are?
One thing for sure, those guys are hardcore when it comes down to standing up for themselves. That has got to be annoying to their opponents.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Your logic is crap.
My Mother Theresa comment is against _Mother Theresa_, and against _dogmatic Roman Catholics_.
Anyway, what do you do when an electrical storm brings down your TV transmission? Fuck?
Now imagine - these guys don't ever have telly! Get a grip - you can't stop people having sex, but you _can_ put a latex membrane in the way.
If you are standing up for Christianity, please step forward more (for example present something approximating a coherent argument) so my next swipe can be more clearly aimed at you.
FatPhil
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Learn how to form a sentence.
Learn where you may put commas.
Abortion is not the solution - not bloody conceiving in the first place is.
FP.
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I've since learnt that it's a common piss-take name for the nutter.
My bad.
FP.
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Christianity has a lot more power to do a little harm to billions of people, and it often does so. Scientology has power to do vast amounts of harm to fewer people. It's hard to compare the two.
Occasionally, though, Christians even make the Scientologists look harmless -
I personally view Mother Teresa of Calcutta to have been one of the most evil humans to have ever lived. She has enforced suffering on probably an eighth of a billion people due to her not permitting the distribution of contraceptives in societies which could not support their offspring.
(Spot the died-again atheist...)
FatPhil
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
"
P.S. I can't recall any non-believers being killed by Bhuddists or other non-deistic religions. Care to back that up?
"
Way off base.
Last year I read of at least 2 whole-village slaughers between rival Buddhist dojos.
(Just like Northern Ireland - if you wore green near the orange ones, you'd be mincemeat)
FP.
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
The way I understood it was that pretty much everything bad said against the Gnostics at the time was false made up by their 'rivals'. (is that the word?)
The mainstream Christians claimed that Gnostics ate babies.
They didn't.
Insert wolf principle to taste.
FP.
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
You read too much Tolkien
FP.
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
You really know nothing about Palestinian history do you?
The father of the Jews was an Arab.
The term PLSTN was used by the Egyptians to describe the region a thousand years before Abraham was born.
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Just thought I'd reply to the comments made concerning Mormonism-
About Kolob and one day being a thousand years -
Psalms 90:4 - a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday.
2 Pet. 3: 8 one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day
about holy underwear - the garment is worn as a reminder of covenants made (sort of like circumcision, less painful). It is just worn underneath to be private instead of displayed.
handshakes - Brigham Young said that in the temple we learn those things that enable us to pass by the angels that stand as sentinels and enter into heaven. The temple endowment though is more than just learning handshakes. It confirms the scripture, John 14:6 - I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man ccometh unto the Father, but by me. I think that the endowment was given more to benefit us now, to strenghten faith. (I've also wondered if others will be allowed to try to pretend they know; I don't think they will.)
proxy - in the temple we recieve ordinances for ourselves, and then we my receive them as proxy for those who have died, though they are effective only upon those people also accepting the covenants (as they are taught in the afterlife). An example of this is baptism for the dead (see 1 Corinthians 15:29 - Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?)
a prophet - Amos 3:7 - Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. Christ directs his church through a prophet.
blacks and the priesthood - It is held that Cain and his seed were cursed, as to holding the priesthood, and marked, with dark skin. In 1978, a time after all the controversy about the church and blacks had died down, the prophet (see above) received a revelation that all worthy male members regardless of race could receive the priesthood. (Acts 3:20,21 - And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.) Today in my town there is a black baptist church (AME), most of the other churches which are white, and our congregation which is integrated. Stop by and see.
Lastly, I understand that the temple ceremonies were entered into the Congressional record. I think it was around the time that there were hearings on Utah's bid for statehood. Thus they are not secret, but they are sacred, with appropriate places and times to talk about them.
peace
Yes, it is like Operation Mindcrime isn't it :-)
Why only scientology stories? Only posting stories about scientology smacks of persecuting a minority. Clearly all religions are full of lies and silly stories. Scientology may be the most evil, but I still I think /. should spread the wealth when it comes to debunking religions.
Does anyone else agree?
--------
get jiggy w/ ayn rand!
It's only been under 10,000 years since we left the caves and jungles. Much much less for some peoples. Do you really think that, on a scale that someone from the future might use, we're really all that far along?. We're still writing on stone, only the writing is 0.13 microns wide and says Pentium on it. Most of our technology is just advanced weights, wheels, and pulleys.
I imagine some half slug kid with a huge brain filled head sitting in some robo-shell thinking (not talking) to his friend:
Can you believe they actually had arms and legs, and had to make noises to communicate? Not much better than the animals.
Not that far into the future either, since I'm also sure human cloning is probably going to produce a lot of strangeness. =)
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
I, L. Ron Hubbard, swear to pay the holder of this contract twenty dollars if I cannot start a religion with a completely ficticious basis within ten years. Signed, L. Ron Hubbard
All bets should be specified that way... with a duration but no starting date!
"wise Irish monks" = people who could not read the texts they slavishly reproduced at the urging of their (surely wise) superiors. Some of these guys wrote the damned bibble quite often, but very few ever read it.
"painting the spiritual lives of billions of people and thousands of years of history with that same dirty brush" = daring to criticize, albeit with sharp tongue and not always in the most respectful manner, the mockery of human intelligence that is organized, and disorganized, religion. Folks, if it relies on the supernatural, it's bunk. Fantasy is all fine and good, but you can't confuse it with reality just 'cause jeebus said so.
WWJD = "whoa! when'd jeebus die?"
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Oh yeah? What about the "wise" Islamic commander, who let the famous ancient library burn, because "everything usefull is in Korahn"?
What about book burning and other science and culture impeding actions of various religions?
What about the most recent destructions in Afganistan? Islam appears to be in the same stage now, Christianity was in 700 years ago. Hence the crusades...
It is not just "a few well known con artists", who are/were bad, but rather the opposite -- "a few wise scholars and monks", who are/were good. And even they would be able to do a lot more with their wisdom, if not for the religious Dogmas...
What did the religions create? At best, they helped protect what was already created. At worst they destroyed it -- be that the writings of ancient scientists or the then-conterporary inventions.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I don't remember who said that but I think it's important to separate the actions of man from the religion. In scientology's case, it can be discredited adequately on its merits. There is no need to make fun of Tom Cruise too.
that TLD mentioned in the article as his next project scares me, funny how a TLD can make you a bit jumpy. /. filters wont let me say what that tld is but its in the article.
"...your future, make it a reality, all you have to do is fight for me"
You know, that reads like Catch-22, scary.
I have a good friend who is a Witness and he explained to me that he believes only a few will make it into Heaven (I think he used the 27,000 figure, but I'm not sure). He said that Heaven was already "full" and that the rest of the good ones will live in Paradise here on Earth after the Armageddon.
As far as not making friends outside of the Witnesses or pursuing an education that is not true (at least not for him). He has many friends outside of their network. His parents are Catholic and he did not convert until he was 16. He is planning to attend law school so that he can volunteer as a lawyer for the Witnesses. He also explained to me that they don't vote because Jehova is the only true leader, and voting for a president is a vote against God.
Keep in mind, I don't agree with any of this stuff, but that is the way he explained it to me.
You probably mean the angel Moroni instead of Saint Peter. The veil thing is kind of right on, but it's more of a metaphysical, spirtual kind of traveling rather than through space. And the secret handshake thing- even if it is true- and none of this is familiar to me at all- seems like kind of a cheap shot when you put in back in context.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Yes, there is holy underwear. And I think the Kolob thing is a little far-out. I did say there were eccentricities, did I not?
And I'm not familiar with the story about the basketball game, but the church doctrine was to prohibit black people from the priesthood until the 70's. I don't defend that either- every church has it's bone - headed moves.
My point is, yes, a mormon who beleives everything absolutely vehimently is a little out there, but so is a catholic, so is a lutheran, or a baptist, or what have you. Few people enjoy talking to any sect's hardcore bible (or book of mormon) swinging members. But the rest - the normal people -take everything in moderation, and are a very hardworking, supportive and positive community. Again, I invite you to check out the articles of faith I posted above, as well as the third-party info.
I'd also like to point out that as I haven't been active for 4-5 years, I'm not the best defender or source of information, but I seem to be the only one here, so I'll post.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Truth be told, there are a few eccentricities in the Mormon church, but that all depends on where you stand to begin with. I have this creeping feeling you have no clue what you're talking about.
If you really care to have something to base your argument on, check The Articles of Faith and tell me if they seem unreasonable. You can also check here for a balanced view. If you do have any real basis for your argument, please post or email it. Otherwise, can it.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
your idiotic post (how the hell does bullshit like this get a score of 3???) implies that Stalin killed 54 million Jews. or at least 54 million non-atheists.
dude, Stalin killed EVERYONE and ANYONE regardless of their religious or even political beliefs. he was monstrously paranoid and killed anyone who threatened (knowingly or unknowingly) his authority or future in the slightest manner.
--
in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
So we're now operating on the two rights make a wrong theory?
Ranessin
It's assholes like you that make me sometimes wish I wasn't an atheist.
Ranessin
Face it, in general, we're petty beings.
Speak for yourself
Ranessin
Perhaps... But I never said I'm never petty. The poster I responded to said in general.
In general, I am not (nor are many people I know), a petty being
Ranessin
Despite the efforts of Congress to extend copyright timespans to seemingly forever, I do believe that the copyright that the Apostles and the catholic churh would have to have in order to prevent people from distributing their texts has expired.
====
If all comedy comes out of tragedy, let the killing begin...
====
"white bread, redneck, chicken-shit, motherfucker" -- Dr. Dre on "Straight Outta Compton"
Dude you are High!! ever hear of something called religious tidings. Hell I've heard the Mormons take 15% of your wage income!
I think he meant "tithing", which is defined as "A tenth part of one's annual income contributed voluntarily or due as a tax, especially for the support of the clergy or church."
"Tidings" means "A favorable occasion; an opportunity", as in "I wish you Happy Holidays and good tidings!"
I like the answer from the swedish speaker, where she clearly states that Sweden cannot do anything about the bible because that would be against the constitution. In a matter of days, however, they were forced to do a full turn on this:
THE SWEDISH PARLIAMENT
THE SPEAKER
KK2-446-96/97
October 31, 1996
Dear Fellow Parliamentarian, Mr. Carlos J. Moorhead,
Referring to your letter of October 28, I want to inform you that the Chamber Office in the Swedish Parliament has been handling the documents of the Church of Scientology strictly accordingly to the Swedish Constitution.
This is, of course, the only way the Swedish Parliament could deal with this matter.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Birgitta Dahl
Will code a sig generator for food
Don't be so prejudiced. The bible is full of pretty childish stuff too. Except those parts are rarely read.
1. God created eve from a bone from Adam.
2. Like Jesus made a little devil fly out of the sick man, the little devil then ran away and jumped into the water.
Sounds like sci-fi anno 0 bc to me...
Will code a sig generator for food
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Unless it's a cult, I thought the purpose of a 'religion' as loosely as it can be defined, was to reach out to people and provide them with a moral/ethical basis of beliefs.
What really is a cult? If I start a religion does it become a cult, or does it have to wait until people are devouting their lives to it?
How about this for a definition:
A group of people who believe in something so strongly, that they are willing to adapt that particular belief into their life in some sort of worship or service, even if they have no scientific, logic, or rational for believing it.
Oh wait, that would be Christianity, and we all know that is not a cult!
SrlKlr
I agree. I think a lot of atheists/agnostics/et cetera, want to believe that there is *no* morality/god/whatever just as badly as a lot of religious people want to believe there *is*.
I don't believe there's no god. I just don't care. I still have the responsibility to choose what's right and wrong. An institution that tries to choose right and wrong for people is evil. And if I let anyone else choose right and wrong for me, *I'd* be evil.
It's not quite accurate to say I'm against *organized* religion, but that's kind of in the ballpark.
I agree with that, too. (Hey, some of my best friends are well-meaning good-hearted people! Just don't tell anyone, I have a rep to maintain.) My problem is that surrendering my own judgment to an institution of any sort -- a government, a religion, a family, or even a private belief system held by me alone ("i am a religion of one": new ad campaign for the Swiss Guards?) -- is an abandonment of my responsibility to live a life that exalts the individual. This supremacy of the individual is the only thing I hold sacred, as a universal moral (arrggh, I really want to say "biological", but I don't know if that will "say what I mean" in other people's brains) axiom.
Hehe. Is Dave Sim still anti-computer...?
Ellenmods metamodded as "Unfair"
Exactly. All religions are evil cults.
Ellen Ripleymods metamodded as "Unfair"
Any "religion" that can claim copyrights is inherently evil. I'm guessing that Panoussis has thrown out his copy of Dianetics by now.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
See also "communism".
See also "Federal Government".
At least churches only ask their members to tithe 10% of their income.
Maybe you should talk to Webster.
Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k<
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
If the shoe fits...
Defecation occurs.
Well, okay, I do respect religion, it helps this society with moral standards, and gives some people reason to act "good".
We atheists take exception to this idea. I don't believe in god. I'm not afraid of hell. I'm still a good person.
Defecation occurs.
Why would Scientology try to 'patent' their way of religion. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. try to reach out to people and say: "Here, these are our religious documents. Use them and you'll be a better person."
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the mormon church fundamentally christian?
Did the mormon church also do the same thing as CoS and sued individuals for posting "trade secrets"?
People have this notion that a religion is okay but a cult is not. By definition, christianity is a cult!
Defecation occurs.
Actually, no...I am not a Scientologist. I am however a member of a religion that gains cult status from many groups, including the current President of the United States. As to the website I linked to, you might want to check things out before posting. The site does have information on Scientology, but it also has information on Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc.
Tired of sitting at that karma cap? Start a flame war today! See just how low you can go!
I understand your meaning from the above post. I just get upset when people throw around the word cult, being a person who has been labelled a cultist. I do not consider myself a "cult", especially since I currently am not a member of any group.
Now onto the meat I was referring to in my post. I was merely pointing out that the term cult, at best, has been spin doctored to fit the use of many different groups, in my experience, many Christian outreach groups. I also wanted to point out that many people still use it for its true meaning in the instance of the papally sanctioned Cult of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church. I only wanted to point out that just because something is labelled a cult, it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Tired of sitting at that karma cap? Start a flame war today! See just how low you can go!
Actually, it all depends on which definition you use of the word cult. If we were using the traditional, theological definition, a cult is a reference to the external rituals of a particular sect of a religion. So a cultish sect, such as the Cult of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church, have open rituals to their worship. The Church of Scientology, if they actually have internal, secret rites would not fall under this definition of cult.
Now, the sociological definition of the term is a religious movement that has a particular tension with society, such as the Branch Davidians who had automatic weapons and stuff. In this case, the Church of Scientology as a cult would not hold because there is not a lot of public tension between regular people and say, Tom Cruise or John Travolta.
Now, other social definitions of cult would fit the Church of Scientology. They are a small religion, they have non-standard practices, and they are not Christians, which is a definition for many Christians.
I prefer to use the first definition because it doesn't single out just non-popular, evil religions. It also has uses regarding people in the RC Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A much better label for the Church of Scientology is an occultish sect.
For more information on this, try here.
Tired of sitting at that karma cap? Start a flame war today! See just how low you can go!
My .02,
My .02,
zencode
iactivist.org/jason
You're right, Feldman's got some orbs there!
GTRacer
- (in response to queries about shipping dates for GT3)
SONY: All your race are belong to us. You have no chance to steer drive make your line.
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
He was just paranoid, not crazy. He never believed his own stories, he knew full well that he was a con man.
----------
Technoli
Any creative work is copyrighted as soon as it is "fixed in a medium." Even your comment is copyrighted - but you have given Slashdot the implicit license to do whatever it is they do with it, so they're not infringing.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Why would Scientology try to 'patent' their way of religion.
I believe we're talking about trade secrets and copyright. Patenting is for inventions. (Of course, they probably do have patents on some things.)
(ANOTHER NOTE TO TACO: Slashot needs a page on intellectual property law - explaining copyright, trademark, trade secret, patent, the Bern Convention, etc., etc.)
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Napkin to be auctioned on eBay, along with a full guarantee to be rid of all your body thetans. Starting bid at $2M. (Part of your proceeds to pay for CoS' legal fees against Panoussis).
Linux at home
as to having the ability copyright a religon...
why not a patent
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Secondly, he was sued (not "beat up", "his house burned down", "abused", "threatened", "terrorized", or even "otherwise punished") which, no, I don't believe is "punishment". It's the way our "modern western culture" resolves differences of opinions. Relax, get off the Jolt! cola, and read the fscking comments next time before you spout off.
I am not "laboring under the assumption that having worse examples out there makes a groups behaivior ok." I am simply looking at things in perspective (see definition above), and realizing (as any sane person would have to) that the Scientologist's "punishment by lawsuit" is a lot tamer than the cited religious groups historical persecutions. If you think otherwise, then I would suggest you rethink your perspective on this matter. Perspective is not, as you imply by your oh-so-witty baby's blood comment, an outright lie.
Hmmm.... my opinions are "spouting off on Jolt cola" (which I havn't drank since high school, does that crap still exist?) but you are an expert on moern western culture. How odd. have you talked to your shrink about this hypersensitivity where you assign extream emotions to anyone countering your opionon? It seems common on the net and usenet. maybe there's a paper in this.
No, your opinions aren't "spouting off on Jolt cola", but you so seem a bit of a troll. But, then again, I never did mind feeding an ugly troll. As for my "hypersensitivity where [I] assign extreme emotions", I don't think Jolt! cola use really classifies as an extreme emotion...
Anyway, if you are unaware of the use of lawsuits as harrasement, and actually think that their use by the sci cult is meant to "resolve differences of opinion" rather than bankrupt their critics, if you simply ignore the many stories of threats, blackmail and psychological abuse, well, what can I say. Live in your world, it sounds real nice there.
