Slashdot Mirror


Scientology Critic Arrested After 6 Years

destinyland writes "Friday police arrested 64-year-old Keith Henson. In 2000 after picketing a Scientology complex, he was arrested as a threat because of a joke Usenet post about "Tom Cruise Missiles." He fled to Canada after being found guilty of "interfering" with a religion, and spent the next 6 years living as a fugitive. Besides being a digital encryption and free speech advocate, he's one of the original Burr-Brown/Texas Instruments researchers and a co-founder of the Space Colony movement."

49 of 1,046 comments (clear)

  1. Scary by salimma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have we in the Western world become so enamored by political correctness that we cannot even take a joke for what it is? A similar double standard is happening in Britain right now: racism by the majority is rightfully condemned, but some minorities seem to be able to get away with inciting hatred (The Observer)

    --
    Michel
    Fedora Project Contribut
    1. Re:Scary by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have we in the Western world become so enamored by political correctness that we cannot even take a joke for what it is?

      We've become so enamored with religion and terrorism that we can't make jokes about anything having to do with either.

    2. Re:Scary by edwardpickman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Comforting to see it's not just the US. Here what is percieved as the majority have to watch every word but minority groups are largely allowed to say what they want so long as it's about the majority. There is some condemnation if they insult other minorities. Intolerance and hatred is pretty color blind and virtually all groups have issues. Offhand the only major religion that doesn't condemn anyone or anything is Buddism. Most factions have some issue with some one or some thing. Even most racial conflicts tend to be more ethnic or social than racial. In the US we even have a north south division that is a hold over from the civil war. It isn't spoken of very often but there's still tension. Intolerance should never be tolerated by any group and people need to take intent into account. I remember a fuss made about a town called Fish Kil. An animal rights group was demanding they change the name of the town to something fish friendly. When locals pointed out it meant Fish River in Gaelic the group wasn't impressed and still wanted it changed. Intent is everything and sometimes the insult is in the eye of the beholder.

    3. Re:Scary by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "In the US we even have a north south division that is a hold over from the civil war."

      Did you mean to say "the war of northern aggression"?

      :-)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Scary by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Something like asking thousands of dollars for the religious scriptures?

      Oh. You mean like selling of "indulgences", a common Christian practice over most of the time Christianity has been extant, until just recently? Or do you mean like getting a blessing because you put something in the collection plate, or contributed to the build-a-cathedral fund? Or do you mean like the money one pays when one purchases any Christian book at the bookstore? Or do you mean when one pays to be educated at a Christian univeristy? Or do you mean when one donates at a tent revival? What about when a religion keeps art from the masses, as per the Catholic repository of great artworks? Does that count?

      What about when certain behaviors - compliance with the religious tenets - are rewarded with the concept that the individual who does not so comply will have extracted from them the payment of eternal suffering?

      What about when Christianity gets into the legal system and manages to prevent citizens from going about their business according to Christian notions; for instance, you can't marry more than one person, you can't perform this or that sexual activity, you can't open your store on Sunday... are these costs, or payments, extracted from the manifestly unwilling, of the same nature as those the Scientologists extract from the willing participants in their operations? Or are they actually worse, as they certainly seem on close examination?

      I mean, if you are a Christian, and you accept that one spouse is the norm, and you willingly comply with this, isn't this the same as a sscientology adherent who willingly pays the cost for the documents you refer to? Isn't it more critical that those who are not Christian are being forced to adhere to Christian ideas? No scientologist has ever tried to force me into any scientology-related mode of thinking or behavior that has a real cost in terms of life experience; yet I am constantly faced with such costs emanating from the Christian ethos.

      It appears to me, at least, that while I am not prepared to give either system of thinking a pass as even slightly rational, that Christianity is far more guilty of interfering with people than Scientology is, at least, to date.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:Scary by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Scientology is not just a bunch of wacky walking wallets providing money to their leaders, some are criminals

      Some Christians are criminals as well. You know, blowing up abortion clinics, burying newborns in walls, molesting children. So one could just as easily, and correctly, say: "Christianity is not just a bunch of wacky walking wallets providing money to their leaders, some are criminals."