Yes, I'm aware of the use of lawsuits as harassment. Yes, I've been subject to them before. Do I think the Scientologist's lawyers feel they have a semi-decent case? Yes, since filing an obvious waste of time case could get them disbarred and fined. Do I think they should win their case? I have no idea, I haven't really studied the matter...that's what we have judges for.
As for "threats, blackmail, and psychological abuse", once again, in religious history perspective, that is perfectly common behaivior...and it can get much worse from there. Personally I don't care what the Scientologists, Christians, Muslims, Neo-Nazis, or any other cult (yes, they are all cults) does...they're all based on the same principles of cultism. And one is no better or worse than the other. Perhaps more obvious and/or more successful, but not any more right or wrong, or better. That's my perspective (in this case, you could translate that as point-of-view).
Of course in older times (and, with some religions even now), if people disagreed...they just killed them. (see Spanish Inquisition, jihad, etc.)
I think I'll take the Scientology "punishment". =)
BTW, all religions are a sham as far as "true beliefs" go. But, they (most anyways) do serve a purpose in society so that people have something to believe in. Many people really wouldn't be able to fathom that their life has no other "higher meaning" (see heaven). Or that there really is no all powerful being to turn to when things go wrong (see prayer). These people may very well need some moral guidance in their lives (see 10 Commandments). And, in most cases, it really doesn't harm me, so I don't care. Wasn't it Nietzche who said that God is dead...but no one knows about it yet? (ie., the reasons that "God" was invented for [to explain the, at the time, "supernatural" has been taken over by science [which to some, is a religion], and so there was no longer a need for "God". But, people have yet to realize this, and still keep "Him" around. I disagree, saying that "God" was invented for much more complex reasons having to due with human emotions and social tendencies, and say there will always be a perceived "need" for "God". "God" will never be dead in the eyes of the majority of the world, but will continue to shift patterns based on their needs at the time [see Old Testament vs. New Testament, rise of so-called "cults", etc.]).
And of course, a lot of /.'ers could probably be classified as belonging to the Linux religion...
I am told by someone who was allegedly there during at least one of the times Hubbard made his comment about religion and money, that there was no bet, precisely. Basically, a bunch of SF authors (and Hubbard, who never wrote anything good enough to be dignified with a label much above "sci-fi" [sorry, messy sectarian partisanship there]) were talking about money, in specific, the lousy rates paid by science fiction magazines. I am told that Hubbard replied, "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man wanted to make real money, he'd start his own religion." Apparently he decided to do just that.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
... no religion would ever give any materials away. Just think! No more door-to-door Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or random evangelicals disturbing our sleep ever again! Also, no more Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms, either.
Unfortunately, there's no force on earth that can stop the proliferation of Chick Tracts...
?!, "...not from sectarian malice."
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Some time ago (say 2-3 years) I shocked a couple of my friends saying that we should actually thank Sci. for exposing a loophole in Copyright law. That law has never been meant to be used to squash free speech, and the fact that they were doing exacly that indicates that some reform is needed to limit the possible abuses.
I hope that the copyright/DMCA will be reshaped in the future, and that limits are put on "both sides" of the copyrighted works. If abuse of copyright law's "fair use" is to be sanctioned (as with Napster) then the same must happen when the same law is used by the author to threaten any free speech (Sci. method to deal with "enemies") - "fair use" again, but from the other side.
These might be interesting:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/index.html
and yes its is "Mr. DeCSS-Gallery" Dave Touretzky
Thank you.
-
Hmmm why can't we remember that the very Dark Ages that they saved us from where directly caused by the Information suppressing Catholic Church?
As an agnostic, I truly don't know whether I believe or disbelieve Scientology.
The thetan/alien stories seem as credible to me as any other of the relious milieus.
An invididual's view on religions is colored by the memes that he/she has accepted or been saddled with.
So what if they have levels of initiation? If you are disturbed by this, it's more than likely that you are used to religions with only one level of initiation.
So what if they want money from followers? That makes them like pretty much every other religion in the world.
So what if it was a religion dreamed up by L-Ron? All religions, except the "One, True" one (if it even exists) were dreamed up by someone.
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
No, he's in it for the free roof over his head, paid for by the people putting money on the plate.
noone's calling them (christians)looney and accusing them of selling garbage.
Christians are looney and are selling garbage
there ya go...
One Bourbon
One Scotch
and One Beer
communism is a religion
Whether, Judaism, Christainity and Islam are violent or not is relative. The point is that religion is a tool for manipulation of masses, whether it was the intention of its creators from the beginnig I just don't know. Anyway, perhaps I red Dune, one times too many
Yea I met a Scientologist once, here in the Big Smoke. I find a good kick to the balls and a sound pounding for 5 minutes usually shuts facist fucks like them right up.
______
jeff13
Well, any religion based on science fiction is bound to be a facistic exercise.
Look at Star Trek fans.
______
jeff13
Leaving the Fold
One of the interesting parts is the requirement to sign a 'non-disclosure' statement when leaving Sea Org.Damn html tags. The article is here-- Link
I'm not 100% comfortable myself with the bashing of religion around here, but on the other hand, I've seen too many people damaged by religion.
:-)
:-)
Damaged by religion or by the abuse of some religious beliefs?
I've seen people who are genuinely helped out of a dark place in their life by religion, yes
Me too.
- but many more who are put in that dark place by religion. Many more who find religion a convenient excuse to do what they were gonna do anyway (like hate people and stay indoors).
Is this any different than people who use scientific principles (e.g. survival of the fittest, eugenics) to justify hating people? Does abuse and misinterpretation of the principles make the underlying principles incorrect?
Many who use religion as a mind control device, so they can extract money, power, and allegiance from others - and MANY, MANY more who are victims of the above.
Once again, is this any different than using non-religious principles (e.g. Nationalism, Fascism, Communism, etc...) for the same purpose? I'm not saying that use of religion for these purposes is acceptable. Instead I'm just trying to point out that history teaches us that there will be those who try to take advantage of others, regardless of whether they use religion or some other belief system to accomplish their goal. You can't blame religion for the abuses of men. Eliminating religion would not prevent them!
For religion to serve a useful purpose for us as human beings, it should enable us to become more than what we are, and I don't mean after we die.
I completely agree, but are you sure it hasn't enabled many to become more than they would have been?
Personally, I have seen many cases where because of religion people have become more sensitive to the needs of those around them. I have seen members of a congregation rally around sick or terminally ill members. I have seen families helping other families when the father has lost his employment or when the mother has been committed to bed rest because of complications with a pregnancy. I have seen youth paint the house of an elderly couple. I have been involved in hundreds of other examples, which were the direct result of organized religion. If this isn't enabling man to overcome his selfish desires and elevating him to a higher level, then I don't know what is.
Instead it tends to make us LESS than we are - it tends to make us stop thinking, stop asking questions, and turn off the detectors in our head that light up when we hear bullshit and rhetoric.
To the contrary, religion has helped me to think more and to ask questions which science can't even hope to answer (at least during my lifetime). It has lead me to ponder on the nature of man and of life and drawn me to conclusions that help me lead a more fulfilling life. Sure, there are questions that it doesn't answer and there are apparent conflicts with some current scientific theories, however, this just helps me to realize how little I really understand about the world and encourages me to learn more.
It gives people an irrefutable authority to do whatever they want - if they can find a way to say "but the Bible says" or "but God says" - often without even having to justify it to themselves the way the godless heathens have to do.
People with small minds will always find a way to convince themselves that their arguments are irrefutable and they are correct in what they do. The religious do not have a monopoly on rationalization.
Religion has tended to draw people into a state where they disbelieve what they see in favor of what they've been told - thus they gradually come to live in a world that bears no resemblance to reality. I've been there.
Religion, I thought it was public education?
There's *NOTHING* good in the world which can be attributed to religion, which could/would not have happened without it.
FUD! There are many cases of religious institutions and religious people helping others. Your statement is just plain rediculous.
But there are many bad things which nobody would have been driven to do without power-mad popes and other religious figures forcing them to do.
Do you really think that in the absense of religion things would have been any better? If so how do you explain the extermination of Millions in Stalin's USSR or the atrocities after the French Revolution or human rights violations in China? Even without religion the same abuses of power occured as have occured throughout history. The fault does not lie with religion, but within human nature.
Yes, religion does have power to influence people and at times that power has been abused, but for the most part, christianity has a greater potential of influencing people for good than for evil.
Members of especially damaging religions should be tried for crimes. I'd especially love to grab a few mormon elders and try them for extortion (tithe or I'll tell your wife to leave you, our religion-influenced government will take your children away, and your mormon boss will fire you.) Ditto with JWs and scientologists.
FUD!!!
While tithing is important in the mormon faith, it pales in comparison to the importance of the family. You would be hard pressed to find a religious official in the mormon church that would counsel a wife to leave her husband, except in cases of abuse, regardless of how far the husband strayed from the church's teachings.
Besides with its membership accounting for ~2% of the US population, I hardly think the mormon church has a significant influence over the government
He had these notions about Jews, rather akin to Hitler's, but without the "Master Race" crap. I don't think we'll *ever* know how many of them he killed (not personally, mind) but I've heard estimates as high as 54 million.
While it is believed that Stalin killed tens of millions of people most of these were not Jews. In fact the entire Jewish population of the Soviet Union at the time was much less than 54 million.
History calls this massive organized murder "The Pogroms", and they were a very major part of Stalin's domestic policy, along with collectivization and the endless series of Five-Year Plans.
Once again, I believe you are incorrect. I could be mistaken (someone please post a link), but I'm fairly certain that the "Pogroms" were an anti-semitic movement that swept Eastern Europe prior to the Soviet Revolution (1881-1917).
They essentially amounted to conspiracy theories and misinformation about the Jews. As a result local villagers and peasants rose up against the Jews and drove them out, killing some and forcing a mass exodus westward. Although, the central government did not organize the Pogroms, they did little or nothing to prevent them and after-the-fact investigations were slow or non-existant, giving implicit support to the movement.
While persecution of the Jews no doubt continued after the Soviet revolution, the "Pogroms" preceded the Soviet era and cannot be attributed to Stalin.
> Do you really think that in the absense of religion things would have been any better?
Yes. Immensely. All the nasty things that happened without religion would still have happened, but the ones dependant on religion wouldn't have.
Do you honestly believe that in the absence of the pope or other religious leaders, the lives of the peasants would have been any better? The peasants were already slaves to the feudal lords, whose abuse may have been even more severe without the church's tenuous check on the feudal lords ultimate power.
Furthermore, without the uniting and stabilizing influence of the church, Western Europe would likely have been even more war torn that it was, as various Kings, Lords, and Nobles battled to establish or defend their own empires. Such wars would have increased the levels of pain and suffering of the peasants, since they would have been called on to be the expendible pawns of the armies.
I'm not so naive as to claim that the catholic church or the pope did not commit some horrible atrocities, but I think there is a very real possibility that in the absence of religious influence equally horrific or even worse atrocities might have been committed in the name of some other cause. Obviously, we will never know.
At times? How is it good to have a corrupt power structure dictating to people how they should live their lives? Don't even bother trying to claim that religious leaders aren't corrupt. They try to convince people of obvious untruths (just read any holy book) and use that to control people.
You're using a very broad brush. If one religious power structure is corrupt or even if 99.999% of all religious power structures are corrupt, that doesn't preclude the possibility of the existance of one non-corrupt religious organization. Each organization must be evaluated on its own merits. There can be no "guilt by association" even among religions.
If they had some grand truth, it would be evident without power structures and orders.
But without some structure and order, how would the grand truth be disseminated? Even scientific pursuits are organized into various power structures (e.g. ACS, MRS, AICHE, APS, etc...). Sometimes even these become corrupted. How can you expect more when the "grand truth" is so much more complicated and is at times subject to misinterpretation, and when there are those who could profit by twisting the truth to their own means.
That someone could twist the truth for their own gain doesn't mean that the original truth does not exist or is not valuable, just that someone has a corrupted version of it.
Many religious people have helped others. Sure. But those people would have helped others without the whole organized religion.
How? Any large scale operations to help people require some kind of organization. Disabled people often require more long-term help than individuals are capable of providing. An organization is required to provide relief to disaster victims. Many social services require an organization. Sure the government can provide these services, but it is terribly inefficient. Non-religious charitable organizations also can provide such services, but they often do not receive the same levels of support as are available to a religious organization that teaches the importance of helping your fellow man.
Religions exist to gain power for the leaders. Helping people doesn't serve that, thus religions as a whole don't help people.
If this is true, why are many religious leaders relatively poor? Why do they spend so much time volunteering their services? These don't seem like the acts of someone primarily interested in power and financial gain.
What a lie. The mormon church is rapidly rising in the list of richest organizations in the world.
Besides, any money that you send me can and will be confiscated by scientology.
Thus, unless you want to support scientology (or perhaps somebody's scam), please DO NOT SEND ANY MONEY for me to anybody.
Zenon Panoussis
Are you describing religion or communism? because your statement fits both.
________________________
Thank you for conveniently missing Homer. Might I add Virgil and Seneca, too?
Now let me pick a few principles and idea of Western Culture and illustrate there they came from.
Democracy
The principle of democracy came from Athens, Greece, maybe 2500 years ago. Granted, at that time democracy meant landowning males could vote, but it was far better than being ruled by hereditary nobles common everywhere in the world. In fact, the word democracy is derived from Greek.
Trojan Horse
Have you heard of a computer program that does one thing, but has a hiddden, more sinister purpose? A Trojan Horse, perhaps? Greek!
Hubris
Another greek work, look up Pride Goeth Before a Fall.
Promotheum Fire
A favorite journalistic metaphor for early adopters who get burned. Greek.
Code of Hammurabi
This is even more east than Greece, Summeria even. The first laws ever written down, so that anyone who could read could look at the laws of the state themselves. The same idea was captured in the Roman Twelve Tables.
I could go, but why don't you take a history course.
Despite seemingly rare acts of "good" by small parts of these organizations, you surely must concede that the the two main derivatives of Judaism (Islam, Christianae) are exceptionally violent belief systems.
The unabashed support of jihads even by the present day Islamic leaders is proof enough that Islam preaches violence.
Instead of learning about Islam through the Arnold Schwarzenegger block buster of the week, why don't you read about the history of Islam. Islam is generally a tolerant religion.
During the Islamic expansion and conquest, practitioners of other religions were given a choice, convert or pay a tariff. Contrast this with typical choices given followers of minority religions in other areas, death, torture, confiscation or property.
Jews have lived in Damascus for centuries after the Islamic conquest with few problems.
Jews lived in Spain under Islamic rule fine. When the Moslems were driven out of Spain, the Jews suffered under Catholic rule.
Most modern Moslems are opposed to terrorism, and appalled at what the Taliban is doing. Don't judge Islam by a small splinter sect of hotheads, anymore than you would judge Judiasm by the JDL, or Christianity by Jim Jones.
Have you ever even known a Moslem?
but I have read about it, and am familar with the basis thesis.
Thanks for grasping my point.
I attended public schools in USia, and tried to supplement my education on the side.
The Q'ran prohibits images.
Saddam is not particularly religious, indeed, Iraq is possibly the least Islamic state in the mideast.
As far as the Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha, most Moslems are appalled. Even Iran condemned that.
Want to show your ignorance some more?
the keyword is "some". Using "some" does not dismiss your "being good". Logically, even if religion gave "all" people reason to act good, then you would be not be excluded from the group of people who have reason to act good. Summarizing: Some of A is C Some of B is C All of A is not B I don't see any contradictions
Tom Cruise never even graduated from high school...
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
If you mean that the Second Coming would cause the Bible to come under copyright, which in the US is currently good for the life of the author + 75 years, think again. Jesus didn't write anything. The Gospels were written about 70 to 120 AD by several anonymous authors. So unless you want to claim that God was the real author working through the hands of humans -- well, if He comes down, files suit for copyright infringement, and presents proof, then I wonder which court would have jurisdiction? 8-)
Uh, do you know what "sarcasm" is...
And evidently you missed the news reports about the Taliban (Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan) destroying Buddhist statues from the time of Alexander, for fear that someone might worship these idols. And if anyone thinks that's just a Moslem peculiarity, the Judeo-Christian Bible contains the same prohibition against worshipping grraven images. Catholics and many Protestants use a very narrow interpretation of that: they aren't worshipping that statue of Jesus, just using it as an aid to concentration on worshipping Jesus -- but it looks a lot like worshipping the statue. But the Catholics used to be pretty intolerant of anyone else's religious icons, for instance the Spanish destroyed most of the history of the Mayans as "idols". And even among modern-day Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses take that commandment quite seriously, and if they were in power I think they'd be dynamiting statuary.
"If an organization wants to copyright their material or mark it as a trade secret, that's their business." The issue is just what they are trying to protect -- sometimes it would seem to me to be against public policy for a court to help them keep their secrets. It can be a corporation that doesn't want it's manual instructing customer service people on how to stall and lie exposed to public view, or a religious organization that doesn't want it's manuals on how to get the maximum contributions published.
The news article is pretty confusing, and seems to have various concepts mixed up. Or else Swedish laws are decidedly strange -- if the work was unpublished, then why is copyright even at issue? And IANAL, but it can't be copyrighted and a trade secret both... But whatever is going on, it should be legal to cite portions of a copyrighted work under "fair use" in an article criticizing the organization that issued that work. Putting the whole book on the web is indeed a copyright violation. So remember--just use the embarrassing parts, intermixed with your commentary...
"I don't believe that all gods are myths.
I know it for a fact"
Everything that people consider "knowledge" is really just belief. Do you just call something belief if are willing to change your mind on it? Aside from, perhaps, mathematical truths, there is no knowledge. You could get some individual and indoctrinate him so he *believed* that there was a race of unicorns living on the moon. Now we would call what he thought a *belief*, but he would say "I *know* there are unicorns living on the moon".
Think about it.
"Robert Heinlen (a first rate author) "
Oh, you mean that hack writer who just couldn't help putting his personal extreme opinions into every book he wrote in a sickening obvious way?
Classic Heinlein opinions: (in no particular order)
1) People who like cats are inherently superior to those who do not.
2) People who rape women should be tortured then killed
3) People should be allowed to commit incest
There are also lots of political opinions too, but I can't be bothered to organize them into a list.
Graspee
Arseholes like opinions. Everyone is one.
BANG
People act in the name of religion. And the instances I was speaking about were, in fact, sanctioned by The Church. Would a religion exist without people to perpetrate it? That is why I said that you can't identify a "religion" solely through its texts. You identify, more so through its actions. Think about the Spanish inquisition, if you will. No matter what we think now, at the time, it was an "christian" act to do what they did. Christianity has a huge history of imperialism, forceful converting. Granted, Christianity cannot get away with those kinds of things anymore, as secular thought grows more dominate. The point is, that the people are the religion. If I kill someone, but say, "well...that's not what I really stand for." It does not mean I'm not a murderer. People created the religion, people maintain it...it's the people, not some "idea" or romantic notion about what it "should be."
So where do you draw the line? Religions are social phenonomena. You have to look at them in their entirety. Breaking it up into pieces as one sees fit, the pure vs. the impure, is not realistic.
And so how do you define what it is? I'm proposing that you define things by their history & contexts as well as their texts...you seem to define it solely through their texts, which, by the way, are themselves social in nature.
. If I kill somebody and say that I did it "in the name of 1+1trouble", does that mean that everybody on earth who considers you a friend is a murderer?
That depends on the context doesn't it? If "1+1trouble" is Christianity, and my friends are "followers" than it should most certaintly draw suspicion. And I'm not calling everyone a murderer, I'm not saying every Christian is bad, what I'm saying is that you cannot ignore the bad. You must take it along with the good things in defining what, for this argument, Christianity is. Should a few bad apples spoil a bunch? Not necessarily, but they are still a part of "the bunch." This whole thing with religion is a little bit more complex then apples however. But are you starting to see my point? This is not about "guilt by association", I'm not calling everyone "guilty" because of people like the inquisitors. I'm simply saying that you cannot ignore, or disassociate, any faction because you think it to not resonate well with the pure, perfect wisdom of the religion....it is part of it, because we do not live in the abstract. The archetypal realms of Plato should be called into question. Postmodernism? You bet. I didn't agree with it at first either.
See you later.
Umm...not exactly. I don't think I have to make a list of the countless acts of violence committed in the "name of GOD" over the past two millenia. If those are the actions of the religion...then that is most certaintly what the religion stands for. And we are not talking about "little" incidents that make the headlines, we are talking about how religion, namely Christianity, expands its itself. And that has been, no matter how apologetic you want to be, through violence...well actually...murder, entrapment, genocide, etc.
In regards to sueing for 'trade secrets' I have no idea if Mormons would do such a thing. They do make Christianity look bad in general if you ask me, as they claim adherence to Christian standards, but they cling to Joseph Smith's writings as truth (which Christians do not). Besides, free copies of the book of Mormon are in hotels everywhere, so I doubt they care much about free distribution of that work.
I guess you could argue that this gives room to sue someone who posts information on the internet slamming a religion that they disagree with (at least in Sweden).
And I do not think the goal of writing religious texts should be to make money. That's a cult. Writing of religious texts should definitely be for creating a better way of living.
Sorry, at school I rarely completed homework in time and as usual I didn't do as told :-( bad boy...)
1. I think that the education level at the time when those religious text were recorded isn't quite
comparable to our current status. So it's not easy to compare Sci to any true religion.
I'm no expert, but I think many religious text are about tolerance and not about buying freedom for
your soul...
2. Some people change their confession during their life, because they feel another religion
might fit better to their view of the world. Preachers might not be happy about that, but I
don't think that they'd make a big fuss about one sheep leaving the herd. Would this be the same
with Scientology?
It's a shame that this document is secret. I doubt that anyone with a sane mind would take part in a organisation which is
founded on such a childish and unbelievable scifi-story.
Would it be legal to list all scientology companies/organisations on a public server so that people can avoid these freaks?
Btw: I think religion is always about tolerance (fanatics excluded) and should respect the opinion
of others. The reaction of sc proves that they are definitely no religious organisation.
> Some might say that. I don't know why, since i
> can't think up an experiment to prove or
> disprove whether god exists. And any logical
> arguements seem to be at a stalemate.
Ahh, but there are tons of experiments to look for any miraculous happenings, or any magical "faith" based healing, whatever. One CAN prove God exists -- seeing large numbers of miraculous cancer heals when people prayed would be one such simple proof.
One CANNOT prove God doesn't exist, though, because of one of the properties of God -- he could choose to hide from us, infinitely well if necessary. It is when all these standard tests (pray, see if person heals) fail over and over again that we MUST conclude that either God doesn't exist, doesn't actually care, or is deliberately hiding. The last of the three seems the least logical to me.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
One could just as easily argue that no religions seem divinely inspired -- are there any religious texts that don't propose some type of supernatural interaction with the world, and don't all these supposed interactions fail when tested scientifically, every single time?
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> [The Golden Rule] is pretty much the gist of
> Christianity, and the ancient texts quote Jesus
> as saying so.
It actually preceeds Jesus by many centuries. He was just quoting someone else.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
The other Muslim countries sent a large delegation to try to stop the Taliban, in fact, and failed (even had they succeeded, the damage was already done anyway.)
It's the lamest thing since the Pope saint-ized the guy who burned the Great Library of Alexandria.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
In my original megatroll and followups, I pointed out how these "charlatan" techniques worked regardless of whether the "charlatan" actually believed or not. That is their effect as evolved social behavior. Yes, people who truly believe aren't technically charlatanistic, but I used that word to cover the social behavior of hucksterism (also requiring knowledge.) Perhaps "foolishness" or "ignorance" might be better terms for true believers, although they also are inflamatory.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> I hope you are not calling the Church of
> Scientology, in which I devoutly believe, con
> artists?
Artists? Never. That sloppy religion is hardly artistic. Elron didn't know a well-written sentence from random scratchings by a monkey with a number 3 pencil on slate rock.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Scientology's status as a religion seems to be about the same as professional wrestling's status as a sport, straddling the line, trying to get the best of both worlds.
And funneling your money into their pocket.
If we could get Tom Cruise to star as Rowdy Roddy Piper in a wrestling movie, life would be beautiful.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
The Last Day
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
For the most part, Hollywood stars have a ton of money, but not really the brains to earn it. Rather, they earn it by being cute.
Then they become autosurrounded by an entourage of yes-men and people who tell them how great they are. This, combined with their vast wealth, confuses them such that they think their greatness is due not to their cute face, but to their vast intellects (nonexistant, of course.)
This leads to things like being prey for goofy religious theories (not just Scientology, but see also Shirley MacLaine), socialism/environmentalism (try and tell me any star even begins to understand any politics or science at anything but a babyish, that's-what's-moral-because-daddy-says-so level), and suddenly they are Rosie O'Donneling about anything their wee widdle minds can tink upsie.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Or unorganized, for that matter.
Cult: A religion with no political power. --- Ambrose Bierce
"There should be separation of economics and state just as there is a separation of church and state, and for exactly the same reason." -- Ayn Rand
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> dirty tricks department or hired private
> investigators to dig up dirt on IRS agents
> investigating THEM.
Well, the IRS lives by the sword...
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
I will simply respond that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well...
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> Let's see: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle: greeks.
> Solomon, Moses: hebrews. Who is the Westerner
> here?
The Western Tradition means Greek philosophy, esp. science, as it migrated around Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa over the last two thousand years.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> You know, "Mother Earth" is going to be burnt to
> a crisp by a red giant in a few Mill,
I think you mean a few Bill. Whew! You had me scared there for a moment.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
If I recall, the problem with the Hawaii/75 million years ago theory is that Hawaii didn't exist that long ago, by a long shot.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
The only difference between your analogy and religion is that the closer we study the earth, the more evidence builds that it is round, not flat. The more religious stuff is studied, the more religions fall back behind the argument that God is deliberately hiding from any scientific testing. Kind of a funny god if you ask me. It's also nice to know we have so much power over the supernatural gods, spirits, whatever, such that any time we look for them, we can force them to hide!
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Well, it's not just that, but all religions, even good intentioned ones, rely on simple snake oil salesman techniques and ancient texts that, if published today and someone asked you to believe, you'd look at them like they were on crack.
Teary emotional epiphanies are not a sign of the existance of a god, but can easily be used by a charlatan to get them to give them money (note that this works even if the charlatan doesn't realize they are a charlatan -- i.e. they believe in the goodness of what they do.) Sitting and mentally calming yourself is not a sign of the existance of a god, but can easily be used by a charlatan to get them to give them money. Talking breathily until people are in a frenzy, then hitting people on the forehead and saying they're healed, collecting a lot of money, then leaving town before people realize the sick weren't healed or were healed of things they weren't even afflicted by isn't a sign of the existance of a god, but can easily be used by a charlatan to get them to give them money.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
And the reason given by Scientology why they don't tell you this for ages, is that your mind would explode and you'd go mad, if you heard about this before you were ready.
Dang! Someone should put this in the alt.basilisk FAQ quickly!
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> And since I didn't read the footnote explaining
> that, I obviously understood exactly 0% of the
> document. Huh?
That's completely idiotic. A footnote is like a parenthetical expression. It is a little bit of extra info that's not directly important to the discussion at hand.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Wow. What a bunch of nutty people.
When I was younger I bought a scientology book (out of ignorance) and read some of it... It was completely based on inane principles... Like illnesses are connected to the mind (the whole pyschosomatic argument... pure bullshit, and I'm tired of hearing doctors stand behind it, too,) wierd theories about sexuality (accompanied with the belief that all forms of deviation from hetrosexual behavior is classifiable as perversion...) And the back cover promises to change your life. Sure, change your life. Just read 500 pages of absolute horse shit and all your woes magically dissolve per your newfound "scientific spiritual" knowledge... Christ, I hate L Ron Hubbard. The only way to fix your life is to do it. That's easier READ then done.
You know, I read somewhere John Travolta was a scientologist, as where many other celebrities.
Anyway, the whole thing is such an obvious contradiction in terms, too (atleast with the majority of religions in mind)... Science and religion? A science of religion? A religion of science? Anyway you want to put it, give me a break.
Hmm. I guess it makes for a (proven!) scary combination.
mwtr / THIS SIG HAS BEEN PRAYED OVER AND MAY BE USED AS A POINT OF CONTACT (ACTS 19:12)
Comparing widely viewed persecution (which, BTW, I wasn't even aware occurred during the course of the whole Columbine media frenzy... Unless you want to count the endless drivel from an obscure Katz as "media") to a, comparitively speaking, small group bearing an uncomplimentary summary of religion's mechanics (this, mind you, isn't persecution, as religious bodies are impossible to attack, aside from firearm use) doesn't seem to match quite well.
The name of God in the past has crushed people by the thousands (i.e. the crusades.) Today it still does in lesser extents -- prohibiting same-sex marriages, discouraging abortion, etc, is nothing more then Christianity, once again, speaking its pompous ideaology. More along the lines of mainstream cause and effect, Christianity generally gives people a convienient way to fallback on God after they've wronged others. Let's not forget the number of Christians who are as right as rain -- they claim to pray for those outsiders who haven't yet found their "salvation" but inside their puny minds this conjuring of divine prayer/thought is really "They're wrong! I'm right! They're wrong!" Giving the masses some credit, though, extremists are usually the unintelligent, the feeble, and the rednecks. However, the fact that such an attitude can be created by religion not only unflatteringly displays its inner-workings which are the same for every participant, it also exposes its biggest flaw: Need for human evangelism (evangelism not only spreading the word, acting OUT on the word.)
Christianity and other religions have evolved from the dark ages? Hardly. It's the same pray-for-HIS-right (and he is dynamic), pearly gates reward iced atop a life of misery, sexual and sexuality repression, etc. Sure, there are some churches out there that are open minded. Some would even argue Christianity has so many different faces and some contain so little ignorance -- fine, but they still rely on the bible. If I found a church that came together under a pagan deity and believed in a lot of principles I agreed with, had an "open sermon" format (anyone could speak,) all this under the name of spirituality, I'd happilly subscribe to the addition of spirituality in my life. But this doesn't exist because it's not the standard; the masses dictate what is and they currently (as have for hundreds of years) subscribe to, granted, a variety of different twisted systems all relying mainly on abasement and blind faith to stay afloat (including a lot of the Eastern religions -- buddhism, notably, is in the same mindset as Christianity -- pay your cards right or come back as a disabled black lesbian IV drug user.)
It does not take an extremely jaded person to point out the flaws in large religions, nor does it make them a troll. More and more people nowadays are realizing that religion doesn't quite fit the bill. If anything is deserving of attack -- religion having attacked so many, why not it taste it's own "eye-for-an-eye" medicine -- it is religion. People who think those who make "generalizations" about religion are ignorant should realize they are made because they're suprisingly easy to make with a correctness that simply cannot be denied.
mwtr / THIS SIG HAS BEEN PRAYED OVER AND MAY BE USED AS A POINT OF CONTACT (ACTS 19:12)
Yes, the Churches grant mortals the ability to speak for God. Yes, God tends to require that we give up earthly attachments for our benefit and the benefit of others (especially money). So, mortals are given the ability to say "God demands your money." I'm fine with you here.
BUT, the result is certainly not that the mortal gets more money. (Throughout my own experience. YMMV.) How do I know this? I help keep books at my church. I count the money in the collection plate, I see it registered in the budget, and I watch checks get written to the street shelters, support groups for abused women and children, soup kitchens, et cetera. Also, I can see my priest's car. She hasn't bought a new one lately. I've been to her house, it doesn't look like she's getting huge amounts of windfall from us. Her salary is modest, and her lifestyle humble. Very befitting of a servant of God.
This situation I have seen through my entire life, in various churches, all in the big, mainline denominations. Sure, corruption happens occasionally, but for the most part, it's an honest and charitable operation.
Most 'Christians' (we're talking protestant and Catholic organizations here) would define Christianity as those people who believe the Bible is the only revealed 'Word of God' and that it cannot be added to.
Er, then Protestants can't believe Roman Catholics are Christian, because of the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabes, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch, plus additional passages in Daniel and Esther. And they can't belive that Orthodox Catholics are Christian because of the above works, plus 1 and 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabes.
And actually, Catholic doctrine places the teaching authority of the Church before that of the Bible. Which makes sense, because the choice of which books were canonical and which were not was made in the 5th Century by the Catholic Church.
Any Protestant church "based on the Bible" has to do one of the following:
1) Accept that the Catholic Church had teaching authority in the 5th Century and somehow lost it subsequently.
2) Argue that St. Jerome was divinely inspired as to which books to put in the Bible.
3) Argue that Martin Luther (who removed OT books from the Bible that were not included by the Jews in the First Century A.D.) was divinely inspired to compile the Bible.
4) Argue that God reveals to believers that the books in the Bible are His word.
Arguments 1 or 2 would mean that the Protestants would have to add the Apochrypha back into their Bibles, and argument 4 leaves Protestants with no way to argue with the Mormons adding a third volume except "God didn't tell me that it was His word!"
And Argument 3 indicates that God was perfectly willing to allow all Christians to go a millenium believing certain non-inspired books were actually the Word of God.
Oh, there's currently a militant sect of Tibetan Buddhism that engages in terrorist attacks against other sects. Even tried to kill the Dali Lama once or twice.
Scientology is a dangerous, stupid religion, but no more so than any other religion. They guard their texts very carefully for one simple reason - if you read them you realise how stupid and juvenile they really are. That means that no rational, intelligent person would ever fork out large sums of money for them or join to get access, but I don't know why they're worried - evangelists live very well off their gullible followers. Other religions thrive despite having the most ludicrous, idiotic beliefs - why should yet another dumb religion be any different.
Scientology accuses Panoussis of copyright infringement of religious trade secrets.
If Panoussis is infringing on the copyright of published documents, how can these be trade secrets. Shouldn't the Church of Scientology keep better track of their secrets?
It is nice to see a religous group finally admit that religion is a trade. Which begs another question: When will we start taxing religions the same way we do any other business?
Should be required by law to display this disclaimer:
For entertainment purposes only.
Here in Canada it is a law that fortune tellers and others who profess some ability with the paranormal to display that disclaimer in advertising. Churches deal with the paranormal and promises of the future that they have no way of proving let alone guaranteeing. They need to be lumped in and treated the same as all paranormalists ( a euphemism for con man ).
Aren't you tired of being lied to.
All gods are myths.
Bring back Mother Earth, fight monotheism.
Moses is the biggest piece of scum to ever walk the planet. Give Palestine back to its rightful owners.
In a less enlightened time statements like this could have been fatal.
There, that should ruffle some feathers, eh.
Well, okay, I do respect religion, it helps this society with moral standards, and gives some people reason to act "good". But I think the problem arrises when you give people in this religion power. The old saying, power corrupts (abosulte power corrupts absolutely) seems to hold in this situation. Give some mortal the ability to say "God demands your money" and then the result that this mortal gets more money, take a freaking guess what's going to happen! That is not the main tenant of religion though. Religion gives life on earth meaning, and rules to live by.
I consider myself an athiest, I believe some people wouldn't act good without religion, some people (I like to think me) don't need the religion.
perhaps all organizations of more than one person
In defining 'cult' in this way, we must include Gnostic sects, various ascetics, etc. But when most people use the word, they are concerned about the danger posed to adherents and others. People should be aware, by the way, that the OT levels can embarrass Scientology but they can direct critics' attention away from other, more worrying 'ways' which are dangerous.
'the purpose of a religion'...