      Your point then, being?

      I'm not in the least contesting the idea that Scientologists aren't loony to their very core; I'm just curious why you seem to think that Scientologists are worse than Christians somehow. Most of the differences I can think of leave the Christians as the worse offenders. Don't recall any scientologists blowing up any abortion clinics, for instance, nor can I think of them trying to tell me, a non-believer - or worse, getting a law put in place that coerces me - such that I can't marry two willing people.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:Scary by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it is just as fair to write "Christianity views those who interfere with Christianity to be fair game" or "Islam views those who interfere with Islam to be fair game."

      No, I think it's quite unfair. The very source that Christianity springs from -- Christ -- explicitly does not sanction visiting wrath upon your enemies. Jesus repeatedly makes the point that you should love your enemies, that you should turn the other cheek, and that you should in general be far more concerned about your own flaws than those of others.

      The very source that Scientology springs from -- L. Ron Hubbard -- explicitly stated that it was fair to go after enemies of Scientology, and his retraction of said policy is suspect because of both the way it was worded (mostly reflecting on the negative PR of the policy) and the fact that he stated that it was okay to lie to non-Scientologists. (Also, the fact that the policy was in effect into the 80s when a more public repudation came out belies the fact that it may not be retracted).

      The fact that Christians rarely live up to the standards of their own religion does not imply that the religion itself is harmful and actively sanctions the persecution of non-believers. Every major human institution fails because of the petty self-interests of men who are willing to twist their people's beliefs for self-gain. From Christians vowing to never forgive and never forget to Buddhists supporting samurai to Muslims turning on Muslims to Communist leaders hording wealth for themselves to anti-drug officers taking and dealing drugs on the side, there have always been people willing to compromise the prinicples of their culture or organization for personal gain. The failure of leaders and followers to stick to the spirit of their avowed beliefs does not make said beliefs hollow and valueless in and of themselves.

      To use as an underlying presumption that "Christianity = love your enemy" is, in my view, disingenuous. Christianity is demonstrably all over the map when it comes to core moral and ethical beliefs.

      The Bible is very clear on the matter. The Sermon on the Mount is the most central sermon in all of the New Testament on how Christians are supposed to live. It's the central thesis that binds everything else. Furthermore, when asked what the most important commandments are, Jesus replied, "Love God," and "Love your neighbor as yourself." From "judge not" to "turn the other cheek," Christianity is fundamentally about foregiveness and love. Anyone who misses that is quite simply an off-shoot from the faith. I'm not being a fundamentalist here; it's the core doctrine of the faith. If you miss out on that, you're not a Christian.

      Instead, you're a member of a human tribe that ritualizes Christianity as cultural binding without actually practicing the faith. You're free to hate and clash with all other cultures outside of yours, but you'd be doing this anyway without Christianity -- there would just be some other excuse to divide and hate. Maybe you'd be a Muslim. Maybe you'd be a polytheist. Maybe you'd be a militant atheist. It doesn't really matter -- you'd probably just be militantly xenophobic no matter what you were. There are biological reasons for this, after all. Anyone who doesn't appreciate that has neither and appreciation of world history nor of evolutionary sociobiology. Again, you should not blame Christianity for the unwillingness of people to actually practice what it preaches.

      It is simply unacceptable to castigate Scientology for what it has not done. Guessing doesn't count. Stick to reality here.

      I'm sorry, but the cold hard reality is that every single group in human history has at some point demonized outsiders and acted on it. Most of the successful ones got there by acting violently on those impulses. It's human nature. We're a pack animal. For better or for worse, that means that it's wired into our psychology to smooth over the flaws of the groups we identify

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  2. Scientology isn't a Religion by Cornflake917 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, it's just a pyramid scheme that takes advantage of people's unhappiness. The leaders of scientology make bank by brainwashing their followers.

    Even if Scientology was a legitimate religion, why is it illegal for someone to interfere with a religion, but it's completely acceptable for religions to interfere with everyone elses lifes.