Religions have various functions, many of which have little to do with a stated 'purpose' (such as bringing people into a pretty afterlife, through killing them, converting them, or 'Clearing the Planet' (saving everyone through Scientology)) or the motivations of founders (often short-term, political, etc., as in some past and present ecstatic movements in colonies). One of Scientology's strengths is that the founders were aware of reasons people turn to religion, and they could tailor Scientology to insecure, often suggestible (or 'dissociative') people. Such people often feel validated as they 'attest to' a higher rank (but there are always more steps on the Bridge to Total Freedom, so if you don't feel good yet, keep going).
To pick another example, the confessional element used in some religions and in counselling is offered the prospective Scientologist through 'auditing'. The answers are verified with the 'e-meter', so they must be right. And responsibility too is in some ways left with the meter, which has the power to see into souls. Scientology is a big business, but it uses elements of religion (as well as brainwashing theory), and not just at the level of wearing the mantle of religion in order to shout 'religious discrimination!' at a moment's provocation.
'And if people disagree, they don't sue them for doing so, they just label them an non-believer of that religion.'
'Non-believer' can, depending on one's view, mean 'not-yet-saved person' or 'damned enemy'...
THL
--
Keeping
A goodly portion of their "tech" does work. This is a strong part of the appeal. As far as it being "science" that is just a samantic arguement waiting to happen. The religious aspects are just about as silly as any other religion (i.e. dire and serious to the believers, burning sardine heads to everyone else). Mod me up down or sideways, I don't see the difference...
L. Ron Hubbard, before he started Scientology, stated that the best way to become rich is to make your own religion. I am disappointed, however, in so many of these posts. Slashdot readers are (I thought) supposed to be at least semi-intelligent, yet they bash religion (especially Chrisitanity) clearly without ever having examined it thoroughly. Did anyone know that Larry Wall planned on being a Christian missionary?
"Who ever heard of a suitcase being dominated by minds from an alien star-system?" -- Philip K. Dick
Creation of man? Most religions claim to be divinely inspired. One of the Bible's main points is exactly that man is weak.
"Who ever heard of a suitcase being dominated by minds from an alien star-system?" -- Philip K. Dick
I am so tired of seeing this bogus argument! I don't want to get into a general discussion about religion, but you are clearly talking about Christianity. A person who claims to be a prophet/healer KNOWS they are a charlatan if they ask for money. Have you ever heard the story of how Jesus threw over the bowls of the money-changers? Probably not.
"Talking breathily until people are in a frenzy, then hitting people on the forehead and saying they're healed, collecting a lot of money, then leaving town before people realize the sick weren't healed or were healed of things they weren't even afflicted by isn't a sign of the existance of a god, but can easily be used by a charlatan to get them to give them money."
I'm sorry, but that has got to be the most idiotic rebuttal of religion I have ever seen. Were you raised by MTV? I could say that all medicine is bogus just because some crooks decied to sell sugar pills on an infomercial, and that that isn't a sign of the existence of modern medicine. Of course it's not, it's the sign of a crook. There are always bad apples in any organization, and one-way skepticism isn't going to ferret out the truth.
"Who ever heard of a suitcase being dominated by minds from an alien star-system?" -- Philip K. Dick
"apogee" has nothing to do with Arabic; it is from the Greek via Latin.
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
In case you are wondering, I am a practicing (because we all need practice, don't we?) liberal-minded Catholic who is very familiar with Judaism, Native American religions, and the use of the term "catholic" vs. Catholic.
for those of you flaming me... I think you forgot to read what I wrote, and forgot in what context it was written.
-jenny
My name isn't really Jenny....
Scientology is a religious philosophy you use to improve your life and your ability to live it!
I have been doing Scientology for 15 years, it has helped me improve my life a great deal. I am more confident, more stable, and more ME!
You can listen to people tell you about Scientology one way or the other, good or bad, all day long but you won't have an idea of it unless you find out for yourself. I suggest:
www.whatisscientology.org
Also there are several books about it you can read:
What is Scientology
Scientology: A New Slant on Life
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
Scientology Kills -- The Dead
Lisa McPherson -- An Unanswered Murder
Scientology Lies -- Good Rundown of Various Crimes
They have tactics that cause folks like me to post anonymously out of fear (I'd appreciate being moderated up, though). They have attacked free speech (especially anonymous speech) with tactics that may border on criminal, and while I don't particularly care about their weird beliefs, it's annoying to think of how much money they're extracting from empty-headed Hollyweird actors with their cult, but they have the right to believe that God is the nearest oil rig as far as I'm concerned.
jammer99@hushmail.com
"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!" - L. Ron Hubbard
I just finished reading an interesting book, called "The Jesus Mysteries" that presents strong, well-researched evidence (if in a somewhat tabloid style) that the Christian myths are heavily based on Greek Dionysus cult rituals, which themselves seem heavily based on Egyptian Osirus cult rituals.
According to the book, Christianity is a "new" face on a very, very old religion.
It's a good read.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I don't think that the murders had anything at all to do with atheism. They were politically motivated. It was all about power, not religious beliefs. I also think you're confused about agnostics. It doesn't mean they don't care. It just means that they don't believe there is any evidence to support or refute the existence of a deity.
Atheists don't direct the followers to murder fellow human beings, the philosophy does not have clean hands, as far as attrocities goes.
As near as I can tell, atheists don't do anything in the name of there (lack of) religious beliefs. They don't believe in religions, so they do things for more worldly reasons.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This is sort of beside the point. Scientology should have the right to control the copying of their copyrighted documents.
Even copyrighted documents are allowed to be copied under certain circumstances. One of those is for the purpose of criticism or comment. That seems to fit the current case. The documents pretty much criticize themselves in the eyes of most rational people. Publishing them in their entirety seems warranted. Additionally, it could be argued that it was in the public interest that these documents be revealed, given what happens to people that find out too late about the Scientology "religion" and try to leave it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Ok, I'm not entirely familiar with the reasons for these slaughters, but I don't recall atheism being part of it. Are you saying that Stalin and Pol Pot killed people because they believed in a god of some sort? Were Stalin and Pol Pot atheists?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Phrased like that, you could make any religious group sound like a bunch of whackjobs. Christians, Muslims, anyone at all I think. Face it, there is no real evidence of anyone's religious beliefs. That's why they are called faiths. Therefore it's quite easy to declare that any religious group is a bunch of whackjobs for believing something that there is no evidence of, and that's before you even get down to their individual rituals and texts for the really hilarious stuff.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"(I'm sure some atheiests have committed an atrocity in the name of atheism at some point in history.)"
They have. To name a couple:
Stalin, 45 million.
Pol Pot, 10 million.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
you mispelled "evel" because I was thinking bad thoughts about you.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The Catholic church keeps an enormous amount of secrets. Some of these secrets are simply not well-known facts, like the whole Exorcism thing, but there are 2000 years of history, quashing heretical movements, absorbing others. They've been in the unique position of being the sole religious authority over much of Europe, being party to political fighting, mediation, and I'm sure they've had the privilege of documenting much of it.
As far as judging Scientology as an evil cult; if you've ever seen their "church" in Hollywood, (the actual town), with the Gold-lettered sign - it's as lavish as any medieval Catholic church, Orthodox church or Islamic Mosque. (though it IS rather bland, architecturally). Definately gold in them-thar hills. Someone's worshiping Mammon again.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You're the first Athiest I've met who agreed with the statement ("feverishly believes there is no God, and without a whipser of proof or any evidence whatsoever.")
As a Christian, I respect your blind faith in NO God, as you respect my blind faith in God.
(interesting, was it recklessness by which you decided to capitalize "God", and NOT capitalize "athiest"?)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Again, I submit to you, Stalin, was a Communist, and an essential element in the Communist philosophy is that religion is inherently a bad thing, the Science of man tells us that there is no God, the bible is false, and religion is nothing more than an evil plot to keep the masses "down", and therefore religion must not only be outlawed but vigorously eliminated, because it is the enemy of mankind.
Sure, there are interpretations of Communism that don't think that way. But let me note the persecution of the Falun Gong in China as a modern-day example.
Sure, what's driving the anti-religious zeal is political control, perhaps "payback" for making "the people" poor slaves for the past thousands of years, but in the end, there's no basic moral justification in the Athiest religion that says that "life is sacred" or has a value above other things. Not that having a moral justification has saved the diety-based religions from making the same mistakes (shouting about how terrible it is to kill a human being, then killing human beings).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
75 million years?
Obviously total bullshit because Hawaii itself is less than 5 million years old!!! (The oldest islands in the chain are about 5 million years, Hawaii is the youngest - )
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Being successful in Hollywood has a lot more to do with having a well-connected agent than anything else.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
That's starting to sound SCARY.
.
Walt Disney? Sonny Bono? These are names that keep coming up in this whole Copyright law abuse debate. . . and to read that they were also involved with Scientology? It's starting to sound like a conspiracy alright. .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Oh yes there is. There is plenty of need to make fun of Tom Cruise. What is it, exactly that Tom Cruise DOES, anyway?
Tell me *that* wont be replaced by some crafty modelling at Pixar in 10 years. (the good thing being, the only actors that will be employed at that point, will be ones that can *act*)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
first, the guy was being sarcastic. Wow, it's a rare athiest that doesn't get sarcasm THAT obvious!
The Crusades were NOT about slaughtering people who didn't share the Catholic faith. It was about protecting Christian pilgrims to the holy land from bandits. Until it was later found that some of the "bandits" were sanctioned by the regional authorities at the time, and still attempting to protect the pilgrims from violence, it of course escalated into wholesale warfare, and the Catholic authorities believing that the only way to ensure the safety of the pilgrims was to militarily take control of the region. The Crusades were a lot more complicated than people think. However, I can't say the same thing about the Inquisition (for which, the Catholic church has officially apologised).
The statues in Afghanistan ARE being destroyed, not preserved, by a lunatic fringe of Islam called the Taliban which happens to be in control of the majority of Afghanistan, thanks to the support of the US Government, who was trying to get the Soviets out of there because they were afraid that the Soviets would be able to move their control Westward to Iran, Iraq, etc. It was about OIL. Oil is the God and national religion of the US. Not Christianity.
It's not tiding, it's "tithing" and translated from Hebrew, it means 10%. Not a lot to ask in return for the favor of existance and grace, for those that believe that.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
He's talking about Freemasonry from BEFORE it was reformed. Back in the 1800's there was a US political party called the Anti Masons, whose platform was removing Masonic influence from the American political process, such was the public outcry and backlash when the Masons unsuccessfully attempted to silence a former member who spoke out against the organization, and it's influences on American politics in that era.
After that, the Freemasons pretty much died out or went underground for around 50 years, and resurfaced as a reformed organization, less secret and dedicated mostly for charity work and precision go-kart driving.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
. . . or NASCAR's status as a sport?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I am a Christian, and I had never heard that Hitler was an Athiest. Stalin, yes. But not Hitler.
Of course there were also rumors about the SS leadership being involved in some Thor cult.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I thought that Scientology also had lost their tax exempt status in the US at one point, and then regained it, or there was a serious challenge to that status - and the overall rhetoric at the time was that Republican administrations were generally less likely to favor Co$, while Democrats rolled out the red carpet (due to the large campaign contributions from Co$, and other Hollywood actors and organizations).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The big difference between an acceptable faith and a ... let's say "secret society" is the secrets. Scientology is rife with secret. One could say it's based on secret. The Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) has quite a few secrets, and they aren't looked favorably upon by many Christians for this reason. The Roman Catholic Church to my knowledge doesn't have any secret doctrines. (And hey, give me specifics if they do.) Doctrines would be very hard to follow if they were secret. Catholics publish their doctrine in the Catechism which is available for believers and non-believers alike.
Also, major religions have stopped endorsing killing the non-believers. The Catholic Church has formally apologized for this behavior in the past. That's hard to do when an organization considers itself the Church of the Almighty God. (You may be able to tell that I have some affinity for the Roman Catholic Church, though I am not Catholic myself)
Scientology is dangerous, as in causing deaths. Their obsessions with their oddball practices of "auditing," learning the secrets of Scientology, and giving money to Scientology often destroy followers' lives. Does anyone else wonder why this church is the most litigious organization in the United States (and there are a lot of lawsuits in this country)?
I won't say that Scientology is an evil cult. I will merely say that Scientology is a dangerous, ligtigious, exploitative, secretive money pyramid organization that was founded by a mediocre science fiction writer in order to make money.
-the Pedro Picasso
--
--
(sourceCode == freeSpeech)
It is not unknown for a religion to possess "intellectual property"
For instance, several christian denominations vigerously enforce their copyrights on their translations of the bible.
The Worldwide Church of God, having disavowed one of their main religious texts, have (rather sucessfully) accused a splinter group (Philadelphia Church of God) of copyright infringement for continuing to distribute this text. (Mystery of the Ages)
Most of the protestant denominations were founded partly on a belief that clergy should not intercede between God and the individual worshipper-- thus literacy, and a widespread distribution of religious texts are both important.) At a more extreme level, the freedom of an individual to define their own relationship to God should not be impeded by intellectual property. (Despite this, the Supreme Court has recognized the copyrightability of divinely inspired texts)
However, almost diametrically opposed to this religious tenet is the so called "Mystery cult", in which religious secrets are gradually revealed to an initiate. This apparently is the basic model behind scientology.
It seems more like the INTERCAL of religions; something designed deliberately to be as perverse and bogus as technically possible and still (sort of) work.
The question is: would it be possible to design a belief system more bogus and implausible than Scientology, and yet make it somehow viable? Anybody care to take up the challenge? (Self-aware parody religions don't count.)
Now that Bush is in the Whitehouse, these people will be getting federal funds to brainwash the vulnerable^W^W^Whelp the needy. Bush, you see, believes that "faith-based" programmes are innately good, and has set up an Office of Faith-Based Action in the Whitehouse, to distribute a $7bn annual slush fund to religious charities. Now, because of this pesky thing called the Constitution, Bush cannot just give all the money to conservative Christian groups, but has to consider all religions equally. Which means that the Scienos will be waiting with their hands out to fund their already established "charity" programmes.
As for the Bible telling you how to kill homosexuals... that's just silly. Nowhere does the Bible even use a word meaning "homosexuals".
Then what does it mean in Leviticus when it says you're supposed to put to death any man who lays with another man?
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
When the media does this to geeks, Hellmouth reigns. When trolls do it to religion, it's approved. See the contradiction?
America's religious conservative undercurrent is the main reason the media does this to geeks - and when trolls do it to religion, it's a reaction to this.
It's not contradiction, it's a returned favor.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
While it might matter to some, its hardly news or while its news, it hardly matters.
It's here because it could be YOU. Scientology, the MPAA, it's all the same - say something Those With Silly Amounts of Money and Power would rather you didn't, and they'll find or buy laws that can be used as a blunt object upside your head.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
Hubbard, a certifiable wacko, decided it was a great idea.
It IS a great idea. Religion's where the money's at, just ask Jerry Falwell.
I half considered starting a religion and changing my name to L. John Shepard.
I am told the device is a battery, a meter, and a couple wires attached to what looks like a coffee can.
L. Ron insisted that soup cans work the best. Wouldn't electrodes, or some kind of custom-manufactured, tight-tolerance handgrip be better? Nope. Hubbo's extensive knowledge of the scientific principles of the universe told him that Campbell's soup was the way to go.
The newer e-meters have variable gain, digital readout, and can cost in the low thousands - and they still hook up to Campbell's Clam Chowder. (Insert clam jokes here.)
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
I have a friend who's brother was converted to JW, and my friend told me that JW's believe that Heaven only has room for 27,000 (or something like that) souls.. is this true?
If it is true, where do they get the number from? (Do they believe Heaven has a Fire Code, or what?)
Isn't it 144,000 for the 12,000 each from twelve tribes of Israel? It's in the Bible, in Revelation I think (it's been awhile). Jehovah's Witnesses aren't the only ones who have this belief, I've heard it from Nazarenes before.
Me, I think it's a hilarious concept: 144,000 out of the billions of people who've ever lived, that's it. Neither you, nor anyone you know, is gonna make it. Were these odds meant to impress us, make Heaven sound better because it's a VERY exclusive club, scare us into line, or make us shrug and say why bother?
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
The way I understood it was that pretty much everything bad said against the Gnostics at the time was false made up by their 'rivals'. (is that the word?)
:-)
I kinda like the core belief of Gnosticism: that God went away after making the world, the God seen through the rest of the Old Testament is Jehovah, a poseur pretending to be God, and Jesus came to Earth to tell us about the REAL God. Rather clever way of dealing with the Bible's contuinity problems, if you ask me.
The mainstream Christians claimed that Gnostics ate babies.
And the Romans claimed it about the Christians.
Which makes it rather ironic that Christians now claim it about Wiccans. Selective memory is wonderful.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
I'm not 100% comfortable myself with the bashing of religion around here, but on the other hand, I've seen too many people damaged by religion.
:-) Religion has tended to draw people into a state where they disbelieve what they see in favor of what they've been told - thus they gradually come to live in a world that bears no resemblance to reality. I've been there.
I've seen people who are genuinely helped out of a dark place in their life by religion, yes - but many more who are put in that dark place by religion. Many more who find religion a convenient excuse to do what they were gonna do anyway (like hate people and stay indoors). Many who use religion as a mind control device, so they can extract money, power, and allegiance from others - and MANY, MANY more who are victims of the above.
For religion to serve a useful purpose for us as human beings, it should enable us to become more than what we are, and I don't mean after we die. Instead it tends to make us LESS than we are - it tends to make us stop thinking, stop asking questions, and turn off the detectors in our head that light up when we hear bullshit and rhetoric. It gives people an irrefutable authority to do whatever they want - if they can find a way to say "but the Bible says" or "but God says" - often without even having to justify it to themselves the way the godless heathens have to do.
As I said, I'm not comfortable with dismissing religion out of hand. But the notion that religion is used in all of the ways I listed above to make this country and this world into a violent, crippled shadow of what it could be, is something that I feel needs to be whacked on the head at every chance.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
Both belief systems preach non-violence.
Then they need to preach it a lot louder.
The fact that some leaders of some sects happened to support evil causes is not a reflection of what those belief systems stand for, but rather a reflection of how horrible those particular individuals were.
Which Bible did you read that wasn't filled with God-ordained mass slaughter, that didn't give explicit instructions on how to murder homosexuals? Which Koran did you read that didn't say God's word is to be spread by the sword if necessary - and that if you die killing infidels you get a free ticket to heaven? Which newspaper did you read that says the constant violence in the Middle East isn't for religious reasons? Which U2 album did you buy that says the war in Northern Ireland wasn't between Catholics and Protestants?
Which history books did you read where it wasn't a worldwide thing to burn witches?
Which United States do you live in (bear with me if you don't) that doesn't have so many beatings and murders because of people's race or sexuality or religion that we're now considering laws specifically dealing with hate-crimes? Which USA is it where racism, religious intolerance, and violent homophobia AREN'T justified on a mass scale by religious fundamentalism?
On which Earth can you honestly say all this shit is due to a few evil leaders of a few extremist sects, in past tense?
The peace-loving followers of these religions seem to be the minority sects.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
I'm sure some atheiests have committed an atrocity in the name of atheism at some point in history.)
Care to share?
During the Spanish War (1936-1939), Communists or Anarchists (I don't remember well) burned churches and convents. They also shot priests. The Catholic Church has recently recognised them (the executed) as martyrs. The revolutionaries thought them helpers of the military rebellion.
I think that Soviet repression of religions and the Chinese Cultural Revolution and invasion of Tibet could qualify as well.
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I wanted to post the same thing but you were ahead of me. The clergy was either viciously excuted or sent to labour camps in Siberia. I have heard accounts of priests being fed to rats. Alive! Churches were ruined. Icons were destroyed. Books were burned.
Of course, one can argue that in the Soviet Union, communism became the official religion and all other religions had to be exterminated because they conflicted with what the communists preached. Stalin became the official god or messia or what have you. In 1953, when Stalin died, Khruschev came to power. For a while, sanity prevailed. Khruschev criticized "the cult of Stalin"!! But it didn't last long and Lenin, once again, became the official god. Did you hear about the Mausoleum? (pardon my spelling) Did you know that Lenin's body is still preserved there and is still available for all the faithful to see? (That was done contrary to Lenin's wishes -- he specifically said that he wanted to be buried but that didn't prevent the rabid communists from turning communism into an organized religion).
Anyway, back to the point -- atheism *can* become an organized religion. And it still is happenning in China.
Oh, and just to let you know that I'm not talking out of my ass -- I was born and in the Soviet Union and lived there for 15 years before I came to Canada.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Who were the congressmen who did this? Were they the same people responcible for DMCA and UCITA?
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
canonization?
Many thanks for the pointer; I just debunked a couple my dad sent me this morning, you'd think I'd have learned...
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
That said, I don't believe that there is or should EVER be any protection for doctrine as a trade secret. This is in flagrant violation of the first amendment's right to freedom of religion: I should be able to practice the exorcism of body thetans whether or not I'm a scientologist (I don't, but I should be able to if I wanted).
So, imho, scientology ultimately needs to decide one of two things:
Knowing what I know, it will probably ultimately go for #2 even though it wants to have its cake and eat it too.
_Deirdre
All religion is based on control. The money is a necessary expression of that control. So is the control of utterances and thought and the control of the exposure your primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Seen any good looking Taliban babes lately? Nor are you likely to...
/. ?
... and the Satinists are still slightly closer to God than the Scientologists. -Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie.
But WTF is this doing on
While it might matter to some, its hardly news or while its news, it hardly matters.
In the Proximity to God Index today
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Scientologists and their fawning admiration of someone who was only slightly less honest/more devious than Charlie Manson, rub my fur the wrong way.
Luckily he's worm casings now so we'll never have to be subjected to more of those lousy Battlefield Earth books.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
--
Actually it's the other way around, local laws are superceded by EU laws. The issue here seems to be local and not EU law though.
I do wish Scientology was banned in the whole of Europe like it is in several countries. Americans may value freedom enough to let criminals have the freedom of psychologically murder people, but Europeans usually believe the well being of people comes above the rest.
And of course, as has been previously pointed out, Scientology has nothing to do with a religion. It is an international corporation (since it is designed for profit) that should be treated accordingly.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Remember, kids, Xenu says:
All your race are belong to us! You are on the way to supression. You have no chance to ascend, make your time!
Oh my god, it's been a long time since I've laughed that hard.
Operation Clambake needs to make up and sell T-shirts with that on it and sell them as a fund-raiser...
Jay (=
The real problem comes into what they DO. In particular, people who wish to leave scientology have their lives destroyed with private information obtained during the rituals of the "religion". People who attack scientology are "fair game" and can be harassed beyond their means by the great financial power of the "church". And these are only the despicable actions that are obvious in the daylight.
Do you honestly suggest that the Vatican would go to these lengths of harassment over their secret doctrines? Perhaps 300 years ago, but I really can't see them squandering any more of the little moral capital they have left on such things today. Most people now agree that such behavior is wrong, period, and no credible organization (note that I don't include governments in the category of "credible organizations") will get away with it. I myself left the catholic church, and no one ever revealed things that had been said in confession in order to make my life hell.
P.S. I can't recall any non-believers being killed by Bhuddists or other non-deistic religions. Care to back that up?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
The core practice is talking about things
while attached to a fairly simple
skin resistance meter.
A good teacher is supposed to be able to
purge the effects of bad experiences.
The goal is "clear" which may take decades
and kilobucks.
Some fairly intelligent-seeming people swear
this helps them while others feel scammed.
How this became emeshed in a religion,
other people have explanations.
When I went to high school we had a project in religion class, students would group together and study a religion more carefully. Me and a friend chose Scientology, and went to visit them in Stockholm (capital of Sweden).
Our teacher was very concerned that we shouldn't listen to their lies.
We got to try the E-meter, which was basically a voltmeter which measured the voltage between your two hands.
Our teacher told us about another student who managed to manipulate the E-meter by putting different pressure on his hands depending on the nature of the questions asked, so he got zero effect on everything.
The stupid Scientologist hadn't seen anything like it, apparently he became quite startled, afraid even. Unfortunately for me, I couldn't do the same thing, so they grilled me with questions about school and which classes I didn't do well in. The moron "saw" on his E-meter that I didn't do well in some class, thing is, I had top marks in every subject.
Oh well, what shall we do with these stupids?
Concerning the stars, I guess they don't have to pay (as much) for the seminars and hopes to be "clear". Maybe it is status in it in Hollywood, I don't really know.
:wq!
How about the persecution of religious in the Soviet Union? An athiest state, torturing and murdering believers? Sounds like organized, religious persecution to me, and I'm a damn athiest.
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
I'm lost as to what this case has to do with my rights online. Can someone explain?
Yes, I honestly believe the Vatican would do that. They've done worse in the past.
This is sort of beside the point. Scientology should have the right to control the copying of their copyrighted documents. (That's what the word obviously means.) But I sure don't think of them as good guys. I just don't think of any of the other religions as good guys either.
And I'm not sure that banning birth control isn't much worse than anything that Scientologists are plausably accused of.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Hubbard was ... fond of unpleasant stories. I don't know the truth, but I heard that he built dianetics (the original version) as the result of a bar room bet. Still, if you read "Typewriter in the Sky" or "Slaves of Sleep" you would have an idea of the unclean feeling he generated. Sort of like Phillip K. Dick during a depressive phase.
But to jump to "most science fiction writers dislike humanity", perhaps that says more about how you select your reading material than anything else. Or perhaps you form you ideas from movies.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I have no evidence, but the story that I heard placed it around 1940. 20 years ago I could have pinned it down closer than that, but I wasn't that interested, so I've forgotten the details, and the person who knew first hand is now dead. Sorry. Still, I believe that the actual wording of the bet was a bit different (which is why Dianetics came out first). I didn't know about the napkin.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That's one of three main stories (but I forget the other two, because that's the spectacular one). No evidence that any particular one of them is true.
The Caliph may have given that order, but if so no verifiable record of it has survived. It may quite plausibly have been an accident.
Remember that war time propaganda should not be believed, even when it's centuries old.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Sorry. I refuse to allow a religion to dictate my moral code. I'd prefer to not allow it to dictate the legal code under which I must live.
... but which? I know how I choose, but you must choose for yourself.
I respect religion in the same way that I respect a vicious dog. Say "nice doggie" while you search for a good rock or club.
That being said, atheists aren't generally any better. Usually they are actually just heretics from some branch of religion. And gnostics are frequently whacko, though some are the most enlightened people on the planet
Socrates is perhaps the best traditional exemplar of morality, but remember that all that we know of him comes through Plato, hardly a recommendation.
My favorite quasi-religious quote is based on a cartoon of Moses on the Mount:
Think for yourself, Smuck!
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Story I heard was it was Randal Garrett. Doesn't make much difference, and perhaps they were both there.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I think you are referring to "Mission Easrth", Hubbard's "decalogy." Battlefield Earth was about Earth 1000 years after a gas-bombing by a race of ten-foot-tall psychiatrists. It was made into a highly-panned movie starring John Travolta.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Hollywood stars get suckered in because there's a specific branch of the Scientology organization devoted to recruiting them, in so far as I am aware.
>Seemingy intelligent people???
Well, I've never studied the topic at length, but one would assume that anyone who's managed to work his/her way up to the top of his/her industry, would wield some kind of intelligence.
Of course, I'm well aware that even intelligent people can hold a religious belief, but this is just a large crime syndicate out to get - not only money I'm afraid - but power to wield. Anyone reading up on CoS will see that after just a few minutes research!
Maybe these people have really low self-esteem, could that be it? They're already successful, so the 'go clear and you will be successful' speech shouldn't carry all too much weight on the rational listener. That's more for the stupid masses 'Go clear and you will be successful, just like $your_favourite_star.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Ah yes, the 'e-meter'. I'm told there's a little debunking going on right here, but I've only skimmed it myself.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
>The first thing they'll do is sneakily install a proxy filter on your PC, just to make sure you don't see anything that might change your mind.
Yeah, I've heard about that. Apparently someone - with a complete lack of morals, I might add - reverse-engineered the base product CyberSitter, and this in turn led to the decryption of the ScienoSitter lists. ;-)
Thanks for the factnet link, that's just too scary for words :-(
Belief is the currency of delusion.
...feel ashamed of being Swedish, but this is one such a time. This case and everything around it stinks.
Best of luck to Zenon, and let's all keep up the pressure on the crime syndicate of $cientology by whatever means available; hosting information, spreading the word, picketing, etc).
Not sure what more to say, it's just so damned depressing.
PS. Anyone know why all those Hollywood "stars" are suckered in? I've always wondered about. Seemingly intelligent people joining this alien-cult. It like status in it? I know why the crime syndicate wants rich and influencial members, but... Oh well..
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Homework assignment (due Monday) -
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Well, the Christians said it was 4,000 years old, and when science said they were wrong, they said science is wrong. But hey, noone's calling them looney and accusing them of selling garbage.
The difference between a cult and a religion is only in who believes it and how much power they have. And the church of scientology is going after that power.
"But my friend, the facts don't support your thesis."
"Well, so much the worse for facts"
Oh. I didn't mean to imply anything. Sorry. You are right "we" as atheists are all individuals. It's just easier to refer to the inclusive term. But you cannot have a cult of nothing; that is correct.
Lowmag.net
I agree. Assholes will be assholes, regardless of their situation.
But if they didn't use religion to control the masses, the situation they were in wouldn't allow them as much power to abuse.
Religious leaders were (and often still are) free to commit whatever excesses they wish and justify it by saving it was god's will.
So yes, I think the world as a whole would have suffered MUCH less without religion. It wouldn't be perfect because many of those assholes would have gravitated to other lines of work that allowed them to control people, but it would be better. If only because people kill politicians more readily than religious leaders.
Screaming FUD doesn't make it so.
> Do you really think that in the absense of religion things would have been any better?
Yes. Immensely. All the nasty things that happened without religion would still have happened, but the ones dependant on religion wouldn't have.
> Yes, religion does have power to influence people and at times that power has been abused,
At times? How is it good to have a corrupt power structure dictating to people how they should live their lives? Don't even bother trying to claim that religious leaders aren't corrupt. They try to convince people of obvious untruths (just read any holy book) and use that to control people.
If they had some grand truth, it would be evident without power structures and orders.
> There are many cases of religious institutions and religious people helping others.
Many religious people have helped others. Sure. But those people would have helped others without the whole organized religion.
Religions exist to gain power for the leaders. Helping people doesn't serve that, thus religions as a whole don't help people.
> While tithing is important in the mormon faith, it pales in comparison to the importance of the family.
What a lie. The mormon church is rapidly rising in the list of richest organizations in the world. They do that precisely because NOTHING is more important to them than tithing. You might be hard pressed to find an official who would ADMIT to thinking tithing is more important, but that's what the religion (like others) is all about, money, money, money. And I doubt they really care about how far anyone strays, as long as they keep tithing.
>> our religion-influenced government will take your children away
> I hardly think the mormon church has a significant influence over the government
The mormon church is no doubt the strongest government influence, in Utah. If they were larger, they'd be a stronger influence in more areas.
I don't want to sound patronizing, but... it's really obvious. If you weren't in a religion, you'd see what they're like.
If people really wanted to help others, they wouldn't invent this whole rigamarole of oddball beliefs and strict punishments, they'd just go help people. But they do create these religions, which means they're looking to do something other than help people.
Interesting idea. Perhaps when one clicks on the "topic icon" for a story, rather than merely bringing up a list of recent stories...above that list could be a summary of the topic, with links to related info (whether they're Slashdot backgrounder info or other sites). Look at the Slashcode and see if is already implemented...
Give credit where credit is due: people do stupid and violent things without the help of religion. Just because people are violent and stupid, that doesn't mean the all religions are bad. Do you think the people in your examples are actually following the central religious ( and very libertarian ) tenet "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?
By your logic, you could list some accomplishments of Linux as:
Sheesh...
Beatiful analysis Mr. typical_geek.
and people holding similar beliefs today are held in very low esteem in enlightened circles. Just because Larry Wall made a useful and popular language doesn't mean that everything he thinks, believes, does or stands for is the same. It all has to be evaluated on the merits.
You are essentially making the same point as the author you are refuting: people should be judged on their individual acts, and so should the practitioners of various religions.
And as for the Christians, they have gone so far as to sanction rape, murder, war, and even genocide.
Oh really? I have a news flash for you: these same dirty deeds have also been sanctioned by various Males, Atheists, Barbarians, Persons between 5'11" and 6'4", certain Indian tribes, people wearing trenchcoats, and even some persons living in Africa - in short, the one thing in common is that we have a pattern of people with various attributes and affiliations committing atrocities. So where does the problem lie? Human fucking nature, that's where.
The point is that religion is a tool for manipulation of masses, whether it was the intention of its creators from the beginnig I just don't know
Actually, the point is that computers are a tool for manipulation of the masses, as are televisions, credit cards, governments, novels, and fortune cookies. Whether it was the intention of the creators of these things from the beginning I just don't know.
Which this or that,...
Which Bible did you read that didn't say "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and that "there is no higher rule than this", or "thou shall not kill"?
All of the problems you mistakenly attribute to religion are, in fact, problems with human nature. Not a few evil leaders. Not a few extremists. Not religion. All of those putative "causes" could mysteriously vanish and we would still have the same atrocities committed using different justifications. Capiche?
There's *NOTHING* good in the world which can be attributed to religion, which could/would not have happened without it. But there are many bad things which nobody would have been driven to do without power-mad popes and other religious figures forcing them to do.
You're really naive if you believe that those people who murdered and committed other atrocities with religious justifications would have been kind and gentle human beings if only it weren't for religion. They would simply find another justification for being murderers or assholes. People have been wronging eachother long before there were bibles. We wouldn't be an inch closer to utopia if all religions disappeared.
It actually preceeds Jesus by many centuries.
True enough. But so do peace, love, and all things good. Sometimes we need to be reminded though.
The more religious stuff is studied, the more religions fall back behind the argument that God is deliberately hiding from any scientific testing. Kind of a funny god if you ask me.
Is that so? Then I bet you'd find it interesting that the more we study the physical universe, the stranger and more inexplicable it gets! At our current level of understanding, the universe is intrinsically probabilistic! Kind of a funny universe, if you ask me. And it's also nice to know that we have so much power over the universe that any time we observe experiments (such as the two slit experiment), we can force the universe to hide what it was doing and switch from wave behavior to particle behavior.
Now this is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think I make a point.
Also consider that Science proves absolutely nothing. We build models and that help us make more accurate predictions. But a difference in a measurement of one part in a zillion can invalidate the model in favor of a new model, complete with drastically different philosophical implications.
Furthermore, you can't even prove your own existence, much less anything else. The very best you can do is "I think, therefore I am". But that is good enough for most. But get this: to the best of our knowledge, any boundaries between you and the rest of the matter and energy in the universe are somewhat arbitrary, and you can think of the universe as a collective whole. Heck, people even write wave functions for the whole universe (which you are a part of). So when you say "I think, therefore I am", the universe itself can also lay claim to this same self awareness with the same validity that you do, since you are just a wrinkle in its fabric. So substitue "God" for "universe" and you have no more contradiction inherent in God's existence and awareness than in that of your existence/awareness or the laws of the universe itself. Now I'm not saying that this is necessarily true, but it is just as plausible as your own existence.