    1. Re:Scientology isn't a Religion by Tweekster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The vast majority of religions that do not require payment. Most religions will teach the beliefs regardless of whether you cough up money. Some ask for donations but that is hardly on the same level as Scientology.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    2. Re:Scientology isn't a Religion by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what's your definition of a "legitimate religion," and why doesn't Scientology fit it?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Scientology isn't a Religion by Bastian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At this point it's no secret that L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology as a sort of get rich quick scheme. There's plenty of documentation of this, and there is plenty of information on the CoS's internal workings that has made it into the public record thanks to a number of court cases. Red flags should start flying immediately once one realizes that you have to pay the CoS thousands and thousands of dollars before they will start telling you the religion's actual theology (the stuff in Dianetics is really only the tip of the iceberg, it isn't even enough that I would be willing to say that Dianetics alone could possibly qualify as the basis for a religion).

      It's true that you've struck on an interesting semantic conundrum, though. The fact of the matter is that, as part of his scheme, LRH and his compatriots did have to construct a religion, and the fact of the matter is that anything can be a religion as long as people actually believe it. And there is a group of people, the Freezone Scientologists who have turned the official Church of Scientology and the incredible number of crimes it has committed. This group is obviously a legitimate religion as much as any religion can be according to any objective definition that I can come up with*.

      *Since I can't personally determine the details of the beginnings of any religion, I don't feel it's reasonable to say one religion is legitimate and another isn't based on which ones I am guessing came from the imagination of one man and which ones are truly divinely inspired. Especially given that, as an atheist, I believe that all religions fall into the former group. So I won't call Scientology-the-religion illegitimate despite the fact that it was created as part of Scientology-the-pyramid-scheme.

    4. Re:Scientology isn't a Religion by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Scientology is based on science and so clearly is not legitimate.

      No, scientology is based on a science fiction novel. It's no more a religion than The Jedi Order or a church based on Harry Potter.

      Personally, I don't care what scientologists do, but if I can be ridiculed for believing in ID, then I see no reason why this guy should go to jail if all he did was ridicule Tom Cruise.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    5. Re:Scientology isn't a Religion by raju1kabir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's true that you've struck on an interesting semantic conundrum, though. The fact of the matter is that, as part of his scheme, LRH and his compatriots did have to construct a religion, and the fact of the matter is that anything can be a religion as long as people actually believe it.

      But that's what's great about Scientology, and why I hope to see it flourish.

      The fact that something which was started in our lifetimes as a get-rick-quick scheme, could become considered a "legitimate religion" on legal par with Christianity and Islam and all the rest, is the most striking demonstration to date of why religion is a crock and in fact deserves no special legal recognition whatsoever.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    6. Re:Scientology isn't a Religion by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could say the same about the bible...

      No, you couldn't. The Bible, all religion aside, is at least a historic text. Many of the stories and accounts in the Bible can be and have been verified. Regardless of your religious preferences, you don't contest the fact that pharos existed, crosses were used for execution or that Caesar was in charge of Rome. Contrasted to scientology, there are no pyramids built buy Xenu!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:Scientology isn't a Religion by lbbros · · Score: 3, Insightful

      is the most striking demonstration to date of why religion is a crock and in fact deserves no special legal recognition whatsoever.

      Why was this modded insightful? While extremization of religion (but also of many other things) can be bad by itself, I don't see why there is such a hatred for that in these posts. This "intolerance" mostly comes out of people that are "tolerant", or say they are. However, respecting religion when it doesn't cause harm to you or your country (I'm talking about religion by itself, not fanatism) would be a real sign of tolerance.

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
    8. Re:Scientology isn't a Religion by sacrilicious · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The Bible, all religion aside, is at least a historic text. Many of the stories and accounts in the Bible can be and have been verified. Regardless of your religious preferences, you don't contest the fact that pharos existed, crosses were used for execution or that Caesar was in charge of Rome.

      Is Harry Potter an historic text because children really do attend schools, and take multiple classes teaching them different subjects, as depicted in those books?