Nah, they don't all rely upon snake oil salesmen. And when you boil things down, a lot of them have the central tenet "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Nothing quacky about that. Makes perfect sense to me that the world would be a much better place if people followed that basic instruction. That instruction is pretty much the gist of Christianity, and the ancient texts quote Jesus as saying so.
Scientology, on the other hand, is not a religion, but rather a business based upon IP. Religions are open source. This distinction doesn't hinge upon whether any of the claims made are true or not - it's just a useful way to distinguish a religion (whose putative purpose is the betterment of mankind) and a business whose own founder joked about inventing his "religion" so that he could make money from it. You can make a distinction between the motives & intent of L. Ron Hubbard vs Jesus/Mohommad/Budda et al.
Actually, you can say all medicine is bogus, but you will be proven wrong
You can say that all medicines are harmful, and you would be right. They all have side effects and can cause harm, especially if used incorrectly. Same goes for the application of religions.
Whoever tagged your post as flamebait must be a scientologist, you were right on the money.
Thank God for freedom of thought is all I have to say!
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
A religion attempts to fulfill the spiritual needs of an individual. There is no concern beyond their spiritual welfare and the desire to help them to become a better person. This may mean accepting Jesus, becoming Enlightened, or whatever. While there may be fund-raising involved, it is usually intended stricly for the upkeep of religious structues and spiritual leaders or for the benefit of other people, such as for food for the homeless.
A "religion," or cult, mimics this behavior in an attempt to squeeze money, sexual favors, or adoration out of an individual. In such an organization there is frequently a leader or group of leaders who experience material gain at the expense of their followers. Followers are usually pressured into decisions that benefit the core of the cult at the expense of the common members, such as Scientology's alleged pressuring of its core office staff to avoid pregnancy and get abortions or the Branch Davidians' marriage of all women (including underage girls) to David Koresh.
While Religions are not immune to power-grabbing by selfish members, cults are often focused around this. Scientology has a nasty reputation for strong-arm tactics and its leaders have made somewhat worrisome statements in public before about enemies of the church needing to be "dealt with." Twice they've tried to defend in court their right to name enemies for constant harrasment under Freedom of Religion.
I realize that if you don't see religion as a positive thing, the distinction may be lost on you, but there is a significant difference between, say, Shinto or Islam and Scientology. A church shouldn't be run like a business, much less like a crime family. I don't know how much of the rumors are true, but the public actions that the church has taken are good indicators that they could be.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Oh, you mean the great statues of Buddha?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I'm not going to do your web searches for you. Look for the case of Lisa MacPherson, a scientologist who died under their 'medical care'. You might also look for info on the RAF, a scieno work contract (for a period of One Million Years) that effectively makes you their slave.
:) The question is, can you?
Any site that has accurate information on those things will probably also have reams of other accounts of what the clams have done members and ex-members, mentally, legally, financially, and physically.
I attack Scientology because it is evil, not because it is different. Believe me, I can distinguish the two cases.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Don't know if you noticed, but L. Ron Hubbard has put out about three or so novels since his death. If you look closely at the copyright page of these books, you'll see that they were written by the 'L. Ron Hubbard Foundation', or some such nonsense. There is a committee within scientology that is writing books in Hubbard's name. I don't think we'll ever be rid of that hack.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
There's a significant difference between Scientology and the other religions you mention. The other religions don't preach that their detractors can be lied to, sued, and destroyed in any way possible. That's one of the central themes of Scientology. The clams (*) have made frivolous lawsuits, threats, and occassional illegal activity (including killing a Judge's dog) into a refined art form. Because their religion *tells* them to.
:) If you want to have a belief system, make it self-consistent or be prepared for ridicule.
Scientology is evil. I can't make such a strong judgement against any of the other religions you've mentioned.
They also believe incredibly stupid things. And personally, I believe that mocking irrational religious beliefs is a hobby that every clear-thinking person should engage in.
(* -- 'Clams' are a derogatory term for scientologists. Its origin comes from another part of the 'church' scripture, in which Hubbard theorized that human beings evolved from clams. Folks, I could not make this up.)
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
"The REAL interesting part is how Hubbard, as a crappy sci-fi author, wrote an interesting backstory for his religion. Turns out, the reason you feel bad sometimes (mentally, although bad thoughts lead to bad physical condition) is because... well..I never get this part right, because its just dumb. Something about a Galactic Civil War, and all these alien people being imprisioned in a volcano on Earth (when it was just forming) and then having atom bombs (not thermonuclear weapons, mind you - we're talking Fat Man and Little Boy here, and these were aliens which could do FTL and lord knows what else) dropped on them. Their spirits came to become Man, or something like that, and the auditing process is supposed to release them."
Wow, you mean the bone-crushing vacuousness and resulting existential angst of modern life is really due to evil aliens. Hell, I feel a lot better now. Where's the salvation jar?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Bokononism!
"All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies."
(hint: read Cat's Cradle by Vonnegut)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Scientology tries to reach out to people and say: "Money is making your pyschic aura filthy. Give it to us. Now."
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
You've gotten a lot of skeptical replies - but I think it's because you're asking the wrong question.
The question I think you're really asking is not "how can" a religion "have" trade secrets, but why does a religion need trade secrets?
How can a religion have trade secrets? The same way anything has trade secrets.
Why does a "religion" believe it needs trade secrets? Because - unlike Sun worship, Pharaonic Egypt, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and most of the other faiths, I believe that Scientology was designed from the outset as a means for separating fools from their money.
Anything that exposes a potential sucker to the fact that he or she will pay about $300K to learn the story about "Xenu and the volcanoes in Hawaii" is a serious risk to the $cieno business plan.
To those who bash religion in response to the poster's original question - I'm not talking about whether or not other religions may have degenerated into means of separating fools from their money. I'm merely saying that they weren't intended as such when they started.
Actually, wasn't it that you'd die of pneumonia?
(Hmm, it's been out for a few years now, where's the epidemic?)
>Writing of religious texts should definitely be for creating a better way of living.
Well.. I think the toplevel scientologists ARE living better.. or at least more comfortable. Ofcourse, as a mere follower it'll only make you poorer. On the other hand.. I just read the Xemu text posted by another user, and I found it so incredibly silly.. It made me laugh. And laughing more is a better way of living.
Cult.. Religion.. it's really all the same to me.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
And why not? There's probably some positive morals in Star Wars (Dark side is easier but will consume you etc..). No reason why Star Wars wouldn't be a holy book to some religion. Could be fun in countries that don't recognize atheism, like some islamic countries.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I was wondering that myself. Can i get a trade secret for something?
I also find it odd that a church would copyright its word, and make it hard for people to get to. Most religions want their word everywhere, hoping it will draw people in.
Actually, the earth has been scientifically dated at around 4.5 billion years. I don't know how old Hawaii is, but the ocean's seafloor and many of it's islands are absolutely no more than 200 million years. However, the oldest continental crust (dry land) is dated at around 3.8 billion years.
As disgusted as I am by my own country's kowtowing towards organized religion, the OBLIGATORY question of religion allows you to specify "none" as I recall. Though I do see your point - it's not a question you should have to answer.
But then, every country is backwards in some way. I.e. cryptography being illegal in France (and the wonderful domesticated pets known as ferrets also being illegal in france, as they are considered wild animals). My point is not to pick on France, but simply to state that EVERY country, being a large organization run by many people, some of whom are entirely self-serving, is backwards in some ways.
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
Since the farce of Scientology is illegal in Germany, wouldn't this guy be pretty well protected if he moved to Germany, and then continued to disseminate this crap from there? Although the EU laws cover all of the EU, don't local laws override that?
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
Wrong. She did not know what she was getting into. She was BORN into it. Her parents MADE her be a member. Her dad was the one who joined volutarily.
As for education, the fact that a few people actually go to college doesn't mean they don't discourage it. There were a few people she knew who went to college, but that was out of the very large number of people she knew. I've heard out east that it is more accepted than it is here in the midwest. In her congregation it was definately frowed upon.
As Squid said, it is indeed 144,000. I'm not sure of exactly what math and from what numbers they use, although Squid's reason rings a bell. You can easily get any number you want by manipulating any other number, so it's pretty ridiculous.
They also try to predict when the world will end with similar methods. It was supposed to end early last century, and when it didn't happen, they revised is for around 20 years later. Since it didn't happen then and they lost a LOT of their members because of it, they have now switched their official word for the end date to "soon". Her sister and dad literally don't save money because of this. It's surreal, to say the least.
There are plenty of copies around on the net. BFM is available from my site.
(But better not try today. Since my reports about Zenon's court case were just slashdotted, the server is currently a bit slow ;-)
Karin Spaink
also sued by Scientology over their so-called secret scriptures. But since the Dutch courts have ruled differently, I won: the pages are still available.
I write, therefore I am:
I write, therefore I am:
http://www.spaink.net/
On the assumption that you're being serious (probably wrong), the last thing that the so-called "Church of Scientology" wants is for anyone to have unrestricted access to their "sacred texts". There's no way their scam would work if their average recruit was exposed to that stuff before the CoS had a chance to properly brainwash them. They've got to slowly "introduce" them to these bizarre concepts (sucking money like the parasites they are), to make sure they can diffuse any tendencies toward critical thought.
There's plenty of stories out on the net about people's personal experiences with Scientology "brainwashing". They start out slow, with simple stuff with that people don't find very controversial.
A lot of their early programs resemble therapy sessions, where people babble about their lives & the host provides a sympathetic ear. In this manner, they build up a lot of trust & loyalty, as well as compiling information about individuals that they can use to manipulate (or in some cases, threaten) later on.
As people ascend to various "levels", they are gradually introduced to additional "secrets" (with the CoS extracting increasing levels of money at each level). They are encouraged to think in particular ways, all couched in psychobabble & increasingly spiritual references, to try and increase their emotional dependence on the CoS's teachings & reduce any critical thought.
People who still have some capacity for rational thought are usually weeded out at pretty low levels, and are left only with the impression that the programs were a little hokey. The people who go on would generally be described as vulnerable, or "cult-bait".
What's REALLY horrible is the self-reinforcing way that this process works - as people ascend in levels, they are encouraged to spend more time with other fellow "clears" (on of their term for a person who has been mentally trained to think "correctly"), and to either recruit or avoid disturbing non-clears. As their thought processes get weird, rational people naturally start avoiding them, so they are isolated both by the CoS & the society around them.
Of course, the fundamental reason that all of this works is because it's incremental - each step in the conversion is a very small change in thought which can be easily rationalized from any motivated person who is trying to reach a goal of "personal serenity" (pretty much what every religion/cult is offering). It all breaks down if the final teachings, the really far-out stuff about aliens from the destroyed-planet-turned-asteroid-belt, are available right up front for people to peruse w/o having been had their thoughts properly "guided & trained".
That's why the CoS emphasizes total control of this information, 'cause if it's easy for people to read that stuff before going to through the process, any CoS member would be laughed out of the room everytime they tried to recruit someone (whereupon the CoS wouldn't last too long...).
I think these are pretty standard thought-modification tactics, used by all sorts of cults, religions, political parties, governments, etc.
This may be the case. But other religions make their documents public and don't hide the stories that underly their faith. They are upfront and honest about them and allow their flocks to achieve faith in their own way. Scientology does NOT do this, they conceal and hide information and then indoctrinate, piece by piece over time. THAT is the bad part, not the content of their allegories, although I may find them weird. Note that the Bible and other legitimate religious texts are the collections of collective cultural knowledge and stories built up over the years. They document a set of cultural morality tales. In these cases, L Ron Hubbard wrote his own set of cultural creation myths, etc. about 50 years ago (whenever it was, it was this century in any case). You can believe them as you will - the issue here is the way in which the organization CoS hides, obfuscates, sues, brainwashes, etc. Practices that make cults out of religions.
But I believe you're mistaken if you believe that was L Ron Hubbard's goal. A moderately intelligent person could do just what I described. L Ron Hubbard was a nutcase, was embedded in the sci fi he wrote and I believe, like many in that realm, really disliked humanity as a whole. In other words, his religion was not created to produce a positive constructive influence to provide moral guidance to humanity, but rather was created to prove how he was so damned smart that he could make people genuinely believe the worst sort of sci-fi-babble drivel religion and defend it as if it was the absolute truth. He succeeded in creating a self-propagating organization with the craziest sort of religious mythos. And in his lunacy, I think that's what he wanted. I'm sure his Body Thetans are all laughing somewhere about it now. :)
WASHINGTON, DC.
The US Copyright Office has done it again. The 1998 patent request that gained a laugh on online geek zines was granted earlyer this week. Global Carbide, INC of Chicago, IL has recieved a patent on Catholocism. Whether or not they will go after Rome or local diasease a spokesperson said, 'We do not plan on going head-to-head with the Vatican in a legal strugle. Instead we will license The Body of Christ(tm) Holy Water(tm) and other IP to Catholics at a premium around the world.
No, that particular intellectual atrocity can't be laid at the Catholics' feet. You're probably thinking of the torture and murder of Hypatia of Alexandria.
When the Arabs sacked Alexandria in the seventh century AD, the question of the fate of the greatest library of the ancient world was left to one Caliph Omar. His decision must have sounded like the wisdom of Allah Himself to the soldiers with the torches: "If what is written in these books agrees with the Koran, they are not required; if it disagrees they are not desired. Destroy them."
Different instruments, different players, but the song remains the same.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Maybe. Could also be the the ones who invented algebra, too.
Could be, but I kinda doubt it.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
You are heir to thousands of year of Western culture (do the names Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Solomon, Moses, et al mean anything to you?), only by virture of wise Islamic scholars
Would these be the same wise Islamic scholars who torched the library at Alexandria?
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
No evidence that any particular one of them is true.
:(
Yeah, it's hard to compile an accurate history of civilization when assorted travelling religious freakshows keep burning your books.
Myself, I'm perfectly willing to believe that all three arson suspects (Julius Caesar, the Catholic patriarch Theophilus, and the Moslem caliph Omar of Damascus) had a hand in the downfall of Alexandrian scholasticism. If the dirty accusations floating around make even one modern-day fundamentalist politician think twice about his/her own place in history before striking a match... then the more blame the merrier.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
What is your definition of a "real" religion? Without sounding like a bigot, how can you claim one religion is any more valid than another?
The "American Rule", that in general each side bears its own costs in a lawsuit might have changed the financial impact of this case.
The other side is usually referred to in the United States as the "English Rule" (though it applies in many, many countries other than England). I don't recall the rule for Sweden, but for example in Germany, they have "loser pays" with limits on reimburisable fees and amounts that can be expended in a lawsuit. (My understanding is that courts set budgets for cases.) The amounts of money being attributed to attorneys fees here do not seem so high as they might be in the U.S., so there does seem to be some limit to the fees in this case.
Mind you, a copyright case is one of the few areas in US law where you can get your legal fees if you win. That puts sort of a bug in things because the same thing MIGHT have happened here.
I ... will ... go ... as ... slowly ... as ... I ... can.
Please understand, not all religions are trying to convert the whole world to an open text of beliefs. Christianity is an evangelical religion, generally trying to grow the body of believers. Judiasm, on the other hand, is perhaps better understood as trying to do so within a limited ethnic community.
However, religious power has often been framed in terms of secrets that make those who obtain them more powerful. Part of remaining powerful is to keep these secrets from others. Freemasonry operated on such a model. The higher you went, the more secrets you learned. George Washington was a high-ranking freemason, go visit the freemason's monument to him in Virginia (Arlington, I believe).
There are many more ancient cults that operated this way. The Greeks had a bunch of them about the time that Christianity was spreading. The Oracles of Delphi weren't in the business of trying to convert people. (Don't think of their real effect as being these vague predictions of various historical events, think of them as colonization coordinators who had a good act.)
Please remember, for most of human history, people have considered knowledge to be power, and not something to be shared. The "openness" gig is the new, strange one.
Both have David Touretzky as an adversary...David has written several essays exposing Scientology for the sham it is...and he hosts the DeCSS gallery at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/
Guess that's where he figured out how to take on mind controlling organizations that want to limit your freedom and your rights...
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
It's the heart of the matter. Scio's, top level ones, do not, NOT want the Xenu story spread about. That was what the Swedish case was about: stopping the Xenu story from becoming public. The U.S. mysteriously intervened in the internal affairs of Sweden to prevent the material, now a public court document there, from becoming public.
The Xenu/body thetan arc is the basis of all high-level Scientology, their Genesis. But you have to prove yourself over many years, and pay much money (in cash or time) to get access -- at which point you don't have much critical thought left.
The widespread leakage of the Xenu story is ruining their recruitment efforts and making them the laughing stocks they should have been always, if they had not used trade secret laws to hide the story.
The Scienos were the first attackers of internet freedoms, claiming defamation and copyright violations at every opportunity to shut critics the hell up. But every time they squeeze, the just make a bigger mess...
I think I'll take the Scientology "punishment". =)
You put punishment in quotes after talking about death. Anything short of death isn't a punishment? Is any modern behavior OK just because you can point to someone in history that did something worse? If a racist group goes around beating up black people, or burning down their homes, do we say "In the past (and someplaces even today) if they don't like the color of your skin they kill you. I'll take the neo nazi 'abuse' :)"
In modern western cultures, it is not acceptable to harrass, abuse, threaten, terrorize or otherwise punish someone for changing religions. Trying to underplay abuse because somewhere, sometimes it could have been worse would allow almost any level of horrific behavior. Its not a rational excuse.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
I think of a "religion" as a cult or sect using quasi-religious rituals, psychological tricks and other means to bring their followers to heel. The "religion" must suppress the individual personality with browbeating, hardship, menial tasks, repetition and isolation from the real world while all the while fleecing them for money.
The CoS does all of these things and more.
how can a religion have trade secrets???
Also, the authors of the bible, koran, and most other religious texts have been dead for quite a while, which means they're public domain.
HA! Let's see how the courts deal with the Second Coming.
It has a wonderful and comprehensive section on Scientology.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/
KFG
Despite seemingly rare acts of "good" by small parts of these organizations, you surely must concede that the the two main derivatives of Judaism (Islam, Christianae) are exceptionally violent belief systems.
The unabashed support of jihads even by the present day Islamic leaders is proof enough that Islam preaches violence.
And as for the Christians, they have gone so far as to sanction rape, murder, war, and even genocide.
Most people are good as individuals, and most core faiths do not preach evil beliefs natively.
What is ironic is that the greatest historical evils and the most common petty discriminations both sheath and justify themselves in religion.
I am sure that mostly all moslems are good people, and that Islam does not advocate evil.
The fact remains that their faith is being used by some to justify it, just as is the chistian faith.
The organized aspects of these religions are the potentially dangerous parts. When practiced privately at a level of organization no larger than a family, they are most pure. When integrated into governments or extra-governmental organizations they are most debased, and most vulnerable to abuse.
This is the Xenu Leaflet answer. It's actually a bit more complicated than that. You can start by picking up a copy of an old Martin Gardner book called Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science -- it covers Hubbard's pre-Co$ work with a surprisingly gentle (but still scathing) review of the principles behind Dianetics.
.nl), so the "trade secret" thing has long gone out the window. It's pretty scary stuff.
The Xenu story seems to have come out of a drug-induced hallucination that Hubbard had while vacationing in Las Palmas in the Canary Islands (coincidentally enough a critical location in the weird, rambling OT III papers that the story was written up in).
What Dianetics is about is a slight plagiarism from Freud: the mind is divided into Analytical and Reactive sections. The Analytical mind is like a computer, perfectly logical; the Reactive mind is more like a trunk-trawler, scraping up and recording unconscious (often in-the-womb) memories ("engrams") and storing them as literal words, later to come back and haunt you (a couple of examples: Dad beats Mom and says "You've got to take it", fetus hears this and grows up to be a thief; Mom asks for an aspirin; when child grows up has a problem with rectal itching caused by the memory of the words "ass burn"). The point of Dianetics was to erase these "engrams" and "refile" them as ordinary memories; once this was done the patient was "Clear".
The thing is that most of Hubbard's "case studies" were clearly made up. Hubbard responded by turning around and creating a Dianetic religion -- Scientology. In Scientological terms, we are infested with the spirits of disgruntled dead people called Thetans; if we could get rid of all these (by clearing them, one at a time) we could become all powerful, with no reactive mind to speak of and no unclear thetans latching on to us and making their problems ours.
The church itself considers the concept of Scientology as a religion to be a front; it's really no more than a form of occult Freudianism with a reign of terror thrown in for good measure. (And believe me: if half of what is said is true, Nicole Kidman's life in the next couple of years is going to be a living hell.)
There's a lot more to it; I was never a church member myself, so most of what I know is from what I've read at places like www.xenu.net. The information is easy enough to get (even legally in a lot of places, especially
/Brian
ps To those of you scientologists reading this, while I do think your belief system is a crock, you have every right to believe it. There is such a thing as the Free Zone (www.fza.org) that specializes in keeping the flame burning (i.e. squirreling tech for reasons of conscience) without the hell that the Church puts its members through.
Your beliefs are not well understood because they're incomprehensible to anyone who decides to risk pneumonia and "freewheel through the implant" without the proper preparation.
/Brian
Read the evidence. If Ron believed what he created when he died, he sure didn't going into it. And there's evidence (not proof, mind you, it's somewhat circumstantial) that Xenu (or Xemu, or whatever you prefer to call him) was a drug-induced hallucination anyway.
This is sort of a sticky issue, if you ask me. The big problem Mr. Panoussis probably had was the fact that it's something of a battle of dueling principles, and if the principle in question is not black-letter law, that makes it all the harder for the court to take the plaintiff's side.
/Brian
Matt
offshoremp3s.com.
Names, please.
How come so many Scientologists and Scientology supporters have criminal records? How come so many of them are losers who are taking their personal frustration out on the critics of their crimes?
We have Founder L. Ron Hubbard with his criminal conviction for petty theft for passing bad checks and with a record of wife-beating and drug abuse, who died on psych drugs while hiding from the authorities. Not only did his ex-wife and his own son describe him as a "paranoid schizophrenic" but a judge even described the cult he founded as "paranoid and schizophrenic" and stated that this was a "reflection of its founder." Among his other crimes, L. Ron Hubbard was sentenced to four years of prison for fraud by a French court, but he remained a fugitive from this charge as well.
Hubbard was also a child abuser, who forced his son L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. to take phenobarbitol and who was fined $50 and sentenced to probation for abandoning his own daughter in a vehicle.
Theft conviction
Wife-beating and drug abuse
Death on psych drugs coroner report
Described as a "paranoid schizophrenic" by ex-wife
Described as a "paranoid, schizophrenic megalomaniac" by his own son
Described as "schizophrenic and paranoid" by judge
Convicted of fraud and sentenced to four years in prison
Fined and put on probation for abandoning his daughter in a vehicle
Forced his own son to take drugs
Then we have L. Ron Hubbard's third wife Mary Sue Hubbard, who was convicted of felonies and served jail time for helping her husband mastermind the biggest domestic espionage case in American history, involving burglarizing government offices routinely and committing other crimes. Even her own lawyers admitted that she had committed these crimes, as well as 11 other Scientologists who were convicted of crimes including felonies.
Sentencing memorandum describing crimes as "heinous and vicious"
Stipulation of evidence admitting to multiple felonies by Hubbard and other defendants
Next comes the President of the cult he founded, Heber Jentzsch, who has just recently skipped out on a million dollars bail for felonies in Spain, making him a fugitive from justice and persona non grata in all of Europe. A habitual liar, who constantly claims that his cult has eight million members, this criminal can be seen in handcuffs all around the net, and can accurately be described as a bail-jumping felon.
Heber Jentzsch Spanish criminal charges
That's funny, I thought they were caused by the fall of the Roman Empire.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Excuse me, but I got the impression that his point was not that these great thinkers were Westerners, but rather that the Islamic scholars of Istanbul and the Catholic monks of Ireland were almost soley responsible for the preservation of their works after the fall of Rome.
Were it not for those monks, all those great classical texts (which made the Renaissance possible) would probably have been lost forever.
Just a guess here, but the person who posted this probably just got done reading "How The Irish Saved Civilization", a very entertaining histroical book by Thomas Cahill, which focuses most of its emphasis on this very point.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
if they want to, that's their business. But since copyright is a legal abstraction, whether we want to allow them to is our business. I don't believe such copyrights should be allowed.
The Mormons and the Vatican, notably, have lots of secret doctrine and nobody freaks out about it on Slashdot.
Mormons are certifiable whackjobs (yes, way more than Roman Catholics) when it comes to their theology. I can see why they'd want to keep secrets, but there's no inherent reason we should respect that desire. In fact, the desire to keep secrets indicates to me that there must be a reason we should not allow it. I see no basis for an "organization-al right of privacy" to anywhere near the extent that individuals should expect.
What I find great about Scientology is that the whole thing was started on a bet (I think it was about $50, but it could have been substantially more). L. Ron Hubbard wrote the beginnings of Dianetics in a science fiction short story for a magazine. One of the characters followed its precepts, which he made up specifically for the story. Readers of the story started writing him saying that they had tried the few ideas presented and they found they worked for them, and asked if he could provide more information.
A friend of Hubbard found this funny (for obvious reasons), and Hubbard bet him that he could turn this into a religion, getting a good number of devout followers. His friend took him up on the bet, and Hubbard wrote the rest of Dianetics. Scientology was born, and the rest is history. {begin not getting sued by the church of scientology statement here} Or so I hear, I can't say I have to documentation handy. {end anti-litigation statement}
Regardless of its origins though, as long as a religion actually helps its followers in some way, and they truly believe in it, then who are we to judge it? I'm free to join or not join any cult or religion if I so choose. And I definately wouldn't join one that would sue me for talking about it's "trade secrets".
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Go to Clambake for a link to a free online version of "Bare-Faced Messiah", as well as lots of other interesting information about the Co$.
I wish they'd stop calling it a religion and start calling it what it really is : an association of capitalist mind purification specialists. I don't care whether it's scientology, solar temple, or something more tame like christianity and the hundreds of others; it's still brain-filler to patch up those black patches in your mind where intelligence is too weak to bridge over.
In a sense, capitalism is akin to religion since you feed bullshit to people in order to hide your own fallacies and still get paid and be happy. Religion feeds you more or less credible blurb that soothes the mind from its infinite existential questions, hide your faults and keep you happy. No matter how honest or crooked it may be, it still serves its purpose of filling your brain and making you feel good about yourself. So what if you just paid a 3k$ for some guy to tell you you're the "chosen one", you walk out feeling radiant and full of self-confidence. Faith has its place in the world, just not in my life.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I agree with the fact this looks like bashing but most of the people here actually attack Scientology itself. ... hey! what's this ? In France, during a long suit involving the contacts between the Scientology and some politician, all the files "poof" disappeared... and they were not even using Windows ! ;-).
Why ?
Well, Scientology has an easy life and too few problems, even though most of us only know about it what the media brought to them.
And let's see : lots of money, private towns,.. and
There are too many people who protect this "religion" and too many others, like me, who claim the right to have their files public.
Or it means they are not a Religion but something much more obscure.
BTW, they lack martyrs, their adepts have nothing but their "chiefs" (or whatever to call them) whose example to follow.
Now, this won't prevent me to thank God for whatever, nor to watch Face Off or MI:2 who are played by excellent though Scientologists actors.
So : no : This is not about Religion, this is about obscurantism (but I agree this also looks mass-[flam|troll]ing
And, finally, even if I greatly appreciate Larry Wall and if I am myself a Christian, I think that his name has not much to do in such a thread.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Thats why BATTLEFIELD EARTH sucked!
Can someone please explain what this scientology is all about? I followed most of the links given but got no answer, so can some one just do the explaining in simple terms?
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
Hitler was a Catholic. He made that fact clear in his private diaries. He made prayers to Jesus mandatory in all German schools.
I know he sent Catholics to the prison camps. They didn't follow his particular brand of Catholocism, so in his eyes they weren't real Catholics. That fact alone makes him a traditional Christian.
The idea that Hitler was an Atheist is a myth that was invented by Christians. Christians are masters of revisonist history. If they don't like a provable historical fact, simply believe that it never happened and *POOF* it never did. It goes hand in hand with beliving silly things like Genesis and virgin births.
----------
Technoli
I don't think anyone sane is arguing that copyright be abolished (which, of course, doesn't stop a lot of that talk from being tossed around Slashdot). But we should fight for anonymity and sane limitations on copyright because of this - they're the tools that are needed to allow a whistleblower like Panoussis to expose wrongdoing without being punished by a wealthy and vicious adversary.
Is it clear now?
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
One thing though that's important to remember is that the Old Testament and the Gospels written by Hebrews are/were the product of a Hebrew thought process, which has largely disappeared, to be replaced by a Hellenic thought process. Hebrew thought/writing often uses allegory and symbolism. Hellenic thought focuses on truth, and logic. To say that what happened in those works actually did happen as described (as fundamentalists are wont to do) is to apply Hellenic thought to Hebrew thought. It is thus very unlikely that the resulting interpretation woud fail all logic.
For instance, Genesis can be viewed as an allegory of the Mesopotamian civilizations that preceded Judaism. Adam symbolizes a "first city". Some people left the city (forced out, possibly) and founded a new city (Eve). Cain and Abel could be two cities that went to war.
As for the second reference made, some have conjectured that Yahoshua ben Joseph (known to the world as Jesus Christ) and his disciples were members of a secret ultra-Orthodox society (the Nasoreans/Qumranians) and that references to raising the dead, turning water into wine, etc. are references to him bringing in members for an uprising against the Romans.
Of course, Christianity is the weakest religion because it is the only one whose theology depends entirely on an event that happened some 1,978 years ago in a Roman province. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, et al. do not have this weakness. They are based on a gradual evolution of thought.
The definition of what constitutes a secret in Masonic circles is up to each individual Grand Lodge. The Unified Grand Lodge of England, like many others, have taken the view that the only secrets are the means of recognition (handshakes, passwords, and such).
The secrets of a Master Mason aren't that difficult to figure out. I myself am a member of one of the "appendant orders", but I know the password of a Master Mason (it starts with an M).
There definitely were religious wars between Buddhist sects in the middle ages, not to mention that Japanese sect that used nerve gas a few years ago. These incidents do seem to be less frequent and involve fewer killings than the ones arising from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, but they do happen. I think the difference is not deism or non-deism, but rather that the Buddha's works are very clearly against violence. A murderous Christian is a bad Christian, but he can find scripture to quote out of context in support of his actions. It's very hard to see how a murderous Buddhist could fail to notice that he was a bad Buddhist...
The story of Scientology being formed on a bet between Heinlein and Hubbard makes for a great story, but it's not so clear-cut. Several people of the science fiction community witnessed comments by Hubbard to the effect of "the way to make real money is to form a religion", so I have no doubt of Hubbard's aims. Still yet, it's unlikely that the bet occurred between the two. You may want to read the full write-up at:
l ein_bet.html
http://www.urbanlegends.com/religion/hubbard_hein
Y'know, I don't have a whisper of proof or evidence for the nonexistence of a lot of things.
For example, I have an old furnace chimney that my new furnace doesn't use. I don't have a whisper of evidence or proof that a pixie hasn't taken up residence in it. Yet, if you asked me, I'd tell you I'm sure that there are no pixies are in my old furnace chimney.
To hell with all of you! I don't need to read anymore of this nonsense!
My name isn't really Jenny....
Hubbard insisted that his "clinic" (Scientology) only be called a "religion" for tax-exemption status and protection against practicing medicine without a liscence. At the time this was done, Scientologists thought it was a clever joke, and laughed every time someone had to put on a "clerical collar" to show the IRS. They even set aside an empty closet at every franchise and called it a "chapel:" other than keeping brooms and mops in it, the "chapel" is never used. Scientology has no religious veneration; it has no gods; it does not pray to anything or any one; it performs no religious rites. Scientology exists only to con money out of the gullible. A Google search on the key words "religion angle" +Hubbard will link to a letter written by Hubbard that explains exactly why he fraudulently called his sinister, criminal business a "church / religion."
I've heard it speculated that the Inquisition was actually organised to track down and interrogate those contacted by superhuman agencies (which our technological society would categorise as extraterrestrial aliens, but which earlier people called "angels"/"demons" or things like the "wee people"/"elves"/"faerie" -- an archetype which recurs in many cultures), sort of like a mediaeval X Files conspiracy.
Whether or not there's any truth in that story, I've heard from a number of sources that the Vatican Archives contains the world's largest collection of pornography, going all the way back to Greek and Roman works.
- Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. try to reach out to people and say: "Here, these are our religious documents. Use them and you'll be a better person." And if people disagree, they don't sue them for doing so, they just label them an non-believer of that religion.
Yes.Then, as history teaches us, the next step is usually to kill the non-believer. I have no doubt that the victims of the Spanish Inquisition, for example, would have greatly preferred to be sued.
The fact is that you can sling mud at any organization of believers whether it's Scientologist, Baptists or even Atheists (I'm sure some atheiests have committed an atrocity in the name of atheism at some point in history.) Another fact is that Scientologies oddball practices of "auditting" and so forth does actually accomplish something. It can effectively train you not to respond emotionally to situations. It may not be the best method for achieving this kind of self-control, but some people really need this discipline (observably, many of them post to Slashdot), and Scientology might actually help those people.
Also, if an organization wants to copyright their material or mark it as a trade secret, that's their business. The Mormons and the Vatican, notably, have lots of secret doctrine and nobody freaks out about it on Slashdot. Nobody rants endlessly because the Urantia Foundation holds a copyright on the Urantia Book (another Third Testament of the Bible that came out in the early 1900's, in case you're not keeping up.)
No doubt this discussion is going to degenerate into a sectarian He sayeth/She sayeth/It sayeth flame war, but the point I'm trying to make is that making categorical statements about religion and trying to sort religions into "acceptable faiths" and "evil cults" is just a waste of bandwidth.
Believe what you want and shut up. I believe I'll have another beer.
There have been variants on Christianity (Gnosticism) that were similarly secretive - and variants of Christianity today that are similarly big business. It gets hard to draw the line. In fact I'm surprised we don't see MORE religious movements with tiered architectures, where you don't learn the truth about the universe until you pass a certain level.
As to the definition of a cult: seems to me the only dependable definition of cult is how many people follow it. Is it out to make money? Sure, lots of religions are - it's a great way to keep the temple in good repair, ministers have to eat, and so on. Does it harm people? All religions can harm people if they become fixated on it, just like bowling can harm people if they neglect real life for it, and "harmful" cults can still manage to accidentally help people.
Put it like this: If any of Earth's religions really had a metaphorical red phone to God in the office somewhere, I figure it'd be pretty obvious: their organization would be a model of efficiency (with an all-powerful being saying "do it this way" why wouldn't it?), no one would get away with stealing so much as a paperclip from the office supply cabinet (red phone rings, "it's God, so-and-so is pilfering stuff, and he keeps a Penthouse in the safe in his office, combination 16-33-54, check if you don't believe me"), church laws never need to be amended, and for some reason the church's members are always waiting at the hospital BEFORE one of their friends is in a car accident and is brought in. No religion on Earth has outwardly visible signs of having God's home phone number, though many CLAIM to.
Which means, from any vantage point outside a religion, they all start out with a roughly equal chance of being right - and for them to be of value, it's what they tell us about OURSELVES that's important.
Which means basically ALL religions are cults - if one is, all are, since they're all written by flawed humans and susceptible to corruption. The only difference in grade is whether the organizational aspect of the cult is actively seeking to defraud people, or whether they actually believe what they're saying. Not that this really makes a fundamental difference in the amount of damage they can cause.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
That depends entirely on whether the religion is exoteric (reaching out) or esoteric (restricted to the initiated). Unless you want to argue that cults are esoteric and relgions are exoteric, but that is 'argument by definition,' a backdoor by which to bring the connotation, 'cults are evil, religions are good,' into play.