      While the bible uses settings that may be mappable to various locations on earth, the bible's point has never been to assert that pharoahs existed, or that crosses were used. The bible is basically one giant assertion that there is a god, a heaven and hell, and most of the rest is detail about how to get on the right or wrong side of said heaven/hell dichotomy. To declare the bible an historic text based on its inclusion of a few possibly-verifiable but completely-beside-the-point elements seems somewhere between misguided and manipulative.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  3. Re:hm by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the things that makes Scientology dangerous is not that they believe in odd things, it's that they are very well organized and equipped to muzzle detractors. South Park attacked the fundamentals of belief in a way that's obvious. Nobody except Keith and that church branch really know what happened during his protest. The original trial where he wasn't able to even counter Scientology's accusations is a travesty of justice. Beleving in Xenu, thetans, and paying gobs of money for the privilage of memorizing word lists aren't in themselves dangerous, illegal, or even wrong. What IS dangerous is how much legal protection they are granted by being recognized as a religion and their willingness to exploit the law in their favor. Other religious organizations (Roman Catholic for the best example) dumped influencing governments centuries ago. Like a badly behaved child, this new religion is trying to do exactly what a lot of the old world religions did at one time and no longer consider fashionable.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  4. scientology is just an evil cult by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    sometimes, i think it is wrong for countries like germany to prosecute them

    other times, i think it is wrong for the usa not too

    the issue is one of persecution: one should not be persecuted for their beliefs

    but if you are persecuting a group BECAUSE they believe they have a right to persecute people like this poor guy who is also just expressing his beliefs, the argument about freedom kind of collapses in on itself

    you are free

    we all are

    but you are not free to restrict the freedoms of others

    and across that simple philosophical divide, so much misery in this world is created, this scientology case beign but one small example

    personally, i think there is intolerance, which is evil

    and then there is intolerance of intolerance, which is a virtue

    you don't gain anything in this world by tolerating the intolerant, except more misery and intolerance

    and i think this argument applies just as much to fundamentalist christianity and fundamentalist islam

    how or why is tolerance served by tolerating the intolerant?

    being intolerant of the intolerance is actually extending tolerance in this world

    scientology should be punished, not this poor guy

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  5. Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I personally hate Scientology but they are a religion and must be respected as one. If they can convince chumps to give them money, there's nothing I can do to stop that.

    I was going to say something of my own here, then I thought of this Menckenism:

    "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  6. Religion ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Surely calling scientology a religion is an oxymoron ?

    They have lots of followers but that is only because they have been brainwashed. Scientology is a way of making money for the high ups. Another source of information about the crap that the scientologists peddle is the fishman affidavit .

    If there was any sense in what they were on about they would argue it out in the open, rather than using underhand legalities to silence those who show them to be the charlatans that they are.

  7. Hmmm by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm no fan of Scientology (they suck, bottom line), but after reading the article, I'm sensing there's a LOT more to this story than we're getting told. It's not like the government are typically fans of scientologists either, so I doubt just their nutty braying is going to get someone sentenced to jail. The guy's statements make him sound a little... er... paranoid and wacked out himself.

    I think this is one of those cases where both sides are crackpots. Just because the victims are scientologists doesn't mean this guy didn't do some ugly crap that we don't know about.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  8. There have to be limits to freedom of religion by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Freedom of religion should not be extended to religions that are clearly made up. There is ample evidence to show that Hubbard pulled Scientology's belief system out his ass, the same cannot be said of any other religion from Christianity to Taoism to neo-paganism. The "Church" of Scientology is nothing more than a roving scam that exploits the first amendment to avoid taxation. It has also been shown to be a haven for systematic criminal behavior and should be considered a threat to American society.

    Bottom line is religions don't have "trade secrets," but Scientology does. I could buy that if it claimed to be a mystery religion or a form of gnosticism, but it doesn't. Rather, those secrets are exposed as the result of a financial transaction.

    Some religion. Despite my being a libertarian, I think the Germans are right on this one. It's not a religion. It's a subversive organization that needs to be monitored by the state because it has been known to use force and criminal behavior to advance its agenda, which is not even remotely religious.

    1. Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion by robably · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Freedom of religion should not be extended to religions that are clearly made up.
      Name one religion that isn't made up.
    2. Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All religions look like they are "made up" when they are getting started, are small, and the core tenets are associated to a single leader, who claims to have received them by divine revelation.

      The LDS Church (Mormons) have been around for a century and a half... old enough for some people consider it a "religion," but young enough for some people to feel that Joseph Smith just "made it up." Don't expect to see the golden plates in a museum the next time you visit Salt Lake City: Smith gave them back to the Angel Moroni.

      How do you support Christianity looked during the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth? Do you think the Roman authorities saw it as a religion? Or as something that Jesus just made up?

      Deciding what counts as a religion and what doesn't is a very tricky business.

    3. Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion by drxenos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Freedom of religion should not be extended to religions that are clearly made up.

      Um, wouldn't that be all religions?

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
  9. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by IdleTime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, the real joke is "The land of the free" bullshit.

    --
    If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  10. Re:hm by LurkerXXX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Other religious organizations (Roman Catholic for the best example) dumped influencing governments centuries ago. Like a badly behaved child, this new religion is trying to do exactly what a lot of the old world religions did at one time and no longer consider fashionable.

    Umm, have you not been paying any attention AT ALL to what the religious right has done and/or tried to do to the US governments direction and policies in the past 25 years?

  11. Re:Scientology and its ilk are all CULTS by NayDizz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The only difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of real estate they own" - Frank Zappa

  12. Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I were to start a religion based on the preservation of copyrighted works for when they may eventually enter the public domain, employing any methods necessary to make the copies (similar to the preservation of ancient works through the Dark Ages, sort of like Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery), can I gain similar protection against the likes of the RIAA and MPAA, provided I can afford Scientology's lawyers?

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  13. Wikipedia on Keith Henson by modemac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wikipedia is a geek's best friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson One ironic note about that Wikipedia article is that it was created by a Scientology sock puppet, especially to tarnish Henson's reputation with their ongoing smear campaign to make it seem as though he is a dangerous bomb-making terrorist (and a "child molester" -- they even dug up one little snippet from his divorce papers of 25+ years ago to blow it up and try to label him as that, too. His ex-wife laughed that one off and has denied the accusation as fervently as he has.) To get an idea of what Scientology has been trying to do to Keith Henson, you should go to their own hate site on the Internet: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religiou s-extremists/keith-henson/ -- but be sure to check the whole site out and see the outlandish, unbelievable BS they pile up on there. It all falls just a whisker short of libel, of course. (My own commentary on "Religious Freedom Watch:" http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Religious_F reedom_Watch ) It should also be noted that Wikipedia's entry on Scientology is probably the most informative, comprehensive, and UNBIASED look at Scientology in the entire world today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

  14. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would think that threatening a person with unimaginable torture for all of eternity if they did not deny the existence of their gods would be considered a threat. Shouldn't the police start arresting the door to door Christian recruiters?

  15. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by freakmn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see the point you are trying to make, but Christians don't have the power to damn someone to Hell. Usually it is said that God will damn you, or something like that. It is more of a warning, as it is not within their control. It is similar to someone telling you that if you lie in the middle of the freeway, you are likely to get hit by a car. They aren't threatening you with a car, but warning you of the car's coming. Whether you believe in what the Christians are saying or not isn't relevant, just that the message they are bringing isn't a threat.

    --
    warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
  16. Re:hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "religious right" is an oxymoron. Religion is only a tool to them, as far as they're concerned it's their ticket to wealth and power. Pat Robertson is NOT a Christian in any meaniful way at all. He worships MONEY - look at his neck; he's wearing Satan's leash (a necktie, the symbol pf money and power) and wearing $4k suits, bad-mouthing the poor and homeless, opining that we should assassinate foreign dictators we don't like, and so on.

    Christ taught that we should feed the hungry and house the homeless, that we should love one another as ourselves, and that it is "as easy for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" as it is to get a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

    I doubt Robertson even believes in God, even though Satan has most certainly bought his soul.

    The right are anti-poor, anti-homeless, anti-drug. Christianity is for the poor and homeless and neutral about drugs (and yes, drugs such as opium and marijuana existed then); drugs aren't even mentioned. The Baptists especially piss me off with their anti-alcohol stance, since on Christ's last night before his execution his disciples were all stone-drunk.

    Now excuse me while I go to the Church of Jack Daniels and bitch about the neocons while getting shitfaced.

  17. stupid law, trumped up charges, and fishy DA by gsn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The jury rejected Henson's claim that he was exercising his First Amendment right to criticize a dangerous cult, and convicted him of interfering with a religion, one of three counts against him. his "crime" -

    Henson seems undeterred. "After court today, my wife Arel and I picketed outside the court with signs about the women killed out at the cult's place last summer," he said in an e-mail. "We also gave away about 200 flyers about how Scientology is hurting people and breaking the law." 1) Why is interfering with a religion even a crime. What if I chose to not believe in a god, can I argue that door to door evangelists that claim I am going to hell unless I convert are interfering with my religion?

    2) Also even if interfering with religion is a crime - how is picketing with signs or giving away flyers interfering with it. He didn't forcibly go yank emeters out of peoples hands did he. He didn't take someones copy of OTIII and burn it or something. He didn't try and sink their stupid boat? He picketed and distributed flyers.

    "It was not just the postings themselves," said Deputy District Attorney Robert Schwarz. "He had been engaged in other odd behavior -- chasing down buses, taking down license plate numbers." Since when did odd behavior become illegal??? Seriously how is taking down license plate numbers illegal?

    The jury was hung on the other two counts against Henson: 9-3 for conviction on the count of terrorism, 10-2 for conviction on the count of attempted terrorism. HOW THE FUCK WAS HE EVEN CHARGED WITH TERRORISM??? The man said we should aim cruise missles at them. I've heard radio hosts talk about nuking the democratic convention? WTF is going on? And whats up with

    The site says that Scientology has a suspiciously close relationship with the prosecutor: "What kind of Alice-in-Wonderland Court is it that allows organized criminals to sit in the prosecutor's chair bringing charges against the honest citizens, in which a heavily-armed cult has Mafia lawyers direct the activities of the District Attorney?" "A dodgy District Attorney, with cult lawyers sitting at the prosecutor's table, set him up for absurd charges of threatening the cult with cruise missiles," says Dave Bird, another Scientology critic. "Virtually all the defense evidence was excluded.... Even when Henson quoted L. Ron Hubbard's violent words, it was presented as his own speech without quotation marks." Man was smart to go to Canada - maybe he should have tried someplace further away.
    --
    Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
  18. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Co$ are master deceivers and masters of half truths, as well as exploiters of the legal system in the most unprecendented damnable manner. They have been rebuked by courts and judges all over the world. Unfortunately the California law enforcement and judicial branches have been infiltrated by Co$ members so it would be no surprise that Hensen faced a partial judge who was symphatetic to Co$. The only reason the IRS recognizes them as a "church" is that the Co$ infiltrated IRS offices and bullied them into submission with thousands of lawsuits.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  19. Re:hm by RexRhino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Umm, have you not been paying any attention AT ALL to what the religious right has done and/or tried to do to the US governments direction and policies in the past 25 years?

    And fortunatly for the Christian Right, the Progressive Left has been promoting the concept of Social Democracy, where by society is socially engineered by the state in order to better address social issues. Years ago, the Christian Right had to go through pretty extreme lengths to enforce their will (for example, in the 1920s the prohibition of alchohol needed to explicity constitutional amendment to be enacted), since the role of the federal government was so limited. Nowadays, most law is essentially dictated by the executive branch (in regulations created by the EPA, the DEA, the FDA, the Department of Energy, etc., etc.), and completly bypasses congress, state and local governments, etc.

    The thinking of the Progressive Left was "We need to make a super powerful federal government, where the president and the executive branch have nearly total power over all affairs of our nation, because then the president will be able to do a lot of 'social good' with all that power. It isn't like a right wing christian nut will ever be elected president!".

    The greatest allies the Christian Right has ever known in their struggle for power in America is the Progressive Left.

  20. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by Durandal64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see the point you are trying to make, but Christians don't have the power to damn someone to Hell.
    Some do, depending on how you read the Bible. Jesus, after all, told Peter that whatever he said on Earth goes in Heaven. So if the Pope excommunicates someone, he's basically damned the person to Hell. If you believe that the Pope really is the successor to the apostle of the son of God and not just some delusional lunatic in a funny hat, that is.

    As for their message not being a threat, it's not a threat in the sense that the law requires. But it's still a threat. They basically come to your door and say, "Gee, that's a nice eternal soul you've got there. It'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it" and imply that unless you pay them protection money (i.e. tithing) and worship their thug of a deity, said thug will send you to Hell for all eternity.
  21. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by dr_dank · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He probably ruined his case by going on the run, as I can't believe that a higher court would not have overturned the decision on appeal.

    If the context of his words that could have exhonerated him was thrown out, whos to say that an appeal would be granted? Hell, even a "accident" involving a shiv in the prison shower room while awaiting an appeal is reason enough to get the hell out of dodge. I don't blame him for fleeing. When the game you're playing is rigged against you, theres no use to sticking around to play.

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  22. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by jotok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When it comes to issues of intimidation, don't you think there is a difference between "If you don't adhere to my beliefs, I think you're gonna be running through hell with gasoline drawers on" and "If you don't adhere to my beliefs, I'm going to do my best to disenfranchise you politically, interfere with your job, and quite possibly burn your house down?"

    These are all things that religious and "non" religious people have done to each other, and it is usually frowned upon whereas anyone making pronouncements about the hereafter is generally accepted.

  23. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or is there some reason you would present to support the idea that the infiltration of one religion is of more concern than of another?

    I wasn't aware that Scientology was a religion.

    There, I said it. Kinda shocked that nobody else had the guts to do so in the first 100 posts.

    Tom Cruise won't come out of the closet.....

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  24. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by inviolet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wasn't aware that Scientology was a religion.

    After landing here on Rhene 01-3 (called 'Earth' by the local dominant species), my investigation into this issue led me to the following conclusions:

    If the founder of an ideology is still alive, then it's a cult.
    If the founder is dead, then it's a religion.

    Since the founder L. Ron Hubbard is dead, Scientology is therefore a religion.

    --
    FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  25. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I really don't think so - truly bad SF with the good bits plagerised from the ramblings of someone writing during psychotic episodes in Chicago in the 1930s is still distinguishable from religion. I do however think they must have really good lawyers since they can get a ponzi scam labelled as a religeon.

    The way they treat women in childbirth and the mentally ill is truly evil - the most fanatical of religions at least look after their own when they are in trouble.

  26. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by dosquatch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can marry a person of the same sex all you want in a religious ceremony. The state will just not recognize it as a real marriage, and you won't get tax breaks or spousal benefits.

    True, but it should be exactly the opposite. The state should take no particular position on the issue as long as all parties are consenting adults. One man, one woman. Two men. Three of one and two of the other. Whatever. You don't have to like it, I don't have to like it, but as long as they are all happy with it, it ain't none of my business. Or yours. Or the state's. And I don't expect any particular church to condone it.

    Quite simply, the conjoining of incomes for tax purposes and the assignment of benefits should be an automatic, simple, and painless event. It is not the state's place to say "Ewww", or "But God says...". It is the state's place to serve its citizens.

    --
    "Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
  27. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by killjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The trial was in a scientology town, the judge was a scientologist.

    --
    evil is as evil does
  28. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You won't get any real arguments from me; Organized religion is in the business of selling the afterlife to gullible people.

    And they've made a mint.

    However, consider this when weighing scientology; They believe that millions of years ago, the evil lord Xenu packaged up all the useless cruft of society into giant space planes ( which, coincidentally looked like DC10s ), and flew them to Earth. There, he crashed these jets into volanos. But that wasn't good enough! No, then he built huge soul capturing centers to attract the wandering "thetans" and confuse them. Once released from these spirit reeducation camps, the thetans floated around confused until they found a prehistoric us. In which they found a host, and have been living in us ever since.

    Now, the virgin mary, jesus on a stick and moses are pretty spectacular, but this is just plain bonkers. No less for the fact that their prophet was a Sci Fi writer. A very very bad sci fi writer.

    So while jesus-centric religions are pretty nutty, you have to account for 2000+ years of history rewriting and folk tale telling to account for the weird shit. This crap is weird right out the gate.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  29. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by freakmn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's the equivalent. In other words, if you get excommunicated, you might as well be damned to Hell. I would say that the cause flows the other way. If you are excommunicated, you are likely on the path to Hell, not because of the excommunication, but it's a sign of what's on the way.

    Any religion whose leaders preach about how terrible materialism is from gigantic churches filled with priceless art doesn't get to claim they're not in it for the money. Some Christians actually take those teachings seriously, but the larger churches obviously do not, especially the Catholic Church. I don't buy this "We build giant churches to glorify God" nonsense for one second. They do it to glorify themselves and skim a little off the top of the donations. Like I said, not all people who take those vows follow them completely. In my opinion, having things isn't bad, it's the reason for having them that can be malicious. If your goal is to accumulate as many material goods as possible, then that's materialism to the extreme. If your goal is to reach out to others, and you happen to use material goods, then that's totally different. Also, the Church building is there for the people, not the clergy. If it saves souls, then it's worth it.

    Evangelism by its very nature is intrusive. It requires that the target make a conscious effort to ignore you. My wording in the previous comment was bad, I apologize for that. What I mean is that evangelization should be done in a way that does not excessively intrude. It should be aimed at helping, not annoying. There's a lot of it going on that isn't that way, and it burns people so much that they refuse to participate in rational dialog. I've been pleasantly surprised with how rational people are being in not flaming me for my beliefs, and I'd like to thank not only you, but the others who are responding rationally.
    --
    warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
  30. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by monkeydo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quite simply, the conjoining of incomes for tax purposes and the assignment of benefits should be an automatic, simple, and painless event. It is not the state's place to say "Ewww"

    "Single me out for a benefit, but don't ask what I did to deserve it!"

    Either the state derives a benefit from marriage, and in return should allow certain benefits to married couples, or it doesn't. We seem to have made a decision a long time ago that marriage does benefit the state. Does the type of marriage that you want recognized (and you must admit that gay marriage is fundamentally different than traditional marriage) bestow the same benefits on the state?

    Personally, I don't give a shit who you want to marry, and if you can get a Priest, a Rabbi, or a homeless guy to marry you, more power to you. The tax code, rules of testate, etc., should be simple and the state should just get out of the marriage business altogether. It' absolutely hipocritical to say that you want the state to butt out of your personal choices, but at the same time to want the state to honor those choices with official recognition.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  31. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by freakmn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The truth is that nobody truly knows without a doubt if God exists until death. That's why it's called faith. Belief without the ability to find absolutely solid proof. On the same token, can you prove that there is no God?

    --
    warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
  32. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless you are arguing that age alone somehow imparts validity, a presumption I cannot go along with.

    Bullshit crafted during our lifetime with plenty of living witnesses to say so in my opinion makes it invalid.

    As for naturopaths and others doing weird and harmful voodoo - just becuase one group does stupid stuff doesn't justify another. Interesting that you threw all of Islam in there with the African practice of mutilating women and the post-revolution Iranian practice of stoning people to death. I don't understand their religeon but I'm not going to throw them all in one boat - not all Christians and agnostics are followers of Jim Jones either.

    The arguement that Bobby can punch Sally because Jimmy punched Jane is something that should be left in the playground soon after you learn to talk - but it's amazing how many people try it. Also things that look similar may not be.