Why would Scientology try to 'patent' their way of religion.They're not. They are merely asserting the copyright (!=patent) which automatically arises by virtue of the authorship of these documents. Admitedly, they are doing this with a purpose for which copyright was not originally intended (ie to mitigate the 'free rider' externality), but rather to stifle adverse publicity. Crafty people, those lawyers. It's times like that where 'freedom of speech' guarantees reveal their necessity (of course crafty lawyers can twist those to evil purposes as well). Further, I'm far from convinced that Christian, Islamic or even Buddhist ministries, if faced with virulent criticism, would not avail themselves of the legal opportunity the defendant presented to the CoS.
Karin Spaink
I write, therefore I am:
I write, therefore I am:
http://www.spaink.net/
Stop arguing among ourselves and set up a fund to help the poor guy pay the legal fees!!
Anyone?
There was this fellow named Josef Stalin (not his real name, it was Iosif Vissonariovich Dzhugashvili [pardon my crappy transliteration], which is a Georgian name), lived in the old Soviet Union. Fairly important fellow over there, IIRC. He had these notions about Jews, rather akin to Hitler's, but without the "Master Race" crap. I don't think we'll *ever* know how many of them he killed (not personally, mind) but I've heard estimates as high as 54 million. Word has it that he killed them in large part because they *weren't* atheists - that their religion was a threat to the atheist ideals of the Soviet Union. History calls this massive organized murder "The Pogroms", and they were a very major part of Stalin's domestic policy, along with collectivization and the endless series of Five-Year Plans.
Being of a religious or an atheist bent doesn't automatically qualify or disqualify anyone from committing crimes against humanity.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Chris Tembreull
"My karma just ran over your dogma."
There are small "non standard" or occultist groups that are not cults. There can be large traditional churches that are cults. There can be non religious groups that still fit the definition of cults as control groups. (OT For the record I think that the first group of disciples around jesus constituted a cult by many of the (real, not your) sociological describers of cults.)
I understand why someone in a cult group would want to play sophist games to make the word "cult" meaningless because it lets them duck the real issues of their behavior. But why is it so popular with other people? Is it just a fun game where you think you've won an argument by refusing any common language to hold the discussion in? Mental masturbation? Identifying with "outsiders" and not wanting to admit that some outsider groups are just not as healthy as others? What?
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
I'll explain it to you. A religion can't have trade secrets. Not under swedish law anyway. The United States is behind this court. Read on.
What happened in Sweden was this:
Some guy published the book.
The book then found itself into a public institution and became a public document.
I don't know how, but my guess is that it had to do with the court that Panoussis was holding.
In Sweden there is a constitutional law called "Offentlighetsprincipen", i.e. "the Principle of Openness", which dictates that all documents (including letters, email, everything) held by the public institutions can be read by any citizen upon request. The only exceptions (and there are few) are for military safety reasons, or to protect witnesses, etc.
So, if you are a journalist, you get access to the mailboxes of all government officials among other things.
At this point in time, you could also read the whole Scientology bible, because it had been made public. Under swedish law this is fully legal, no matter what the copyright laws say.
The next thing that happened was that a bunch of people from Washington, congressmen and others, all of them from the scientology church, went directly to the government of Sweden and put serious pressure on them to stop the bible from being read. This was reported in all the newspapers and our prime minister spoke about how the united states was threatening to take Sweden to court for neglecting IP rights, they were going to boycott Sweden in the UN for neglecting freedom of religion and a lot of other things.
Our prime minister admitted that it was dubious under our consitution to prevent the Scientology bible from being read, but that the pressure from the US was too strong and would have serious consequences for Sweden, if we didn't follow suit. It was "nobody cares about Scientology anyway, and we don't want to lose any trade benefits, so let's do what they say.."
This whole court was then arranged to fit Americas needs.
It is the biggest political shame that Sweden has had to deal with for many, many years, if you ask me. Because the principle of openness is the best law we have in Sweden, bar none. It is the only law people really like, because it is essentially a non-control, anti-government law. It has practically made corruption impossible for parliament members..
This story is a great example how America can easily get smaller countries around the world to do their errands.
Will code a sig generator for food
This text is not the posters original work. The original is for a leaflet found at Operation Clambake's Web site here
Burn Hollywood Burn
Umm, a great many religions have used this model of of secrecy. Scientology is just the first religion to charge money for secrets.
The Catholic Church had secret orders, certain Jesuits took a secret fourth oath. Islam has like the sufis mystic sects that aren't interested in sharing their knowledge. Juadiasm has kabbalists. The freemasons, as mentioned above, don't care to have their secrets shared with outsiders either. Only a Mormon can enter a Mormon temple once it has been "sealed".
Both the Church of Latter Day Saints and the masons have taken legal action against people who attempt to share their secrets with others. The Catholic Church has largely given up on secrets, but I'm sure that you had a very short life expectancy if you tried to reveal them during the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation.
Scientology is just a modern religion, designed to operate under our economic system, where everything has a price.
The question of whether it is true or false is irrelevant. What is so sad is that Scientology is afraid of people knowing the story.
Look at Chrisianity. It has a totally unbelievable story about a dead guy getting better a few days later. But as crazy as it is, they don't try to hide their belief; they shout it out with conviction. Why are Scientologists so lacking in that conviction? Have they no pride? Why do they fear exposure?
The answer is that their meme-complex is so fucked up, that it can't contain it's own reproductive code. Stereotypical religeons rely on hooks to entice people to want to believe in them (e.g. You will be rewarded in The Afterlife), but Scientology is so wacko, that even the dogma itself isn't enough to get people to come over, so they have to rely on a bootstrap process to implant the meme: hard-sell indoctrination through their cult.
The whole thing just reeks of poor craftsmanship. If this Hubbard guy were any good, he would have written a religeon that used the proven hook method. Instead, he invented something that is utterly clumsy compared even dinosaurs that are thousands of years old. I don't mind people experimenting with new religeous inventions, but a good craftsman knows when he's made a winner, and when he has a piece of shit. Scientology should have been scrapped as a failure long before it was ever brought to market.
How can anyone respect such mediocrity? It's the Windows of religeons; it can't compete on its merits within its own realm, so the creators have to work outside the conventional system just to proliferate it. That's fucking pathetic.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Bare Faced Messiah OCRed version.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
So, uh, wouldn't he hold himself in contempt for hot sharing (being a "scholar" and all)? (of course, he's dead, but you'd think the "religion" would follow His words...
Snapshot:
" The Church of Scientology (or: CoS; or: Co$, as some of their opponents call it) sells its followers expensive courses which, if students study them carefully, are supposed to set them free ('clear' them). A former Scientology member, Steven Fishman, was brought before court because he committed several crimes in order to get the money to pay for these courses. Scientology urged him to get the money any which way he could. According to Fishman, they also assigned him to kill somebody, and failing that, ordered him to commit suicide. In an interview for Time Magazine, Fishman relayed those stories and blamed Scientology for his crimes. Scientology sued him for slander."
Because all religions are charlatanistic businesses designed to rip off the easily duped masses by turning over large amounts of money and control over your daily lives to self-appointed know-it-alls who will make your life better, I promise. See also "communism".
You're writing this hateful troll on a weblog powered by Perl, a language written by a devout Christian. The main tome of the Perl language, the Camel book, is filled with Biblical allusions (as well as Tolkien allusions). This weblog started at a Christian college.
You are heir to thousands of year of Western culture (do the names Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Solomon, Moses, et al mean anything to you?), only by virture of wise Islamic scholars and wise Irish monks, who copied and preserved all the ancient literature they could during Europes dark ages.
And now, because of a few well known con artists, you're painting the spiritual lives of billions of people and thousands of years of history with that that same dirty brush.
When the media does this to geeks, Hellmouth reigns. When trolls do it to religion, it's approved. See the contradiction?
If you want my personal feelings, Sceintology is a close-minded UFO space cult group with asperations of world domination. Their logic is severly contraditory. For example, a Scienologiest will say he acts "for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics." There are (I think) seven dynamics ranging from God to family, civilization, etc. However, to a Scientologist, the "greatest number of dynamics" is ALWAYS scientology. Sceintology *IS* the most ethical group of the planet. If you help advance sceintology, you are ethical. If you do not help advance sceintology, you are a "wog." If you hinder Scientology, IN ANY WAY (speak out against them, tell your Scientologist daughter that L. Ron Hubbard lied, etc...) then you will be caught up in the Scientology fair game policy, which states, and I quote:
Furthermore, this group is TOTALLY against free speech (though they say they're members have total spritual freedom). The internet keeps the RTC (Religios Technology Center, the "head" of Sceintology) having fits at night. I mean, a group of people who have nothing better to do that post the Church's material on-line!
Is what these people are doing illegal? Maybe, maybe not. The Church of Scientology has called it's secrets its copyrights and it's trade secret and is trying to get the protection of both. However, court documents have shown that the copyrights to the documents may have been fraudently obtained, and that the trade secret documents are no longer trade secret because they have been published. You can order a copy of the NOTS pack from the Swiss pariliment! The church vehemently denies all of this.
Anyway. I ranted. The Church of Scientology is EVIL. Some of the things they do make Microsoft look like Strawberry Shortcake.
Man, I hope they don't find my address. I'd expect to have a group of Scientologist outside my house yelling that I'm a religous bigot who commits crimes on the internet. They do this. I'm serious.
Who is Xemu?
I'm going to tell you a story. Are you sitting comfortably? Right, then I'll begin.
Once upon a time (75 million years ago to be more precise) there was an alien galactic ruler named Xemu. Xemu was in charge of all the planets in this part of the galaxy including our own planet Earth, except in those days it was called Teegeeack.
Now Xemu had a problem. All of the 76 planets he controlled were over-populated. Each planet had on average 178 billion people. He wanted to get rid of all the overpopulation so he had a plan.
Xemu took over complete control with the help of renegades to defeat the good people and the Loyal Officers. Then with the help of psychiatrists he called in billions of people for income tax inspections where they were instead given injections of alcohol and glycol mixed to paralyse them. Then they were put into space planes that looked exactly like DC8s (except they had rocket motors instead of propellers).
These DC8 space planes then flew to planet Earth where the paralysed people were stacked around the bases of volcanoes in their hundreds of billions. When they had finished stacking them around then H-bombs were lowered into the volcanoes. Xemu then detonated all the H-bombs at the same time and everyone was killed.
The story doesn't end there though. Since everyone has a soul (called a "thetan" in this story) then you have to trick souls into not coming back again. So while the hundreds of billions of souls were being blown around by the nuclear winds he had special electronic traps that caught all the souls in electronic beams (the electronic beams were sticky like fly-paper).
After he had captured all these souls he had them packed into boxes and taken to a few huge cinemas. There all the souls had to spend days watching special 3D motion pictures that told them what life should be like and many confusing things. In this film they were shown false pictures and told they were God, The Devil and Christ. In the story this process is called "implanting".
When the films ended and the souls left the cinema these souls started to stick together because since they had all seen the same film they thought they were the same people. They clustered in groups of a few thousand. Now because there were only a few living bodies left they stayed as clusters and inhabited these bodies.
As for Xemu, the Loyal Officers finally overthrew him and they locked him away in a mountain on one of the planets. He is kept in by a force-field powered by an eternal battery and Xemu is still alive today.
That is the end of the story. And so today everyone is full of these clusters of souls called "body thetans". And if we are to be a free soul then we have to remove all these "body thetans" and pay lots of money to do so. And the only reason people believe in God and Christ was because it was in the film their body thetans saw 75 million years ago.
Well what did you think of that story?
What? You thought it was a stupid story?
Well so do we. Unfortunately this stupid story is the core belief in the religion known as Scientology.* If people knew about this story then most people would never get involved in it. This story is told to you when you reach one of their secret levels called OT III. After that you are supposed to telepathically communicate with these body thetans to make them go away. You have to pay a lot of money to get to this level and do this (or you have to work very hard for the organisation on extremely low pay for many years).
We are telling you this story as a warning. If you become involved with Scientology then we would like you to do so with your eyes open and fully aware of the sort of material it contains.
Part of the first page of the secret OT III document in L. Ron Hubbard's own handwriting
And so the great Scientology monolith smashes another dissenter.
.se).
Am I surprised?
Of course not. It seems that they use a vast proportion of their earnings (read: money ripped off from gullible/vulnerable people) to sue those who speak out against them.
Dave Touretzky (of the DeCSS descrambler gallery) has a lot of information available on these guys - somewhat more valuable, considering it's not in Swedish (what's with the link above, Michael? Please reply to this message, and tell me what percentage of the daily hits are from
And I'd recommend reading Bare Faced Messiah by Russell Miller. Unfortunately, I can't find any online retailer still willing to sell this book - the link is to used copies of early, expensive editions.
Xenu's not Unix
"And one other thing, even with the comical insanity, it wasn't a bad place to work. The reason I left was because the company was seized by the IRS for failure to pay payroll taxes."
IRS to Scientology: No, you don't understand. You owe us a million dollars!!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I find it fascinating that the same group who is lambasting Hubbard was, just a few days ago, giggling about how cool it's be to get Jedi acknowledged as an actual religion.
The arguement that all religions are cult to some degree is fairly weak, IMO. I've learned quite a bit about Jehova's witnesses since my gf used to be one of them. I myself was raised Lutheran.
In Jehova's Witness (JW) world, they control you on several fronts. You can't have friends outside the religion. You are STRONGLY discouraged from pursuing post secondary education, arguably to make you dependant on the JW network of members if times get rough, which can happen when all you have is a low paying part time job. They take up most of your time, there are four "services" per week.
Most importantly, you can be kicked out for a number of reasons: pre-marital sex (the big one for them), smoking (I think), even voting I beleive. If you get kicked out, coupled with rule #1 from above, you have NOTHING left. When my gf left the religion (before she met me) because she didn't beleive it, she was suicidal for quite a while. She had no friends, and her parents didn't talk to her for a year. Normally if you formally leave, no one, not even your parents, can talk to you EVER AGAIN. I don't know how she made it.
My religious experience was far different. Church once a week. I had more friends outside of church than inside, who were in other religions or none at all. There was no such thing as being kicked out of the church. You could be "forgiven" for anything. Sure, part of religion is "indoctrination", but it's nothing like the mind control you see in cults.
There are books out there that have rules to determine whether a religion is cult or not. Most involve mind control, money control (which JW's don't really have), and culture control of your person. Usually if a religion meets a certain number of the rules it is considered cult.
Scientology fits most of the rules I know of. Most religions were created with good intentions, even though many have been perverted into forms of control, but scientology was always evil. It was always a for-profit venture.
Remember, kids, Xenu says: All your race are belong to us! You are on the way to supression. You have no chance to ascend, make your time!
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
[pink beam of light]
A number of years ago, I worked as a programmer for a very small company which was owned and operated by scientologists. There were only about eight employees and half of us were normal. It was really comical sometimes.
For example, no one could have an arguement about any subject without reaching for this giant tome with a giant S on it (like the schilling spice S or the suzuki S). The four inch thick book somehow had guidelines for how to have an arguement.
When I arrived, I received a piece of paper with a story. The story was all about this thing called the Apollo. It went on and on about the apollo's bow, stern, engine room, and bridge. About how and when it left port and other nautical attributes of apollo. The first mention of apollo had an asterisk with a footnote, which most people don't read. At the end, they ask you what apollo is. My response was that apollo was obviously a boat. Their resonse was that it's wasn't just a boat, it was L Ron Hubbard's yacht. And since I didn't read the footnote explaining that, I obviously understood exactly 0% of the document. Huh?
At one point, they sent a (normal) co-worker to clearwater florida which is where the Org is. They gave her what amounted to brain-washing sessions. They would make ridiculous statements. And when she argued with them, they would respond with, "No, you don't understand." Because, obviously, if you understood, you would agree with them. So, I believe that you owe me a million dollars. "No I don't!" No you don't understand, you owe me a million dollars.
I once asked the VP of the company (a scientologist, the nuttiest of the bunch), "according to scientology, what happens to you when you die?" She went on a 15 minute lecture on how I was not prepared to understand that information because I had not attained a sufficient spiritual level or something and then finished with, "so for instance, if I told you that you go to the filling station in the clouds to get your memories erased, you wouldn't understand." She's right, I don't understand.
One of the programmers (a scientologist) got a cold at one point. He was firmly convinced that the reason he had a cold was because people were thinking bad thoughts about him.
It's my personal opinion that scientology is a scam. They advertise clearly non-christian ideology while using christian symbols. They use their monitary resources to engage in what can only be described as legal terrorism. They prey on people by promising them spiritual fulfillment while draining their bank accounts. And while some (even most) scientologists may really believe in their religion and have other people's interests at heart, I believe there are a lot of very power evel forces operating within their organization.
And one other thing, even with the comical insanity, it wasn't a bad place to work. The reason I left was because the company was seized by the IRS for failure to pay payroll taxes.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
It's a mistake to make the claim you're implying. It's the reverse of the ad-hominem argument. It is undeniable that Richard Wagner wrote some terrific music, but some of his personal beliefs (particularly his anti-semitism) were dead wrong and people holding similar beliefs today are held in very low esteem in enlightened circles. Just because Larry Wall made a useful and popular language doesn't mean that everything he thinks, believes, does or stands for is the same. It all has to be evaluated on the merits.
If you have any argument about the merits of the work vs. the merits of the person, look at Wednesday's Harlan Ellison thread. The guy has an ego the size of New York City, and it really makes him lose sympathy. That doesn't mean that his work is bad or his cause unjust... nor does it mean that a sympathetic person's work is good, nor their causes worthy.
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist