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."

Comments

Tom Cruise Missile

[lecithin]

"Other posters joined in the internet discussion, asking whether Tom Cruise missiles are affected by wind. "No way," Keith joked. "Modern weapons are accurate to a matter of a few tens of yards."

So, does that make Tom Cruise a 'straight shooter'?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[DJCacophony]

Tom Cruise? Straight? I think not.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know that interfering with a religion was a crime. Could any lawyers provide some details about this law and what constitutes breaking it?

Thanks.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[oliverthered]

No but he won't pebble dash you toilet.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[IdleTime]

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

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Intron]

California hate crime law from the DA's office. ... threatening to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with another person who is exercising his or her constitutional rights.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[bladesjester]

Well, it's a good thing I don't live in California. I am, according to a lot of people, fairly intimidating and there are way too many door-to-door recruiting efforts from the local churches here.

One would assume that telling them to get lost while looking intimidating would be a crime in California even if they were the ones who came to my home since they were, in their view, exercising their constitutional rights.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[morgan_greywolf]

What I would like to know is how this discussion violates that law. I don't see anything remotely threatening, just a few people having fun talking about a non-existant 'Agent 99' and their fictitious (and humorous!) exploits.

If you can arrested for this, it makes me wonder how many /.ers have been arrested?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[jrumney]

If you look at the original Slashdot article from the time of his conviction (linked in one of the comments here), reportedly he was not allowed to use the context of his quotes in his defense. So all the jury saw were a couple of snippets the Scientologists picked out. 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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Teun]

That interference with a religion has a raised status I can somewhat understand.
After all, whether you agree with them or not, religions have historically had great influence on the world.

But I have no understanding that a (in several European countries) convicted criminal organisation can claim this protection.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[pilgrim23]

Tis obviously a case where the whole issue revolves around practicing "Safe Sects"

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Canthros]

California is a very, very different place from the rest of the US. (It may say something that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned on appeal.)

As was noted elsewhere, the case would probably have been overturned on appeal. Sounds like an unfortunate combination of stupid hate crime legislation, a stupid judge/jury, and a poor-to-mediocre defense attorney.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Belial6]

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?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Anonymous Coward]

thats what good lawyers are for. any good lawyer could have brought the context in on direct. something like : so what did you mean when you wrote xxx ?
See United States v. Sutton, 801 F.2d 1346, 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (court has discretion to require counsel seeking admission of evidence under Rule 106 "to point to specific passages of the transcript that ought to have been admitted to avert the distorting effect of the portions already introduced by the government").

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[uncqual]

Amen

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[SnowZero]

...and a stupid defendant for going on the run. I find his claim of fearing for his life just as unfounded as the "threats" used to convict him; It's not like there are huge scientology gangs in prisons.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[haggie]

threatening to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with another person who is exercising his or her constitutional rights.

According to this, couldn't the whole Religious Right be arrested under CA law?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Canthros]

Never argued otherwise.

Sounds like, from some of the other comments, that the conviction probably had less to do with hate speech laws and more to do with stalking, trespassing, or restraining orders, though.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

['nother poster]

Hell, the GOVERNMENT could.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[LifeWithJustin]

I'm actually writing this from jail :(

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[jcr]

Ironic, that the law describes precisely what the clams did to Keith. He was exercising his first-amendment right by picketing, and they pulled out all the stops to shut him up.

-jcr

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[frank_adrian314159]

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.

No, John Travolta's and Tom Cruise's movies just seem like they last for eternity and, as far as I know, denying isn't enough; you aren't forced to watch them unless you actively spread the information that L. Ron wasn't actually God.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Yes... And you're going to jail for posing the question :)

I'd like to kill all the christians and scientologists, while i eat soup made from muslims...

Is that illegal to say under CA law?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[jcr]

It's not like there are huge scientology gangs in prisons.

It doesn't take a "huge gang" to arrange a murder. Also, FYI, scientology's front groups pose as drug and alcohol treatment programs, and in many cases prison officials have let these clambots into the prisons without knowing who they are. Scientology recruitment in prisons does happen.

-jcr

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[SnowZero]

Never argued otherwise.

Of course; I was just adding to your post.

Sounds like, from some of the other comments, that the conviction probably had less to do with hate speech laws and more to do with stalking, trespassing, or restraining orders, though.

Nonviolent protest for a cause you believe in is a noble pursuit, but you have to be willing to accept the legal risks. If there are people sympathetic to your plight, serving time in jail will only strengthen your cause. For example, MLK always faced up to punishment, he didn't run away. He also never died in jail, despite a comparatively much more dangerous situation.

Of course, if you went over the line and broke several laws which people consider reasonable (e.g. stalking, etc), nobody is going to support you much. Hard to know in this case, since he didn't actually let the legal avenue play itself out.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[pdp1144]

So, if a religion allowed and practiced same sex marriage; would the state be breaking the "interfering with a religion" law by not allowing it?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[aled]

California hate crime [la.ca.us] law from the DA's office. ... threatening to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with another person who is exercising his or her constitutional rights.

I thought that Southpark was in Colorado, but I was obviously wrong...

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[dgatwood]

It may say something that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned on appeal.)

Depends on how you count. The ninth circuit is one of the least overturned courts on appeal, by percentage of cases heard. Only when you look at the raw number of cases can you claim that it is the "most overturned," but that isn't really fair because the SCOTUS hears a larger number of cases from the ninth circuit than any other circuit.

The high overturn rate is easily explained by three key facts about the ninth circuit. The ninth circuit: A. is the largest of all the circuits, B. is the most active circuit, having more cases per year than any other circuit, and C. covers an area of the country (California) that tends to be on the cutting edge of political and social issues. In particular, that third point means that the ninth circuit is the most likely to rule on cases that are legally interesting. Those cases, in turn, are much more likely to be reviewed by the SCOTUS, regardless of whether or not the SCOTUS would ultimately agree with the lower court's decision.

It has nothing at all to do with the ninth circuit's political leanings, but rather with the nature of the ninth circuit and the cases that it rules on. Anyone who claims that it is the "most overturned" court is just playing games with statistics to push a political agenda.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[ConceptJunkie]

I would say that interfering with someone's right to practice their religion is clearly illegal, but being California, this falls under the Orwellian concept of hate crimes. In other words, the severity of a crime increases depending upon what the perpetrator thinks. Improper thoughts are punishable by law. And of course, being California, improper thoughts would include just about anything that a normal American might think.

I've been saying for years, give California back to Mexico and call it even. The U.S. will, on balance, average out a lot closer to sane.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Kelbear]

Won't somebody think of the Thetans?!

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[siufish]

I believe 'threats' only apply to lives on earth. Anything about afterlife belongs to the domains of religion/philosophy, and has nothing to do with laws. After all, if you do not believe in the Christian God, why would you be afraid of the Christian 'threats'?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Lars T.]

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. Oh so it's more something like: "If you don't stop posting here, somebody (who I have no control over) is going to kill you and your family!"

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Maxo-Texas]

It's not considered interfering to limit people to only one spouse when their religion permits them to marry multiple spouses. Or to say a newer relgion that promotes drug use is illegal (while allowing an older religion to use a limited set of drugs).

There's a basic problem that we papered over in the past. Some things society really just won't allow because a religion says it- and the reason is that a particular religions moral principles are ingrained in the law so deeply that it's no longer recognized as religious oppression.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[DavidHumus]

So, isn't the state of California breaking its own law by interfering with Mr. Henson's exercise of free speech?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[grasshoppa]

...and a stupid defendant for going on the run. I find his claim of fearing for his life just as unfounded as the "threats" used to convict him; It's not like there are huge scientology gangs in prisons.

Unfortunately, having been exposed to these nut jobs, I can completely sympathize with him. These people are 11 shades of fucked up, the "religion" attracts the type. Further, they tend not to be too concerned with actual law and have proven merely by being a member that they are extremely gullible. Further, if you've read some of the things these people believe in, you'd have no problem believing that they can and would kill you simply because they think you are a suppressive person ( which, amusingly, most of their members fit that definition to a tee, but I digress ).

I'm sure he could have followed proper channels and had this resolved in a more amicable fashion, but don't fault him for fearing for his life. Scientologists really are as wacky as they claim.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[soft_guy]

California is a very, very different place from the rest of the US. Lots of places in the US can be said to be "very very different" than the rest of the country: the South, Louisiana, Florida, NYC, Washington D.C., Boston, Kentucky, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Texas, the Pacific Northwest. All of these areas have local flavor and I've heard people say each of these areas "is really like the US".

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Lars T.]

...and a stupid defendant for going on the run. I find his claim of fearing for his life just as unfounded as the "threats" used to convict him; It's not like there are huge scientology gangs in prisons. It takes far less Scientologists in prison than there are to kill a man.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[AnalogDiehard]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[rograndom]

California hate crime law from the DA's office. ... threatening to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with another person who is exercising his or her constitutional rights.

Like the Scientologists or the DA office using legal force to intimidate, or interfere with Mr. Henson's constitutional right to free speech? Isn't this like eye for an eye and everyone ends up blind?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Brad Mace]

California is a very, very different place from the rest of the US. (It may say something that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned on appeal.)

Let's just go ahead and quit spreading that misinformation. Myth of the Liberal 9th Circuit

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Durandal64]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[dr_dank]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[jotok]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Durandal64]

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. There is a distinction between civil and religious marriage; one does not imply the other. Of course, the radical right has gone to great pains to keep that little snippet secret, since they want everyone to think that Them There Evil Liberals will force priests and preachers to marry couples of the same sex and therefore violate their freedom of delusion. I mean religion.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[jotok]

That's interesting. Out of curiosity, if someone's eternal soul is threatened but they don't believe they even have an eternal soul, can they really say they feel threatened?

I mean, if I came to your door and said "I'm going to blow up your car!" and you didn't own a car, you might think I was a complete asshole and irrational--you might even have a case for me being intimidating and harassing you, but I don't see how it qualifies as a "threat" on its own terms. Maybe there is some subtext I'm missing.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[nanoakron]

How can his case be ruined by being innocent?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Anonymous Coward]

whats sad is that the 'eternal torment of hell' doctrine is man made, and not of the bible. yet another evidence of satan at work, continually substituting his personality for that of the the Lords.

if you actually study the word, its clear that 'hell' is the grave. death. the lack of life. its translated (in the OT) from Sheol (which literally means 'the grave'). it is translated 30 times as 'hell' and 31 times as 'the grave', because thats what it is. those that turn their backs on the giver of life will recieve death eternal, never to live again.

being dead is quite a ways away from being tortured for eternity.

psalms 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

isnt it funny? the athiests have been telling the "christians" this all along.

the 'immortal soul' doctrine is straight from satan himself. he wants you to believe when you die, you go someplace else. that makes it easy for him to masquerade as a deceased love one to promise you that you can continue doing evil and still have a joyous afterlife. (he posed as a snake in the garden, as the king of tyre in Ezekiel 28, and as an angel of light while temping Christ in the wilderness, and he still, to this day, assumes different forms (hebrews 13:2)

if you look at 1 corinthians 15:51-52, its clear that at the last day, the dead (some of them, at least-Thessalonians 4:16) will be resurrected-- but wait-- if the dead are already in heaven or hell, why do they climb back INTO their graves to be resurrected at the last day?

those who go around preaching hell fire are unwittingly satans tools in deception, they have been deceived, and are deceiving others to fall into a trap with them. destroyed for their lack of knowledge. let him who seeks eternal life seek it to the fullest of his heart, and the way will be shown to him.

next time someone comes preaching hellfire to your door, get them to read 1 john 2:3,4.

until they realize the blatant fact in those two verses, they are those spoken of by the Lord in Matthew 7:1-5

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Phyvo]

That, my friend, is a problem caused by taking a simple analogy too far. You just revealed one of it's flaws. That doesn't mean that a Christian who warns you about Hell is not concerned about your well being.

The line is drawn, I think, with the attitude and vocal tone of the speaker. You could say "STOP STEALING OR YOU'LL GO TO HELL" or you could speak like friends (in which case the Christian probably would not mention Hell). The former wants to merely control you, the latter wants to protect you and help you make the right choice. Seriously, there are already "hells" in the material world, like sex-trafficing, drug abuse, and kids growing up in dysfunctional families. People write books all the time about how to be happy in this life. Can you blame Christians for telling you that whether or not you're happy in the next depends on decisions you make here? Isn't that what most religion is about?

Is it so heretical to say that, in the same way not all actions you take are good for you (such those that lead to drug abuse), not every religion is good for you (such as one which let's you murder my family)?

'Course, you might believe that Christianity is not one of those good religions, but I'm just saying this in case you dislike it based on the idea of pluralism.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Weedlekin]

"Christians don't have the power to damn someone to Hell"

The Pope can, and 500 million catholics seem to reckon he's a Christian.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Fordiman]

Sorry, I can't see how Scientology gets protection under these laws; it's hardly a religion, and the founder of this farce himself (L. Ron Hubbard - great Sci-Fi writer, by the by) noted prior to his death that the book is 'spiritual' merely as a tax dodge.

Sounds to me like the well-monied members of the church are using it as a front for some underhanded shit.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[jeeperscats]

turn that :( upside down! How bad can jail be if you can still read /.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Kemanorel]

The sanity balances vary depending on which point of view you're coming from. There are kooky people throughout the country. However, you really would not want California to be part of Mexico. The amount of shipping that comes in through here as well as the amount of produce grown year-round would severely hurt the economy of the country as a whole if it were removed. There are a multitude of reasons as to why California is one of the top 10 economies in the world.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Zonk (troll)]

According to the politically correct asshats a persons "right" to not be offended supersedes your right to free speech.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[smaddox]

Oh come now,

anyone with a sense of reason knows that can't possibly be true.

If it is obviously not going to actually happen, the law doesn't apply.

Now Tom Cruise Missiles, on the other hand...

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

Unfortunately the California law enforcement and judicial branches have been infiltrated by Co$ members

Has the infiltration of scientologists risen to the level of the infiltration of Christians, in your estimation?

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?

As far as I can see, the problems for society and its citizens are similar in nature, if not in scope, with regard to any religious person who, in your words, "infiltrates" the justice system. But I am curious as to your take on the matter.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Belial6]

"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."

That is a good point.

Let me modify your analogy, and tell me what you think. I would say that the recruiter coming to your door is an agent of the person that is driving that car. So, it is more like, "Do what I say, and obey my benefactor, or my benefactor is going to run you down with his car.
Now, I may or may not believe that the recruiters benefactor has the ability to run me down with their car, as I make a point to look both ways when I cross the street. Heck, I might not even know if the benefactor/car driver that the recruiter is talking about even exists. I would still call it a threat.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[AndroidCat]

The jury wasn't even told that Scientology was involved. Or that person sitting beside the assistant DA during the trial was the lawyer for Scientology (and former Gambino mafia lawyer).

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Shakrai]

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.....

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Canthros]

Anyone who claims that it is the "most overturned" court is just playing games with statistics to push a political agenda.

Silly me. I always figured that if CNN said it was true ...

Well. Provided it wasn't contradicted elsewhere. I certainly didn't repeat the claim because I was pushing an agenda in the reply.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[corbettw]

I would say that interfering with someone's right to practice their religion is clearly illegal

Just to play devil's advocate: what if one's religion required you to protest other's religions and even attempt to prevent them from practicing them?

Or, what if someone's religion required them to do something that was illegal (something innocuous, like taking peyote like in certain Native American tribes, I'm not talking about murder, rape, or torture, like the Mohammedans practice all the time)? Would a police officer who arrested that person be subject to the law you mentioned?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[inviolet]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[vakuona]

If anyone has infiltrated the systems, it's the atheists and the non Christian. Just to be pedantic.

After all, why would some atheists have ever allowed people to write "In God we Trust" on their notes.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

So, your argument is that because Christian teachings are made to appear on banknotes, that this is evidence that atheists have influence where they previously didn't? That's what infiltration would mean in the context of modification of banknotes from not having such a teaching, to having such a teaching, which is what happened.

I'm afraid I'm not following your argument. Worse, I'm afraid you aren't following your argument. :-)

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[heroofhyr]

I find his claim of fearing for his life just as unfounded as the "threats" used to convict him; It's not like there are huge scientology gangs in prisons. That's because most celebrities get sentenced to drug rehab facilities when they commit crimes. Let's just hope Mr. Henson doesn't develop an addiction and get shivved in pottery class with a Pellegrino shard. I can already see Kirstie Alley ordering an extra large black ninja costume.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

Excommunication is not a damnation to Hell. It's a public statement that what they are saying is not what the Catholic Doctrine is saying. There's a difference. It's still supposed to be an invitation to correct. An excommunication can be reversed.

For your second point, there are some organizations that use religion as an excuse to make money. Probably not a shocker to most people. I don't agree with that at all. Tithing is between a person and God, not for people to use as extortion. There is a cost to running any facility, including a church, so there is a good reason for it. Many Priests, Pastors, Preachers, etc. could be making more money in the real world. As a Catholic, I know that each ordained religious person takes vows of Celibacy, Poverty, and Obedience. I'm not so naive as to think that all vows are taken like that all the time, but they are still there.

The thing that bothers me most is that the ones who evangelize in a non-intrusive way get lumped in with those who are complete jerks. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, if I remember the expression correctly. In the same way that many people go around leading fairly normal lives, but those who do something extreme are the ones who hit the paper. Whether it's extremely good, or extremely bad, that's who you hear about.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[dbIII]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[David_Shultz]

You make a good argument -it is indeed not a threat in the sense of "I intend to inflict suffering on you". But, there is a good point to be made that if someone in a position of authority (parent, community leader, whatever) actively tries to terrify people into mental submission with tales of eternal hellfire, that this person is guilty of mental abuse. Indeed, the effects of believing in hell can be comparable to mental trauma.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[dosquatch]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

I see that the analogy isn't perfect. The modified analogy that you have has a bit of an improvement, the relationship between the "warner" and the "harm". The thing that I don't believe in is the intention of harming. I believe that it's not an intimidation, but a fact. In the same sense that oil and water don't mix, God and sin don't mix. Moving away from the car analogy (I know, on slashdot, no analogy is complete without a car), say that it's a train that is on a schedule. Now let's say that I work for the train company. If I see someone on the tracks, I would say that it is my duty to warn them of the danger. I know the fact that a train will be coming, and that if someone is on the tracks when the train comes, they will not fare well. There's a chance that they might be on the tracks, and will jump off them at the last second, but I think I need to at least warn them on the inherent danger of the train.

That's my modification to the analogy, still imperfect, but better. I still maintain that it is not a threat.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[dosquatch]

The sanity balances vary depending on which point of view you're coming from. There are kooky people throughout the country.

Fair enough. Can we excise the noisiest 10% from each end of the bell curve and send 'em to France? We'd still average out saner, and I don't think France would notice the difference.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[killjoe]

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

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[David_Shultz]

Scientologists really are as wacky as they claim.

Are they any more wacky than Christians, or are we just attenuated to Christian absurdities? Let's consider some fundamental Christian beliefs: A magical man born of a virgin died on a cross, thus expunging "sin" from mankind -sin that was started by eating forbidden fruit in a magical garden with a talking snake (the notion of Jesus removing original sin is essential -this was Jesus' role. Thus, a Christian must also believe in original sin a la Adam and Eve, or the story makes no sense). Isn't that wacky enough for you? How about the Catholic belief that this magical mans flesh literally replaces a cracker when a priest performs a ritual in a temple(church). Given the fact that there are ~61,000,000 catholics in the US, and let's say half attend weekly services, then if the average weight of a cracker is 1 gram, in the USA alone the catholics eat more than 30,000kg of Jesus(66,000lbs) on a weekly basis! That's 1.5 million kgs (3.3mil lbs) of Jesus eaten per year! Wacky enough? If Scientology is wackier, it's not by much. Christianity has the upperhand in terms of cultural acceptance and strength in numbers -but both are nuts.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

That is a good point. I think there are many people who try to manipulate people into believing through dishonest ways. They probably think that they are helping, but it rarely does. As I mentioned in another post, I believe we were given free will for a reason. We shouldn't be forced to be perfect, not in the least. But it is a goal to strive for. In my opinion, one should not be told that they are going to Hell in most, if not all, circumstances. Terrifying someone in order to give them information is not good, no matter how noble the information is. People can use religion for nefarious purposes, that doesn't mean that religious beliefs are nefarious. I believe there is a saying (and I would appreciate a full quote, as Google fails me), that if you give me 3 lines of an honest man's word, there's something in there to have him hanged.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Dystopian Rebel]

turn that :( upside down!

I think you mean, "flip the second character in that emoticon horizontally".

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[grasshoppa]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[svyyn]

To refine the analogy further: there is not simply one person on the tracks, but many, and they are living happily and productively there. People not on the tracks may warn them that the train is coming and that they will die; this is admirable. However, we must consider why the sadistic train conductor does not apply the breaks, why the people warning the track-dwellers are smug when the train comes, and why the warners continue to see the train conductor as as anything other than evil.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[TFGeditor]

That's *Operating* Thetan to you!

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[manno]

"the judge was a scientologist"
Is that true? Cause that's kind of scary.
That still doesn't change the fact that he could have won on appeal though. Of course if his fears of being in mortal danger are real, that unfortunately may not enter into the equation. Tis kind of thing scares me.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[muffel]

...packaged up all the useless cruft of society into giant space planes...

You mean the lawyers and hairdressers?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[bigpat]

California hate crime law from the DA's office. ... threatening to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with another person who is exercising his or her constitutional rights. I really hate hate crime laws.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[nurb432]

Forget 'interfering with a 'religion' ( scientology being one is debatable in the first place ) I didn't know picketing and voicing your opinion was now illegal...

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No, they run the prisons.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

Ahh, you've found one of the flaws in the analogy. As I said, it's still imperfect. The imperfection you've found is that a train has the ability to stop. Let me address your points:

we must consider why the sadistic train conductor does not apply the breaks (sic) This is the main failure in the analogy I proposed, like I mentioned before. God is incompatible with Sin. A Christian believes this to be a fact. The warning is one that living in Sin makes you incompatible with God. Hell isn't necessarily a place of Fire, but simply a place without God. I'd say that God is often taken for granted. Being separated from Him is what Hell is. Now, that doesn't sound all that bad, so people use the (again, imperfect) analogy of Fire and Burning. But the fact is that God gave us free will, and won't take it away. So the choice to be in danger (on the tracks in the analogy, or in Sin), is a choice that we each make.

why the people warning the track-dwellers are smug when the train comes This is something that I dislike in many "Christians". That the intent of their "Evangelizing" is for their gain, and not to genuinely help others. I think my other posts in this thread show that I am aware of many hypocrites. Those that are smug at others' failures, aren't really looking out for others. Basically what I'm trying to say is that they shouldn't be smug. I know I hate to see anyone go down the wrong path, even if we have differences, or they've wronged me, or anything like that. Suffering sucks, no matter who does it.

why the warners continue to see the train conductor as as anything other than evil. That's kinda covered above. In my view, God doesn't send people to Hell. They commit sins that make them incompatible with God. It is the choices that a person makes that decide where they end up. That's why Christians don't see God as evil.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Schemat1c]

Christian beliefs: A magical man born of a virgin died on a cross, In the original story Mary was a 'young woman' but was this was mistakenly translated as 'virgin' by the Greeks. A similar mistake was made when translating the Koran where 'white raisins' was thought to mean 'virgins' as a heavenly reward for martyrs. But for some reason neither religion is willing to consider this in their doctrine.

Besides we all know that FSMism is the only REAL religion.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Durandal64]

Excommunication is not a damnation to Hell. It's a public statement that what they are saying is not what the Catholic Doctrine is saying. There's a difference. It's still supposed to be an invitation to correct. An excommunication can be reversed.

It's the equivalent. In other words, if you get excommunicated, you might as well be damned to Hell.

For your second point, there are some organizations that use religion as an excuse to make money. Probably not a shocker to most people. I don't agree with that at all. Tithing is between a person and God, not for people to use as extortion. There is a cost to running any facility, including a church, so there is a good reason for it. Many Priests, Pastors, Preachers, etc. could be making more money in the real world. As a Catholic, I know that each ordained religious person takes vows of Celibacy, Poverty, and Obedience. I'm not so naive as to think that all vows are taken like that all the time, but they are still there.

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.

The thing that bothers me most is that the ones who evangelize in a non-intrusive way get lumped in with those who are complete jerks. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, if I remember the expression correctly. In the same way that many people go around leading fairly normal lives, but those who do something extreme are the ones who hit the paper. Whether it's extremely good, or extremely bad, that's who you hear about.

Evangelism by its very nature is intrusive. It requires that the target make a conscious effort to ignore you.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[r_jensen11]

What, you mean Mormons? Dummm, da dum, da dumm...

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Durandal64]

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.

It's not that simple. Two men getting married isn't anything I'm concerned about. But legal polygamy opens up a whole slew of tax issues. Some guy marrying 3 women could get a disproportionate amount of tax breaks, especially if some of his wives don't work. It's a system just begging to be abused unless, for tax purposes, you are only allowed to declare one spouse. And really, a polygamy system would invariably require the specification of "primaries" for the purposes of inheritance and legal rights over whether to pull the plug if one person is in a vegetable, etc ... So if you're going to specify a primary for that, why not for your taxes too?

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.

I don't disagree. But the government would have to have a very strict set of checks in place to make sure polygamy isn't abused.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Belial6]

"This is something that I dislike in many "Christians". That the intent of their "Evangelizing" is for their gain, and not to genuinely help others."

I do recognize that not everyone in a group as vaguely defined as "Christian" holds the same beliefs. So, can we agree then that this sub-group is making a threat and should be arrested?

"Ahh, you've found one of the flaws in the analogy. As I said, it's still imperfect. The imperfection you've found is that a train has the ability to stop." I have yet to meet a Christian that does not believe God has the ability to stop the train, or without the analogy, keep you in the state that you currently are. Every Christian I have ever met and discussed religion with (That has been a LOT) has professed that God chose to create the system we live in, and has the right to submit you to eternal torture. Do you profess that the Christian god is incapable of stopping this train? That he could not keep humanity in it's current state for eternity? And if so, would you concede that any Christian recruiter that does believe their god could keep humanity in it's current state and still gives you the line of obey or be tortured, is in fact making a threat?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[jez9999]

It is not the state's place to say "Ewww", or "But God says...". It is the state's place to serve its citizens.

Agreed. But things changed with McCarthy in the 1950s, and the government is now a lot more Christian because of it. Try and get the motto changed back. 'God' has NO PLACE in the US motto or Pledge of Allegiance.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[tony1343]

Typically, an appeal doesn't have to be granted, but is automatic. Now appeal to the Supreme Court isn't automatic, but to a Court of Appeal is. Of course this is a state issue, which I'm not 100% sure about.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[hahafaha]

A threat, in the legal sense, means claiming that you will do something. You are simply stating a fact. If the Pope told you that if you do not donate money, you will be damned to Hell (by him), then that is a threat. Whether or not he should be punished for it is another matter.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[David_Shultz]

I am not so much interested in the origin of their beliefs (it's myth either way) as I am in the fact that people actually believe them.

I am familiar with the "young woman" mistake. It's also the case that the "forbidden fruit" was never actually identified as an apple. Are you sure about the "white raisins" mistake though? I have heard this before, but highly doubt that raisins would have been offered as a reward for martyrdom (even if they were white).

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[complete loony]

Paraphrased From Matthew Chapter 18, Verses 18 through 20

"Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven...
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven..." Apparently they think they can.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Rakarra]

Real religions are generally predicated on openness. All members of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc are encouraged to study the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc. In contrast, only a few upper echelon members of the Church of Scientology are aware of what the religion is all about, and the "church" is extremely aggressive in ensuring the secrecy of those secrets. The lower level members of the church are not allowed access to such knowledge (likely because if they heard the stories without years of conditioning first, they'd reject it outright as bad sci-fi nonsense).

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[hahafaha]

IANAL, but as I understand it, a threat is almost like a conspiracy. If you threaten someone, then you are conspiring to commit a crime against them, in a sense.

If you come to someone's house and, knowing that they do not own a car, threaten to blow up their car, then that is just obnoxious/harassment. If you, however, believe they had a car, then that is a threat. Same with souls. The difference is that it is not you who is doing the damnation to hell, but God.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Oligonicella]

So, you have no backup for your assertion? Link maybe?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[monkeydo]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[monkeydo]

Those cases, in turn, are much more likely to be reviewed by the SCOTUS, regardless of whether or not the SCOTUS would ultimately agree with the lower court's decision.

But now you're playing games as well. Appeals to the Supreme Court are usually by cert, not by right, so for the most part the Supreme Court hears only the cases they choose to hear. That they choose to hear more cases from the 9th than from any other circuit is not an inconsequential fact, or merely the result of the volume of cases the 9th decides.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

This passage is seen in the Catholic Faith as the institution of the Sacrament of Confession. In that Sacrament, people go in, express regret to God and the Community for their sins, and then they are forgiven by the priest, who is acting in the person of God, as is mentioned in this passage. For a priest, acting in God's name, to deny that forgiveness, is a serious matter. That priest would be wise to have a good reason for denying that request. What I'm saying is that it's not something that's taken lightly.

Also, I think an important part of that verse is that it says "Whatever" instead of "Whoever". It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's an important distinction. Even if the sin was not forgiven, then it may not be enough to send someone to Hell. That's only in God's hands.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

Real religions are generally predicated on openness.

Really? So you are contending that the Catholic Church is not a "real religion", because it agressively hides much (paintings, statues, philosophical and theological writings, histories and more) away from anyone but the uppermost ranks of the church heirarchy, for example in the Vatican library? In your view, any religion that hides theological "secrets" at one level at the expense of another level, then, is invalid - just... what, a club? A public-service organization? A lodge?

To be honest, I was unaware that "openness" was a criteria for religion. I'm not sure that you would be able to back that up, other than as a personal metric of your own. Where are your references for such a metric as a general use one in determining what is a religion, and what is not?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[jotok]

Ok. This appears to be a case where what "actually happens" depends upon your point of view. Very weird.

- To the harassed, it may be obnoxious.
- To the harasser, it may be a threat.

But to the person making the statements, it's probably not a threat; most Christians I know, even the most obnoxious ones, think they're doing me a genuine favor by telling me about their religion--they believe that I might be damned but it's not something they really want to happen (although, to be sure, there are also plenty of assholes who would love to see themselves justified at everyone else's expense). So, subjectively, it's not a threat, nor can you really percieve it as a threat--simply obnoxious behavior.

As obnoxious, anti-social, and counter-to-society behaviors go, I think you can say a lot against the door-to-door God salesmen...but dressing up the complain in terms of "threat" laws speaks more to the chip on someone's shoulder than how they actually feel. What the CoS is doing to this guy seems pretty threatening and we have plenty of examples from history of Churches doing this (from the Catholic Church persecuting Protestants in Europe all the way to the Unitarians torching convents in New York)--THAT kind of temporal stuff is what we have to worry about, I think. If you can make the case for intimidation or harassment on those terms, fine, but to invoke the law like you're saying is, in my opinion, to twist it.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Darby]

The Pope can, and 500 million catholics seem to reckon he's a Christian.

I knew some Christians don't consider the pope Christian, but I wasn't aware that half of the Catholics thought that too ;-)

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[JonathanBoyd]

But it is a goal to strive for. In my opinion, one should not be told that they are going to Hell in most, if not all, circumstances.

Jesus seemed happy enough to do it at times, along with a lot of prophets.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Schemat1c]

Are you sure about the "white raisins" mistake though? I have heard this before, but highly doubt that raisins would have been offered as a reward for martyrdom (even if they were white). white raisins

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[jamesmrankinjr]

So, your argument is that because Christian teachings are made to appear on banknotes, that this is evidence that atheists have influence where they previously didn't?

His argument is that Christians have not infiltrated the system because they ARE the system. No need to infiltrate your own home.

It was not a particularly complex argument. Perhaps you should expend a little more effort trying to follow simple arguments in the future.

-jimbo

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

Could I ask you to cite some of those times? I know he told many people that they needed to correct their ways, but I can't think of a time that he said that they were going to Hell.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

...truly bad SF with the good bits plagerised from the ramblings of someone writing during psychotic episodes in Chicago in the 1930s

Honestly, I could just as easily have written "truly bad SF with the good bits plagerised from the ramblings of someone writing during psychotic episodes in the middle east in the 300s" with regard for the bible. Unless you are arguing that age alone somehow imparts validity, a presumption I cannot go along with.

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.

Yes? Consider, then: Christian scientists. Mayans. Voodooists. Christian exorcists. Islamists. Naturopaths. Do these not also make you shudder at the treatment of mentally ill, pregnant, and even those with more conventional illnesses? What about the sacrifice of healthy people to the gods? What about the handling of poisonous reptiles? What about "deprogramming" (and "programming")? What about female clititordectomies (AKA "female circumcision", which it actually is not)? What about burning women alive for adultry? What about stonings and similar religiously recommended treatments for such maladies as... disagreement? Are these not facets of non-scientological religion we should be just as wary of?

Again, I do not defend the actions of Scientologists, but I continue to fail to see how they are acting differently from many other religions in any way such that we should really be concerned about them, as opposed to religion in general. Also, the way that many religions "look after their own" mostly makes me shudder with dismay.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

This sub-group can be making a threat. I don't particularly agree with the law as written here, as it can be used to harass, such as what is done in the article. But if you are saying that under this law, could they be said to be making a threat? That could be true. Hell can be used as a threat, when presented in that way. Just as someone could propose a warning as a threat. It's one thing to say that eating entirely junk food isn't good for you. It's another to say that if you don't stop eating all forms of junk food right now, your arteries will clog, and you'll have a heart attack and die. That's just an exaggeration.

I think God does have the ability to stop the train. The reason that He doesn't is the concept of Free Will. Each person is given the choice of Hell or Heaven. If He were to say that he wouldn't accept that choice until you gave the answer He wanted you to, then it really isn't Free Will. It only has that illusion. Like I've said in other posts, Free Will is given to us for us to make choices, not to have the choices decided for us.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

Like I mentioned in another post, there's a big difference between Excommunication and Damnation.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

His argument is that Christians have not infiltrated the system because they ARE the system. No need to infiltrate your own home.

The system was designed by deists, for the most part, and designed to not be religious at all. Infiltration has indeed occurred, but it is the religious who have done the infiltrating. Much of the objectionable religious material and programs that we have seen have arise under government auspices has occurred in the last century or so. Blue laws and "In god we trust" in the 1800s, "one nation under god" in the 1900s, "faith-based inititives" in the 2000s, and so forth.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Darby]

There's a chance that they might be on the tracks, and will jump off them at the last second, but I think I need to at least warn them on the inherent danger of the train.

That's my modification to the analogy, still imperfect, but better. I still maintain that it is not a threat.

The problem with this is that there is no train.
You just made it up in order to use it as a threat against them.
You say there is a train? Prove it.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

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?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

Would you really view the two prospects with equal concern?

I certainly would; I have spent years living in India; your view of "liberal Hinduism" as a positive force is not one I would share. Hindus bring every bit as dangerous cultural baggage as do Muslims, and for many of the same reasons. That includes genital mutilation, murder by stoning and other types of crowd-inflicted deadly force, female foeticide, arbitrary and vicious classing, "untouchables".... to experience you putting Hinduism up as some kind of shining light of religion is simply to experience you revealing your extreme ignorance.

If you do, then I wash my hands of you

Well, Mr. AC, It appears I'm having a little trouble getting worked up over that. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. :-)

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[David_Shultz]

It appears that we have two possible interpretations. The question is, which one is correct? Does the Koran promise virgins or raisins as a reward for martyrdom? Prima facie it seems more likely that virgins are promised, since raisins are a laughable reward for self-immolation. The humorous nature of this interpretation probably aids in the promulgation of this meme. Let's examine the different interpretations more closely, though. First, let me note that the authors quoted in the link you provided ( http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogra mmer/?p=83399082 ) were clearly quite sure that their interpretation was correct. You would lose this debate if you counted assuredness as evidence though -those killing themselves are presumably more sure of the alternative.

The word under dispute is 'hur', which appears in several places in the Koran. The following was pointed out here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri:

• "The word 'virgin' in Arabic does not translate perfectly into English. A closer translation is 'pure being'. As with the word 'virgin', the use of the word 'hur' is not always sexual."
• "The hur may have a connotation of gender like the word "angel" in English but in general sense the hur can be male or female as does the word "angel" in English. The Arabic word "Hur", which occurs four times in the Qur'an, is plural of "Ahwar" for the masculine gender and "Huwra" (or houri) for the feminine. Thus, the huriyah may be male or female, either of which describes a person distinguished by "hawar", meaning "purity".[2][3]"

The following definition was taken from the site that you provided:

• In Syriac, the word hur is a feminine plural adjective meaning white, with the word "raisin" understood implicitly.

The first thing we should take note of is that the koran was written in Arabic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an ). The virgin interpretation is an arabic definition. But the raisin definition, according to the very source you provided, is Syriac. This should be your first clue. This idea probably started as either a mistake or a joke, and spread because people like repeating it.

Next, let's assume for a moment that the raisin interpretation is correct, even though it is silly on the face of it, and that interpretation actually arises by translating using the wrong corpus. What do we do about all the other appearances of the word 'hur'? To remain consistent, let's replace all instances of the word 'hur' with the raisin interpretation. The following results:

• "And [with them will be their] spouses, raised high: for, behold, We shall have brought them into being in a life renewed, having resurrected them as raisins"
• "We have created [their Companions] of special creation, and made them raisin-pure"
• "If he divorces you, his Lord will substitute other wives in your place who are better than you; submitters (Muslims), believers (Mu'mins), obedient, repentant, worshipers, pious, either previously married, or raisins."

Okay then. I think it's safe to say that I have laid this myth to rest.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Darby]

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.

So you're saying that the only difference is how long they've been around?
Or is Chicago the problem?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Darby]

(likely because if they heard the stories without years of conditioning first, they'd reject it outright as bad sci-fi nonsense).

Same as Christianity. It's just that they get the parents to brainwash the children for years before they're even capable of dealing with it rationally.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Belial6]

What you describe is not free will. It is a threat. 'Do what I say, or I will make you regret it' is a threat. Free will is 'Do what you want and I won't interfere'. You description of having free will to choose to worship the Christian god is no different than saying that the Africans sold into slavery in the Americas had the free will to choose to be slaves. Faced with obey or be tortured cannot rightly be called free will.

I don't agree with the law either. I don't believe in any of the 'hate' laws. Prison time for ideas is a terrible slippery slope.

I do believe that by the standards applied to this guy, most, if not all Christian recruiters coming to my door have committed a crime.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Dutch Gun]

"It is not the state's place to say "Ewww", or "But God says...". It is the state's place to serve its citizens."

The state's power is granted by the citizens to enforce rules to maintain and preserve society, within the limitations outlined by the Constitution. At present, the majority of citizens feel that it is in the best interest of society for children to be raised in a traditional household (one man + one woman). As such, the state both regulates and rewards marriage.

If, in the future, society deems it beneficial to allow other types of unions (gay marriage is the first likely candidate), then it will do so legislatively. Societal norms continuously evolve, and so it may be that raising a child in a household with two men or women will be eventually seen as being equally worthy of protecting and promoting. In the mean time, those who feel that basic rights are being infringed upon by being denied marriage licenses will continue pursuing avenues legally, as is their right to do so.

You're correct, it's absolutely not the place of Government to try to guess what "God says" - that's a theocracy, and no sane person wants that. But it certainly is its duty to protect society, especially when it comes to children, as that's society's most important investment. I think this is why the welfare of children will almost always trump other rights, if only in a limited context.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Pikoro]

You forgot to mention that the train is invisible and the very existance of the train itself is in question.

YOU believe that there is a train, I believe that there is no train.

To me, no amount of talking, or evangelating (is that even a word?) will convince me otherwise.

If I am happy on the tracks, and I have NEVER (nor has anyone else) seen anyone get run down, then when you walk up and tell me "LOOK OUT! Here comes a train!", I will, of course, say "Where?". Your reply to this would be, "You have to believe it is there, then you can see it".

So, in conclusion, if I believe there is a train, then it MIGHT run me down.

Sounds like not believing in the train (so no threat to myself exists) is the way to go for me.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

I think you might have misunderstood me. It's not "Do what I say, or I will make you regret it". Like I said in another post, Hell is a place without God. The pain that encompasses that is often described as a burning, as people take God for granted. So, the choice ultimately is to be with God, or without God. Without God is miserable. But God will allow you to choose to be miserable. I'd argue that free will is exactly what's being demonstrated there.

I couldn't agree with you more on the validity of this law. The idea of "Thought Crimes" makes me shudder.

I don't doubt your experience. I've been lucky to have been out of the house most of the time when they stop by, but I have seen some of the literature that they give out. Most of it is either grossly exaggerated, or simply untrue. There is a sliver of truth in some of it, but it's mostly a threat. What I'm saying is that the door-to-door people often don't represent your "average" Christian, if there is such a thing.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[porcupine8]

Quite simply, the conjoining of incomes for tax purposes and the assignment of benefits should be an automatic, simple, and painless event.

The real question is, why should the state allow anyone to conjoin their incomes for tax purposes or assignment of benefits? Wouldn't it be simpler to just keep everyone separate?

The answer is yes, it would be. But the state recognized a long time ago that there are certain family structures that are beneficial to society (for example, they tend to produce future productive citizens) and that changing the tax code, benefits plans, etc to support those family structures would thus be beneficial to society as a whole.

The question becomes, is the family structure of two men or two women or five men and woman beneficial enough to society that it deserves the same special exception that one man and one woman receive? There are a lot of different ways of answering that question. If family structure doesn't matter, and well-adjusted productive citizens are raised regardless, then maybe any number and gender combination should be allowed in a marriage. If children raised in same-sex marriages turn out screwed up, then maybe same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed. If a pair of people are most beneficial to society when one is working outside of the home and one is not, then maybe any two-person pairing should be allowed so that it is easier for one person to support another. If you really think that the only benefit to society is the raising of productive citizens, then maybe the benefits should be based on child-rearing rather than marital status.

Obviously, I don't have an answer (or, rather, have far too many answers and no way to choose between them), but I think you're starting from the wrong question.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[dbIII]

We have the paper trail - they are not a religeon. Belief does not define reality - you can't make something true just by saying it is - all you can do is con people with those lies.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Saxerman]

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
--Annie Dillard, 'Pilgrim at Tinker Creek'

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

It is your choice to make. Like I said, the analogy isn't perfect. But you do introduce the concept of Pascal's Wager. That is, weighing the possible benefits and consequences of a belief in God. In Pascal's eyes, the benefit of belief outweighs the investment needed to believe.

In the train situation, I would likely move off the tracks, as the investment needed to move a few feet is worth saving my life, whether there is a train or not. If there is no train, then it really doesn't matter either way. Either I moved, and got out of the way for no reason, or I was stubborn and stayed in place. There may be a very small amount of pride gained or lost. Alternatively, if there is a train, then moving has a great benefit, and staying stubbornly has a great loss.

Finally, it seems that you think that if you don't believe in God, then God cannot touch you, whether He exists or not. I find this to be like the child who covers his own eyes when he is caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He thinks that if he cannot see his parents, they cannot see him. If there is no God, then there's no threat, you're right. But if there is, do you honestly think that he won't bother with you because you don't believe in Him?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[foolAloof]

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.

speaking from my own experience, i've never seen any 'god' going around and damning people. i saw a lot of people did though. either i haven't seen the world that much, or the paradigm has a seriously faulty.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

That's absolutely true. But the truth is that God (assuming his existence), is the only one with the power to damn anyone. People can say whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true. Nobody sees God damning people, mostly because that step happens after death. Being that you haven't yet died (assumption based on the fact that you're posting here), you wouldn't have seen that. Basically, people can say that anyone's damned, but that doesn't make it true.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

We have the paper trail - they are not a religeon.

Explain yourself. We have the paper trail for Christianity and Islam as well. Does that make Chistianity and Islam not religions?

Belief does not define reality - you can't make something true just by saying it is - all you can do is con people with those lies.

I have no argument with this, generally speaking, and I'm not sure why you feel you should be telling me this. Please elaborate.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[McFadden]

I may be entirely wrong on this, but it was my understanding that The "Church" of Scientology only became a religion in the first place in order to gain certain enshrined protections, as they were being investigated by law enforcement at the time. Becoming a religion meant that they couldn't be banned under U.S. law.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[budgenator]

I'm still trying to figure out where this hell, a place of burning damnation came from, it doesn't seem to be in the Bible at least as a place for human souls is concerned.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[BorgCopyeditor]

Actually, maybe he did mean to flip the whole thing. If you pull your lower lip up over your eyes, the monsters can't see you anymore. Don't believe me? Just try it!

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Pikoro]

Yes,

I honestly believe that if I don't believe in god then it won't bother with me.

We are not talking about something physical here. It's not like I'm saying if I don't believe in mosquitoes then they won't bother me. Remember, we are talking about something of which there is not one scrap of evidence. The bible was written BY men, FOR men, to CONTROL (wo)men.

I really do have a hard time believing that "god" chose to manifest itself only during a few years like 2000 years ago. Something change between then and now? People are still people. Only technology has changed. The techonology we have now allows us to explain alot of the stuff that people of 2000 years ago didn't understand, hence they needed to look elsewhere for an explination.

The bible is A good book. Not THE good book. It makes for some interesting reading, as nearly any collection of short stories does if you are interested in the genere of the collection.

I am not saying that there aren't some good morals to be learned from the bible, but then again, there are alot of good things to learn from the Brothers Grimm as well.

If there IS a god, and it chose to show itself to a few thousand people a couple of thousand years ago, then I believe that the choice has already been made. Obviously "modern" man isn't worth the trouble to this "god".

If I die, and there DOES turn out to be a hell, I would welcome it, because it means that my conciousness lives on. The only thing that I fear about death is the cessation of concious thought. The thought that my memories, achievements, ideas, etc... just *poof* dissappear bothers the heck out of me.

I will not, however, entertain any notion that after death, my conciousness "lives on". I call BS.

Better than religion: Let's figure out a way to stop people from dying.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

Well, the burning is representative of the feeling of being without God. There are countless references to Hell, as well as its various names (Gehenna, Hades, Sheol) in the Bible. One example is Matthew 10:28: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[budgenator]

The thing I've aways found the weirdest about them is that their "holy" books are copyrighted, it always struck me that if it's a religion, then they should believe that the word in the "holy" book is fact, and as fact it would be un-copyrightable; we're not talking about subtle translation differences being copyrighted but the whole thing as if it were a work of fiction made up by a second or third rate fiction writer making a bet.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

I respect your opinion, and see that you've put some honest thought into it. You're right that there isn't physical evidence of His existence. There's quite a bit of evidence that Jesus was around, but that's not proof that He's God. That's the reason for faith. All I'm saying is that I choose to take the side of Pascal's Wager that has the greatest benefit. My experiences tell me that there's something out there, and whether you believe or not is your choice. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion! I mean it.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

I don't mean to start a debate, but this is quite on topic, as it's an article about a religion. But if you don't like it, log in, and turn on the new discussion format, and click on my original post. Then it all disappears for you, and you don't have to read any of it. I've found it useful when there's tangents of topics that I don't care to read.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

That's a good point. I really like that analogy better than any car analogy on slashdot. Looking back at your posts, it seems you have a level head on your shoulders. Thanks.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Jasin Natael]

If you want to get deeper into the issue, the common theory is that marriage is society's way of encouraging childbirth and stable, complete childrearing. The state subsidizes it as an outgrowth of the ethical position that people having and raising children is desirable.

It's the state's place to serve its citizens. But the citizens should get some benefit. Perhaps tax breaks should have nothing to do with marital status, and should be based entirely on parenting healthy children, and the burden of raising them. Your 'two of one, three of the other' would each end up with a fifth of a deduction. And a homosexual couple who raises a child would get the tax break that childless heterosexual couples get now.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Pikoro]

No harm, no foul.

I will not try to force my views on someone else. Everyone is entitled to thier opinions and beliefs. I am also not saying which opinion is right or wrong.

This whole conversation started (for me at least) with people coming to my door and soliciting god to me.

Nobody should EVER try to force (or coerce) thier beliefs (or lack thereof) on someone else. Simply present the facts as you see them, if asked for, and leave the decision up to them.

This goes double for physical things like government, but that's a different discussion all together.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[jrobertray]

A dead person doesn't know the answer, he merely has stopped asking the question.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[dbIII]

Utterly obvious bullshit contrived to make money is not religion. No matter how cynical you are if you look seriously at real religions they have some other goal. Jim Jones and "fundamentalist" offshoots designed to make money have muddied the waters but just banding people together into a big club and taking control of their lives is very different to a group of Nuns caring for the homeless somewhere.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

That may be true, depending on what the answer is. Good point, though.

On a side note, and even more off-topic. I took the opportunity, while waiting for slashdot to accept my post, to take a quick look at your website. The Hot Dogs to the moon and back is awesome. Very good read. It does have the side effect of making me want a hotdog, though.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[dbIII]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Courageous]

Perhaps. You'd have to say "per capita" for your observation to be correct though, and the original poster did mention something about the 9th circuit being a large one. Mind you, if you said it was overrepresented per capita, I'd believe you.

C//

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Thomas Henden]

The german authorities count the "Church of Scientology, as a commercial organisation

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Rakarra]

Actually I would say there are quite a few cult-like aspects to the Catholic Church, and Catholicism is saddled with over a thousand years of baggage from when it ceased to be much about religion and salvation and more like a business or new world order of the time.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[inviolet]

Utterly obvious bullshit contrived to make money is not religion.

Are you sure about that?

No matter how cynical you are if you look seriously at real religions they have some other goal.

They do now.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the punch line was "straight shooter", which means that he is truthful. That has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Durandal64]

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.

In other words, they're correlated. I never said one caused the other, but they might as well be equivalent qualifications.

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.

That's the rationalization for virtually every atrocity the Church has ever committed. "If it saves souls, then torturing Jews into conversion is worth it."

In any case, Jesus didn't seem to have a problem saving souls without a huge building to help him out. According to your own scriptures, such a thing isn't necessary.

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.

In that spirit, I'll tell you why people get annoyed at even "minimally intrusive" evangelism. It's because people don't like to be told they're leading their lives wrong. And it's not like you can even show that a non-Christian is leading his life incorrectly. You just kind of proclaim it. When someone tells a smoker "You should cut back or quit", it's actually good advice, and that's been shown that there is a direct causal link between smoking and cancer. There is no way to show such a connection between "Christianity" and "being happy".

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[adrianmonk]

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?

Sure, if one of the two religions being discussed is Scientology, then the Scientology one is of more concern. Of course, I say this because I believe that, as a whole, the Church of Scientology is being disingenuous in calling itself a church. It is not automatically true that an organization is a church (or a religion, whatever) just because it itself claims to be one.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[sumdumass]

The whole thing revovles around the use of force or the threat of use of force.

If that is the case then probably. If it isn't then not likley. However, it probably could be used against those who appose the religios right more easily. They tend to be the ones who threated bodily harm and appear more aggressive in their anti-religious actions. But making a blanket statment about either would probably prove fuitless. It is usualy one one or two people who cross the line and not the entire group.

This is probably a big reason why we shouldn't associate behavior based on a steriotype. And some who do associate behavior based on a steriotype typicly find it repulsive when certain sterio types are presented. (*think minority and econimic status and such)

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[ckedge]

Other religions aren't attempting to do what Scientology does, nor do other religions place themselves above the law and/or subvert the fundamental principles our society is based upon - like Scientology does.

If Catholic judges chronically returned judgements that were 100% at odds with what any other judge would do in the same circumstances and at odds with what "the law" intends and says - you'd talk about them in the same way they are talking/worrying about "Co$ infiltration".

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[sumdumass]

That depends highly on who is being offended and who is speaking freely. It seems that their right to either superceeds everyone elses right to the oposite.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

I think that's kinda been covered in the other posts in this thread, but really it's about making a choice to go on the path to Heaven, or the path to Hell. If you had one trail labeled "This way to eternal happiness", and another labeled "This way to some temporary happiness(maybe), but eventually leads to eternal pain", and I tell you that you're on the second path, that's not me forcing you to change direction. It would be a good idea, but still, you're free to keep right on going.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

In other words, they're correlated. I never said one caused the other, but they might as well be equivalent qualifications. They are correlated, but there is a difference between telling someone where they are headed, and saying that they are stuck going there. Excommunication just means you're a long way down the wrong path. Maybe it could be something like a milestone.

That's the rationalization for virtually every atrocity the Church has ever committed. "If it saves souls, then torturing Jews into conversion is worth it." In any case, Jesus didn't seem to have a problem saving souls without a huge building to help him out. According to your own scriptures, such a thing isn't necessary. There's a huge difference between torturing Jews and having material things. One is absolutely, without a doubt, wrong, and the other is inconsequential, in the long run. I can't speak for anyone who has a lot of material goods, as I'm not one. I do have an average amount for someone in America, but not to the extent that you're speaking about. But I can see that they can be used for the greater good.

I never did say that a huge building is the only way to save souls. It isn't necessary, you're right on that. But it does make it easier.

In that spirit, I'll tell you why people get annoyed at even "minimally intrusive" evangelism. It's because people don't like to be told they're leading their lives wrong. And it's not like you can even show that a non-Christian is leading his life incorrectly. You just kind of proclaim it. When someone tells a smoker "You should cut back or quit", it's actually good advice, and that's been shown that there is a direct causal link between smoking and cancer. There is no way to show such a connection between "Christianity" and "being happy". I'm well aware of the fact that people don't like to be told that they are leading their lives wrong. I think there needs to be a certain relationship between people before they are really comfortable with that. I would never go up to a complete stranger, and say that they are going to Hell. That's just pointless, and usually baseless. As far as proclaiming it, I see your point. There are some things that can be shown to have negative consequences that are sin, and others that are harder to explain. But I would venture to say that many of the major sins can be said to have large consequences in the here and now. The easy target is Murder. There's obviously some repercussions if you sin in that way. There's also consequences for adultery, stealing, false witness (perjury), and even dishonoring your father and mother. For me, I see a connection between Christianity and happiness. If you don't, then it's obvious why you wouldn't want to be a Christian.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Darby]

On the same token, can you prove that there is no God?

It's not the same token though.
Prove there isn't an invisible rabbit tailing your footsteps.
That's exactly as stupid as god.
For your question to even be reasonable you'd have to address *any* insane crap anybody spouts as if it was gospel.

The onus is on the ones claiming some complely ridiculous idea and then using that idea as an excuse to shove their small minded hatred on others to show one damn thing to base their delusions on.

Saying stupidity is stupidity is just sane. It is in no way symmetrical.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[inKubus]

Hans Reiser called and wants his post back.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[AaronLawrence]

Very good point. Arguably the more neutral position the state should be taking is to give NO benefits to marriage (maybe just a title for the records, or something).

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

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

So... you're saying that if it didn't happen in your lifetime, you'll accept it. But if it did, you won't. Fascinating. Bewildered, backwards and superstitious, but still... fascinating. Me, I look at the story, and if it sounds like bullshit, I assume it is bullshit, until and unless some proof reaches the table. No religion has ever had a non-bullshit sounding story, and no proof has ever reached the table, so I never had to reach for the "but it just happened" as a means of disqualification. Religion is bullshit, as far as I can tell, so that doesn't make Scientology any less or more than any other religion.

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.

What is interesting about it? Various sects of Muslims, Hindus and African tribes all practice clitoridectomy to this day, and worse, though I should note that Muslim scholars consider it haram though it is still practiced by many Muslims. Likewise, stoning isn't a "post-revolution Iranian practice", you'll find it - and advice when to do it - right in your bible. Iran wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye at that point. You're woefully uninformed for someone who is trying to argue about religion.

just becuase(sic) one group does stupid stuff doesn't justify another.

I don't believe you'll find that I was trying to "justify" one group by citing the actions of another. Though I certainly do lump one type of ignorance with another. Jehovah, Zeus, whoever... it's definitely all the same.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

CoS is NOT a religion. It is a cult.

...and you base this distinction on... what? Please describe the difference between a religion and a cult, such that we can understand how Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism are one, and Scientology the other.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Cederic]

You don't think that if there is a god, it wont go medieval on someone that decided to believe it existed to avoid the ramifications of not believing?

Pretty much all religious texts are very keen on the downsides of not believing and/or lying about believing.

Incidentally, why do you refer to your god in the singular? There are dozens of equal validity, and you've already pissed off all the female ones...

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[shutdown -p now]

It is not very likely for a Christian judge to sympathise with a Christian defendant more so than if the latter was an atheist. Also, the issue usually does not even arise, since the religious preferences of the defendant - or lack thereof - are not usually known.

Scientologists, on the other hand, are a tightly knit sect, where members help each other in any way they can.

So I can certainly spot a difference there. And no, I'm not a Christian.

Re: Tom Cruise Missile

[Black Parrot]

> It is your choice to make. Like I said, the analogy isn't perfect. But you do introduce the concept of Pascal's Wager. That is, weighing the possible benefits and consequences of a belief in God. In Pascal's eyes, the benefit of belief outweighs the investment needed to believe.

Of course, Pascal's Wager requires buying into certain tacit assumptions that load the bet.

Suppose a God exists, but doesn't want to be believed in?

Suppose a different God exists, and will punish you for believing in Pascal's?

The wager is merely a bit of foolish self-rationalization.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Weedlekin]

The Pope can do more than excommunicate. In traditional catholic doctrine, God speaks to humanity through the Pope, so if the Pope says a person or group is damned (this has happened in the past), then God has said so, and they are therefore damned.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Carewolf]

No the problem is that it is based on Science Fiction, not Fantasy like the Bible.

All real religions are based on Fantasy, _non_ Science Fiction.

We have to stop those who try to group those two completely different genres together.

(Yes, I am not being entirely serious here).

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[David_Shultz]

How do people as dumb as you manage to survive? This is not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely interested in knowing by what miracle (curse?) you are still alive.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[someone1234]

"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." That's why "DON'T LIE!" is a part of the Ten Commandments? (And don't lay in the middle of the freeway either.)

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[albyrne5]

there are some organizations that use religion as an excuse to make money
Yes, they're called "religions".

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[nietsch]

Questions that one could never answer are not worth discussing. So why do you want proof that your invisible friend does not exist?
But i can try nonetheless: the majority of humans is religious, but the god(s) they believe in differ very much, unless you claim that your god is the same as the flying spagetti monster or the norse pantheon.
No religioun has ever given objective proof that their god does exist, so that offers no explanation at the existance of religions. One can assume though that a lot of people have religious/spiritual feelings. Another assumption to introduce is the tendency of people to dominate and be dominated by other people. With these assumptions that only include human traits, one can explain the existance of different religions with different gods. Those assumptions do not require the existance of anything unexplainable, while (your) religion does. Even if those explanations where equal(*), Ochams razor tells you to choose the simpler one, which means that humans created god(s).
(*) ofcourse to both sides of the argment this is not the case, both sides will see their solution as the best one. Compare it to telling a child that santaclaus does not exist; some kids will get so distressed by that, that its just cruel to tell them their imaginary sugardaddy does not exist. Please excuse me for being cruel, then ;)

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[kiddygrinder]

The difference between scientology and "traditional" religions is their efficiency. That's what scares the crap out of me.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Shakrai]

What about female clititordectomies (AKA "female circumcision", which it actually is not)?

Personally, I've always found it just a little bit hypocritical of the West to criticize this while condoning the routine practice of male circumcision. Either we realize that we can't impose our own standards of norm on others or we realize the hypocrisy in our position and stop condoning male circumcision.

Of course I'll be jumped on by a hundred people for saying that, with arguments like "it's not the same thing!" and what not, because it's impossible to have a rational discussion on this issue (look at the talk pages on Wikipedia for the relevant articles), but I'd ask, where's the difference?

Is it somehow better to mutilate infant males who can't consent to the procedure? If it's ok to perform genital modifications on boys who are too young to give informed consent then why is it somehow evil to do it to young girls who are too young to give informed consent?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[dbIII]

We are getting waaaay off track here - I don't even believe Scientology is any sort of religeon just criminal activity and will stop repeating the living witness thing if the point is being missed every single time. They use this fraud to manipulate the system - which is what the article was about.

Intersting to get called "woefully uninformed" for paying attention to news and finding out about my misconceptions instead of just guessing and making predjudiced assumptions - one of the nasty things about Iran in the days after the revolution was bringing in the sort of fundamentalist punishments that people assumed used to be done years before but rarely were. There's a lot of good stuff written about the last few decades in the middle east that should just about be compulsory reading due to the impact on a lot of places - a draft and expansion of the war is unlikely but not completely impossible.

I think this whole comparitive religeon thing brought up above is as relevant as saying you don't like beans and pins are just as bad - Scientology didn't pretend to be a religeon until they could use it for tax avoidance. Books like "Bare Faced Messiah" go into it. If you want to go on about the irrelevance and harm of various religeons to some random agnostic who doesn't really care on slashdot I think Richard Dawkins new book goes into it well (only heard an interview haven't read the book), and would be more informative and be less of a waste of time.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Shakrai]

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

He's not dead. Therefore it's a cult.

*duck*

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[dosquatch]

The tax code, rules of testate, etc., should be simple and the state should just get out of the marriage business altogether.

Go back and re-read what I wrote - it is not so far off from what you say here. The primary difference is that I'm saying the state, being the registrar for such unions, should just get on with that simple duty. I never used the phrase "tax breaks", I said "tax purposes". There's no reason why a household should not be able to file cumulatively. Quite often this increases the tax burden (see marriage penalty), but this is offset by the reduced bills that come with running a single household for multiple occupants.

The real problem is assignment of benefits. There's a lot more to the legal realm of "marriage" than taxes and child rearing. There's being able to claim inheritance. There's being able to speak for another in a medical crisis, and having that person able to speak for you. Health insurance. Car insurance. Life insurance. On and on. And if you think any of this is trivial, look at what James Brown's widow, and mother of his son, is going through at the hands of lawyers because they were never "properly married".

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.

No, I'm just saying that the state should consistently apply an already commonly available benefit/official recognition. I don't think the state should butt any further into the matchmaking process of any union than it currently does into allowed unions.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Dabido]

Excommunication is the Pope throwing someone out of the church. Normally as he beleives they're already damned to hell. So he isn't actually damning the person, it's more a matter of him throwing them out of the club. Orthodox churches also sometimes excommunicate peopel also ... like when they used to excommunicate the popes before the great schism in 1054 AD. [After 1054, both sides just assumed the other side was excommunicated for existance.]

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[packeteer]

Its a Double entendre doofus.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Dread_ed]

"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?"

How about one where a guy gets convicted of a bogus charge because he picketed a certain religious group that also happens to have vast influence in the court system where he was tried.

Damn man, I have heard that not reading the article is a slashdot norm, I even do it myself at times. However, forgetting what article you are posting under takes this to new heights.

I salute you Sir!

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[ViVeLaMe]

well, from your line of inquiry... Should infertile straight people be permitted to marry? I mean, infertile mariages don't benefit the state, why tolerate them?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Dread_ed]

"depending on how you read the Bible"

You know, even if I was to read the bible after taking about 15 hits of acid and then whacking myself in the head with a cinder block I don't think I could come up with anything as convoluted and misconstrued your interpretation. Forgive me if I am wrong, but it is so far from the mark of established and accepted doctrine that it is difficult to imagine it other than an intentional effort to make Christians look bad. Not that they don't do it enough themselves, but adding napalm to the fire is really unnecessary.

"Jesus, after all, told Peter that whatever he said on Earth goes in Heaven"

Notwithstanding the interpretational disregard for the original intent of this verse lets look at some other other quotes. Jesus told everyone that if people believed in him they would be saved from eternal damnation. He also said that those who are saved are in his hands and no one can take them out. Contradictory someone might say? Only if you ignore the fundamental (not fundamentalist mind you) doctrinal basis of Christian theology. Your misinterpretation of a often quoted verse brings it into direct opposition with the entire structure of Christianity and makes it incongrous with the text of the Bible. Try reading up on it a bit.

"So if the Pope excommunicates someone, he's basically damned the person to Hell"

Even Wikipedia disagrees with you on this point. As quoted in Wikipedia and origianlly form the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is held to be indelible." Systematic theology and doctrinal theses say much the same thing. Really, the only person I have ever encountered that thinks this is, well, you and apparently the moderators that modded you up.

"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."

There are inter denominational debates about requirements for salvation covering such topics as baptism, faith alone, taking the sacraments, confessing verbally, and even some others. However, what is conspicuously absent from the fray is any discussion of tithing. Tithing has its own debate within the circles of the saved, but regardless everyone agrees it is not necessary for salvation. Interestingly, the only person espousing this theological viewpoint I have ever seen in print or in passing is, again, you.

What is agreed on is simple and free for everyone. Works, like tithing and good deeds, are irrelevant and insufficient for salvation to the God of Christianity. Faith in Christ is all that is necessary. Some say you must be baptised as well, and some say that you must confess verbally. I don't ascribe to those tennents myself, though some others do.

I am curious, where did you get these beliefs? What church instructed you so? I ask because it is such a travesty of established doctrine that I daresay it crosses the line into heresy.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Hoi Polloi]

Because "virgin" fits into the Judeo-Christian rejection of nature, especially sex. If Mary had sex then the faithful would have to accept the image of her doing it with Joseph. Making her a virgin not only keeps her clean of that awful sex stuff but also puts God in the undisputed position to be the dad. It appeals to the Madonna-Whore instinct many people seem to have.

As for the Koran I guess being divinely rewarded with "white raisins" just doesn't have the same appeal as "virgins" though I don't think virgins are all that great either. I'd prefer a few dozen cute woman with pleasant personalities and no hang ups in bed. ;)

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[GuyverDH]

Except for the fact the Jesus never spoke to any pope.

The pope is just a fictional character dreamed up by men to try and make more money for the Catholic Corp^H^H^H^HChurch

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[dgatwood]

Ah, but I already addressed that point. It's my assertion that this is not because they believe the 9th circuit is making poor decisions, but rather because the 9th circuit is more likely to rule on early landmark cases on subjects of broad national interest before other circuits rule on those issues. As a result, its cases are more interesting for the courts to look at. Usually, the SCOTUS looks at rulings based on whether they have broad national impact, either because two circuits differ in their interpretation of the law or because.the case would set a broad precedent on something that they consider important, regardless of the merits of the lower court's decision

Of course, this is my opinion. Yours may differ.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

Well, perhaps the idea isn't as ridiculous as it seems. There is a lot that cannot be explained by science at this time. One of the big ones is existence itself. Where did all this stuff come from? What causes life? Those existential question cannot be answered by science. There's attempts, but there had to be something to start from. So, really, to say that something came out of nothing is a ridiculous idea, but it's easily glossed over. I think there must have been something before that. Whether you think it came from God, or somewhere else, that's up to you.

I'm trying to be reasonable here, but you seem to be implying that small-minded hatred is what Christianity is all about. If you don't believe there is a God, that's your choice to disbelieve. You don't have to call names about it. I get the impression that you're being closed-minded to any debate on the topic, and simply trying to push small-minded hatred at those who you don't agree with. Care to prove different?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

I am not seeking proof from anyone. I didn't mean to ask for so many replies, but I was just clarifying what I thought was a common misinterpretation of what Christians say. I simply said that if the Christian is preaching what it says in the Bible, then they do not have the power to Damn someone. I know there are some out there who think that they can Damn someone on God's behalf, but I would argue that they are on a power trip. There are people out there who only participate in any sort of religion to try to get the power of God to work for them. I guess it sprung into an all-out debate. I know what I believe, and if asked, I will respond.

I believe that there is a higher power of some sort. I choose to call Him God. I also believe that He can be seen in different ways. There are, and will continue to be, things that cannot be explained, the easy one is existence itself. I went into more detail in another post, but I don't think there is a simple answer to where matter and life came from. Whatever beliefs or disbeliefs anyone else has are their business.

On a side note, I think that telling kids that Santa Claus is real is just stupid. When I have kids, I will be honest with them. I don't see the purpose of trying to convince someone of something that you don't believe yourself. That's just dishonest.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[monkeydo]

But the court isn't deciding to look at these more interesting case that the 9th circuit is blessed with and upholding them. They are looking at these more interesting cases and overturning them. Whether the subjects or novel or not doesn't change the fact that the 9th seems to get it wrong more often than other circuits. But it might be another possible explanation besides being so liberal as to why they get it wrong so often. However, if the Supreme Court denied cert to 9th circuit cases in greater percentages than other circuits, that would be an interesting datapoint.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[monkeydo]

It depends on how you believe married couples benefit the rest of us. If you believe that benefit is limited to reproduction, then the obvious answer is no. But then you have to ask why we don't give the benefits of marriage to unmarried parents. I think there is more to it than just reproduction.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

I get the impression that you're just trying to insert a snide remark into this conversation to make a point. I would say that there are some religions that are just there for the money. There's no denying that. Heck, this one just made the news last week. But I would also argue that there are a lot of religions that are not in it for the money. I know that the Church I go to is very open about how money is spent, as well as the financial situation at all times. There's listings in the bulletin about what money is taken in, and what major projects the money is used for. To generalize to the extent that your remark is generalizing, is similar to racism at its roots. Someone has a bad experience with someone who has purple skin, and they think all purple-skinned people are the same. It's just spreading of fear.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

Actually, the wording in the Bible is that you shall not bear false witness. It has the same meaning, but is not ambiguous, like the word lie is. I'm sure you're aware that I meant lie, as the first meaning in the dictionary here. On a side note, which is likely to incite another flamewar, when I looked up lie, the one and only sponsored link was President Bush, with a link to the Daily Show on the Comedy Central Website.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[monkeydo]

The real problem is assignment of benefits. There's a lot more to the legal realm of "marriage" than taxes and child rearing. There's being able to claim inheritance. There's being able to speak for another in a medical crisis, and having that person able to speak for you. Health insurance. Car insurance. Life insurance. On and on. And if you think any of this is trivial, look at what James Brown's widow, and mother of his son, is going through at the hands of lawyers because they were never "properly married".

And these things have a cost to society as well. It doesn't matter what you think the benefits of state sanctioned marriage are. I assume that we agree that there are benfits, otherwise people wouldn't be fighting for the prvilege. All you have to do is explaing what reciprocal advantage your expanded definition of marriage replies, and I'll support. And don't ask me to justify the current definition, since I'm not sure it can be.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

You are speaking about Papal infallibility. To quote Wikipedia:

Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin. It doesn't mean the pope cannot be wrong. What Papal infallibility means is that when the Pope declares a dogmatic teaching, due to spiritual revelation, that he is he deciding factor. It is not used for any ordinary circumstance, and, as a point of reference, it has not been used since 1950, and was used to declare that Mary's Assumption into Heaven was a fact. It is meant to settle disagreements on doctrine, not for the Pope to be set above others. I severely doubt that it would ever be used to damn someone, and if you think it is so, I would welcome you to cite a source.

Re: Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

Perhaps it is a bit of foolish self-rationalization. I was merely saying that the comment I was replying to had the concept of Pascal's Wager. Personally, I don't base my Faith on that wager, but the concept is there, and some people base at least part of their faith in it. I didn't notice it there yesterday, but there is a suggestion to merge Athiest's wager into the Pascal's wager section. That is an intriguing idea also. But I think that is also a self-rationalization. You do bring up good points, and that's one of the reasons I don't usually mention it. But it came up, and in the interest of knowledge, I linked to more information.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

I just said it in another post, but it was obviously not there when you wrote this. I personally think that Pascal's wager is a pretty shallow basis for anyone to base their faith on. That is mentioned in the link as one of the criticisms of this theory. I don't base my Faith on this wager, and I don't think anyone else should, either. I just saw that it came up in the conversation, and thought it would be educational to have.

As far as referring to my God as a singular male, it's mainly for convenience. I think that God has the capability to reveal himself in many different ways, but still is a person. Since the English Language has no pronoun that is gender-neutral and singular, He is generally accepted as such. I believe that the many gods that are worshiped are different perspectives, or points of view, of one, singular, force that I choose to call God.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Some_Llama]

"No religioun has ever given objective proof that their god does exist,"

But that's not true, Moses gave many (i think it was 10) objective proofs that his God did exist and was more powerful than the "God's" of Egypt. This is why the Pharoah let them leave... or do we not believe the combination of the bible and ancient hieroglyphs as "proof" enough that those things happened?

There are a lot of those types of "proofs" going back through the time of the bible even to current times...

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Darby]

Where did all this stuff come from? What causes life? Those existential question cannot be answered by science.

They can't yet be answered by science and they may never be. Currently the only honest answer to them is "I don't know".

All religion provides is an extra worthless lair of cruft in regards to answers.
Their answer "god did it". That isn't an answer it's just pretending to a lack of ignorance since the question "where did god come from" is just a replacement of the previous question with nothing added. The only honest to that question is "I don't know" for a gain of nothing and a loss of simplicity.


I'm trying to be reasonable here, but you seem to be implying that small-minded hatred is what Christianity is all about.

You seem to be implying that isn't one of the primary things it is about. History makes you a liar. Heck, current events in the US make you a liar as it's Christians, once again, trying to destroy this country with their sickeningly immoral hate based legislation and their various other savage assaults on liberty. Due, as you well know, solely to small-minded hatred.

So, sorry, but while there might be a few decent Christians running around, the majority of the ones in America as a group are evil hate mongering scum. Just look at who they elected and why and that is a proven fact.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Jonny Ringo]

That was the funniest thing I've read in a long time. THANK YOU!

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

Personally, I've always found it just a little bit hypocritical of the West to criticize this while condoning the routine practice of male circumcision.

I do not critisize female (or male) circumcision. My point was that clititoridectomy is not the same as circumcision; it is outright removal of the clitoris. The removal of the hood of the clitoris is the rough equivalant of a male circumcision, and while I can't say it appeals to me, as it doesn't particularly change the function of the anatomy, I don't see it as mutilation. For male circumcision, the data has long established that circumcised males have fewer health problems, and so that is generally an advantage for the male. Not always; some people get all hung up about it and then you have a new problem, but in terms of functionality, it's not really a change for most males. However - if you were to give a male an operation that is the equivalant of a clititoridectomy, you'd be cutting off the head of the penis; and that, I'm afraid, is unjustified by any reasoning I've ever heard. Likewise the removal of the clitoris - completely unjustified by any rational standard. Savage and primitive and disgusting is more like it.

I don't think that this is an issue that I can give a pass to because it is cross-culture; there are two problems. One, it mutilates the body so that functionality (orgasm, in particular) is almost certain to be lost. Two, it is done without consent of the subject, and that I have a problem with in any culture. Cultures that impose functional mutilation on non-consenting members are, in my opinion, cultures we can do without.

Now, if you want to cut your own goods up, or off, why then by all means, here's a nice sharp knife or the address of a surgeon, and you have fun. I'm all for you doing whatever you like to yourself, or opting, paying or whatever for someone else to do it for you. It's all about informed, intelligent consent when functionality is involved. Doesn't bother me a bit to see someone with a piercing or whatever body mod that messes with functionality unless I learn that this was not voluntary, and then I want to pound someone into the ground. I'm considerably less concerned about involuntary mods that don't affect functionality by design (eg ear piercings, nose piercings, hair removal) or mods that are known to improve health (eg circumcision, prophylactic appendectomies, orthodontics) and which are well meaning and typically have positive outcomes.

Is it somehow better to mutilate infant males who can't consent to the procedure? If it's ok to perform genital modifications on boys who are too young to give informed consent then why is it somehow evil to do it to young girls who are too young to give informed consent?

You're not comparing similar procedures, and that's the problem. Circumcision - of either sex - isn't much of a big deal, unless for personal reasons you find it offensive. Clititoridectomy is not circumcision. Comparing the two isn't valid; until or unless you understand what is different about the procedures, you really can't make an informed judgement.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

Maybe you think religion is worthless. There are obviously people who do. For me, I think that saying that there is a force out there that must have created something at some point in time is not another worthless layer. I think it's closer to the truth, even if it only seems like semantics to some. I think to deny that a force, such as God, could have created this existence is closing out an idea. It's obviously an idea that many people believe in, though that on its own does not make it right. I'm not trying to convert you, nor am I trying to justify my beliefs to you, as I think that they are justified both with and without your approval. I'm just trying to say that it is a viable option, and it isn't out of ignorance that many Christians believe.

For your second half of a comment, I see that your biases are coming out. Christianity doesn't imply perfection. In fact, it says that God is perfect, humans are inherently imperfect. There are times in the history of Christianity that people were just wrong. With any sufficiently large group of people, that is bound to happen. I'm avoiding the easy target so as not to invoke Godwin's law, but to say that all whites are based on hate, because of slavery, or how the Native Americans were treated when the pilgrims arrived in America is just prejudice.

You also seem to lump Christians in with Republicans, collectively known as the Religious Right. I'd say that there are a lot of people on both sides of the Republican/Democrat split that are Christian. If you look at the census numbers, well over half of the US claims to practice Christianity. Approximately half of the people voted for Bush, which seems to be what you're referencing. Just by the numbers, at least some of the Christians voted for someone else. I personally know quite a few people who are practicing Christians, and will not vote for Bush, nor most Republicans. To me, you argument seems to be a strawman, saying that Republicans are equivalent to Christians, and then attacking Republicans. You're really working against yourself with that.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[albyrne5]

Well maybe I'm too cynical, but I would be very surprised if the "top guy" in your church has not made sufficient amounts of cash from his work with the church either directly or as a result of the "goodwill" and status built up.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Weedlekin]

A far better source than Wikipedia (as if anything could be a worse source on many matters!) is the Catholic Church itself. The decrees of the First Vatican Council which took place between 1869 and 1870 (full text at http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm) say:

"when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church
"

Note the "defines a doctrine" and "or morals" parts. The Pope can, and several have, declare that certain actions which are not condemned by Biblical texts to be sins, which effectively damns those who practice them. He also traditionally had more direct powers of damnation against individuals which I will describe a little later in this post.

"It is meant to settle disagreements on doctrine, not for the Pope to be set above others"

I would respectfully suggest that the above text quite clearly sets the Pope above all others.

"I severely doubt that it would ever be used to damn someone, and if you think it is so, I would welcome you to cite a source"

The usual form of damning a person or group was by declaring them Anathema. Only the Pope could do this via a ceremony formulated by Pope Zachary which includes the following words:

"we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

The Catholic Encyclopaedia has a rather good article on Anathema and a variant of it called Anathema Maranatha at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm.

NB: various "Vatican II" canons and acts during the 20th century first reduced the severity of Anathema to that of normal (minor) excommunication, and then removed all mention of it -- note though that, as has happened in the past, such reforms can be repealed by papal fiat.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Shakrai]

circumcised males have fewer health problems, and so that is generally an advantage for the male

That's disputed.

but in terms of functionality, it's not really a change for most males

Also disputed.

Two, it is done without consent of the subject, and that I have a problem with in any culture

And that's the problem that I have with male circumcision. We could debate the alleged health benefits/sexual benefits/drawbacks all day and probably not find common ground. But the basic problem is that young male infiants are routinely circumcised without the ability to give informed consent. You don't have a problem with that?

You're not comparing similar procedures, and that's the problem. Circumcision - of either sex - isn't much of a big deal, unless for personal reasons you find it offensive. Clititoridectomy is not circumcision. Comparing the two isn't valid; until or unless you understand what is different about the procedures, you really can't make an informed judgement.

I wasn't comparing the procedures. I was making the point that it's inherently wrong to perform unnecessary surgery on somebody too young to give informed consent to such a procedure. I don't see society condoning routine appendectomies on newborns, why are routine circumcisions ok? I was also making the point that it's wrong to impose our standards of norm on other cultures.

And I do happen to think that it's a big deal. You are slicing off a sensitive part of the penis and all of the related nerve endings and functions. Why not let your son decide for himself when he turns 18 if that's something he wants to do?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[gfreeman]

s/God/FSM/g

Now who's the whacko?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[gfreeman]

The way it seems to me is that he wouldn't have had death threats from a Catholic priest for saying something similar.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[gfreeman]

Solution: no tax breaks related to your marital status.

How easy was that?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

I don't recall saying that anyone is a whacko. I believe that there's a force out there that makes things run. I call that force God. If you want to call that force FSM, that's your choice. I'd think that it's disrespectful, but I suppose that someone, somewhere, could possibly think that FSM is respectful. I doubt that it's the case, but I guess it's possible.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn]

I know that Wikipedia is not the best place to quote from, but it is one that most people here would be familiar with. The sources that you are citing are much better, but I think the language in them requires a large base knowledge of the Church that many here don't have. Let me try to explain.

"when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church"

I don't know if you intended it this way, but this is not a way for the Pope to "make up" a sin. It is intended to be used as clarification of the Church's official stance on a moral issue or doctrine. Though the Bible is believed to be the Word of God, the Catholic Church believes that there is more than just the Bible to guide us. Some of the reasons for that are just logical. If the Apostles were told to write in the Bible that aborting fetuses for practices of stem cell research are not in line with the Church's teaching, they wouldn't have a clue what that meant. There are issues in modern society that are not explicitly defined in the Bible. There are the Two Great Commandments, which sum up the intentions of the 10 Commandments, as well as provide guidance for other things not explicitly defined in the Bible. When Jesus was asked which Commandment was the most important, he replied:

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

What I am trying to say is that Papal Infallibility is to clarify doctrine, rather than to create doctrine that is simply to cause other people to be in sin. I would argue that the Pope clarifying does not damn people, as God may have already decided to judge based on whatever that particular moral issue is, and the Pope just points it out. Finally, depending on the severity of the issue, if it is not a serious sin, then it does not send someone to Hell. As I've said in other posts, perfection is not expected to be reached, but it is the goal. We all are not perfect, everyone in a different way. So, even if someone does not follow that particular teaching, it is not a guarantee that they will go to Hell, and therefore, not a damning.

On your note about this setting the Pope above others, I would have to respectfully disagree. I understand that you are saying that since he has this ability, then he must be set above others. I would agree that he has privileges that others do not have, since he is the deciding word on those issues, but what I mean about being set above others was in the spiritual sense. I mean to say that he is still judged according to his actions, and cannot simply change what is and is not a sin to fit his own liking.

OK, on to Anathema. I have to admit that although I am familiar with the concept of Anathema, it is not within my area of expertise. One thing that sticks out to me, down at the bottom of the Anathema article that you have linked, is the following quote:

The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected.

The purpose of Anathema, as well as all forms of excommunication, is to serve as a warning. They are extremely severe warnings, but the intention of them both is repentance. I believe that this isn't a damning in the way that we are discussi

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

circumcised males have fewer health problems, and so that is generally an advantage for the male
That's disputed.

Reduces aids (this story is from the BBC, but the reference is from "Lancet."

Reduces chlamidia (Oxford Journal.)

From the AMA on UTI (summary... 12-fold increase of risk of UTI if uncircumcised):

Urinary Tract Infection: There is little doubt that the uncircumcised infant is at higher risk for urinary tract infection (UTI), although the magnitude of this risk is debatable. A meta-analysis of 9 studies published between 1984 and 1992 revealed a 12-fold increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised males.4 Most of the studies analyzed were case-control designs that analyzed the rate of UTI in the first year of life.

From the AMA on Penile cancer (summary... only uncircumcised men get penile cancer):

Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000). Among uncircumcised men the incidence is estimated to be 2.2/100,000.21 Six case series published between 1932 and 1986 found that all penile cancers occurred in uncircumcised individuals.11,22 Results of one case control study provide an exception to this general rule, although circumcision status was determined by self-report.23 Nevertheless, this study also found that the absence of neonatal circumcision increased the risk for penile cancer by a factor of 3.2 Other identified risk factors for penile cancer are phimosis (occurring exclusively in uncircumcised males), genital warts, infection with human papilloma virus, large number of sexual partners, and cigarette smoking.

And of course, circumcision prevents one from ever suffering from phimosis.

So clearly, there are health benefits. There are arguments as to whether these health benefits are "sufficient" to justify circumcision due to incidence of these various issues; but no argument as to the health benefits themselves. My position is that the health benefits themselves are sufficent, and so I do not object on that basis.

but in terms of functionality, it's not really a change for most males
Also disputed.

As to function, as a circumcised male, I can assure you that full functionality is present, as is lots and lots of enjoyment. Anecdotal reports speak to an additional ability to control ejaculation, and to that I can only say I've never had a problem holding off until my partner's orgasm and then going with them; so for my part, if indeed this has anything at all to do with being circumcised, I consider it a huge positive. Functionally speaking, I'm one happy camper, as have been my partners. One thing I can definitively say is that the condition itself does not bring lack of function, or reduced function. No question about it. If the operation was botched (as can happen) or the individual develops mental problems, then certainly you could have trouble, as sex is considerably "mental" anyway, certainly the right attitude is as important as is the physical functioning of the hardware, as it were.

But the basic problem is that young male infiants are routinely circumcised without the ability to give informed consent. You don't have a problem with that?

No, I don't. Their umbilical cords are routinely tied off without their consent as well, because we know that such a proceedure is better for them than to leave it leaking all over the place. Obviously, the parent has the responsibility to choose the path for the infant for best chance for health and survival, just aside from what we might argue are parental rights. I was born with a benign tumor on my left side; they burned it offf with dry ice without consulting my infant self, or waiting until I was older and could actually answer. The issue is crystal clear: I

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Darby]

For me, I think that saying that there is a force out there that must have created something at some point in time is not another worthless layer. I think it's closer to the truth, even if it only seems like semantics to some. I think to deny that a force, such as God, could have created this existence is closing out an idea

It's not just semantics. It is a statement with *zero* justification.
If you need something like that to feel ok with the universe, knock yourself out, but don't pretend that there is any need for such a thing or that it adds anything to knowledge.
I'm not denying that such a thing *could* have happened. It could have.

I'm just trying to say that it is a viable option, and it isn't out of ignorance that many Christians believe.

That's a completely different thing. That is wholely out of ignorance though.

Deism is the only rational religion. "There is a god who created everything and that's about as far as he matters to the world".
To actually buy into something as specific and contradictory as Christianity is ignorant.
It's demeaning to a being with the power to create the universe to demand that he have the maturity and attitude of a petulant 6 year old which is what the Judeo-Christian god is.

Sorry, but if there was a god who actually wanted to get a message across, then he damn well would have been able to do it better than yours did.
So to believe that an *all powerful* being was incapable of delivering a simple message accurately is about as ignorant as you can get. And yes, he absolutely did fail miserably at that task as proved absolutely by the fact that there are so many different gods out there.

I'm avoiding the easy target so as not to invoke Godwin's law, but to say that all whites are based on hate, because of slavery, or how the Native Americans were treated when the pilgrims arrived in America is just prejudice.

What, the Nazis? You do know they were explicitly and militantly Christian, that the holocaust followed the script laid out by Martin Luther and that Kristalnacht was on his birthday, right? You do know the Catholic Church and specifically the current Pope were big time sympathizers, right?
Sure, Stalin was as bad or worse depending on how you measure it, but just replacing worship of a god or gods with worship of the state doesn't amek it any less of a religion. It demands taking as absolute truth something completely made up. Once you've done that, it just makes you more pliable to other ridiculous beliefs and atrocities.

The fact is that Christianity is a tool that has been used to great effect in murder, torture and enslavement for centuries, right? You do know it doesn't have much good at all to point to in its entire history to offset that, right?

I'd say that there are a lot of people on both sides of the Republican/Democrat split that are Christian.

I'd say it really depends on how you define it. If you're talking about people who actually try to follow the teachings commonly attributed to Jesus, then there are no Republicans who meet that definition as they have diametrically opposed goals.
The religious right has taken over "Christianity" in America. Neither you nor any other Christians have done squat about it, so, personally I'm using them as my definition. You didn't feel like defending your faith, and you're still not doing it since I'm not the one dragging it through shit. I'm merely talking about how things are. Why don't you spend some time attacking your fellow "Christians" who are disgracing your religion currently with their hate based agenda instead of trying to convince me that reality ain't what it is?

So, as long as a very large, very powerful group of people calling themselves "Christian" are engaged in an all out war on the basis of this nation, (if you don't think they are, then you haven't read up on them since they're quite clear on that point), and people like you keep actively supporting them and giving them legitimacy

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Shakrai]

Reduces aids (this story is from the BBC, but the reference is from "Lancet."

Reduces chlamidia (Oxford Journal.)

So as a circumcised male are you comfortable fucking chicks that you know are HIV positive or whom have chlamydia? Hell no I suspect. Safe sex practices would seem to me to be more appealing then slicing off a functional part of your body.

From the AMA on Penile cancer (summary... only uncircumcised men get penile cancer):

It's interesting that you decided to quote the AMA twice to back up your case to failed to quote some other lines from this.

The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

I could also point out a quote from the ACS on the subject:

However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract men from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors -- poor hygiene, phimosis, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking.

In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the United States. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. Ultimately, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence.

And of course, circumcision prevents one from ever suffering from phimosis.

And the appendectomy prevents one from ever having appendicitis, yet I don't see newborns undergoing this procedure as a preventive measure.

As to function, as a circumcised male, I can assure you that full functionality is present, as is lots and lots of enjoyment. Anecdotal reports speak to an additional ability to control ejaculation, and to that I can only say I've never had a problem holding off until my partner's orgasm and then going with them; so for my part, if indeed this has anything at all to do with being circumcised, I consider it a huge positive. Functionally speaking, I'm one happy camper, as have been my partners. One thing I can definitively say is that the condition itself does not bring lack of function, or reduced function. No question about it.

As an uncircumcised male I can assure you that I have my fair share of enjoyment. I also couldn't help but notice how you said "anecdotal reports" and " if indeed this has...." I would make the claim that I've never had a problem lasting long enough to satisfy my partner. I also like how you can make the claim that it doesn't bring about reduced function. Were you cut as an adult? Did you have sex prior to being circumcised? If not then I highly doubt you are in a position to make that claim.

Well, in many ways I agree with that statement. However, if there is 100% certainty that a procedure results in lack of functionality, while providing no known benefits for the subject (benefits for others notwithstanding), then I think we have a human rights issue that transcends culture

The very first thing you learn in anthropology is not to judge other cultures by our standards. I don't see how you can reconcile your position on this issue while simultaneously saying that it's ok to slice up the penis of a newborn male for perceived health benefits. Isn't it for him t

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

So as a circumcised male are you comfortable fucking chicks that you know are HIV positive or whom have chlamydia? Hell no I suspect. Safe sex practices would seem to me to be more appealing then slicing off a functional part of your body.

Why limit yourself to one preventive method, when multiples are available? Each barrier to disease helps. And perhaps it is time for you to define the "function" of the foreskin, if you're going to keep referring to it that way. What function am I missing? What can I not do, as a circumsized male?

In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the United States.

Oh, for goodness sake. From my previous post: "Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000)." I gave you the actual incidence; you give me comparative opinion as if it meant something more. Furthermore, of those 1 per hundred thousand, the hundred thousand contains many, many circumsized males, a number approaching 80%, every one of which serves to increase the risk to uncirsized males, because that's the demographic that gets the disease. If it is one per hundred thousand, but 80,000 will not get it because they are circumsized, you're now sitting at one per the remaining 20,000. Why I have to explain this to you, I can't imagine, the data is right there. That's your risk. Your kids risk. I wasn't hiding the details, I put them right in front of your nose. To me, that risk is unacceptable if it can be eliminated, and it can.

And the appendectomy prevents one from ever having appendicitis, yet I don't see newborns undergoing this procedure as a preventive measure.

It is a deep procedure, one that opens the body cavity and the intestine; that's why. Otherwise, you would, just as you see them being innoculated against various diseases, just as you see the umbilical being removed, just as you see them being cleaned before being brought to the mother's arms. Nature doesn't get everything right. When we can see a problem, or a potential problem, it is perfectly reasonable for us to act decisively.

I also like how you can make the claim that it doesn't bring about reduced function.

Well, again - you're making the claim, I'm not. I addressed it as a claim made by the anti-circumcision block. So I ask you again: What "function" am I missing? I'm agreeably sensitive; I'm fertile; I'm happy; I'm clean; I'm disease-free; I'm at lower risk than you are for a number of disagreeable and in some cases life-threatening conditions; so what is my alleged "problem", according to you?

Isn't it for him to decide if he loses any functionality?

No. Children are, and should be, subject to the parents decisions about health related matters. Newborns in particular are incapable of making decisions in this regard as are some people right into adulthood, and sexual activity will probably be initiated before the person can make the right decision, if indeed it ever does - you, for instance, have elected to remain at higher risk, and to expose your partners to higher risk, and this indicates to me that it would have been better to get it done as an infant - you would not now have the option of raising the risk floor for others, regardless of what you might prefer for yourself. In the meantime, educating people that uncircumcised males present higher risk to them as sexual partners is important.

If you kid gets AIDS then maybe you should have taught him to use condoms. Are you really bold enough to think that being cut lowers your chances of contracting it to the point that you don't protect yourself?

No. Please don

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Shakrai]

And perhaps it is time for you to define the "function" of the foreskin, if you're going to keep referring to it that way. What function am I missing? What can I not do, as a circumsized male?

Spell circumcised properly? *duck* Enjoy sex the way that nature intended? This this website has a list of some of the functionality that is typically lost. Even if you dispute that functionality exists I could make another compelling case for not slicing off the foreskin: It remains available for transplants at a later date to other parts of the body. Back when I worked in heavy industry a co-worker suffered chemical burns to a large part of his face when a parts cleaning machine blew up. They actually were able to repair his eyelids by transplanting part of his foreskin. Because it was his own tissue he doesn't have to take anti-rejection drugs and doesn't have a weakened immune system as a result.

Well, again - you're making the claim, I'm not. I addressed it as a claim made by the anti-circumcision block. So I ask you again: What "function" am I missing? I'm agreeably sensitive; I'm fertile; I'm happy; I'm clean; I'm disease-free; I'm at lower risk than you are for a number of disagreeable and in some cases life-threatening conditions; so what is my alleged "problem", according to you?

If you are happy then that's all that matters. My whole point all along has been that there is evidence that suggests the foreskin is not just an extra piece of skin that does nothing. Why should you make that decision for your newborn son? The alleged benefits of circumcision do not justify that in my mind. If he turns 18 and thinks those benefits are worth undergoing the procedure then all the power to him. You can't make the claim that you aren't missing anything because you wouldn't know if you were.

you, for instance, have elected to remain at higher risk, and to expose your partners to higher risk, and this indicates to me that it would have been better to get it done as an infant - you would not now have the option of raising the risk floor for others, regardless of what you might prefer for yourself. In the meantime, educating people that uncircumcised males present higher risk to them as sexual partners is important.

Really? So in your world I made the "wrong" decision? In your world the decision should have been taken out of my hands? You do realize that very few men in Europe are cut and that there isn't a huge difference in infection rates between Europe and the US? Or how about Japan where the majority is not cut and STD rates are less then half of what they are in Europe and the US? Might it have something to do with safe sex practices (condoms are the most popular form of birth control in Japan)? I could also throw out the fact that Israel (>90% cut) has the same HIV infection rate as Norway (

You don't wait until they can have discussion with you about being vaccinated for some horrible disease, you simply get it done. Same thing with circumcision. You don't disadvantage your kid by raising their chances to contract something horrible like penile cancer because it's politically correct to do so; you man up and do the right thing.

I love how you are comparing vaccines to circumcision. Vaccines don't remove part of your body. "Man up and do the right thing"? It sounds to me like the right thing is what you think it is and that you don't have any room to consider that other people may feel differently about it then you do.

Look. Your position here isn't just wrong, it is ridiculous. I have said, multiple times, that I am not against female circumcision. Clitoridectomy is not in the faintest way equivalant to circumcision, and I am against the equivalant of clitoridectomy in males. Until you can discriminate between these two radically different procedures, and address them with arguments appropriate to each, you're just raving. Go look

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[fyngyrz]

Spell circumcised properly? *duck*

I'm using the Deer Park version of Firefox for the Mac; no spell checking. Normally I use OmniWeb, and the spelling checker kind of spoils me. Sorry.

This this website has a list of some of the functionality that is typically lost.

I'm not going to dispute it - but I did read it, and at least some of that stuff (like "losing several feet of blood vessels) is pure filler. The rest, I can't say, other than to remark that as you noted earlier, I am perfectly well satisfied with my functionality. Very good response, though; you probably should have started with that. :)

My whole argument has been about informed consent and in that context it's hypocritical to advocate for male circumcision while railing against FGC, in whatever form that takes (female circumcision or a complete clitoridectomy).

We both know full well that we do all manner of arbitrary things (ex, vaccinations which leave scars) without the informed consent of infants. So it really isn't about informed consent. It's about the particular thing that is being done. So I don't accept your position; it isn't valid.

You choose to ignore my original point about the hypocrisy in your position

There is no hypocracy in my position. You equated clitoridectomy ("cutting on females", you called it) with circumcision. I never tried to establish any such position. You did, and I called you on it, because it is ludicrous. It isn't about consent, it is about the particular act. The reason that I brought up other things we do to kids without their consent is to demonstrate that consent isn't primary; the well being of the kid is primary. You're resisting the point because without it, you don't have anywhere to stand.

Anyway, we're not going to agree; the last word is yours. Thanks for your time.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[nietsch]

Hah, a true believer!
No moses was a human, yet you do consider his words special because you are taught that he had some special relationship with your invisible friend. Because of this you consider his proof of the existance of said invisible friend to be absolute. Yet you cannot mention it here yourself but must refer to a circular reasoning?
If you take everything that is written down for truth, then you will not get very far in life. That is written down, so it is an omen. Please don't procreate, ok?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[nietsch]

As Ghandi once said: I do like Christ, it's the christians i have a problem with. They act so much unlike him.
Santaclause and god are equal: both cannot be proven to exist, and both have a large following of people that act out his rituals. If you think it is hypocritical to make a child believe in Santa, it should be equally hypocritical to make a child believe in your invisible friend named god.
In your judgement you overlook how eager kids are to believe in anything 'supernatural'. You could use that tendency to let them experience for themselves how easy their own minds can be deceived. That will give them more perspective on other religions, and that is the reason christians oppose making kids believe in Santa: kids could use that knowledge against them too.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[blippy]

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.

A man came to my house the other day, dressed as a bishop. Didn't fool me though, as I never once saw him move diagonally.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[abb3w]

"the judge was a scientologist" Is that true? Cause that's kind of scary.

No basis given for claim, but the judge in question (Wallerstein) is apparently dead, so it can't be libel.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[ViVeLaMe]

well, if there's more than reproduction, i can't see why gay couples wouldn't qualify.

Scary

[salimma]

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)

Re:Scary

[garcia]

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.

Re:Scary

[Captain Splendid]

Ha! Just because you're too scared to make a joke, don't label the rest of us as weenies...

Re:Scary

[IcyNeko]

We've become so crack-laden that we can't tell whether or not a pyramid-scheme enterprise is a religion or now.

Re:Scary

[nickos]

It is stupid to be critical of someone for their race, but IMHO we should be critical of religion, especially if, as in the case you point out, they are calling for the deaths of non-believers.

Re:Scary

[Reality Master 101]

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

He wasn't sent to jail for the joke. If you look at the original conviction article, he was engaging in a lot of physical stalking behavior. I have to say, if someone was following me around -- physically -- and making "jokes" about violence on the Internet, and was a known hater of my religion, I'd want his ass to be in jail, too.

Just because they're wacky scientologists doesn't mean they open game for stalkers with axes to grind (so to speak).

Re:Scary

[green menace]

Not true. I heard a great one this morning. A terrorist, A scientologist, and a donkey walk into a bar.... Oh snap... I suck at remembering jokes.

Re:Scary

[Firethorn]

I've read about his case, and from that I'd say the 'stalking' material would be his picketing their compound. Complete with big-ass sign.

Going by the standards that it takes to get abortion protestors arrested, there's something fishy about the case.

Re:Scary

[Reality Master 101]

I've read about his case, and from that I'd say the 'stalking' material would be his picketing their compound.

According to the article I linked, he followed people from their homes. Picketing is one thing, following people around and acting weird is another. Apparently 12 people on the jury didn't think the behavior was harmless picketing. I'm just not getting the feeling that this guy is all that stable.

Or to put it another way, if this guy was, say, an abortion protester who was following doctors between their homes and the hospital, would you give him the same benefit of the doubt?

Re:Scary

[DrKyle]

A terrorist, A scientologist, and a donkey walk into a bar....

The terrorist says to the scientologist,"Stay away from the donkey, I've packed him full of explosives."
The scientologist says to the terrorist,"You can't blow up the donkey, I've packed him full of thetans!"
Finally the donkey says,"Actually, I'm fine. You filled each other up, you Asses."

Re:Scary

[daeg]

You forgot one. We have replaced the Holy Trinity (of Christianity, replace with any other set from any other religion if you wish) with Terrorism, Religion, and Children.

Re:Scary

[AndroidCat]

Odd thing about that jury, since the case, no one has been able to verify that these people actually exist.

Re:Scary

[edwardpickman]

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.

Re:Scary

[lixee]

racism by the majority is rightfully condemned, but some minorities seem to be able to get away with inciting hatred.

While I condemn Wahabism for being a ruthless radical form of Islam, I can't help but pick up a bit of bias in your speech. Reading TFA reveals that the speech had nothing to do with racism. It had to do with homosexuals, the modern woman and children's education. All of those topics are openly debated by fundamentalists from all faiths.

On the other hand, when people that speak Arabic or even have t-shirts written in Arabic are denied boarding planes, that's racism IMHO. Remember the guy that was not allowed to board the plane simply because he was praying? Or the two in Madrid that were "talking Arabic and looking at their watches"? Anyway, when the pope gets away with such vile statements as: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached", you know there's a problem.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/294921_amy07 .html
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/826056.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6108574.stm
http://mondediplo.com/2006/12/17witchhunt
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/l a-na-muslim22dec22,1,6491840.story?track=crossprom o&coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=1&cset=tru e

Re:Scary

[Alchemar]

The problem is that no where in your reasoning is there a determination that he was likely to do harm. Hypothetically; If there is a group of people that I am worried about, I might be interested to know what they are doing. If I can't afford to hire a PI then I might have to do it myself. If I am worried about the actions of a group I also might be likely to tell jokes at their expense. Those two items together or seperately do not mean I am a threat. It probably send up a flag to investigate, but only if the investigation turns up that there is an actual threat should action be taken. Maybe start with a restraining order instead of an arrest warrent. If he violates the restraining order, then he should be arrested. In the rare cases where it it can be proven that there is a history or pattern that would cause a restraining order not be followed, then a warrent should be issued. The problem is that you are treading very close to thought crimes. You want to put someone in jail because he "followed you" (still a free country to move around), "told jokes" (he has freedom of speech), and "hates your religion" (sound like that is his religious choise and is also protected). Not because it is beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime will be commited.

Re:Scary

[LaughingCoder]

Intent is everything and sometimes the insult is in the eye of the beholder.

Truer words were never spoken. Nicely said.

Re:Scary

[Zabu]

A terrorist, A scientologist, and a donkey walk into a bookstore...
The terrorist says "Where's the Koran"
The Scientologist says "Where's L Ron."
and the donkey says, "Where's El-Juan"

Re:Scary

[Hubbell]

The pope was QUOTING a bynzantine emperor from back in the day while talking about the need to strengthen relations with muslims.

Re:Scary

[the_womble]

There is no legal difference in how the majority and minoroties are treated.

The difference is that people care less about what a small minority say in a low profile venue because it does not matter as much. The observer article makes it clear that they are talking about a minority within a minority.

Re:Scary

[Undertaker43017]

"Not because it is beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime will be commited"

Hum, that sounds very close to the plot of a Tom Cruise movie.

Re:Scary

[a_karbon_devel_005]

I have to say, if someone was following me around -- physically -- and making "jokes" about violence on the Internet, and was a known hater of my religion

Scientology is not a religion, it's part cult, part racketeer organization and part pyramid scheme. Please stop referring to it as a religion, you simply spread more misinformation.

Also, notice how the website erected to rally support for him (http://freehenson.tripod.com/) has mysteriously been ripped down.

Re:Scary

[lpevey]

>> Intolerance should never be tolerated

Possibly my favorite Slashdot-ism ever.

Re:Scary

[jcr]

The 12 people on the jury never got to hear Keith's defense. Basically, he was prohibited from even telling them why he was picketing. That so-called "trial" was an absolute farce.

-jcr

Re:Scary

[nickos]

What's the difference? Age? Number of followers? Is Christianity or Islam or whatever somehow more "believable"?

Re:Scary

[dorsey]

Calling Scientology a religion is a lot like calling Dunkin' Donuts a restaurant.

Re:Scary

[lixee]

Sure! Just like Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah while talking about the despair of the people in the occupied territories. Both points were better off without the quotes, but were purposedly included.

Re:Scary

[Lars T.]

What's the difference? Age? Number of followers? Is Christianity or Islam or whatever somehow more "believable"? Something like asking thousands of dollars for the religious scriptures?

Re:Scary

[Durandal64]

How is this different from the Catholic Church, which extorts money out of its followers through tithing ("Be a shame if someone were to damn you to hell ... if only you gave more money"), encourages them to "spread the word" and gets everyone together once a week to sing off-key, dreary music and recite a creed? Christians have some of the most effective brain-washing techniques I've ever seen. Before the kid can even speak, he's inducted into the cult through baptism and then pressured to "renew" his faith "by his own choice" in a joke called "confirmation" a few years later. The difference between the Christian cult and other cults is that teenagers don't join Christianity to be rebellious; they join Christianity because they don't know any better.

Re:Scary

[Firethorn]

As others have stated, there's numerous questions about what just went on, the judge squashing the defense, for example, not allowing the rest of the transcript of the conversation involving the missile to be presented.

Imagine an organization that has no problems lying to authorities, as a group, rehearsing their stories, etc...

I use abortion protestors as an example because they're frequently the worst behaved protestors out there and have been known to descend into violence.

In order to match them he'd have to do more than some yelling and handing out pamphlets. Even if he did follow some members home, it's still not to the level that abortion protestors will go to. Heck include PETA in that list of out of control protestors that don't get anything near this level of punishment. They've been known to set up in front of people's houses.

Re:Scary

[cayenne8]

"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"?

:-)

Re:Scary

[n2art2]

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)

That's the same in America. Minorities can tell off color jokes about the majority, and they can form segregated groups as well.

There is BET, but there is not WET.

You can say niger as long as you are not a honky.

You can attack Creationism, and be praised, but don't you dare attack Darwinism.

If you are ok with homosexuality, you can talk about how it should be accepted, but if you are not ok with it then keep your mouth shut!

. . . and right now I am waiting for the attacks, that will come. Because it is ok for them to give their opinions, but not ok for me.

Re:Scary

[MightyMartian]

Frankly, I think it's an important duty of a healthy free society to mock sacred cows. Whether it's $cientologists, Catholics, Muslims or Wikka, I feel it my duty as a citizen to laugh my head off at the absolutely moronic claims these organizations make, and at the people who so willingly divorce themselves from reality to buy into a load of B.S. The only difference between $cientology and Christianity is that the Early Christians had the brains to rip off an older religion to give the appearances of divine historical precedence. St. Paul was ten times the con man L. Ron Hubbard was.

Re:Scary

[a_karbon_devel_005]

I'm certainly not defending religion in any manner here, but there is a difference. You can belong to a Christian church for 60 years without giving a dime to their cause, and really, I've never witnessed a Catholic, Lutheran, etc. minister/priest in all my years EVER say (paraphrasing) "You can get to heaven if you give us money."

You cannot, as in it's not allowed, belong to the "Church" of Scientology in any manner without paying them money, and lots of it. To obtain the highest level of Scientology requires thousands upon thousands of dollars (to be revealed Hubbard's half baked science fiction as their "revelations.")

If you're REALLY interested in why Scientology is different from a religion visit:

http://www.xenu.net/

and of course:

http://www.caic.org.au/

Re:Scary

[drgonzo59]

we cannot even take a joke for what it is?

You obviously have never dealt with Scientologists....

My the thetans be with you !

Re:Scary

[fyngyrz]

Heck include PETA in that list of out of control protestors that don't get anything near this level of punishment. They've been known to set up in front of people's houses.

...as have the news media. Instead of holding up a placard to the passers-by, they broadcast their opinions and facts to a far wider audience.

Re:Scary

[Mercedes308]

Quoting out of context is another angle that many groups like to use. What the Pope said incited sporadic violence around the world, mostly by those that lacked either the intelligence or the impartiality to recognise the statement for what it was; a quote from half a millennia ago that he was using to highlight the need for understanding between religions. This has been pointed out time and time again in various media for quite some time now and yet you still failed to grasp it.

Re:Scary

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Scary

[The_Wilschon]

Intolerance should never be tolerated

I really hate it when people say this. It somehow comes across as, oh, I don't know... intolerant?

Re:Scary

[FooAtWFU]

How dare you bring facts into this discussion? Nuke Nuke the Vatican!

In the seventh conversation ( - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ( ) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".[4]

MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE, LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER, Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, Tuesday, 12 September 2006: Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections -- Slashdot nuke-nukes the non-ASCII type Arabic letters. :(

Re:Scary

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Scary

[FooAtWFU]

In the seventh conversation... the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion" ... Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Pope's a professor at heart. He's talking to a bunch of students at a university. He's giving a lecture on Christian-Muslim relations. Historical context is exceedingly relevant, and this brings us to the heart of the matter. And the Pope criticizes the emperor's statement in the very sentence that he quotes it and he still gets flack. Hey, I'll take a rational criticism of the Catholic Church any day of the week, but this is just Pope-hating mixed with spin mixed with the ill-informed.

Re:Scary

[lixee]

I understand perfectly your position, but believe that the pope chose that statement deliberatly. I have read his speech in its integrity and drew the conclusion that he knew exactly what was bound to happen, given the then-current events in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine (and more recent attacks on Somalia and the concentration of US forces around Iran).

To give you a simplistic analogy, would you recite an ode to wine by Milton at an AA meeting, quote Woodrow Wilson when trying "to highlight the need for understanding" between races?

But then again, maybe it was an honest mistake and he was genuinely trying to spread understanding between religions; In which case I just commited a sin by not granting him the benefit of the doubt. Pray for my soul, Benedict, pray!

Re:Scary

[Don853]

That's the same in America. Minorities can tell off color jokes about the majority, and they can form segregated groups as well.

Mostly true.

There is BET, but there is not WET.

True.

You can say nigger as long as you are not a honky.

True.

You can attack Creationism, and be praised, but don't you dare attack Darwinism.

Darwinism is based in science. There's nothing legally wrong with attacking Darwinism, but it's academically on par with saying the earth is flat. Creationism is based in faith, and can't be confirmed by science. They're not on the same plane.

If you are ok with homosexuality, you can talk about how it should be accepted, but if you are not ok with it then keep your mouth shut!

If by 'not ok with homosexuality' you mean you don't practice it, no one rational will argue with that. If you think people shouldn't be homosexual, this is clearly discriminatory. It's no different than saying people shouldn't be black.

Re:Scary

[Kierthos]

Is the Bible trademarked and kept out of the hands of 'unbelievers'? No.

But a vast number of Scientology's "religious" documents are.

Have you heard about recent Catholic church activities in charging parishoners thousands of dollars in order to be "Super-Ultra Christians rank 10"? No?

But the same thing goes on in Scientology. You end up having to pay thousands of dollars in order to advance through the OT levels.

Hubbard was a hack writer, and he created a hack cult.

Re:Scary

[Reality Master 101]

The 12 people on the jury never got to hear Keith's defense. Basically, he was prohibited from even telling them why he was picketing. That so-called "trial" was an absolute farce.

I don't know all the facts of the case (and I bet you don't either), but on the face, the reason he was picketing is totally irrelevent to the question of whether he was stalking and following people. I wouldn't allow it, either. So, what's his defense for stalking?

Re:Scary

[dangitman]

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)

Your premise, and that of the article is false. From the article:

Imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury or any senior Anglican clergyman giving a sermon which suggested that homosexual men should be thrown off a mountain; that they were no better than filthy dogs. Imagine another priest rising in another church to preach that children should be hit for not praying, that women were deficient, should walk behind men and only go out with their man's permission. Consider what the reaction would be if a third joined in by saying all Jews were born liars.

This is untrue. Christians preach blatantly anti-gay, anti-female, anbd anti-Muslim agendas all the time, and there is very little outrage. In fact, it barely gets covered in the media. In contrast, some Imam says something similar, and there is national outrage about Muslims "inciting hate" and "refusing to integrate," and possibly criminal charges. When was the last time that a Christian church was prosecuted for preaching intolerance?

Re:Scary

[johnmig]

There is a religion out there that doen't condemn any/everyone. It's called Unitarian Universalism http://www.uua.org/. It's based on seven principles, the first one being "Belief in the inherent worth and diginty of every person". Sometimes it's hard to find that "worth and dignity", but we try not to exclude people en masse . We probably don't fit your definition of 'major religions', but there are >150K of us out there. On another point, the town is Fishkill, and the name derives from the original Dutch settlers, but the meaning is as you said (fish river). Just my $0.02

Re:Scary

[dangitman]

By my observations Scientology has never done anything but try to stop evil,

So, was Lisa McPherson an evil person, and the Scientologists killed her during an audit to stop her? But that raises the question - how can you stop evil if you use evil acts to stop evil? That just perpetuates the evil.

Similarly - how do Scientologists justify the evil act of trying to send someone to jail just for criticizing their beliefs and actions? The Scientologists are the ones responsible for ruining this man's life -all because they couldn't take a joke. That's pretty damn evil.

Re:Scary

[dangitman]

Minorities can tell off color jokes about the majority, and they can form segregated groups as well.

And the majority can aqlso tell off-color jokes about minorities too. Ever watch mainstream American TV? it's full of racial jokes, and homophobic jokes, sexist jokes, etc. The diffrerence is that "the majority" makes millions of dollars and gets their off-color jokes broadcast around the globe. The "minority" doesn't get the profit or exposure for their jokes.

You can attack Creationism, and be praised, but don't you dare attack Darwinism.

Ummm, what the fuck are you talking about? Why is it that almost all politicians proclaim their allegiance to God, and how is it that people are pushing this "Intelligent Design" and "evolution is just a theory" stuff into schools? Why is it that an atheist Darwinist would have a very hard time being elected?

Ohhh no, those powerful Darwinists are oppressing the creationists! Oh wait, they aren't.

If you are ok with homosexuality, you can talk about how it should be accepted, but if you are not ok with it then keep your mouth shut!

Geee, I guess that's why politicians can denounce homosexuality publicly, and call for the banning of gay marriage. And why any politcian who is openly gay would have a nearly impossible time being elected. I suppose that's also why Dick Cheney refuses to talk about his gay daughter.

Re:Scary

[lixee]

a brusqueness that we find unacceptabl

The part you emphasize was not in the original speech. It was added later on. The original English text had a "somewhat brusquely" instead. Also, brusqueness is not part of the sentence he used "wendet er sich in erstaunlich schroffer, uns überraschend schroffer Form". He has been warned about the potential implications of the quotation but decided to include it anyway. http://www.focus.de/politik/papst/islam-zitate_nid _36094.html

Re:Scary

[jcr]

So, what's his defense for stalking?

Gee, when did you stop beating your wife?

Keith wasn't stalking anyone. He was picketing outside the Scientology compound in Hemet, California. The clams pulled out all the stops to shut him up, including lying in court. Keith wasn't allowed to even mention that the clams are trained in how to lie convincingly. Read and learn.

-jcr

Re:Scary

[Reality Master 101]

Keith wasn't stalking anyone. He was picketing outside the Scientology compound in Hemet, California. The clams pulled out all the stops to shut him up, including lying in court.

And you know this how? Because some scientologists are crazy, therefore, everyone who pickets them are always innocent?

Like I said, I don't know the facts of the case. Maybe he didn't do anything except picket. All I know is that 12 people on a jury all agreed that he did more than picket, and he sounds pretty wacky from the quotes in these articles.

All I'm saying is that it's possible the guy really is a stalker, and he was legitimately convincted. I don't automatically assume his story is more credible.

Re:Scary

[dangitman]

There is BET, but there is not WET.

I should just add that there is such as thing as "WET" - only that we simply call it "TV." And it consists of every show and channel except for the niche programming like BET. Mainstream TV is overwhelmingly aimed at a white audience, and features 90% white characters and celebrities.

Re:Scary

[Durandal64]

So was Christianity not a religion during the time of plenary indulgance? Did the Catholicism cease to be a "real religion" and then pop back in? A religion is a set of beliefs. How those beliefs are practiced by a given organization or whether that organization charges money is irrelevant.

Re:Scary

[Alterion]

because Christians actually do a heck of a lot of good in the world as well (www.tearfund.org) (www.christianaid.org) despite what your dawkinist convictions have led you to believe whearas scientology is stuck up its own ass?

Re:Scary

[popeye44]

Frankly if Peta sets up in front of my house.. I'm going to be throwing dead squirrels at them. Actually make that half eaten dead squirrels. I'll even set up a BBQ just inside my front lawn and maybe even bring over some pig to be butchered. Now pardon me.. I haven't released my current quote of thetans today and I'm 250,000 dollar short of my next adjustment. Perhaps that is making me bitchy.

Re:Scary

[Valdrax]

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.

Two points.

1) You're probably unaware of the offenses of Scientologists. They're relatively obscure.
2) There are a LOT more Christians and the religion has had a LOT longer time to have offenses committed in its name.

Combining these two means that you don't really have a good concept of the relative densities of craziness in the two religions. The larger a population is, the greater the violent fringe that can exist. Every major religion in existence has had its share of bloodshed, but that's not the fault of religion per se so much as the natural human tendency to form groups and to think less of people not in your group. Since Christianity is larger and more established, it has a greater capacity to harbor a lunatic fringe. That does not reflect necessarily on the relative merits of the core beliefs of the two faiths.

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.

While there isn't any solid evidence of murders committed in the name of Scientology, there is a long history of intimidation, harassment, and property damage in defense of the religion. (There is evidence for negligent death, but no first-degree murder.) The religion is relatively young, so it's hard to say whether that's a matter of time or not.

However, there is a marked difference in the canonical stance on violence towards outsiders between mainstream Christianity and mainstream Scientology. Scientology views those who interfere with Scientology to be fair game. That is to say that there's no moral laws protecting the enemies of Scientology and no sanction of any activities taken to harm them. Christianity, at its core, states that you should love your enemy. Few Christians are capable of holding themselves to that standard, but the difference in what you're supposed to do is marked.

As for attempting to force their morality on others, Scientology simply hasn't had the power to enforce its views on outsiders due to a lack of critical mass. What makes you think they'd be different from any other segment of society bound by a common code of behavior?

They have, however, lobbied for broad government powers to enforce copyright because they protect their inner secrets with copyright law and have been responsible for a number of DMCA takedown notices. They were notable advocates for the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA itself.

Re:Scary

[jez9999]

A religion asserts inherently unprovable ideas as facts, and often tries to influence the rest of society to fall into line with its views.

Scientology does the same. It IS a religion. The mistake is arbitrarily trying to distinguish it because it's clearly run by a bunch of evil crooks. If anything, other religions should be derided as much as Scientology because of their similarity to it.

Re:Scary

[fyngyrz]

Is the Bible trademarked and kept out of the hands of 'unbelievers'? No.

Well, the KJ NT/OT bible isn't, I agree. Nor are all scientology texts. But many religious (and non-religious) artworks and writings are, in fact, kept out of the hands of not only unbelievers, and some also away from rank-and-file church members - by the Catholic church, for one for-instance. I'm afraid you're trying to make a distinction in disfavor of scientology that doesn't exist. They're not doing anything in particular that other religions don't do in terms of behavior in this world, as far as I can see.

Have you heard about recent Catholic church activities in charging parishoners thousands of dollars in order to be "Super-Ultra Christians rank 10"? No?

Yes. It's called "selling indulgences" and has been a staple behavior of the Catholics for centuries. And of course there is the ritual response of "bless you" for giving to most any Christian church. And then there are the politics inherent in rising upwards through any large structured organization, Christian organized religions certainly not excepted in any way. And of course, money is simply a placeholder for time and work, and many religions demand payment more directly than money, much of Christianity included. There is also tithing as practiced by some Christian churches. Some require missionary work. In any case, there is certainly no shortage of examples of Christians exchanging various advancements and other issues and items of perceived vallue in return for the (relatively) mundane currency of land, time, money, edifice, artifice, and so forth.

But the same thing goes on in Scientology.

Well, yes. That was my point.

You end up having to pay thousands of dollars in order to advance through the OT levels.

And this is significant to you because... ??? I do not see what the problem is when people are willing to pay. It is only when religious behaviours become a matter of coercion - such as the Christian ethics of single spouses, heterosexuality, not working on Sunday, putting religious indoctrination on currency supposedly meant for people of all, or no, religion - that they concern me. What someone does of their own free will is of no concern at all to me, unless they do it to others. What they do to themselves is no problem. That is obviously their choice, and I would argue, just as obviously, their right.

Hubbard was a hack writer, and he created a hack cult.

Well, I'm not at all certain that the authors of the bible or the quran managed to avoid this level of performance. There are certainly passages in both that reek of the very poorest of writing skills, barely veiled (sometimes not veiled at all) misogyny, complete lack of rational - not to mention scientific - underpinnings, and numerous conflicting plot elements (genealogical, temporal, and more.)

I remain unconvinced of any salient difference of the type being put forth here. Scientology is a younger religion; it espouses its own relatively unique faith-based ideas. It has yet to become significantly violent or succeed at entrenching its precepts as formal social coercion, that is, as law. Other than that, it seems little different from Christianity or Islam.

Re:Scary

[jez9999]

Why do you need to belong to a religion not to condemn anyone?

Re:Scary

[K8Fan]

In order to match them he'd have to do more than some yelling and handing out pamphlets. Even if he did follow some members home, it's still not to the level that abortion protestors will go to. Heck include PETA in that list of out of control protestors that don't get anything near this level of punishment. They've been known to set up in front of people's houses.

Forget PETA...the "Church" of Scientology makes it a regular habit of protesting in front of their critics homes. They distribute leaflets to their critics neighbors. They use and abuse the legal system to attack their critics and anyone who writes anything less than laudatory about their "religion". Search for "Operation Freakout" to see how they attacked reporter Paulette Cooper.

Re:Scary

[jez9999]

When was the last time that a Christian church was prosecuted for preaching intolerance?

Nick Griffin, the Christian leader of the BNP, got prosecuted for airing 'intolerant' views about Islam, amongst other things.

Re:Scary

[fyngyrz]

because Christians actually do a heck of a lot of good in the world as well (www.tearfund.org) (www.christianaid.org) despite what your dawkinist convictions have led you to believe whearas scientology is stuck up its own ass?

I judge neither organization (nor any other, nor any individual) by what they do to or with the willing; I judge them by what they do to the unwilling. You understand the distinction?

Re:Scary

[Kierthos]

The difference between the Roman Catholic church and Scientology is that one is not required to buy your way into grace in the Roman Catholic church. You don't have to spend thousands of dollars before you are declared in a state of grace by, say, a bishop.

Whereas in the so-called Church of Scientology, to proceed through the OT levels, you have to take course after course after course, costing thousands of dollars. And they don't tell the lowly rank-and-file the whole story.

Imagine that you've been a devout Christian your whole life. And after years of service to the Church, you are taken aside one day and told the secret inner truth of the Christian dogma, and it bears no resemblence to any logical framework of belief. That is what the Church of Scientology hides. They do not tell the beginning members about Xenu, or the space-planes, or any of that crap. The inner documents of Scientology read like bad science fiction for a reason. They were written by a bad science fiction writer.

Now, yeah, there are parts of the Catholic Bible that make very little sense. Pretty much the entire Old Testament is rife with stuff that is way out in "hallucinated by a hermit"-land (much of Leviticus, for example). But at least if you are a critic of the Bible, and you want to debate with a Christian theologist about it, he's not going to get all in your face and ask what crimes you're guilty of, or consider it "Fair Play" to ruin your life if you criticize the Bible.

Re:Scary

[a_karbon_devel_005]

The question is not whether or not someone wants to believe in the garbage pseudo-science that Hubbard spewed out of his lying maw. The question is whether or not the "Church of Scientology" is a racketeering and, one could argue, terrorist organization, and it most certainly is.

The "Church" is the real issue, I'm sorry I didn't make my veiw on that clear.

Re:Scary

[fyngyrz]

1) You're probably unaware of the offenses of Scientologists. They're relatively obscure.

Probably so. I'm not defending Scientology as a valid worldview. I simply disagree that it is any worse than any other religion, and that in fact, it is extremely similar to other religion.

There are a LOT more Christians and the religion has had a LOT longer time to have offenses committed in its name.

I am aware of this. I have said in this thread that I expect Scientology will, given time, commit more of the excesses that we have already seen in other religions, though I will not be willing to castigate them for such acts until, or unless, they actually commit them. The observation that Christianity is older does not in any way, however, incline me to forgive it for its past excesses, nor dismiss today's as irrelevant.

While there isn't any solid evidence of murders committed in the name of Scientology, there is a long history of intimidation, harassment, and property damage in defense of the religion. (There is evidence for negligent death, but no first-degree murder.) The religion is relatively young, so it's hard to say whether that's a matter of time or not.

Again, I can only hold them up as responsible for what they have done to the unwilling, not what they might do.

Scientology views those who interfere with Scientology to be fair game.

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."

Christianity, at its core, states that you should love your enemy.

Well, I agree that is one tenet that some Christians take as central. Others take the example of Christ whipping the money changers in the temple to heart; still others read from the old testament and derive various pivotal notions of faith from that much more violent and theologically warlike book; others have found all manner of justification for hatred and have used those justifications to commit everything from bombing clinics to invading the holy lands to keeping slaves to burning "witches" to waving signs that say "god hates fags" to making laws that hold non-Christians to Christian tenets which are often quite offensive to them. 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.

As for attempting to force their morality on others, Scientology simply hasn't had the power to enforce its views on outsiders due to a lack of critical mass. What makes you think they'd be different from any other segment of society bound by a common code of behavior?

While being watchful may be called for, given that religion in general has been pretty consistent in comitting these trespasses against the unaffiliated and unwilling, the fact remains that condemning others for thoughtcrime, or even worse, the idea that they might commit thoughtcrime or actual crime, is repellant to me. I cannot codemn anyone for things they have not done to the unwilling; only what they have done. Yes, scientology is young. A child of a murderer, brought up in a murderer's household may also be young, but we do not pre-accuse that child of murder until or unless it actually commits such a crime, regardless of the sins of its parents, neighbors, etc. It is simply unacceptable to castigate Scientology for what it has not done. Guessing doesn't count. Stick to reality here.

Christianity has had more time; and it is worth noting that what it used that time for was, by and large, to do unacceptable things to the unwilling, things of a nature far worse than Scientology has done, including mass m

Re:Scary

[fyngyrz]

Ban religion.

How about we advocate banning religion (and any other organization or individual) from doing anything that coerces the unwilling and/or uninformed to go along, instead? For example, from first principles, you cannot assault or murder, because you cannot find a willing partner. You cannot tell someone that they cannot marry someone else, if all parties are willing. Etc.

I cannot, in good conscience, go along with telling people what they may not do to, and with, themselves and consenting partners. When we get into the area of non-consent, I have a problem; forcing religion (or lack of religion) on people is in very real terms similar to forcing sex on them. The "forcer" may think it is a faaabulous experience. The other person, however, is thinking "rape!" and they, not the forcer, are correct. Informed consent is the pivot upon which reasonable laws, ethics and morals must turn.

Re:Scary

[jcr]

And you know this how?

Because I know the man, and because I trust his word over that of people who are trained to lie.

he was legitimately convincted.

If you think so, try reading the trial transcript.

-jcr

Re:Scary

[fyngyrz]

The difference between the Roman Catholic church and Scientology is that one is not required to buy your way into grace in the Roman Catholic church. You don't have to spend thousands of dollars before you are declared in a state of grace by, say, a bishop.

Again, I refer you to the very long history of "indulgance", which is the process of buying - literally - less time in purgatory. You did indeed have to spend very large amounts of money to reach a state of grace. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.

Whereas in the so-called Church of Scientology, to proceed through the OT levels, you have to take course after course after course, costing thousands of dollars. And they don't tell the lowly rank-and-file the whole story.

These are willing participants. I have no particular gripe with the process, as far as anyone knows, all that lies at the end of that road are the secrets of Scientology, whatever those might be. Roman Catholics don't become privvy to the contents of the Vatican library unless they reach exremely rarified levels in the church either; but in that case, the library contains a great deal of cultural and historical value that extends far beyond the limits of the interests of the Catholics. I do have a bit of a problem with that; I'd like to see some of the art, in particular.

It is when people are coerced that I become really disagreeable. Scientologists aren't trying to make me do anything Scientological, as it were. So they can go their own way without any particular static from me. Christians, on the other hand, are a pretty significant pain in my ass, because they have passed a lot of legislation that involves coercing me into behaviors that comply with their belief system, which I do not share.

Imagine that you've been a devout Christian your whole life. And after years of service to the Church, you are taken aside one day and told the secret inner truth of the Christian dogma, and it bears no resemblence to any logical framework of belief. That is what the Church of Scientology hides. They do not tell the beginning members about Xenu, or the space-planes, or any of that crap. The inner documents of Scientology read like bad science fiction for a reason. They were written by a bad science fiction writer.

Why would I imagine this? Why would I even care? Try to imagine my level of "not caring" - it is approximately equivalant to your interest in my rationale for deciding between two different menu items for breakfast on some random day years ago. I am not involved in Scientology, nor do they coerce me to be involved. So I don't care what they and their consenting participants do. Now, if those same consenting participants find they have a gripe when they hear these stories, then I imagine they might have something legitimate to say about it - to the other Scientologists. Again, I don't care in the first place. I wasn't telling them to be Scientologists, now was I? If they had asked me, I'd have simply advised them that my best estimation is that staying clear of all religion is optimum behavior until coercion becomes involved, and then one must weigh compliance against one's ethics, morals, and responsibilities.

Now, yeah, there are parts of the Catholic Bible that make very little sense. Pretty much the entire Old Testament is rife with stuff that is way out in "hallucinated by a hermit"-land (much of Leviticus, for example).

One would not want to leave Revelations, from the NT, out of that characterization. "hallucinated by a hermit" is nice and accurate description of Revalations in the Good Omens sense of the phrase.

But at least if you are a critic of the Bible, and you want to debate with a Christian theologist about it, he's not going to get all in your face and ask what crimes you're guilty of, or consider it "Fair Pl

Re:Scary

[Valdrax]

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

Re:Scary

[dangitman]

And the same thing happens to Muslims who preach hate. So where's this supposed double-standard? It's not like Muslims "get away with it" and don't cause outrage, as the original post implied. In fact, a lot of Muslim preachers are being watched as a security threat, and there are terrorism-related charges ready-to-go. I don't think the Christian extremists are watched that closely, or face anywhere near as severe consequences.

My sister goes to a Christian church that preaches hatred towards homosexuals and Muslims all the time. Yet it has never been reported in the media. A muslim Imam doing the same thing would probably get significant press coverage and public outrage.

So, I ask you, where is this double-standard against the "majority"? If anything it seems biased towards Christians, not Muslims.

Re:Scary

[fyngyrz]

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.

So the episode in the temple, with the whips, you simply discount? I mean, that was Christ himself weilding that whip, if you believe the text. We're not talking about Christ anyway, who is probably a mythical figure inasmuch as there are no contemporaneous records of him; we're talking about Christianity, which has a long and consistant record of violence that many of today's adherents would just love to be able to whitewash, but cannot. And still today, we can see the coercive and retributive nature of Christianity in the laws of the land.

The very source that Scientology springs from -- L. Ron Hubbard -- explicitly stated that it was fair to go after enemies of Scientology

You mean like Christ going after those in the temple? Oh. Or do you mean like god turning Lot's wife into salt? Or his angels killing all the men and children? Or drowning every living creature except those who managed to get a seat on the ark? Or mixing up the languages of everyone? It seems to me that Scientology had a very good model for this in Christianity itself, both NT and OT derived.

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.

<stares expectantly, waiting for you to actually understand what you just said>

Scientology is quite willing to use intimidation, deceit, and harassment.

So is Christianity. And Islam. And Hinduism. I can give examples all day. This is no distinction. It is religious habit. Buddists excepted, somewhat, though I can even cite examples there in their martial arts traditions.

Christ would have never sanctioned the Inquisition.

No? He's the one who picked up the whip, isn't he? Isn't it his book - the NT - in which the angels fo god come flaming from the skies and wreak havoc, pestilence and so forth? Furthermore, millions - literally millions - of Christians believed that he would have sanctioned the inquisition; witness the results of both the Spanish and the Papal inquisitions. And the numerous crusades. Methinks thou dost protest too much, good sir, and that thy own gentle sensibilities are trying to apply to those thou didst not know, and will never know while thine eyes are blinkered by thine own imagination and not open to the facts of history.

The problem is not Christianity -- the problem is people's lack of ability to follow it.

Ok, fine. I'll stipulate that actual Christianity sucks, but thoeretical Christianity is just dandy, except for the temple parts, and Revelations, and the mysogyny, and the coercion. How's that?

Christianity and Islam both offer very positive examples of how to live (even with the warts here and there) -- be charitable, be kind to strangers, put others before yourself, etc. They at least set a higher bar to strive towards. Where there are warts here and there (e.g. unequal treatment of the sexes), modern society has been able to smooth over things.

Look - really - I don't care what the internal precepts of these systems are. I'm not superstsitious; so they aren't of interest to me. I care when coercion starts to box others into having to follow these people's ideas when they don't agree with them. At that point, we've got a problem. And we do have a problem.

All getting rid of them would accomplish is thei

Re:Scary

[adrianmonk]

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

Which reminds me of a quote from comedian Lewis Black on the subject of humor, terrorism, and religion:

One of the scariest things to me about that war was the fact that it was not an easy war for people to take either side on. And the fact of the matter was that this country, as it does every time it comes down to war, completely loses its sense of humor. And when we do that, we become dangerously close to what we hate about our enemies. The terrorist is a person without humor at all, and we began to act like this. And neither side... neither side knew exactly what they were talking about.

Re:Scary

[powerlinekid]

Actually, Fishkill is the town a few minutes down the road from where I live. The name is actually dutch and means "Fish Creek". In this area we also have Wallkill and Catskill (most people have heard of this one). A lot of us laughed when they pulled that crap about the name. I can assure you the town and its co-town East Fishkill (where IBM makes its chips such as the Cell or the old Apple power PCs) have not changed.

Re:Scary

[megrims]

Then surely you would not object to giving the scientologists greater power over your esteemed self? That way, you can clearly divine just what it is that they would impose upon you in your unwilling state.

You are comparing between past and present tense. Scientology has never been in the position of influence that pop-christianity has been in the past, so you cannot make an even judgement.

Organised religion leaves much to be desired, in any event.

Re:Scary

[Max Littlemore]

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.

Nothing new here. How about feminists who want to replace the suffix "man", from the latin word for hand, with person? Don't you realise person ends with son?!? It should be peroffspring, you insensitive clod!

Re:Scary

[Gentlewhisper]

Again, I refer you to the very long history of "indulgance", which is the process of buying - literally - less time in purgatory. You did indeed have to spend very large amounts of money to reach a state of grace. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.

Again, you have been using that one old point of "indulgance" (sic) with no source nor reference.

If you think mainstream religions are the same as this cult just because of something the catholics may have done back in ye ole days, think again.

Re:Scary

[fyngyrz]

Then surely you would not object to giving the scientologists greater power over your esteemed self?

Yes indeed, I object to giving any superstitious loony, or organized group of same, power over myself or my family. Is that clear enough for you?

You are comparing between past and present tense. Scientology has never been in the position of influence that pop-christianity has been in the past, so you cannot make an even judgement.

Certainly I can. I don't see Scientologists blowing up any birth control clinics, which they certainly could do, just as modern Christian wackos do. I don't see them assassinating doctors, which they also could do, just as modern Christian wackos do. I don't see them being involved in civil wars, such as the Protestant and Catholic wackos in Northern Ireland have been, though they certainly could be planting bombs if they were so inclined. So as it turns out, looking straight at modern wacko Christianity, the Scientologists are behaving much better than the Christians are.

Re:Scary

[fyngyrz]

No, clearly, you don't.

Re:Scary

[FleaPlus]

Like I said, I don't know the facts of the case. Maybe he didn't do anything except picket. All I know is that 12 people on a jury all agreed that he did more than picket, and he sounds pretty wacky from the quotes in these articles.

All I'm saying is that it's possible the guy really is a stalker, and he was legitimately convincted. I don't automatically assume his story is more credible.

Huh? Unless I'm mistaken, he wasn't convicted on a "stalking" charge. He was convicted for threatening to interfere with a religion.

Re: Scary

[Black Parrot]

> In the US we even have a north south division that is a hold over from the civil war.

Actually, it's a hold-over from the original settlement pattern: royal colonies in the south, privatish colonies in the north.

That "culture war" was part of the cause of our Civil War, not a result of it. Arguably it was a delayed colonial re-fight of the homeland's Civil War (roundheads vs. cavaliers) of a couple of centuries earlier.

Re:Scary

[myth_of_sisyphus]

How about the City Councilman who said niggardly in a meeting? Even though the word has nothing to do with anything racist, he was forced to resign for even daring to use the word.

Re:Scary

[Kierthos]

The point you're missing is that no one is required to buy indulgences (if they're even still used). Let's say they're still used, for sake of arguement. You don't have to buy them. You can spend your normal amount of time in Purgatory, and still get to Heaven at some point. The Catholic Church doesn't force you to buy your way out. Do they request tithing? Sure. Do they force you to open your wallet, by means of the world's largest altar boy, Guido? No.

Scientologists are required to take the OT courses. And they cost many thousands of dollars, which some of their members can't afford. So they end up working for the Scientology organization to pay the costs of the OT courses. And by the time, if ever, that they get to the point where Xenu (and associated crapola) is revealed to them, they've been effectively brain-washed. Even if it's nothing other then "I spend $50,000 dollars to learn this. It must be true."

Re:Scary

[ThaReetLad]

If by 'not ok with homosexuality' you mean you don't practice it, no one rational will argue with that. If you think people shouldn't be homosexual, this is clearly discriminatory. It's no different than saying people shouldn't be black.

What if you mean "people with homosexual tendancies ought not to indulge them"? That's not like telling black people not to be black. It's far more like telling people not to steal regardless of how much they want that nice car.

Re:Scary

[ThaReetLad]

Calling that racist SOB a christian really is a stretch. He certainly doesn't represent any church officially, although I admit he may belong to one (although I very much doubt they're proud to have him as a member). In reality he just represents white working class people who look to blame everyone but themselves for their situation, and pick on the local immigrant population as an easy target.

Re:Scary

[Valdrax]

So the episode in the temple, with the whips, you simply discount?

No. That was Jesus angry at people twisting a place of spiritual communion with God into a place of commercial benefit and exploitation. That's perfectly in tune with the very thrust of my argument -- that people will warp religion to their own benefit. That is what angered Jesus the only time he's noted as being angry and acting on it. You speak of it like it was a negative, but it's a strong message that religion and charity should not be co-opted to greed and cheating of others and that that's more worthy of anger than a previously stonable sin like adultery.

Christianity, which has a long and consistant record of violence that many of today's adherents would just love to be able to whitewash, but cannot.

You would be better to point out that Western culture has a long and constant record of violence that many of today's descendant would just love to be able to whitewash, but cannot. Western culture is no more or less guilty of violence than any other -- just more guilty of success with it. You seem to be singling out Christianity for your disdain. What exactly makes cultures that claim to follow Christianity different from cultures that claim to follow any other religion?

You mean like Christ going after those in the temple? Oh. Or do you mean like god turning Lot's wife into salt? Or his angels killing all the men and children? Or drowning every living creature except those who managed to get a seat on the ark? Or mixing up the languages of everyone? It seems to me that Scientology had a very good model for this in Christianity itself, both NT and OT derived.

Two points:
1) There is a very different standard of behavior between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
2) The actions of God himself do not directly imply what the actions of humans who worship him should be. In fact there are numerable examples in the Bible of God doing things that he forbids man to do (e.g. judgment of others).

Furthermore, millions - literally millions - of Christians believed that he would have sanctioned the inquisition [...].

I'm aware of what self-proclaimed Christians have done. I'm also aware of what Roman and Norse pagans did, what Taoists, Buddhists, and Confuscianists did, what Muslims did, what the Hindus and the Sikhs did, what the Egyptians did, what Zen Buddhists and Shinto practitioners did, what animists in the Americas and Africa did, etc., etc. Individual religions are little to blame for the same cultural patterns occurring back and forth across the history of the world. It's human nature. The use of religion in war, conquest, oppression, and xenophobia might as well be a skin on an application for all the net difference it causes. Religion is just used as an excuse to do what men do when faced with men who are different.

Hasn't the 20th century and the rise of Fascism, Communism, and racial separation movements taught you that we don't need religion for men to find reasons to rally together and commit violence against others?

Right now people are killing other people in the name of America in war founded on deception, maintained by wishful thinking, and bolstered by an eviscerating of our values. Does that mean that the Constitution and the principles of our founders and of American progress are valueless and irrelevant since they are not being actively practiced? This is essentially the argument you are making against the history of Christianity -- that the actions of the people who wrap it around themselves and act like the warmongers and xenophobes of every other culture in history are more important for judging the principles of it than the actions of those who obey those prinicples.

<stares expectantly, waiting for you to actually understand what you just said>

<calmly returns stare, vainly hoping you know what a fundamenalism

Re:Scary

[ShadowsHawk]

To be fair, the Catholic church was selling indulgences in the mid 1500s mainly due to Johann Tetzel. You cannot ascribe the practice of selling indulgences to 'Christianity' any more than you can ascribe suicide bombers to Islam. Modern day Christians are a direct result of the Catholic church's actions in 1517 and are quite different from Catholics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences

Re:Scary

[Dread_ed]

"You mean like selling of "indulgences", a common Christian practice over most of the time Christianity has been extant, until just recently?"

Don't you mean a practice that is almost exclusively Catholic and that no protestant group has ever espoused? If you didn't mean that it calls into question your knowledge, motives, and intellectualy honesty.

Also, the Bible states that giving is a response/reciprocation to the principle and application of Grace by God himself. In other words, god has already given the Christian blessings, salvation, even life. Giving to others and the church is a reflection of the thoughts, motivations, attitude, and actions of God himself.

As for the comments about Christian universities and books, books cost money and Christian universities (By the way Duke, Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Princeton were all founded as Christian universities) teach more than religion.

"What about when Christianity gets into the legal system..."

First, many of the things you are upset about are not specifically Christian wrought. Though they are attributable to some christian influence, many are more likely due to common law, the basis of our American law system.

Even then, the ability to criticise looses its punch when you consider this: majority rules in teh US (for the most part), as our elected representatives eek out the will of the people through the political machine. Your protests might carry more weight if Christians, at last count, did not make up more than 70% of the population.

Another issue that might give your argument some weight would be if polygamy was more prevalent in other societies. You might note that even where it is acceptable it is seldom practiced. It is also interesting to note that the regions that we inherited our legal lineage from (Western and southern Europe) do not currently allow polygamy. Since it is accepted in few places and practiced rarely in most of them it is interesting that you would use this as an example. Just because it is prohibited in Christianity does not mean that it is because of Christianity that it is unaccepted.

Also, Sunday closings of some stores may not be entirely attributable to Christian activism. Many municipal governmets regulate weekend workdays as a result of pressure from unions or other groups.

Your factual misrepresentation and your attribution of guilt on the part of Christianity alone in your interpretation of certain social and political instances leads me to believe that you may have let your emotional agenda overwhelm your logic.

There are many reasons to criticise Christians and other religious groups. There are many valid ways to do it as well. I think you may have overstepped the boundaries of both here by not practicing intellectual rigor and honesty.

Re:Scary

[Firethorn]

The Phelps family vs. Scientology. THAT would be the ultimate cock-fight.

I'd PAY to see that happen.

Re:Scary

[corbettw]

Remember the guy that was not allowed to board the plane simply because he was praying?

No, but I remember six imams who:
* Prayed loudly in both the airport and on the plane.
* Got up and changed seat positions after the plane left the terminal, against FAA regulations.
* Refused to return to their seats when told to do so by the plane's staff.
* Requested seat belt extenders, then stored them under their seats (note that none of the imams were obese and did not need the extenders to fasten their belts).
* In short, they broke all kinds of regulations and acted like terrorists.

Anyway, when the pope gets away with such vile statements as: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached", you know there's a problem.

OK, so you show us: what did Mohammad bring into the world that was completely new and different from, say, Judaism or Christianity that wasn't inhuman or evil? And how do you explain away the pedophile's actions such as raiding caravans or torching villages (when he wasn't busy raping his 9 year old wife)?

Re:Scary

[lixee]

In short, they broke all kinds of regulations and acted like terrorists.

Well, Imam Omar Shahin begs to differ on all accounts. But if you'd rather believe the "Air Line Pilots Association" lobby or the paranoid Department of Homeland Security, it's your choice.

note that none of the imams were obese and did not need the extenders to fasten their belts.

The Imam refered to above weighs 290 pounds. In my book, that's obese.

OK, so you show us: what did Mohammad bring into the world that was completely new and different from, say, Judaism or Christianity that wasn't inhuman or evil?

Mohammad never EVER claimed to be bringing something new. He was merely repeating previous messages. Now, what does raiding caravans have to do withpedophilia? Nothing and it's really hard to assume good faith when you throw gratuitous accusations like these around. But I'll do anyway.

In the early days of Islam, Mohammad's life was in danger (Remember Jesus' faith?). Numerous attempts on his life and flagrant betrayals understandably were followed by repercutions. Remember that he was human. He never claimed to be divine or anything of the sort. So, yes, he attacked caravans for economical and political reasons. But rest assured that he never initiated any agressive act without being provoked.

The 9-years old wife issue is nothing outrageous if you put it in context. By most accounts, he didn't have sex with her until she turned 12 and reached puberty. Secondly, it was the daughter of the first male Muslim who, not only proposed the union but would have been extremely offended if the prophet refused. There's also Arab tribal tradition of strengthening alliances thru arranged marriages aspect. This is pretty universal but more pronounced among Arabs. Anybody studynig European history knows that. (but given your inflamatory language, I assume you watch Fox and thus are from the US). Let me also point out very briefly that it was about 1500 years ago. A couple of hundreds years back, your forefathers were marrying 12 years old girls. I respect the ideals they fought for (though condemn the genocide of the Natives and slavery bit), but will never call them pedophiles since they were other times with other customs. The concept of childhood is pretty modern if you think of it. Kids were becoming apprentices at a very young age (which still the case in most of the world) and the girls got married as soon as it was possible. Anyway, please take the time to read a historical book about Islam, you just might learn something. It goes without saying that you have to cross check anything you read on the subject.

Re:Scary

[corbettw]

290 pounds is big, but not big enough to require seat belt extenders. And if they were needed, why weren't they used? Personally, I don't trust anyone who immediately calls a press conference after supposedly being "harassed", too many "victims" in this country complain far too loudly most of the time, and I'm too jaded to believe many, if any, of them.

Regarding the caravan attacks: Mohammad should've followed Christ's example and turned the other cheek, if he truly was a messenger of God. But he didn't, so he wasn't. (I know that's a tautology, but don't care.) He was a political opportunist, nothing more, nothing less.

Regarding pedophilia: Mohammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was 6, and consummated the marriage when she was 9. By all accounts in the hadith, she was his favorite wife, and the other wives (all 29 of them) were jealous of how much time he spent with her. So, a middle-aged man consummates a marriage with a 9 year old girl, and spends more time in her bed than with a collection of almost 30 other grown women, and you write that off as part of the "custom" of the time? Interesting.

You say my forefathers married 12 year old girls. Leaving aside the fact that the age of consent hasn't been 12 years old in the English speaking world for far longer than "a few hundred years", they also brutally murdered and enslaved millions of people and forced entire nations to give up thousands of years of legal and cultural tradition to conform to their laws and their language. Do you want me to follow in those footsteps, or should I say "there's a better way"? If the latter, you need to do the same and stop making excuses for brutal behavior like that exhibited by the early (and modern) followers of the Way of Submission ("Muslimeen" in English).

I'd have a much easier time being sympathetic to Muslims if:
* They stopped bitching every time someone suspected them of being a terrorist. 9/11 changed things, it's up to YOU to change them back, and you won't do it by acting like a victim.
* They recognized that there are elements of their religion that don't just condone violence, but command it, and that that scares people.
* They stopped lying about their faith (even though lying is a part of the faith, in the doctrine of taqqiya). For one thing, "Islam" doesn't mean "peace", it means "submission". For another, Mohammad said it's ok to rape women and stone women who were raped, saying he didn't is a direct contradiction of the Koran.
* Bring your religion out of the 8th century and into the 21st.

Do any of those things, and I'll stop being so antagonistic to you Mohammedans.

Re:Scary

[lixee]

Personally, I don't trust anyone who immediately calls a press conference after supposedly being "harassed", too many "victims" in this country complain far too loudly most of the time, and I'm too jaded to believe many, if any, of them.

I always give the benefit of the doubt to the little guy. Take a look at this, http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/08/muslims_th rown_.html

The following is just plane hilarious and goes to show that the paranoia "harrassement" treatment isn't restricted to Muslims. http://verystrangenews.com/?p=42

Regarding pedophilia: Mohammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was 6, and consummated the marriage when she was 9.

Accounts diverge on this particular issue as people didn't really keep track of their age back then. Heck, my OWN grandmother doesn't know her age. There's no doubt that Aicha was his favourite wife as she's believed to have been the only virgin he married. She was extremely jealous of the love Mohammad had for his first wife - and then deceased - Khadija.
No matter, I believe that someone with a penchant for little girls, and in his position, could have married a lot more of them if that was the reason he married Aicha. The fact is that, most of his wives were widows. The rationale behind polygamy in Islam is to keep widows off the streets and satisfy their needs; Remember that there were many wars in the beginning of Islam and men were falling like flies.

and you write that off as part of the "custom" of the time? Interesting.

What I tried to convey was the arranged marriage custom (which is still persitent in some places) for political reasons. In a tribal society, it's one of the few ways you can ensure the other tribes' loyalty. The "custom" has nothing to do with age.

If the latter, you need to do the same and stop making excuses for brutal behavior like that exhibited by the early (and modern) followers of the Way of Submission ("Muslimeen" in English).

Let me make it clear that there's an infinity of behaviors exhibited by Muslims which I don't condone. Aside from the obvious manifestation of a bearded few recently, I have difficulty admitting that the prophet may have indeed ordered the execution of adult males of a whole tribe that blatantly betrayed him costing the lives of hundreds of his companions (and enslaved the women and kids). It was only after tomes of historical litterature that I understood the context of the situation. I don't have time to go thru all the details but let me tell you that the Muslim cadavers were savagely mutilated by the members of that tribe.

The hottest point for me is the one you focused on, namely the age of Aicha. Even taking the most conservative account of age 12 at the time the marriage was consumed, it is still very bothering to me. And of course, a cheap shot anti-Muslims since the dawn of Islam. My grandma married when she was 13 for economical reasons so my feelings on the subject are pretty ambivalent. Are sweat-shops a good or bad thing for the workers? Ultimately, such questions should be left to the legislative body.

They stopped bitching every time someone suspected them of being a terrorist. 9/11 changed things, it's up to YOU to change them back, and you won't do it by acting like a victim.

Hah! Reminescent of the way Saddam was asked to prove that he didn't have WMDs or Iran is asked to prove that they are not intending to make nukes. It's just impossible. There will always be a handful of extremists to sally the image of my religion (and the way the US and Israel are bullying the rest of the world, I can tell you for sure that they're not gonna go away). The US support for the despotic regimes in all of the Arab world (with the exception of Lebanon and Palestine) is

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Scientology isn't a Religion

[Cornflake917]

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.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Tweekster]

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.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Carrot007]

Well der,

Care to point out anything else obvious?

All "religions" are pretty much just as bad though, they just have more history and think they can get away with it.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[smooth wombat]

but it's completely acceptable for religions to interfere with everyone elses lifes.

Because that's the purpose of religion. Religion(s) were designed to instruct people in a certain set of ways or rules which must be followed to appease whatever god(s) or goddess(es) that religion worships. In other words, we (the religion in question) will tell you how to live your life.

Think about it, christianity says you must to X, Y and Z to get into heaven. If you don't, you're condemned to an eternity of damnation. Islam has its own rules that one must follow to be rewarded.

Other than making people feel better about themselves, the only purpose of religion is to interfere in people's lives.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[lmpeters]

Religions are (or at least were) born out of people's desires to know why they exist, and to be able to answer other great philisophical questions. When they had no way of finding the truth, they made up stories that seemed to fit what they could observe. Hence, stories to explain such things as the origins of life on Earth, why we have day and night, and so on.

The problem, as I see it, is that some people take these stories as literal, unquestionable truth, even when the facts show that the stories can't possibly be true. Combine this with how certain religious leaders will pick and choose amongst the messages within their religion to create the illusion that their ambitions are condoned by said religion, and religions tend to morph over time into various kinds of confidence schemes.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[HappySqurriel]

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

The truth is that this could be said about dozens or organizations and companies. Sit down and watch comercials and see what is actually being said and you will find that most of the time the message is "Your life sucks, but if you buy our product it will become fantastic."

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.

This is actually a pretty odd question because (I suspect) that if a religion interfered with a person's life (on the scale that would typically be required for a person to get in trouble for having interfered with a religion) the religion would be in serious trouble.

The reality of the matter is that (most) Religions are special interest groups (like PETA and Greenpeace) which are given tax breaks mainly because of the ammount of charitable work they're responsible for.

Scientology, in particular, is not considered a religion everywhere and is only really powerful because they have focused on 'recruting' powerful celebrities (by giving them a much better lifestyle than most people in scientology), and liberal use of the most powerful force in the modern world (lawyers).

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[truthsearch]

I think he's referring to its interference in other people's lives. Meaning those people who are not believers in the religion, such as this critic.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Timesprout]

Legitimate religions are based on Gourds or Sandals. Scientology is based on science and so clearly is not legitimate.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[jspectre]

maybe it's about time someone starts an open-source religion? license it with the gpl so it can be distributed freely and not require payment to participate in. everyone can modify it as they see fit and all gods/goddesses must be open for all to see.

i just wonder how long will it take for microsoft to embrace the new religion, add their own pantheon, patent it and try to squash the rest of us? i can hear the chant now... "developers.. developers.. developers.." as we do a monkey dance around a bonfire of burning penguins.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[pubjames]

Religions are (or at least were) born out of people's desires to know why they exist, and to be able to answer other great philisophical questions.

I disagree, I think the reason is cruder. Religions have come about because people are afraid of their own deaths. That's why most religions revolve around some kind of immortality (heaven, reincarnation, whatever). That's why I consider religions to be ulitmately selfish.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Bastian]

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.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Sique]

So at least for Austria and Germany, there are only a few small religious groups which are "legitimate". Most larger churches (e.g. catholics, lutherans, reformed churches) have a contract with the government which then collects the church membership fee for them with the normal taxes. You can only stop your automatic church payments by officially declaring you are no longer member of this church.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Triv]

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

Not like 'REAL' religions don't do that or anything...

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[operagost]

I know you're joking, but I just wanted to make sure that "Scientology is based on science" is a meta-joke and you don't really believe it is.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Q. What's the difference between a cult and a religion?

A. About a thousand years.

All religions turn into pyramid schemes of a kind. Compulsory donations and "tithes" for the Church are common throughout religious history.

Scientology is a particularly interesting religion because we can see for certain that it is false and founded entirely on lies. Independent records about L. Ron Hubbard exist - you can read about his life before Scientology as a con-man, bigamist and benefit cheat.

We cannot easily prove that older religions are also founded on lies, but the fact that their followers behave in exactly the same way as Scientology cultists suggests that it is impossible to distinguish between a "true" religion and a false one.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[operagost]

Think about it, christianity says you must to X, Y and Z to get into heaven.

Actually, no. Just "X", which is John 14:6.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[mpe]

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.

Especially if this allegedly happened in the USA...

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[ArcherB]

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.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[mpe]

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

One useful metric would be if the "scriptures" and other religious texts are freely available.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Zephyros]

I know you're posting with tongue firmly in cheek, but there is at least one. I can't remember where I first saw it, but here's their website: The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

and all...goddesses must be open for all to see
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[DeadChobi]

I agree with what you said, but not with the tone that you appear to have about it. Some of us need to feel that there is something higher at work in our hearts and minds than chemistry. The philosophy behind most good widely accepted religions is one of tolerance and forgiveness. There is also striving. It's a comfort for me to read someone's 4000 year old words and know that they struggled through some of the same dichotomies that I struggle through. Even if there is no god, the philosophies that were spawned by such belief are often very insightful.

I don't think it was originally about following rules to appease a higher power. Rather, Religion may have developed as a survival mechanism. Maybe people in power needed to appeal to an even greater supernatural power in order to keep their societies intact. Of course, I'm not a sociologist.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[drinkypoo]

Actually, no. Just "X", which is John 14:6.

I disagree. Christianity the religion, which is more than just the Old and New Testaments, states that in order to even be a Christian you must believe in the Holy Trinity, one of the tidbits decided upon by a conflicting council made up of leaders of various Christian sects at Nicea, under the influence and guidance of the not-yet-holy Roman empire.

As such, accepting Jesus as your personal savior is not enough for the Christian party line. You have to believe that he is three in one, that he is both fully human and fully divine, or else you're a heretic, and you're going to hell.

Your statement would have been right if the one you were responding to asserted that the Bible said you had to do a bunch of things. Unfortunately even when they read the bible, most people don't pay attention to it, and they rely on their preacher to tell them what it means. I don't think your god would have given you a brain if he didn't intend you to use it, but I guess it takes all kinds.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[dan828]

What are you talking about? Open source is a religion.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[psmears]

I know you're posting with tongue firmly in cheek, but there is at least one. I can't remember where I first saw it, but here's their website: The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn.

Not to mention Saint Ignucius and the Church of Emacs ;-)

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[jschrod]

You can only stop your automatic church payments by officially declaring you are no longer member of this church.

This sounds as if everybody would automatically pay church membership fees if he doesn't declare so.

For the information of non-German readers: It's exactly the other way round. One needs to declare explicitly that one is a member of one of these churches. Only then the membership fee is collected by the state. The IRS takes a significant chunk of that money as a processing fee before it passes it on to the church organization. Actually, that's the reason why only large churches use this state contract possibility -- smaller churches cannot afford the IRS fees.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[raju1kabir]

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.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[neoform]

They don't need to require it, instead they guilt/brainwash you into making you think that the pastor doesn't make enough money, so the poor poor church needs your funds.. which then of course make their way to the Vatican, which has no government oversight and is in fact the largest financial institution in the world.

Scientology just gets picked on because it's not widely accepted. Other religions like Christianity are just as far off base.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[VE3OGG]

Well, FreeZone(rs) is certainly as valid as any religion claiming a son of god died for my sins, thereby absolving me of mine (and yet, I am born into sin a la Original Sin). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Zone_(Scientolog y)

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Moofie]

Wow. I have no idea what churches YOU'VE been going to, but the fact that you believe there is a "Christian party line" leads me to believe you've not gone to very many.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[penguin_dance]

Difference between a cult and a religion.

• Deceit in recruitment
• Totalitarian
• Destroys that family unit
• Isolates its members
• Keeps non-believers out
• Limits development of individual
• Exploits and manipulates its members with mind control techniques
• Commitment is encouraged during recruitment process
• Criticism is met with threats of legal action
• Leader and follower consider leader to be above reproach
• Questioning the leader, or basic tenets, is not allowed

I would add these: Outrageous (as in thousands of dollars) "donations" that are required...not just requested. If bad things happen (normal, everyday setbacks), it's the follower's fault--they're viewed as not following the steps close enough. If they're married to a non-believer or that person leaves the church, the church will want them to get a divorce.

I speak from personal experience of being previously married to one.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[thelost]

but, make sure you don't do xxx or that's an instant do not pass go, go directly to hell.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[scuba0]

You could say the same about the bible...

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Sique]

Right. Somehow the church which gets the money has to be determined. So at one point in time someone has to declare your affiliation with a church for you. Almost everytime this is already done in the proceedings after your birth by your parents and the hospital office staff (sometimes before the birth when registering with the birth hospital...)

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Falladir]

Also, the "slack" in Slackware is taken from the "doctrine" of the Church of the SubGenius.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[raju1kabir]

• Deceit in recruitment
• Totalitarian
• Destroys that family unit
• Isolates its members
• Keeps non-believers out
• Limits development of individual
• Exploits and manipulates its members with mind control techniques
• Commitment is encouraged during recruitment process
• Criticism is met with threats of legal action
• Leader and follower consider leader to be above reproach
• Questioning the leader, or basic tenets, is not allowed

There have been times when the Catholic Church has been guilty of all of these at once, and a persuasive argument could be made that some of them still apply today. Were or are they a cult?

Cult vs religion to me seems like a hair-splitting game that doesn't really advance understanding much. It's like trying to identify the difference between a criminal and a crook. Rather than worrying about labels, why not go after specific bad behaviours regardless of how the perpetrator is labeled?

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[seandiggity]

Well, there's always the Church of Emacs.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[penguin_dance]

One of their catch phrases is, "Cash is trash."

Well...YOU'RE supposed to view it as trash apparently--they certainly don't.

Another from them is, "If it's true for you, then it's true." (Unless of course, it disagrees with one of their tenants.)

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[paitre]

Actually, he's pretty much correct, sad to say.

How many Christian sects -don't- believe in the Nicean Trinity? Think long and hard about that, because I understand that there's only -1-, they're routinely vilified along with the average 'Christian' declaring that they can't possibly be Christian because of it.

So yes, adherence to the Nicean Creed IS, in fact, pretty much used as a 'definition' to determine who is, and is not, a "real" Christian, whether you like it or not.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[McGiraf]

"why is it illegal for someone to interfere with a religion, but it's completely acceptable for religions to interfere with everyone elses lifes."

DUH! that's because the have God on their side!

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[AndroidCat]

You mean a GNU/Religion?

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[smooth wombat]

True, and I should have been more specific in my comments.

To use a very broad generalization, think of Helen Lovejoy from The Simpsons. While I'm sure there are many people who find her characterization of a minister's wife to be offensive, these are probably the same people who do the very thing that Helen's character does.

I once told someone that those who are the most likely to put their nose in someone else's business are more likely than not to have a strong religious upbringing.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[NeuroManson]

So Scientology is based on the air speed velocity of a coconut laden swallow?

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[bwalling]

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

Scientology has nothing to do with a deity, supernatural or faith. It is a set of principles regarding psychology and methods of counseling. It is no more a religion than psychology is. Most people wouldn't consider psychology to be a religion and suddenly start offering tax shelter to shrinks. Just because Scientology makes less sense and seems to be founded on some stuff most people don't believe doesn't make it a religion.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[MobyDisk]

The Nicene Council is what you are referring to, and they defined what it is to be a Catholic (which meant "universal" about 1.5 to 2 thousand years ago) and it is based solely on the Old and New Testaments. Even more to the point, it defined the old and new testaments. Today, the Nicene Council's decisions are no longer considered universal, and most Christians do not call themselves "Catholics."

John 3:16 is far more universal than the Nicene Creed, or the concept of the Holy Trinity.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[jschrod]

Almost everytime this is already done in the proceedings after your birth by your parents and the hospital office staff (sometimes before the birth when registering with the birth hospital...) This is not true.

You register it when you apply for a Lohnsteuerkarte (income tax card) at your local commune. The application form has a field where you need to put it in explicitly. (As the CEO of a German company, I'm actually involved in such bureaucratic affairs when some young guys show up without an income tax card.)

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[mike2R]

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

A religion that is not clearly illegitimate. There is no easy definition of what makes a religion legitimate, but there are clearly illegitimate religions. Scientology being a prime example.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[jspectre]

thanks for all the follow-up postings.. "tongue in cheek"? oh no. i was oh-so-serious..

i did follow up on the religious links provided. but none of them specifically mention they are under the GPL so i don't think they'd allow me to view the source code or modify them at will.

as for the individual requesting photographs of open goddesses. pervert!

sheesh..

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[mrpeebles]

How is criticizing LRH not legitimate. While I don't pretend to understand the subtleties of scientology (if they exist at all), but as I understand it, scientology does rely on the validity of LRH's personal revelation, a revelation which is inherently difficult to independently verify. In light of this, if LRH does have a history of lying, or of being a con-man, how can we possibly believe any revelation from him, particularly when those claims are as fantastic as the story of Xenu.

Incidentally, to put my thinking up front, I do not approve of scientology, butI would not call an average follower of it "evil" (though I might call them expensively, or even tragically, superstitious.)

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Creosote]

i did follow up on the religious links provided. but none of them specifically mention they are under the GPL so i don't think they'd allow me to view the source code or modify them at will.

The Church of Reality claims explicitly to be an open-source religion under the terms of the GPL.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Buzz_Litebeer]

I would argue the grandparent to your post is a protestant, so thus his statement that "just X" being John 14:6 is correct. Sorry you had to lose on that one!

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[soupdevil]

Religions are given tax-exempt status in the US because of the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with whether they do charitable work.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[mrpeebles]

AFAIK, ancient Judaism doesn't have any form of afterlife, and many versions of judaism still don't. I read a long time ago that a native american belief system held that a soul had to descend through 7 tortous levels of hell before finally finding oblivion in true death (sorry, don't remember the name, thats lame, I know.) I don't know a whole lot about religion, but these are two examples of religions that don't revolve around any kind of immortality.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[91degrees]

You know, I think this is the wrong argument. Whether Scientology is a religion or not is beside the point. Some neo-pagan religions have as much legitimacy, but are not nearly as widely criticised.

The problem is, the behaviour of the organisation. They are hostile, and aggressive, known to harrass critics, and also known for complete abuse of the legal system. If any established religion did the things that the scientologists did, this wouldn't mean they aren't a religion. It would still mean they are a dangerous cult.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Oktober Sunset]

Cash is Trash, the Church of Scientology are the refuse collectors, and the pockets of L Ron Hubbard's successors are the landfill.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

My faith has little to do with sects

This is slashdot. We don't get much sects around here.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Tweekster]

I have never been to a catholic or lutheren church that required payment to enter and learn. Scientology requires you to pay up to learn. I have chosen to donate money at times, and I have chosen not too donate money at those catholic churches.

Your comparison to Scientology is off base that it is laughable.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

This is a dumb argument. Quacks that do psychic surgery don't undermine the prestige of a real surgeon.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[paitre]

Glad to see that you're an exception :D

I had the unfortunate experience while growing up of being teased about my beliefs (I was raised Mormon, but am no longer practicing), and the beliefs of the Church, including being called a fake Christian, etc.

I'd like nothing better than for the bulk of Christianity to revisit, as a group, the early history of the Church, and come to some sort of consensus on SOME basic theology (even if it's just to answer the whole "What is a Christian?" question).

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Moofie]

You and I are in complete agreement.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[raju1kabir]

This is a dumb argument. Quacks that do psychic surgery don't undermine the prestige of a real surgeon.

They do if they're treated the same. That's why real surgeons pay dues to the AMA: to make sure that doesn't happen.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[penguin_dance]

There have been times when the Catholic Church has been guilty of all of these at once, and a persuasive argument could be made that some of them still apply today. Were or are they a cult?

The catholic church has their own set of problems, but they would hardly actively try to break up a marriage between a catholic and a non-catholic, keep out non-believers or use mind-control. Although, I suppose some atheists believe that ALL religions are cults and practice mind-control from their viewpoint.

That being said, this is just a list of items generally attributed to cults, in oppostion of religious practices, posted in answer to the question: What makes someone think Scientology is not a religion? The reader can make up their own mind.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[pkulak]

Scientology and the LDS don't have the benefit of thousands of years of obfuscation. The big three would be just as wacky if they were thought up 50 years ago. If you follow one religion, you better keep quite about all the others, lest the parallels come back to bite you in the ass.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[mbrod]

It doesn't show the crockyness of religion, it shows the crock that is our culture today and the people that live in it.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Xentor]

No, but real surgery is an actual science (Well, a medical process, which is based on actual science), which can be proven to be successful or unsuccessful. No one can prove the existence of a deity (Or the non-existence, but that's beside the point).

raju1kabir - That's a damn good point, and I never thought of it that way. Personally, I despise the whole Scientology thing, and have done so since they put up all those stupid "Free stress test" tables in Times Square and Grand Central. Then again, maybe those cultists could actually shed a new light on the so-called "real" religions, just by example...

(Disclaimer: Yes, I'm an Atheist. I refuse to believe in any deity I didn't invent myself. Why should other peoples' fantasies be better than mine?)

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[AK Marc]

Quacks that do psychic surgery don't undermine the prestige of a real surgeon.

If the AMA took money from them and declared them legitamate, then it would. That's the point. When scientology is officially declared a religion, then it is on par with Christianity.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[ArcherB]

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!

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[VJ42]

Religions have come about because people are afraid of their own deaths. That's why most religions revolve around some kind of immortality... ...reincarnation. At least in my religion, Hinduism, the whole point of reincarnation that we are trying to break free of it. Admittedly the whole basis of the train of thought is an immortal soul, so it's not the reincarnation part that you should consider "selfish", rather the concept of the soul; interestingly a concept contained within most religions in one way or another.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[lbbros]

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.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[IthnkImParanoid]

Logically, though, people shouldn't view surgeons differently based on the actions of people who are not surgeons. Likewise, people should not judge the validity of beliefs of one religion based on the action or beliefs of people of another religion. You are right in pointing out that they will, but this is not a thought process we should encourage, and I suspect you are only happy about it because it would be detrimental to something you dislike, i.e. religion. "Guilt by association" type thought processes are almost as dangerous as religion, so please don't hope too hard. :)

And for the record, I don't like religion either.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Detritus]

It's a sham. Scientology only became a "religion" because they were looking for a way to shield themselves from the federal government, especially the Food & Drug Administration. The FDA goes after medical quacks and frauds like L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics and the e-meter.

Scientology is nothing more than an organized crime syndicate that preys on the weak, brainwashes them, and steals their money.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Murdoc]

I know that your comment was intended to be funny, but I think that this already exists. It's called Neo-Paganism. In it, you can believe pretty much whatever you like and like OSS, you will only tend to get people working with you if your stuff makes some sort of sense. The more useful and internally consistent it is, the more people will use it/contribute to it. But if you don't mind being alone, do what you like with it. Of course, doing overly silly things will break it, like any program, so watch out for beliefs like "it's ok to play in the freeway at rush hour because God/Goddess will save me" type stuff. And you don't have to pay to get in either.

So yeah, OS religion. Have fun with it. :)

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[kabocox]

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.

Every Christain Church that I've ever been dragged too preached titheing to the church and passed collection plates around. Tithes are 1/10th of your pre-tax income. I don't know about any religion other than Christianity, but I'd assume most religions do have a payment system built in.

Too bad by wife is christain or I'd try forming my own religion. I'd have to make up some rules.. Hmm, screw tithing, I'd require broadband internet access be required to attend something like a Second Life church. Hmm, how are religious internet connections handled tax wise? What if I made it a requirement for my religion that devotees must all have internet access? The second would be something like and the great god made DNA to build and track all life. It is our duty to god to use DNA to track all earthily life. I'd need a moral code... I could just copy and paste from other religions. Next, I'd need a web server and a downloadable client that accepts credit card tithes/donations. Hmm, I just need to figure out how to get the average slashdotter to become a member of my religion and get my church's website slashdotted... Then, I can be the high priest and get a cut of said tithes. Nah, too much work.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[kabocox]

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.

Some one needs to outdo Scientology and not as a get rich scheme. It should be for power, political lobbying, and then money. I think the idea of an open source religion sounds neat, but we'd have to start with you either believe in 0, 1 or more gods or goddesses and then branch out from there. I'd most likely try to stick a generic politically safe moral code at the beginning. Then you'd start your titheing / acceptable religion spreading section. Then you'd start with your creation myth and some moral parables. Throw in some random faith based miracles, and you're set.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Tweekster]

You obviously were not paying attention, they solicited donations (big deal?)
They do not expect 1/10 of your pre-tax, they state you should give 1/10 pretax away including to the church but not limited to the church (ie be generous and give money to charity)

I dont get how asking for donations is a big deal. You will not be asked to leave if you simply pass the plate on, trust me i have done it many times.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[abb3w]

Every Christain Church that I've ever been dragged too preached titheing to the church and passed collection plates around.

Catholics still pass the collection plate (or basket), but don't push so much on the tithing; I've seen it more from the Protestant faiths.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

['nother poster]

No, it isn't. Just because it may mentions some historical facts and such no more makes it a historical text than Ann Rices "Interview with a Vampire" is because it talks about 19th century New Orleans. Lots of fiction writing has some basis and/or congruance with reality.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[fugue]

Ah... Linux is a religion and Windows isn't. It's all starting to make sense!

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[PHPfanboy]

Ancient Judaism indeed did not have any form of afterlife and there's nothing obvious in the Old Testament that refers to it.
Most good deeds in the bible are done "so that your days may be lengthened" kind of thing and bad stuff are "you'll be cut off from your people" etc...

Afterlife stuff seems to have been inherited during the Babylonian exile which followed the destruction of the first temple by Nebuchadnezzar, probably from Zoroastrians. All modern versions (i.e. last 2500 years) of Judaism have heaven and hell concepts, though they aren't really dwelled on like in Christianity (eternal damnation!) and Islam (70 virgins!).

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[DamnStupidElf]

Actually, no. Just "X", which is John 14:6.

Belief entails many more actions than simply a thought in the brain. I highly doubt many Christians would disagree that beyond believing, a Christian must directly act on their belief which essentially means changing their entire life. Claiming that Christianity is just a simple decision is untrue, it requires dedication to several beliefs (namely anything that can be claimed from the Bible, usually plus a little cruft) and action based on those beliefs. If being saved was just considered an on-off switch, Christianity wouldn't have the influence it does, and in fact the switch could have been turned on for everyone in the world with very little change.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[j-beda]

I did not think that "churches" got particularly favourable tax treatment, but rather that "charities" or "not-for-profits" did, and neither of those are required to be religious in nature. Your "elk's club" could get the appropriate paperwork filled out to get this status presumably.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[dctoastman]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
The burden of proof lies not with me to disprove the existence of your god, but for you to prove he exists. I am not claiming anything, you are claiming that there is a god and that he created the cosmos. On which assumptions and observable facts do you base this claim?

There is no evidence to support a divine authority. Therefore we work with the assumption that there is none.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[neoform]

Laughable?

How many people do you know that attend church (on a regular basis or otherwise) that don't 'donate' any money..?

The only reason money isn't required at the door is because they don't need to require it in order to make money. If people weren't donating their money, you can bet that it would be required.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Bastian]

No, but real surgery is an actual science (Well, a medical process, which is based on actual science), which can be proven to be successful or unsuccessful.

This point really underlines the irony of Scientology's name.

One would expect, from the name, that Scientology would be open to scientific inquiry and attitudes. In particular, their claims that the whole Scientology auditing system will make people happier and more self-actualizing are, for the most part, falsifiable hypotheses. It wouldn't be hard at all to construct a study to see if there's a correlation between someone's e-meter readings and their mental well-being. One would think that they would be very actively conducting scientific investigations of this stuff, both so they can refine their methods and so they can show off how great Scientology really is. (And of course it's great - would we be Scientologists if it weren't?)

And yet the Church of Scientology is extremely hostile to such inquiry, to the point that members are required to sign a contract that includes an agreement to not submit to non-CoS psychological evaluation or treatment or any kind. This speaks volumes about how effective the Church of Scientology itself believes that its "self-improvement" methods really are.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[j-beda]

I suspect that the argument would be something along the line of "of you really did believe, then your actions would be thus...." So those who simply spout "John 14:6" (at least those who think about it a bit) are also expecting "believers" to follow various other "teachings of Christ", otherwise they don't really believe.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Citizen of Earth]

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*.

All of the "legitimate" religions started because the original "prophet" suffered a psychotic break from reality and found an audience for his deranged rantings. OTOH, L. Ron was lucid when concocting his cynical scheme to fleece losers of their meager funds.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[abb3w]

Most religions will teach the beliefs regardless of whether you cough up money.

Scientology not only insists on payment, they claim trade secret protection, so if you leave the church, you can't set up your own rival organization. I'd propose that Trade Secret law should be revised to deny such protection to religious organizations.

You want to be a church, it needs to be able to have a schism.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Clandestine_Blaze]

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

I know that this is a trollish thing to say, but my reasons for saying this are far from trolling. I have always felt that way about mainstream religion. While I believe that Christianity would have become popular nonetheless, it truly exploded at the rate that it did because the message of Christ was directed towards those whom lived below the poverty line, which, at the time, was quite a lot. I believe that there was no middle class during the early Roman empire and one-tenth of one per-cent lived comfortably while the rest were borderline or straight up poverty.

The message at the time was also very welcoming. In Rome, especially in the Augustan system, you had a strict hierarchy where the emperor was at the very top. The Emperor was, what Helmut Koester labels as, "the conduit to the divine world." The bottom feeders, which I alluded to earlier as to being the majority, received very little.

Suddenly, you have a guy with a message of equality, peace, love, and hope. This certainly played upon the unhappiness of those whom lived in the era. The message was lost, however, and one can see a parallel between this and how much power the seat of the Papacy would assume over the years.

I won't go as far as to say that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism (to name a few) were MEANT to brainwash followers, however, in the hands of power-hungry people, it became a powerful tool to control the masses. Surely nobody still believes that the reasons behind the Crusades were, to this day, holy in nature, despite the reasons that were given at the time.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Tweekster]

Exactly, and although I will be the first to discuss issues and problems etc with real churches, trying to compare anything Scientology does to your regular Christian churches is simply insane.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Bastian]

I don't agree that your distinction is objective.

Most of the world's religions were started so very long ago that we really have no way of knowing if any of them were also started as a way of getting people to open their wallets. Given how useful religion is for convincing people to do things, that organized religion almost always involves the construction of a privileged class (the priesthood/clergy), and that guile is far from being a recent innovation, I would say that it's highly unlikely that every single one of them was started because someone took a dream too seriously or ate some moldy bread or whatever.

Since it's impossible to know for sure the details of the psychological profiles of the founders of any of these older religions, I don't believe the knowledge that L. Ron Hubbard was a cynical con-man (or Joseph Smith, for that matter - it'd be just mean to pile all the aspersions on LRH alone) is useful for distinguishing Scientology's origins from those of more established religions.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[just_another_sean]

... an open-source religion? license it with the gpl so it can be distributed freely and not require payment to participate in. ...

Oh we already have one of those... It's called GNU! /ducks

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Blappo]

As such, accepting Jesus as your personal savior is not enough for the Christian party line. You have to believe that he is three in one, that he is both fully human and fully divine, or else you're a heretic, and you're going to hell.

Or you could be a Protestant, in which case everything you said there is wrong.

Please refrain from discussing something when you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, you'll avoid saying something stupid and wrong like you did there.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Fujisawa Sensei]

I think Roger Penrose is trying, have your read some of his meta-physical ramblings on consciousness?

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[kabocox]

Every Christain Church that I've ever been dragged too preached titheing to the church and passed collection plates around.
Catholics still pass the collection plate (or basket), but don't push so much on the tithing; I've seen it more from the Protestant faiths.

I've attended mainly Baptist, Methodist, and Church of Christ churches and they all preach tithing and pass the collection plate. I've never seen any one actually donate 1/10th of their income to their church, but that hasn't stopped any of the churches from asking. I don't see any problem with a religion asking/demanding money from its followers. As long as it isn't a state religion that it tax supported by the general population, I don't care what your private religions are upto. I would actually like tax forms keeping track of "tithing," and it lowering taxable income for those that chose to give to their chosen religion. I'd view government tracking of tithing as non interfering with religion and government allowing for all various religions to take their tithes in what ever format is required. I'd view being able to take tithes off of taxes the same as taking any charity money off on taxes or any special interest tax deduction. I don't give money to church, but the government should make it easy and simple for those that do to properly record that currency transaction in their taxes and have it religiously exempt from being taxable income. Let's face it: humans like religion and religious intuitions. I'll accept that those instutions won't be going anywhere any time soon and make acceptable allowances for them.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[sacrilicious]

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.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Locke DieDrake]

So what you are saying is that the differance between a valid religion and an invalid one is the differance between fiction and science fiction?

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simple. Don't allow political or religious leaders to do bad things in your religion's name, then people will be tolerant of your religion. If you are religious, you should be the first people out there protesting their abuses. But that never seems to happen. Doing nothing simply shows your support for the acts they committed in your name. And makes you an accomplice. They are intolerant of you when you are weak, and silently support those who wish to harm them or take away their rights. Your silence is contributing to their harm. Either ostracize those who harm others in the name of your religion, or deal with the fact that others may hate you for not doing anything.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Dread_ed]

Actually, it is an example of the US government upholding the seperation of church and state. Regardless of the religion's origin, dubious practices, or overtly ominous behaviors (including lawsuits and legal threats), the government respects their self proclaimed status as a religion.

For the thinker it should stand as an example of how the government can be manipulated by evil(smart) people for their own financial good.

Another example, though less sinister, is the Church of the SubGenius. Friends of mine are legal pastors of the Church and can therefore perform wedding ceremonies; yet its origin is just as dubious as the Scientologists'.

So the word for the wise is "Quit the church and start your own damn religion!" Take advantage of the tax-free status of all religions in the US. It might just make you a rich man.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[abb3w]

trying to compare anything Scientology does to your regular Christian churches is simply insane.

Christian? Heck, Scientology makes Islam look almost friendly by comparison. And there's doubtless a really nice, offensive Jewish money joke in here somewhere; would some comedian of suitable ethnicity care to take a whack at it?

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[cparker15]

Many of the stories and accounts in the Bible can be and have been verified.

Tell you what. Let's all write down a summary of things that have happened within the past hundred years or so, and then add something asinine into the mix, like, say, flying pink elephants, the re-creation of the Dodo bird, or a man splitting a large body of water in half with a walking stick. Then bury these writings in a time capsule and wait a couple thousand years.

For all you know, the religious aspects of "the Bible" are nothing more than some sort of practical joke some people (read: apostles/disciples) devised as a way to really screw with people in the future. Sort of like a mass-scale e-mail hoax chain letter type of thing. Just because it's really, really old doesn't make it true. And just because some tidbit can be cross-referenced elsewhere in other historical works doesn't make it factual. Don't forget that the people who wrote these religious texts are also the ones who wrote the contents of our ancient history books.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[ArcherB]

...or a church based on Harry Potter

Your ideas interest me, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

What bitch modded this down!??! That comment was awesome!

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Adambomb]

It is a shoe!!

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Haertchen]

I'm familiar with at least two, personally: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I'm sure there are more.

Both religions use the traditional Protestant Bible (in terms of books included, not in terms of translation) and believe them, well, religiously. They interpret some parts rather differently from mainstream Christianity, (and from each other as well, of course.)

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[SirWinston]

> > ...or a church based on Harry Potter
> >
> Your ideas interest me, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Hail Hermione, full of grace; the Dark Lord is with thee.
Thy lips and thy boobs, they comfort me.
Thou conjurest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies;
Thou anointest my wand with oil; my Pumpkin Juice cup runneth over...

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[drinkypoo]

The Nicene Council is what you are referring to, and they defined what it is to be a Catholic (which meant "universal" about 1.5 to 2 thousand years ago) and it is based solely on the Old and New Testaments. Even more to the point, it defined the old and new testaments. Today, the Nicene Council's decisions are no longer considered universal, and most Christians do not call themselves "Catholics."

Uh, but most Christians would call themselves orthodox, if they even knew what the word meant, since it's the Christian orthodoxy that makes Christianity what it is (Judaism and even Islam are, by comparison, orthoprax.)

And since Catholic meant orthodox ("correct belief") at the time (by your assertion) your argument is pure nonsense. "That used to mean Catholic, and now they don't call themselves that, so now they aren't!" IT MAKE NO SENSE.

John 3:16 is far more universal than the Nicene Creed, or the concept of the Holy Trinity.

Which is quite irrelevant, since the council at Nicea (and the various other Roman ecumenical councils that came thereafter) defined the Christian orthodoxy. The Christians were arguing over what the book meant and the ecumenical councils codified the Christian orthodoxy based on particular interpretations of what the book said.

It doesn't matter what chapter and verse you cite, because those councils defined what it is believed the book says. And one of the things it is believed the book says is that Jesus Christ is a portion and the embodiment of the holy trinity. And if you don't believe that, you are not orthodox - by definition you are believing in some other guy. Since that guy is not the ecumenically-approved Jesus Christ, you're going to hell - you're a HERETIC.

I hope this helps you understand the official Christian party line. It's not necessary to subscribe to it, but you have to understand that if you don't, you're not a Dogmatic Christian, you're something else entirely. And good riddance.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Oligonicella]

And the culture of the people 2K yr ago. People are still basically the same -- gullible.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[oyenstikker]

You can work on that assumption, that is fine; but you should not state as fact something you cannot even begin to prove.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[bongk]

As a former Christian and current closet Athiest, I see Scientology as a religion just as much as Christianity, etc. (although much newer).

Both religions provide a purpose and guidance for behavior for people who need these things outside their own personal experience, who need something to strive for and believe in.

However I see one key element that for me says that Christianity is good and Scientology is bad -
Christianity is based on selflessness - you are taught that the meek shall inherit the earth, to give even if you have little to give, etc. This is why it is desireable for the 95% of the population that have 5% of the wealth.

What I hear of Scientology is based on selfishness - its OK to gain wealth. Its Ok to spend your time and your wealth on yourself - moving up within the different levels of Scientology. This is why its desireable to the Hollywood types, and the rest of the 5% of the population that control 95% of the wealth. A religion that makes them feel guilty for being wealthy and not sharing just isn't desireable for most of them.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[MobyDisk]

I wrote a long response to your post, about orthodoxy, and who defines the meaning of a text, and organized religion, and some philosophical references to the human heart, but I deleted it all because I'd much rather ask you this question:

What do YOU believe? (You can email me your reply if you prefer)

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Re the "tax-free status." Do a little home work on HOW Scientology got its tax exempt status. (This article doesn't mention if the then President and John Travolta spent time together.)

You are in for a surprise.

http://www.lisamcpherson.org/irs/jeff-irs.htm

And while you're at it, acquaint yourself with Lisa McPherson.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Max Littlemore]

You could say the same about the bible...

But at least the Bible has gourds and sandals!

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[megrims]

Heaven, Hell, Bible? Yeah, maybe not actually in there at all. Oh, sure, there's some vague references that over time have been well and truly blown out of proportion, but the whole heaven and hell thing is not really a point of the book.

On the contrary, it's more of a motivator towards leading a "good" life. There's mention of eternal life (not in heaven) as a reward, and death as the alternative. Not so much of this etheral crap.

And many the other parts are more or less historical; some of them for the purpose of being historical.

Then there's the mad-hermit hallucinatory section, for which the symbolic interpretation is often up for grabs. That's where the organised religion often gets caught up and manipulative.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[shutdown -p now]

The vast majority of Christians subscribe to all decisions of both Nicene Councils, and the Nicene Creed in particular (some Protestant denominations disregard it, but most don't). Furthermore, the majority of Christians do indeed call themselves "catholics": Roman church calls itself "catholic", and so do all Orthodox churches; only Protestants don't, and there are less of them than Roman Catholics and Orthodox combined.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[dctoastman]

And neither should you.

However, we can deduce the non-existence statistically and logically.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Raenex]

The Bible, all religion aside, is at least a historic text.

Maybe "based on a true story" or "inspired by true events" is more accurate. It has about the same integrity as a Hollywood movie.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[drinkypoo]

What do YOU believe? (You can email me your reply if you prefer)

No, I don't mind going offtopic for a good cause. Let me just lay it out there. This will be a sort of cliffs notes though, because it would take a long time to really go over it.

I consider myself to be an agnostic. To me this is the least confining of labels dealing with religion. I do not consider myself a spiritual individual (whatever that means) nor do I believe in any deity or unseen force (I'm talking to you Jedi out there in the audience) that controls my destiny. I think the jury is very much out on the subject of free will, although quantum physics does hold some hope there.

I do believe that everyone has faith in something. Sometimes people have faith only in themselves, which is sad in many ways but at least is understandable. Mine is in the scientific method. I think that is the way that we explain the universe most aptly, not by making things up.

On the subject of organized religion, past a certain level of order/organization, I think that it is a blight on human society. I understand wanting help deciding how to live. The world is a complex place filled with shifting values that can easily be confusing. What I cannot understand is turning off your brain and becoming a passive receiver for whatever message is being put out. I think that as thinking beings we have a responsibility to consider all of our inputs and the way we will integrate them.

Let me speak in specifics about Christianity for a moment. The real truth is that very little is really known about the genesis of the Bible. One theory is that it began as a history of the life of King David, whose actions and circumstances are very much contradicted by the remainder of the bible. He basically lies, steals, cheats, murders, and rapes his way through his life and these portions of the bible are some of the eldest in the collection. There are absolutely no reliable witnesses to the very existence of the Christ. The only non-biblical accounts of his existence are based on hearsay and written after his death, in spite of the fact that he was allegedly the leader and founder of one of the most important religious movements of all time.

Continuing, I must say here (if I wish to be a good scientist) that the absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence. And really I am not that interested in trying to disprove the bible. I could continue to pick it apart, talking about Saul of Tarsus and how his books speak completely differently about Jesus than anyone else's, et cetera. But I don't think that is to really talk about what's important in the bible.

I realize I'm spending a lot of time on Christianity but I want to talk about it because it's been at the heart of this discussion. What one has to realize about the bible is that it was written by a multitude of people, some Jews, some Christians, over a significant period of time. Taking into itself as it does the Jewish bible (or the Pentateuch anyway) it naturally inherits a lot of tradition that maybe didn't really fit Christianity so well. After all, Christianity originally formed as a splinter sect of Judaism. And I think that the people who regard the bible as the law of God word for word have entirely missed the point. First, that's really not relevant, because the bible has been translated repeatedly and edited by basically everyone who translated it, and even by many people who simply copied it. Some of the edits were benevolent in nature, attempting to clarify some point, while others were political and deliberately altered the meaning of the text to support a specific and momentary goal. The people who made the latter type of edit are simply the worst traitors to the faith, but the people who made the former type were almost as misguided because of course they were not there and they have no idea what really happened. Better to let the book speak for itself. A huge number

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[oyenstikker]

I'll bite. How do you deduce the non-existence statistically and logically?

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[dctoastman]

Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins for a full treatment on the matter.

Amazon link
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins /dp/0618680004/sr=8-1/qid=1170790431/ref=pd_bbs_sr _1/104-1874526-7061506?ie=UTF8&s=books

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Grishnakh]

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.

Respect and tolerance are two different things.

If some obviously mentally deficient person came up to you and started babbling about how invisible fairies talked to him, would you respect him? I wouldn't; I'd just dismiss him as a nutcase and ignore him (or call the police if he was causing any problems, as he should probably be committed for his own sake). Would I tolerate him? If he's harmless, sure. But I'm not going to respect him the way I'd respect a sane individual.

Religious people are just like the crazy guy who talks to invisible fairies; it's just a difference in scale.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[MobyDisk]

Thank you.

You should put the conversation transcript on hyperlogos.org. After all, it is "...a compendium of information which I know or have researched..."

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[ZzzzSleep]

Try wikiwrit http://www.blogphilo.com/wikiwrit/index.php?title= Main_Page
It's the holy book that anyone can edit!

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[paitre]

Ah. I'd forgotten about the Jehovah's Witnesses. They're easily forgettable when you don't have to deal with them very often *heh*
(meanwhile, I receive a mailer monthly from the local LDS Ward's Bishopric...)

But yeah, those would be the two that I could think of, anyways,

Here is my hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

That, at the end of the day, Scientology will be laughed out of court, and this guy set free. Think SCO vs IBM.

One can dream, of course. Scientology is well-known for legally attacking any and all critics. They are the biggest bullies you have ever heard of, even worse than most Fundamentalists.

Re:Here is my hope...

[AndroidCat]

They're pretty big of illegally attacking critics too. Check Operation Freakout where they fabricated evidence that "Paulette Cooper was guilty of issuing bomb threats against the Church, Henry Kissinger, Arab nations, and a laundromat. The seized documents were used to prosecute and convict Scientology officials in 1979."

Fabricated bomb threats... Sounds kind of familiar...

Re:Here is my hope...

[spiritraveller]

That, at the end of the day, Scientology will be laughed out of court, and this guy set free. Think SCO vs IBM.

Hate to burst your bubble. He will be set free after he serves his 6 month sentence.

Even if he could still appeal (the deadline having passed many years ago), it would take more than 6 months for his appeal to be ruled on.

He has 3 (quite unlikely) ways of avoiding it now:

a) escape again
b) get a pardon from Arnold Schwarzenegger, or
c) get the California legislature to repeal the law with retroactive effect.

Re:Here is my hope...

[Khyber]

And like any bully, all it takes is for you to stand up and sock them once in the mouth to get them to shut the fuck up and leave you alone.

Re:Here is my hope...

[AndroidCat]

Heh, wouldn't the Witness Protection program involve keeping a low profile, not drawing attention to yourself or speaking out?

You don't know the history of Keith like I do... :p

Re:Here is my hope...

[Khyber]

Hah, they fight back with lawyers, because they're too pussy to be real men and own up to their bullshit.

Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[eldavojohn]

Personally, I've only become aware of this case via this article. If all he did was post that on a forum to cause all this trouble with Scientology, I sure feel sorry for him. But if a California court found him guilty of any wrong, then I think he should serve his time. I don't think "interfering with a church" should constitute a long sentence though. I feel I am missing a large part of the story here or that this article was written omitting tactics Mr. Henson used agains Scientology. I can't judge until all the facts are in but I am aware that people with a lot of money can make strange charges stick.

If you want to support Keith Henson, there is a donation fund set up for his defense fees.

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.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[saleenS281]

Sure there is, you can demand their license to be a church be revoked (as it should be).

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[anagama]

In the sense that all religions should be respected, that's pure BS. While I personally feel no religions should be treated with any more special respect than other purveyors of escapism, scientology deserves special derision because of their ridiculously litigious practices and destructive capability both to memembers and rational others.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[zentinal]

Errr... Ummm... In the U.S., the government doesn't license churches, no matter how bizarre their beliefs. You can, however, go after their status as a non-profit organization.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[thelexx]

"I personally hate Scientology but they are a religion and must be respected as one."

Not necessarily. From http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/:

"The German Federal Government maintains that Scientology is an organization which has primarily economical interests. This idea has been reinforced by a ruling of the Federal Labour court (which is not connected to the government in any way). After having reviewed several Scientology books, the judges concluded that Scientology is not a religion, but a commercial enterprise.

  Furthermore, the German government maintains that Scientology tries to distribute its ideas as widely as possible, ideally leading to a society where humans life together according to Scientology rules. A closer look at Hubbard's writings shows that this is not desirable since Scientology is structured in a totalitarian, anti-democratic fashion."

There is an entire faq on the Germany v Scientology thing: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/germany.txt

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[Rob the Bold]

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

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[Lemmy Caution]

But if a California court found him guilty of any wrong, then I think he should serve his time.

The problem is that he feared for his life if imprisoned. The Scientologists have a code of ethics by which people who are identified as enemies of their organization are "fair game" for any aggression. It is not unlike a fatwa against a critic of Islam. Indeed, in some ways, Scientology is a post-modern form of Wahhabism.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[dave420]

Scientology is laughed out of most countries. In the US, though, they managed to get recognised as a religion. They only managed to do that in the US.

So anything that claims to be a religion is automatically one? So if Al Qaida said they are a religion, they have to be respected as such? Is that really how your brain works? :)

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany has a fairly recent history where an organization not unlike Scientology went from bad to worse, and ended up doing ethnic cleansing.
While that is not uncommon for religious movements, this makes them very aware that the development of such organizations needs to be watched closely.

Other countries often have more of a "laissez-faire" attitude where they will allow a lot until it gets completely out of hand.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[DavidHumus]

"I personally hate Scientology but they are a religion and must be respected as one."

Explain to me why we should respect the promotion of ignorance, superstition and bigotry? This of course, describes most, if not all, religions.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[hotdiggitydawg]

Aha! You've cracked the case... Keith needs to use the "Sideshow Bob" defence:

"Nobody who speaks German could be an evil man... parole granted!"

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[Smidge204]

I think (and I could be wrong) he was referring to the non-profit status and exemption from various accounting liability laws they have because of their "religious organization" status.

=Smidge=

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[neoform]

You know, the Catholic church makes a lot more money than the church of Scientology..

a religion is a set of beliefs in a supernatural being and a set of rules on how to live your life..

Just because a judge says they're not a religion, doesn't mean they aren't.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[arth1]

That others do wrong too doesn't excuse anyone.

I wouldn't mind if all organised religions became illegal. But go after the nastiest criminals first, and then others.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

"Scientology is an organization which has primarily economical interests"

I think you are confusing the religion "scientology" with the organization "The Church of Scientology". Yes, the Church of scientology is just exploiting people but you have to understand that there are two different scientologists: Churchies and freezoners. Freezoners generally despise the church and probably know more about its criminal activities than you do and they practice scientology outside of the church. They don't charge crazy amounts of money like the church does and they also practice the original scientology, not the altered version used in the church today. Freezoners don't go around suing everybody or trying to establish absolute obedience. So again, the religion and the organization are two different things. There is such a thing as scientologists that don't belong to the church, you just don't hear about them much. They tend to keep pretty quite since they are heavily attacked by the church - now that is REAL religious persecution.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[Falladir]

Regular people can attack Scientology in their everyday lives by reminding people what a sinister and unfunny organization it is. Be careful not to sound like a conspiracy theorist. It usually goes like this.

somebody: [some humorous tidbit relating to Scientology]
me: heh, yeah, that's funny. But seriously, Scientology is pretty damn scary. They ruin people's lives.
somebody: oh?
me: yeah, for one thing, they demand huge fees from their gullible recruits; they drain people dry. Also their legal team is dangerously well-funded. You pretty much can't mess with them or they put you in a legal hell.
somebody: huh.

Hopefully the story I tell of sinister Scientology is interesting enough that the next time my opposite number hears a joke about scientology, or the next time Tom Cruise is in the news, he remembers it and possibly tells others how scary Scientology is.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[a_karbon_devel_005]

It's NOT a religion and it didn't even START OUT as pretending to be one. It ONLY moved it's agenda to becoming a religion to avert charges to it's AMAZINGLY weak pseudo-science (fiction) base of ideas and to get TAX EXEMPTION status. And even THAT was only granted in the US after Scientology agreed to drop one of the MANY lawsuits it had filed with the IRS ... AND Hubbard's wife and several followers were arrested, charged and JAILED with the largest known infiltration of the IRS in years as they gleaned information to use to threaten people opposed to their pyramid-scheme cult! It's ALL THERE in the court records.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[ClassMyAss]

I personally hate Scientology but they are a religion and must be respected as one.

I'm really not trying to be a troll here, but what exactly makes religion especially worthy of respect? There are literally hundreds of religions, almost all of which contradict each other in several areas. This means that most of them are flat out wrong.

So let me rephrase. If it's all but 100% certain that almost every religious person holds deep seated beliefs that are wrong, why should I respect religious belief in aggregate? I don't respect people that think Einstein was "wrong." I also don't respect people who "don't believe" in arithmetic. Generally speaking, if someone believes something stupid, that lowers my respect level for them. In the case of religion, I don't know which religion is right (at least to 100% accuracy), but I know that most of them are wrong, so to me that says that I should not have respect for the religious. Yes, I'm being unfair to the lucky few that happen to be right about their religious beliefs, but on average, I think this is the most reasonable approach.

Am I completely off base here? If so, please explain.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[iMacGuy]

It's reported that the California trial was largely taken over by Scientologists, including the judge, who refused to admit any of his witnesses or defense evidence.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s= &threadid=2313191

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[rahrens]

Basically, yes, although what most people mean when they say a religion is a recognized religion in the US, what they are referring to is a recognition by the IRS as a tax-exempt religious organization. Religions in the US are not licensed, controlled or even defined by law in any way, due to the Constitutional prohibition against government involvement in religion. If you wish to organize a group based upon the belief that the universe was created by the divine spaghetti monster, and your activities fit the IRS definition of a charitable organization, you can get a tax-exempt status as a religious organization, and the government will keep their hands off your activities to the same extent they do for all other religions. It is the way religious activities and organizations work in the US.

The IRS recognizes a plethora of organizations as being eligible for tax-exempt status. Religious organizations are just one such major classification.

There are, however, limits to activities that such groups can engage in and maintain that status. go to this URL: http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=139017, 00.html and it will explain and give additional links for more information.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[Lars T.]

Reminds me of the German Scientologist that found asylum in the USA for persecution in Germany - by presenting as evidence letters from companies that she couldn't get a job because she was a member of Scientology. But for some reason the judge wasn't bothered that they were all written in English. I'll pretend he wasn't able to check that they were all written by Scientologists.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[Niten]

"I personally hate Scientology but they are a religion and must be respected as one."

I disagree. Actually, this reminds me of something that Douglas Adams once said:

If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I musn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.

Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe ... no, that's holy? ... We are used to challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard [Dawkins] creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[rahrens]

There are literally over 30,000 different denominations of Protestant christian churches in the US, not just hundreds. Most are probably just one church wonders, but...

Just what are your criteria for deciding what beliefs are "stupid"? What makes your approach towards this any different from others'?

"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh." Another of Lazarus Long's witticisms, per Robert Heinlein.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[ClassMyAss]

There are literally over 30,000 different denominations of Protestant christian churches in the US, not just hundreds. Most are probably just one church wonders, but...

This is true, however I would be content even to lump them together, since most Christianities are not mutually exclusive, since if one is right, they (pretty much) all are. Their disagreements boil down to how to most effectively carry out the mission of God, not to whether there is a mission or a God.

Just what are your criteria for deciding what beliefs are "stupid"? What makes your approach towards this any different from others'?

Excellent question. Generally, I carefully consider the idea, and look at all available evidence supporting or taking away from the idea, read what others have written, think a bit for myself, etc. Then I look at the pile of information and try to figure out whether you'd have to be a really pathetic fool to buy into it. As a particular example, all that I know of the world leads me to believe that a belief in the historical and physical claims of Scientology is, by itself, enough to damn someone as "stupid" in my eyes.

Now, this does not necessarily apply to all religion. It is not completely out of the question to look at the world and decide that there must have been some root cause for its existence. Thus I cannot make a blanket statement that every religion is "stupid" - surely some are more right than others. However, most religions will turn out to be wrong, which means that religion viewed as a whole is certainly "stupid." Probably greater than 99% of the people on earth have incorrect but very committed views as to what this root cause was, thus most beliefs on this matter are stupid (including, almost certainly, my own! Though my view at least includes the caveat that I don't know much about the issue...). What else would you call a field of inquiry where (almost by definition) a vast majority of the theories are not even approximations of the truth, but are downright false?

As a counterexample, look at science. You have many fields of science, and much bickering between them, etc. But it will never happen that physics turns out to be "right," thus making chemistry, biology, sociology (okay, not really a science), and psychology wrong. The entire edifice holds together quite nicely, and it's most likely that the majority of the practitioners are correct, at least about the most important issues. This is something that religion can never achieve, therefore I don't see the point in respecting religion as a concept. If everything coalesces together, or some facts are accepted by all as correct, then we can discuss further, and actually evaluate the merits of these ideas. But there is no such consensus at the moment, so I'm happy to throw the blanket label of "stupid" on religion.

To go back to your question, let me offer you a brief answer: my approach is not different to anyone else's. A stupid belief is one that doesn't have much logical weight behind it, which I think is a reasonable definition. But that's not what was under discussion - if you recall, the GP suggested that the fact that Scientology is a religion should mean that we respect it. I propose that whether or not someone calls something a religion, if they are talking about aliens, Xenu, and thetans, we should evaluate the idea on its own merit rather than automatically granting it respect!

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[MBraynard]

Very much the opposite in the US.

In the US, money you pay for 'audits' to Scientology - essentially classes - are tax deductable. However, your tuition to a private Catholic or Jewish Day school is not. Go figure.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[Tony]

As a counterexample, look at science.

Yes, let's.

You have many fields of science, and much bickering between them, etc. But it will never happen that physics turns out to be "right," thus making chemistry, biology, sociology (okay, not really a science), and psychology wrong.

Uhm. You do realize, most of these fields dovetail together quite nicely? There's very little inter-disciplinary bickering? You do know this, right?

Physics is not "right." Biology is not "right." There are hypothesis that are right, and hypothesis that are wrong, but they are not "Physics," or "biology." They are just merely "hypothesis."

Usually, physics is right, because it is the fundament of chemistry, which is a huge part of biology, which contributes largely to sociology. It's all a matter of scale.

Thanks for letting me clear that up.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[NoMaster]

They only managed to do that in the US.

And Australia ('Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups').

Having said that, the Australian government and lega system has always tended to a broad interpretation of 'religion'. From the PDF :

"For the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a
Supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of
conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which
offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or
right conferred on the grounds of religion."

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[kocsonya]

> [..] they are a religion and must be respected as one.

Why?
Why shall I respect something that a lot of people believe but I don't,
just because it involves a 'god'? I can respect a *person* and accept
the fact that (s)he believes in something that I don't, but why should
I respect what she believes in but what I consider nonsense?

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[nleaf]

I personally hate Scientology but they are a religion and must be respected as one.

I'm going to start a religion based on protesting Scientology. Who's with me?

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[ClassMyAss]

Uhm. You do realize, most of these fields dovetail together quite nicely? There's very little inter-disciplinary bickering? You do know this, right?

That was exactly my point, though from your response it sounds like you thought I was arguing the opposite - in science, everything fits together, thus it makes sense to have a large amount of respect for the grand edifice that has been created. [FWIW, the bickering I referred to is not usually over correctness but over the relative beauty or importance of each field] Religion as a field does not fit together nearly as tightly as science does (though an individual religion may be entirely self-consistent), and no religion has had the kind of observable logical successes that would make me automatically respect someone's belief in one. Nor has philosophy, which in my opinion is a bunch of farts sitting around debating definitions. And don't anyone even give me that Godel crap, he was a mathematician doing mathematical work and I won't accept any claim to the contrary!

The great irony is that when scientists criticize the (often unfounded) tenets of religion, they are vilified and looked upon as cruel assholes for daring to threaten someone else's belief system, yet starting multimillion dollar campaigns to rid the world of highly scrutinized scientific fact is considered to be a reasonable undertaking! Yeesh...

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[rahrens]

I think the original idea you are objecting to is that Scientology should be respected as a religion.

I think there is somewhat of a difference, as noted somewhere else above, in that one can respect another's belief but still have little respect for the organized part of that religion.

As I noted in my quote, "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh." It is true. However, another fact that the quote doesn't mention is that, once laughed at, the first man slices the laugher's guts out for the laugh. That's how seriously people take their beliefs.

One should respect another's belief - it is a part of the American 'compact' that we tolerate, indeed, also respect, each other's beliefs. It is necessary to respect others, lest they stop respecting yours!

You can scoff, laugh, point fingers, roll on the floor, and call another man's religion stupid - as long as you do it behind closed doors, and not to his face.

I am not religious, I do not subscribe to the beliefs of any religion, I have my own ideas about some of those basic questions about where we came from and the reasons for existence. In fact, I believe that almost every organized religion that has ever existed has had as a basic premise its own survival first, and the welfare of its adherents dead last, and most existed to allow the authorities to control the population through religious extortion, as well as to milk their pockets as much as possible.

However, I am also capable of, at least publicly, showing respect for other individuals' beliefs. That, I believe, is necessary for me to demand respect for my own beliefs.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[DeputySpade]

In the sense that all religions should be respected, that's pure BS. While I personally feel no religions should be treated with any more special respect than other purveyors of escapism, scientology deserves special derision because of their ridiculously litigious practices and destructive capability both to memembers and rational others.

Like Disney!

Space colony, eh?

[PhxBlue]

Can we set up a solar colony for the Scientologists?

Re:Space colony, eh?

[anagama]

It needs to be in this order:
1-Set up space colony.
2-Send up scientologists.
3-Send up air.

Re:Space colony, eh?

[eluusive]

You did notice he said "Solar" colony, yes?

Re:Space colony, eh?

[Beer_Smurf]

Maybe the Golgafrinchan option would be better.

Re:Space colony, eh?

[Ranger]

Can we set up a solar colony for the Scientologists?

Just don't fly them on DC-8's or they might get alarmed. Last time they were told they were going to a nice warm tropical isle with a mountain view. They neglected to mention that it was an active volcano and that there was no actual landing strip, so they'd have to parachute except they forgot to bring them parachutes. The flight attendents just told them to tuck and roll when they landed and in case of a lava flow to duck and cover. To be fair Xenu did order parachutes but he forgot to sign the form in triplicate and the order was never processed.

Re:Space colony, eh?

[sokoban]

It needs to be in this order:
1-Set up space colony.
2-Send up scientologists.
3-Send up air. 4-???
5-Profit!

Re:Space colony, eh?

[bogado]

We should offer then free trips to the sun.

We should offer then free trips to the sun. You can tell them there is no problem, since they are schedlle during nighttime. :-D

Re:Space colony, eh?

[dangitman]

Can we set up a solar colony for the Scientologists?

Do you have any idea how much an apartment on the surface of the sun costs??!!

Previous Discussion

[Lev13than]

Here's a vintage /. discussion from 2001 that discusses Hanson's escape to Canada.

Scientology and its ilk are all CULTS

[Anonymous Coward]

Up to date information on thecult of Scientology or its offshoot cult The Landmark Forum

Re:Scientology and its ilk are all CULTS

[NayDizz]

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

Re:Scientology and its ilk are all CULTS

[IWorkForMorons]

Landmark is part of Scientology?!? DAMN! I knew they were a cult designed solely for separating a fool from his money, but I didn't think it was that bad...

Re:Scientology and its ilk are all CULTS

[Jaxoreth]

Landmark is part of Scientology?!?

Quite the contrary -- Werner Erhard (whose employees founded Landmark) is on Scientology's 'suppressive person' shitlist.

Re:Hey Scientology, this one's for you

[Anonymous Coward]

2003 called, it wants its troll back.

Re:hm

[Applekid]

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.

omg

[gx5000]

OMG there's a law against "Interfearing with a church "?!
and the Scientologists not only qualify, the law was Enforced ??!!

**balls up in corner and shakes in fear**

Re:omg

[mr_matticus]

Just another faulty summary designed to promote /. comment storms. Consider it two separate components--being found guilty of harassment or slander or libel or choose your poison, but with the victim being a religious organization. The summary might as well say "sent to jail for interfering with science" when the person released the rabbits from a study, for example (when the crime wasn't "interfering with science" but rather trespassing/theft/etc.).

Re:omg

['nother poster]

No, I believe he had a restraing order against him under California civil code 527.6. He violated the restraining order. That is what got him aix month sentence.

Re:omg

[eMbry00s]

Stay still, I'll wrap you up in some tin foil.

Re:omg

[mr_matticus]

Sure, that falls into "pick your poison." The point is that he was sentenced for a mundane and valid reason, and not for "interfering with religion" or for anything to do with religion at all. It just so happens that the entity with a grievance was a "religious" organization. Kids who are arrested for tagging a church aren't put in jail for "desecrating sacred sites," but merely for defacing property.

How is that NOT free speech?

[otacon]

Isn't satire and other kinds of humor covered under the first amendment? and Wow how are you not supposed to make fun of scientology...it's such an easy target...all that stuff about Xenu and aliens being sent here 75 million years ago...it's a humorist's dream

Re:How is that NOT free speech?

[operagost]

"Very space opera," from what I hear!

Re:How is that NOT free speech?

[FooAtWFU]

Agreed; this needs to be a #@$^%ing Supreme Court case.

Re:How is that NOT free speech?

[Your Highness]

We may not agree with another's choices, but I do not believe we possess the righteous morality to dictate to others our personal agendas. U.S. Citizens should be able to retain their right to choose for themselves, as afforded by our Constitution, unfettered by intolerance, what is best for them in the pursuit of happiness (elusive as it may be!), as long as one's choices do not trample on the rights and liberties of others. Some of those choices may be self-destructive as judged by society and this forum; but it is still their right to ruin their lives of their own accord. It is not, in my opinion, one's right to ruin or defame the life of another. Common sense dictates that!

Re:How is that NOT free speech?

[UbuntuDupe]

Isn't satire and other kinds of humor covered under the first amendment? and Wow how are you not supposed to make fun of $RELIGION ...it's such an easy target...all that stuff about $IMPLAUSIBLE_CLAIM and $HUMAN_ORIGIN_STORY happening $LARGE_NUMBER of years ago...it's a humorist's dream.

All we need now

[oliverthered]

All we need now is for the government to arrest all the religious people for interfering with atheists (and we are all born atheists) and the world will be a better place.

Re:All we need now

[grub]

All we need now is for the government to arrest all the religious people for interfering with atheists (and we are all born atheists) and the world will be a better place.

Yep. I've always maintained that raising children to believe in religion is child abuse. It fucks up their mind enough that they'll believe in irrational, superstitious bullshit.

Re:All we need now

[grub]

s/we are all born atheists/we are all born agnostics/
Fixed it for you

That's wrong. No child wonders about a god or gods unless the parents indoctrinate them into a cult in the first place.

But your first point was right - atheism is a religion :)

Funny you mention that. See my sig.

Re:All we need now

[LurkerXXX]

And no child 'knows'/'believes' there is no god without learning of the belief of their existence.

Agnostic is right. The child doesn't even know the debate exists, so can't come down on either side.

Re:All we need now

[operagost]

That's wrong. No child wonders about a god or gods unless the parents indoctrinate them into a cult in the first place.

Wishful thinking, Karl Marx.

Re:All we need now

[Cheesey]

Then where and what do atheists worship and how is not believing the same as believing?

One curious property, common to every religion, is the belief that "this religion is different to the rest". Every religious person can come up with reasons why their religion is not comparable with others.

Although I agree that atheism isn't a religion, it is nevertheless a belief system. It has more in common with religion than atheists are ever willing to admit.

I'm an agnostic. I suppose that agnosticism is a belief system too, but it's a very minimal belief system. Is there a God? I've no idea.

Re:All we need now

[eosp]

That's wrong. No child wonders about a god or gods unless the parents indoctrinate them into a cult in the first place.

My parents didn't, and I'm a disciple of my Lord Jesus Christ.

Re:All we need now

[azakem]

we are all born curious Fixed it for you. If you were to remove a child from his parents at birth and withold that child from human contact for the rest of his natural life, sooner or later he would begin to wonder whether life had a "point", and what happened at the end. While this wouldn't necessarily imply inquiry into the existence of a monotheistic style higher power, a foray into the super-natural seems likely. It is incorrect to say a person is born anything other than curious; conclusions to these questions would only come from experience, and verification would come only upon death.

But your first point was right - atheism is a religion :) Funny you mention that. See my sig. To cite dictionary.com, one possible definiton of religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Therefore, in a sense, the belief that there is no cause, nature or purpose to the universe still falls under the definition of a religion. Granted, this closely mirrors the "is zero a number" debate, but it is not unreasonable to classify aethism as a religion itself.

Re:All we need now

[vidarh]

By your logic not believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy is then also a belief system that has more in common with religion than non-believers in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy will be willing to admit.

I am an atheist. I simply don't believe in a god for exactly the same reasons as I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Spiderman, the Invisible Pink Unicorn an an infinite number of other unsubstantiated potential entities.

That is just as simple a "belief system" as your idea of agnosticism:

Any extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence before I will consider it valid.

Re:All we need now

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

That's wrong. No child wonders about a god or gods unless the parents indoctrinate them into a cult in the first place.

If this is true, the only way that religion could've been introduced to the world is through God revealing himself to the first humans. :-)

Re:All we need now

[oliverthered]

Being agnostic requires that you think there may be a god.
If you were never told that a God may exist I very much doubt you would be agnostic. Just look at some of the countries with atheism in the 90%s, I'm sure there aren't people going round forcing people into atheism.

It just seems

[DaMattster]

like people are becoming more and more panicky nowadays. This whole thing is a giant over-reaction much like the Cartoon Network stunt in Boston. Our government has instilled so much fear in our everyday lives through the repetition of 9/11 and Terrorism that it has greatly our perception of safety and security. I would argue that the threat of terrorism is not as high as the government would have you believe. I am more likened to see 9/11 as a more isolated event that highlighted the critical need to improve security but not to forgo the freedoms that the constitution gives us. Let me caveat by stating that I do not take anything away from the seriousness of the event and I personally cheered as the Taliban paid dearly for their actions. The reality is that we are NOT inches away from another attack, like the Bush Administration would have you believe. In fact, given the lies used to justify the Iraq war, I would say any document issued by the Bush Administration is automatically suspect. We do not need to lead our life with hair trigger concern. This hair trigger concern has detrimental effects to the body and brain.

Re:It just seems

[Peyre]

I second that, Mattster. Especially your point that 9/11 pointed out we need to improve our security; it did NOT mean we need(ed) to throw aside our Constitutional rights.

Re:It just seems

[pe1chl]

It always amazes me that there are so few US citizens that recognize that. If I were living in a state governed by Bush, I would immediately see that the is heavily trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt only to his own advantage and adversely affecting the wellbeing of his citizens.
Even if there is a real threat from terrorism, a one-day study of the matter would reveal that the best way to avoid terrorism is not to fight a war against the people you suspect of committing it. The second thing one would realize is that fear is what the terrorists want to spread, and it is unwise to help them with that.

Re:It just seems

[DaMattster]

You are right. I should not have been cheering about people's death and, after you point that out, I wish to amend what I previously said. However, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were, for all intents and purposes one and the same. They were, as you say, "in bed with each other."

Re:It just seems

[XanC]

Can you explain the "to his own advantage" part? Approval ratings are at an all-time low and the media hates him. It seems to me he's doing what he thinks is right, defending the American people as he sees fit, regardless of the consequences.

Re:It just seems

[pe1chl]

He has personal investments in oil and relations with Saudi-Arabian oil magnats, and it is to his own advantage and that of his relations to drive up the oil price by unstabilizing Iraq.

Friday police

[Anonymous Coward]

Friday police arrested 64-year-old Keith Henson.

I don't know who these Friday police are, but they should be stopped. Friday police don't have the right to stop free speech anymore than normal police do!

Re:Friday police

[dave420]

At least the Friday police wear hawaiian shirts and are frequently drunk. It's the Monday police you gotta watch out for.

Re:Friday police

[dr_dank]

We were working the daywatch out of the Cult Protection Division.

Re:Friday police

[ShadowCloset]

I don't know who these Friday police are, but they should be stopped. Friday police don't have the right to stop free speech anymore than normal police do!

Oh, you mean the Normal police?

Normal Police Department

Re:Friday police

[cei]

What, you never watched Dragnet?

"My name's Friday. I carry a badge..."

Re:Friday police

[tsstahl]

Completely unrelated, but anyway...In a previous life, the "Friday Police" was a term applied to part time officers who were called in for carnivals, traffic, , and the like. Most could not carry firearms for lack of proper training and certification.

Re:Friday police

[MartinG]

What on earth is "stop free speech". Does it mean never-ending talk? Personally I don't mind if only the Friday police have a right to it. Normal police can't spend all their time talking they need to get on with their jobs.

scientology is just an evil cult

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:scientology is just an evil cult

[Whatsisname]

So what you really mean is, you're just tolerant of people that think the same as you. That sure was a whole lot of blubbering for a bunch of nonsense.

Re:scientology is just an evil cult

[CRiMSON]

I'm Sensing the parent just likes to hear/see himself type/talk.

Re:scientology is just an evil cult

[daverabbitz]

Wow, that read just like a brady bunch speech.

Re:scientology is just an evil cult

[P. Niss]

Longest...haiku...ever...

Re:scientology is just an evil cult

[kavau]

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

They aren't persecuted for their beliefs. They are prosecuted for manipulation and extortion.

What's your excuse?

[Rahga]

'In 2000 after picketing a Scientology complex, he was arrested as a threat because of a joke Usenet post about "Tom Cruise Missiles."'

I thought people only read Usenet for the pictures.

Religion ?

[Alain Williams]

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.

Re:Religion ?

[robably]

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.

Sounds like they're perfectly qualified to be a religion.

Re:Religion ?

[robably]

I think it works like it does with art - if it's being called "Religion" (or "Art") then that's what it is, because it's a matter of opinion rather than something to be objectively validated.

And if the mafia tells you it's a religion you better believe it.

Hmmm

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[alex_guy_CA]

"The guy's statements make him sound a little... er... paranoid and wacked out himself."

Thank you. Also not a fan of Scientology, but just the idea that this guy had the time to protest them makes me suspicious of him. Didn't he have anything better to do besides picket a bunch of sad loonies?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

He was retired. Besides, he was picketing the "sad loonies" because they were allegedly responsible for the death of a young woman.

Re:Hmmm

[Vellmont]

Just because the victims are scientologists doesn't mean this guy didn't do some ugly crap that we don't know about.

That's true. But that's also why we have open courts of law where the facts are a matter of evidence. So far I haven't heard anything about this guy doing anything worthy of being illegal. Since it's all a matter of public record, I have to think I'm getting the whole story. He sounds a little nutty, but then you'd have to be a little nutty to bother with the tiny influence Scientology has on the world.

On the other hand we have a group of people well known for using the law and the courts to harass people. As far as "the government" not being a fan of Scientology, well I don't know anything about that. I do know that government prosecutors have a long history of convicting people that haven't done anything wrong in order to advance their careers, or because simply have a missguided sense of justice. There's really no need to resort to making up unseen behaviour by this guy to explain his conviction. I guess I prefer to go by what's known to arrive at conclusions instead of making stuff up.

Re:Hmmm

[greg_barton]

It's not like the government are typically fans of scientologists either...

Are you sure about that?

Re:Hmmm

[AndroidCat]

Just because the victims are scientologists doesn't mean this guy didn't do some ugly crap that we don't know about.

Usually those people are called innocent until proven guilty, yeah, but let's shoot everyone in case they did something that we don't know about!

Re:Hmmm

[theonetruekeebler]

I am not in the habit of posting anonymously, but I am afraid of them. ...aaaaaaand I don't know the difference between the "No Karma Bonus" checkbox and the "Post Anonymously". Hail Xenu!

Re:Hmmm

[btempleton]

Keith Henson has been involved in a long battle with the Scientologists which got very emotional and at times he has done irrational things, but nothing approaching becoming a physical danger to scientologists to my knowledge. Keith didn't have much knowledge of Scientology before he took up this charge, he mostly got into it when he saw them attempting to silence other critics, particularly on the net. THe more he learned the deeper he got.

What he alleges are serious charges. Effectively that Scientology is not a religion, but more a confidence trick (or even organized criminal enterprise) masquerading as a religion. He further alleges they have significant untoward influence over goverment officials and courts in their strongholds, such as Clearwater and Riverside. He says he has been threatened that once he is in jail there they will arrange his death.

These are very serious charges. Since it is fairly easy to imagine a confidence trick masquerading as a religion, a court should consider arguments for this allegation in any case allocating religious rights to the alleged religion. Since corruption of officials does take place, accusations of such corruption should be considered with care, with appeal to external jurisdictions not likely to be subject to such corruption. I'm not saying that anybody should be able to willy nilly complain of religion or con-games, but if there is any credible evidence, it should be presented and considered.

Nobody flees their country and leaves their family behind over a short jail term from a misdemeanor conviction. Keith believes the threat to be real, and deserves the chance to present his evidence to an unbiased jury.

what a strange character

[oohshiny]

Granted, the scientologists are deeply confused and potentially dangerous. And, yes, I think people should be able to criticize them harshly, just one like should be able to criticize any other religion harshly.

But cryonics, extropianism, Drexler-style nanotechnology? This guy is pretty high on the nut-o-meter as well. It's not quite the same level as thetans, but not far off either.

Re:what a strange character

[Moses2k]

A distinction can be made between protoscience and pseudoscience. Cryonics: http://www.alcor.org/AboutCryonics/index.html
Extropianism: http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html
MNT: http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm

Make up your own minds.

Re:what a strange character

[oohshiny]

A distinction can be made between protoscience and pseudoscience

You can make those distinctions all you want, but what matters is what they have in common: neither of them is a science, both of them are trying to pretend they are, and both of them are used to pull money out of the pockets of gullible people.

There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[robably]

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

Name one religion that isn't made up.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[Buddy_DoQ]

By that logic, there might as well be no freedom religion at all. It's all "made up" by man at some point or another.

You don't have to like them, even the obviously wacky ones (I've been touched by his noodle appendage!) but you should respect their rights to exist.

Should we be a bit more aggressive in limiting their manipulation of the law? Sure, but that goes for any unjust manipulation of the law by any party.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[dpbsmith]

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.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[drxenos]

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

Um, wouldn't that be all religions?

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[aardvarkjoe]

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

Yes, it should. Who gets to decide what is a real religion and what isn't? What happens when a large enough group declares that Islam is made up? Or how about Mormonism?

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

The government should investigate and put a stop to criminal behavior whether or not the people are members of a "legitimate religion" or not.

Despite the prevailing slashdot point of view that rights should only apply to "our kind of people," they're wrong. People should be free to follow any set of religious beliefs and practices that do not violate the law.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[robably]

You don't have to like them ... but you should respect their rights to exist.

Why? If something is as obviously wrong and causes as much damage as religion then why respect it? If anything the opposite is true and it's time that rational, scientifically-minded people spoke out against this nonsense.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[Animats]

"religions that are clearly made up. ..." the same cannot be said of any other religion from Christianity to Taoism to neo-paganism."

Most, if not all, religions are "made up". In some cases, we know when and by whom. Christian Science was made up by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866. Mormonism was made up by Joseph Smith in 1830. Islam was made up by Mohammed around 610. Christianity was more of a group project; most modern doctrine comes from a committee meeting in 325. In 431, there was a another meeting for a feature upgrade, and the Virgin Mary was added.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[edflyerssn007]

As far as the Romans were concerned, there was no difference between the regular Jews and the followers of Jesus, who were all Jewish. Christianity was also orginally recognized as a sect of Judaism, it wasn't until sometime after the fact that Christians actually started being refered to as Christians.

-Ed

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[robably]

It isn't necessary to know the origins of a religion to know that it's made up, just look at it now. You don't know the exact origins of Scientology and you can't prove that it's false, yet you were quick enough to call it made up.

All religions were new once and it's illogical to give more credence to some simply because they've been around longer.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[91degrees]

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

Yes it should! Simple because it's not possible to make any disitinction between a real religion and a made up one.

What it should not do is permit religions priviledges. I should be as free to interfere with the running of a religious institution as I am to interfere with the running of Starbucks (Which I can do to an extent, but quite rightly only within certain limits).

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.

True. But the US constitution doesn't allow the US to determine what is and isn't a religion on a case by case basis. The German constitution clearly isn't so specific.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[Buddy_DoQ]

Why?

Ever hear of "live and let be!" Ever hear of "freedom?" I'd rather cause damage and be obviously wrong than not be free to express my self through religion.

Personally, I don't care much for organized religion either, but I must respect their right to gather, or risk loosing that right for my self. That's the price of freedom. I can go off and be agnostic, while others can go pay tribute to Odin. Live and let be.

Now, if Scientologist were going around killing people or resorting to any number of illegal activities for whatever ends, then yes those responsible ought to be prosecuted. Dissolve the entire religion? I don't think that's very progressive (or in my case, American) at all. However, in this case here, I must question the constitutionality of the methods employed by the church.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[DamnStupidElf]

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.

Okay, present evidence that any supernatural event occurred as the impetus for one of the religions you listed. If you can't, you must assume that at some point it all originated in peoples' minds, which is pretty much the definition of "made up", isn't it? The legal system has no way of handling supernatural evidence, so therefore it must consider all religions "made up", and in fact it does. It respects the rights of people to hold a belief in a religion, and for ministers of religion to have certain rights like attorneys and spouses, but it certainly does not recognize any belief as being legally true based on religious claims. Granting more rights to "established" religions would actually be a violation of the 1st amendment's prohibition of laws respecting religion. Even ruling that a given religion is or is not "made up" would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[drgonzo59]

Oh, even better anyone should be able to create their own religions as they please. We can have the /. Church of the Almighty Comander Taco, then we can all be ministers, somehow copyright our forum discussions and find a way not to pay taxes. We'll also sue or hack anyone who makes fun of us...

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[askegg]

http://www.venganza.org/

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[Darlantan]

Um, what?

Yes, we know the exact origins of Scientology. Do a little research. We know that it is made up. The guy that made it up admitted to it more than once. If scientology is a religion, then all people calling themselves Jedi should be subject to the same tax breaks and religious coverage. They're about equally valid.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[coyotl]

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

Um, wouldn't that be all religions? Not the Church of Reality.

coyote

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[mibus]

Could one not argue similarly about Wicca? Only really became known as a religion in the 50s, secrets are passed between members (Book of Shadows etc).

I wouldn't want to clump it with Scientology!

I don't get it?

[BigBuckHunter]

While not outright illegal, everyone here would give me the eyeball if I went out picketing a Jewish mosque. But if I picket Scientology, everyone cheers me on?

That said, unless someone actually breaks a law or does harm, they shouldn't be arrested for "interfering with a religion" unless they actually "interfere". Picketing in a parking lot is about as much interference as a Jovi putting a watchtower under my wiper blade at a red light.
I guess the point is, don't side with this guy just cause he went after Scientology (I am definately not a Scientology defender), side with this pseudo/racist whacko because the US government overstepped in his persecution.

BBH

Re:I don't get it?

[jrumney]

While not outright illegal, everyone here would give me the eyeball if I went out picketing a Jewish mosque.

If you can find yourself a Jewish mosque to picket, then I say go for it. You'd probably get a lot of support from Jews and mosques around the world (not to mention the evangelical Christians) for picketing such an abomination.

Re:I don't get it?

[Anonymous Coward]

> While not outright illegal, everyone here would give me the eyeball if I went out
> picketing a Jewish mosque. But if I picket Scientology, everyone cheers me on?

Where did you find the Jewish mosque in question? Right next to that Muslim synagogue maybe?

Re:I don't get it?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that so-called "mosque" was allegedly responsible for the deaths of several of their members, then yes, I would say you were justified in picketing.

He was picketing because of the death of Lisa McPherson. But you know that and now so do those who choose to read the links.

Re:I don't get it?

[BigBuckHunter]

if you can find yourself a Jewish mosque to picket,
Ya know, I was actually thinking Muslim mosque and Jewish synagogue, and was going to type both, but was rudely interrupted by a smoking piece of glassware being passed to me from my right.

Make of that what you will,
BBH

The Joy or calling something a religion....

[RationalRoot]

What constitutes interfering with a church.

Did he set fire to it? Did damage the building ?

The churches deserve no special protection in law. If they are right, then they have the protection of God. They need no more. If they are wrong then they deserve no special treatment.

Why is belief in something without, or often in spite of any or all evidence, a virtue.

D

Re:The Joy or calling something a religion....

[raju1kabir]

Why is belief in something without, or often in spite of any or all evidence, a virtue.

Those with the power and the voice to set the agenda have a vested interest in promoting the notion that this is a virtue. That's because their power often directly depends on having masses of people believe things that are patently untrue.

Arrest this man!

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know that interfering with a religion was a crime. Could any lawyers provide some details about this law and what constitutes breaking it?

It's covered under amendment DCLXVI of the Constitution: The Right To Never Think, which says in part:

Endeavoring to apply rational thought or common sense or questioning any aspect of religion in any way shall be deemed a crime against religion;

Better advice, better judgement

[cprael]

Having dealt with Mr. Hanson in the past few years, he has my earnest hope that he gets better advice this time 'round, and LISTENS to it. No small part of this tragedy comes from Keith's own choices.

Re:Better advice, better judgement

[Misch]

Wouldn't somebody who has dealt with him at least spell his name right?

Re:Better advice, better judgement

[cprael]

Not before my morning coffee.

Have $$$ will enforce

[Chas]

Seriously, with the bank Scamantology pulls in, they can afford to push to have stupid crap like this enforced.

Hail Xenu!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing [sic] our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!

-- Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of SouthPark)

Seriously...

[WED Fan]

With out knowing the exact details of the case but doesn't this sound like an April Fools joke?

"interfering" with a religion

Is this still America?

With apologies to our benighted brethern in other countries who have yet to see the light of American democracy. We have this message for you: We know where you live, and we will get to you in short order. Please consult Who's Next For a Democratic Make Over to find out when we will get to you.

correct

[circletimessquare]

if by tolerant of just people who think like me you mean people who are tolerant like me

New slashdot poll

[LordEd]

Biggest bully?:

1. Scientology
2. US Government
3. RIAA/MPAA
4. Microsoft
5. Jack Thompson
6. Cowboyneal

Re:New slashdot poll

[Damastus the WizLiz]

Jack Thompson is going to represent CowboyNeal who is a member of Scientology working for Microsoft colaborating with the MPAA/RIAA on a secret US Government project.

arww, they are nice guys.

[Bender Unit 22]

Step right in for a free personality test. :-r

Re:hm

[LurkerXXX]

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?

Because it's "hate speech"

[Chas]

Basically if you say anything in any way that could, through use of drugs, idiocy, or sheer desire just to feel put upon, be construed (or misconstrued) as a critical you're using "hate speech".

At that point, if the "offended" party has enough money, they get you hunted down by law enforcement and sue your family into debt-slavery for the next trillion generations.

Stupid shit like this gets me so angry I want to start killing people...

Re:Because it's "hate speech"

[DerGeist]

Stupid shit like this gets me so angry I want to start killing people...

Don't post that on your Myspace, you'll end up arrested.

You can't just spout off your opinions or feelings like you've got freedom of speech, you know.

Correction

[XanC]

I agree with some of what you said and disagree with the rest, but I would like to point out that the Constitution does not give us any freedoms. The Constitution prevents the federal government from interfering with freedoms that God gives us.

Re:Here is my hope... (fundamentalist Nazi)

[deep_creek]

no Rapture for you!

Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery

[HTH NE1]

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?

Re:Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery

[AndyG314]

Sure but only if you already have boat loads of money.

Re:Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery

[hotdiggitydawg]

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery

[Midnight Thunder]

I would suggest writing a book first, and then convincing your new followers that its the holy book.

Re:Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery

[Midnight Thunder]

It could even be an e-book released under Creative Commons license.

If you want to imitate the church of Scientology, then I think that is a little to liberal :D

Re:Mormons Rejoice

[WED Fan]

Sorry, must have hit a nerve. Probably someone in the sainted city of Provo.

Disclaimer: I am a former (read: RM) Mormon Missionary myself. So, don't get your panties in a bunch.

Re:Yeah they're oppressed too

[Skadet]

Like the 95% evangelical community I live among here in the Bible belt. Go ask those people, just like the rich powerful Scientologists, they whine that they're oppressed. Screw them.

I don't get it... screw them because they're oppressed?

Wikipedia on Keith Henson

[modemac]

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

Re:Wikipedia on Keith Henson

[AndroidCat]

I think that they're more than a whisker over the libel line in places.

The main reason that the site owners haven't been sued is (a) it's such a good example of CoS's Fair Game policy, (b) it's unclear who would step up to the bat as the owners of the site. Either a sock-puppet proxy with few assets (Joel Phillips and the "Scientology Parishioners Committee) or the full legal Brute Squad of Scientology who would drag the case out for twenty years and as much legal cost and sub-legal harrassment as possible.

What, no linkage to Operation Clambake? :)

[bad_fx]

Here's all the info you need on Scientology

Look at his picture

[zymano]

Looks like a stupid deranged killer & terrorist.

I am so glad we bankrupted him and forced him to move to another country.

America - home of the free.

In Soviet California....

[sconeu]

Xenu imprisons YOU!

Being religious is like being gay

[NotQuiteReal]

Being religious is like being gay - both have a genetic component.

Some people have both genes, but I'll Cruise away from further speculation on that subject.

definition of agnostic, atheist?

[OrangeTide]

Well there are two acceptable definitions of atheist. A person who [actively] denies the existance of god or gods. and a person who lives without a religion.

an agnostic realizes and accepts their own ignorance in relation to knowledge of a higher power, which is different than actually being ignorant (like a newborn child).

a child is without belief in anything. and the words agnostic and atheist, depending on whose definition you follow, does not fit.

Re:definition of agnostic, atheist?

[OrangeTide]

yes. I've heard these descriptions before. They are not based on the most widely accepted definitions. the last bit is actually a definition created by an author in the 20th century, and is quite controversial. I'll leave it up to you to guess what author you are paraphrasing.

Re:OT Child and Religion

[mpapet]

No child wonders about a god or gods.

Maybe not every child, but mine certainly does. I have found kids want a way to explain the world as much as adults and a God can be useful in that way.

In our experience, the services we've tried don't really work for a child. They all tend to have a very promotional engine that includes some dogma that kids can't connect with.

US religion fanatic as some Muslim country ?

[Atreide]

Your life can be in danger too in some fanatic Muslim countries if you talk bad about religion.

I did not read nor do I know anything about that news, but if someone is put to jail because he criticized a religion, then that is really frightening about that country's freedom.

I cannot believe that is the sole reason. Remember news can be spined both ways.

Re:hm

[hotdiggitydawg]

Years? I'd start with weeks, and then eventually move to months, before even contemplating years. Otherwise you'll lose count...

Re:hm

[AndroidCat]

Scientology didn't even do their standard Fair Game defamation page on Stan, I'm shocked!

Re:Interfering with a religion, eh?

[Nasarius]

And what about those fuckers who think islam is a religion of hatred and violence and kill and/or wrongfully imprison hundreds?

The number of said fuckers is shockingly high. From two separate polls: 33% think "mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims", 34% think Muslims living in the U.S. are "sympathetic to the al-Qaeda terrorist organization." And you wonder why Bush's approval rating never drops below 35% for very long.

Re:OT Child and Religion

[Apocalypse111]

I have found kids want a way to explain the world as much as adults and a God can be useful in that way.

Hey, did you hear about this new way of trying to explain and understand the world around you? Its based on collecting evidence, observation, and drawing conclusions... really far out there, I know, but its kind of appealing. I think its called... sclience? Silence? Something like that.

Thank you!

[lahvak]

I was just going to ask what's the difference between a cult and a religion. This is a very good explanation, IMHO.

Re:Thank you!

[The Master Control P]

I prefer:

Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Religion: A large, popular cult.

It's only a matter of time...

[naChoZ]

"interfering" with a religion

So now it's just a matter of time before creationists start having archeologists arrested for digging up dinosaurs and interfering with their religion...

the courts sure do

[Anonymous Coward]

when an abortion protester follows the clinic doctors home, the best the doctors ever get is an order requiring the protester to keep X feet away from them.

They sure don't sentence such protesters to jail.

Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[spun]

You do not know or understand the history of Christianity. There were a series of meetings, known as the Ecumenical Councils, that defined what Christianity is, what it believs and professes, and what it considers heretical. The important ones occuring between 325AD and 1123AD and resolved such questions as whether Jesus was entirely Divine, entirely human, human and divine parts seperated, or human and divine parts united.

Allmost all Western Christian denominations, as well as Eastern Orthodox accept the decisions of councils 1-7. Catholics, protestants, all of them. That is the Christian party line. Oriental Orthodox churches only accept 1-3; Assyrian Christianity accepts 1-2; Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians and a few other fringe groups don't accept any of the council's decisions.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[mdarksbane]

This is exactly the sort of argument that has been going on in the church since it began. If christians can't even agree on what "Christian" is, please excuse the rest of us for going with what most of them have written down as defining it.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[galaxyboy]

It really depends on your definition of Christianity. I agree that the majority of Christians (and under your definition, all Christians) would define it that way. But coming from somebody who professes to be a Mormon, the idea that Mormons are not Christian is preposterous. I think one of the leaders of the Mormon church said it best when he said that we are "not 4th century Christians". It is fairly obvious from reading the Bible that the term Christian (obviously not the English word) was used long before 325 AD. Why can't we all just get along...we have a lot more in common than not.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

That's exactly my point. I don't care what you think Christianity is. I simply invite you to consider that it's not the monolithic entity you presuppose.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[spun]

It's not completely monolithic by any means, but the Ecumenical Councils define what the christian party line is. You can argue semantics all you want, and claim that Christ defined christianity, but as the Councils defined what Christ is, most people would point to them and say, "Yup, that's the party line."

Do you accept that Christ is divine and human at once, that he died for your sins and was reborn? Than you are following the christian party line. You can jump through whatever linguistic hoops you like, redefine what "is" is, and claim there is no party line, but I just call that ignorance.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[drinkypoo]

That's exactly my point. I don't care what you think Christianity is. I simply invite you to consider that it's not the monolithic entity you presuppose.

I invite you (and everyone) to specify the flavor of christianity they are talking about if they do not want it to be considered as a whole. If you say christianity, or christian, you are lumping them together. As such, my response (and the various other supporting comments) are not only valid but as accurate as possible under the circumstances.

Christians are always talking about the "christian thing to do". I've never heard anyone say it was the "lutheran thing to do" or the "catholic thing to do" etc. Christians want to be lumped together like they all believe the same thing, "it's the biggest religion in the world" blah blah blah. But then you lump them together, they get offended.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

I don't talk about the Christian thing to do. I don't really have a flavor of Christianity. I think that Christ said some things that I find meaningful in my life, and I think he's a very good role model.

"Christians want to be lumped together like they all believe the same thing,"

I am a Christian, and I do not want that.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[sokoban]

You do not know or understand the history of Christianity. Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. You don't know the history of Christianity, I do.

You're being glib.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

I think the party line is irrelevant. I think that individuals' own faith and experience is way more important than what some Diet (or Pope or preacher or revival minister) says.

It's not a matter of splitting hairs. It's deciding what is important. My understanding of Christ is the only one that's important to me.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[drinkypoo]

I don't talk about the Christian thing to do. I don't really have a flavor of Christianity. I think that Christ said some things that I find meaningful in my life, and I think he's a very good role model.

Maybe you should call yourself a Jeshuaist or something. After all, Christ is a title assigned to him by some people who want you to think a certain way.

"Christians want to be lumped together like they all believe the same thing,"

I am a Christian, and I do not want that.

But one simply must speak in generalities at times because there are as many opinions as there are people and you literally can not account for them all. This is the problem with applying a label to yourself, and that's your doing, not mine.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[norton_I]

Most non-Mormon Christians, as well (I believe) as most religious scholars consider Mormonism non-Christian in the same way that Christians are non-Jewish, or Muslims are not Christian.

Related, yes. Sharing history and principles, yes. However, the differences between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity in culture, history, and doctrine are rather large, even compared to the difference between most Protestant denominations and the Catholic churches.

It is not like it is a bad thing -- it is just a category to make useful notational distinctions. Any time you classify items you run into problems between people who want to lump anything with common elements together or split by the smallest difference. See Lumpers and Splitters. It doesn't affect what you believe or what your life means. A rose by any other name and all that.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

"Maybe you should call yourself a Jeshuaist or something"

Why?

"But one simply must speak in generalities at times"

Sure. But doing as you are doing, and assuming that generalities apply to every single individual, is sloppy thinking.

"This is the problem with applying a label to yourself, and that's your doing, not mine."

You're the one that seems to be so attached to presupposing the meaning of labels. That's definitely your doing, not mine.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[SimHacker]

Sokoban, Sokoban, Sokoban, Sokoban, Sokoban. You don't know the history of the universe, I do. Because I believe in Science, not Mythology.

If your "history" of Christianity says that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, then you are dead wrong.

If your "history" of Christianity says that God wrote a book that you should take literally, which says we should stone women who aren't faithful to their husbands, who own them like property, then you are dead wrong.

In what way is believing a bunch of lies "knowing history"?

I've read a lot of Philip K Dick books, and I know their plots, but I don't fool myself that they're history books. They're just as fictitious as your bible and the self serving "history" of Christianity that you believe.

Anyone who watched the Southpark eposodes about Scientology or Mormonism knows the lies those religious teach to their believers, but they certainly don't know any HISTORY of the actual universe that we all live in.

-Don

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[galaxyboy]

Most non-Mormon Christians, as well (I believe) as most religious scholars consider Mormonism non-Christian in the same way that Christians are non-Jewish, or Muslims are not Christian.

I think they trouble most Mormons have with this statement is that the root of the word Christian is Christ and since Christ is central to the Mormon religion, it bothers Mormons that they are not considered Christian by the Christian world at large (much more than it would bother a Christian to not be considered a Jew or a Muslim to not be considered a Christian).

It is not like it is a bad thing -- it is just a category to make useful notational distinctions. Any time you classify items you run into problems between people who want to lump anything with common elements together or split by the smallest difference. See Lumpers and Splitters. It doesn't affect what you believe or what your life means. A rose by any other name and all that.

I agree it isn't a bad thing to have distinctions for classification purposes and such and I agree that Mormon doctrine has many differences from conventional Christianity. But when Paul refers to Christians in the New Testament, I feel like he is talking to Mormons just as much as any other person who professes to be a Christian. I suppose it is the monopolization of that particular term that I don't like.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[spun]

A little. But anyone who claims there is no Christian party line is either sadly uneducated or being disengenuous. Do you disagree?

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[SimHacker]

I simply invite you to consider that self-contradictory, logically invalid, and scientifically disproven lies of Christianity are not true as you presuppose.

-Don

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[SimHacker]

OK, since there seems to be some confusion about what you believe, and you seem to want to share those beliefs with everyone else in accordance with your religious faith, please answer the following about your beliefs:

Do you take the bible literally?

Are gays sinners?

Should women be subservient to men?

Do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in "intelligent design" or "creationism"?

How old is the Earth?

Did God commit adultery with Mary? Is Jesus a bastard? Why shouldn't Mary have been stoned to death for adultery? Who did God confess his sins to? Why is God such a hipocrite?

Why isn't there a commandment about keeping your nose out of other people's business?

-Don

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

"self-contradictory, logically invalid, and scientifically disproven lies of Christianity"

Wow.

If you'd care to specify what you're talking about, we might be able to have a productive discussion. If you don't, we won't.

Hint: I think Genesis is a myth, not history. I think that the historicity of Jesus is not relevant to the message.

But, if it makes you feel better to assume that you're smarter than I am, you are welcome to do so.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

No
Everybody sins, gays are not more or less predisposed to sin than anybody else
No
Yes
No
Very old...on the order of a couple billion years
No, no, because first one must remove the mote from one's own eye before taking the plank from their neighbor's (and the one who is without sin should cast the first stone), I don't know, I don't know what you're talking about.
I don't know.

Better?

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[ranton]

No. Christ defined what Christianity is. These councils and conclaves and Diets of Worms defined the power structure that they wished to leverage based on religious orthodoxy.

But these councils are the ones who defined our knowledge of Jesus. They decided what books to include in the Bible, and which ones didnt fit their view of who Jesus was. There are no historical accounts of Jesus's life (there are some questionable sources) other than in the Bible that these councils have provided. Your view of Christ is their view of Christ, unless you are just making things up on your own.

There were other views of Christ that survived until the sixth century, such as Gnosticism and Marcionism, but they would be considered heretical by today's standards simply because they did not agree with the council of Nicea.

Belief in Jesus Christ as a figure of religous importance cannot be seperated from the early Catholic Church because they are the ones who defined what being a Christian is. Other denominations have revised their views on some of the Catholic dogma, but the essential teachings of Jesus are the same. There are no other sources (except for old Gnostic texts and possibly the Book of Mormon) to use towards finding another interpretations of Christ's teachings.

--

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[SimHacker]

So do believe all the supernatural stories about divine intervention, immaculate conception, raising the dead, ascending to heaven, etc, or do you just think Jesus was a nice but regular guy, who some other people wrote some exagerated stories about?

Do you really believe in the scientific explanation of cause and effect, and that the universe is enormous and has been around a long long time?

Or do you actually believe that God just happened to interfere with reality at the infintesimally small point in the universe our planet occupies, during the infentesimally short duration of our civilisation exists?

What's so special about our planet, that God should choose to interfere with it? Why did he send his "only son" to our planet, instead of all the others? Is there no other life in the universe, or is Jesus like Santa Clause, zipping around faster than light speed from planet to planet every christmas on his birth and the second coming?

If you'll admit that maybe the Pope was wrong when he refused to admit the Earth orbits around the Sun and instead put Galileo under house arrest, then what makes you think they finally figured it out and are telling the truth now? Was it the Catholic Church's Child Molestation Scandal that finally made the Pope decide to start telling the truth?

-Don

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[sokoban]

Oh, you thought I was being serious?

I was taking a shot at Scientology, and Tom Cruise. It's from this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQCR02Unqhg

Mr. dyslexic High School dropout Tom Cruise keeps on saying "Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt." and says that "You don't know the history of psychiatry, I do." and accuses Matt Lauer of being "glib".

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

"So do believe all the supernatural stories about divine intervention, immaculate conception, raising the dead, ascending to heaven, etc, or do you just think Jesus was a nice but regular guy, who some other people wrote some exagerated stories about?"

I think that what Jesus said was far more interesting than what Jesus was.

"What's so special about our planet, that God should choose to interfere with it?"

I don't know. I think it's special because I'm on it, and a lot of people I like are on it.

"Why did he send his "only son" to our planet, instead of all the others?"

There are a lot of things I don't know about that question. I don't know if Earth is unique. I have complicated thoughts about Jesus' divinity. I don't know that God doesn't care about other hypothetical planets.

"Blah blah stuff about the pope"

The pope is a guy in a funny hat. He has NO significance whatsoever to my faith. You need to take your questions up with somebody who thinks he's the infallible semi-divine avatar of Jesus (or whatever).

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

My view of Christ is certainly incomplete.

"Your view of Christ is their view of Christ, "

Clearly not the case.

"but they would be considered heretical by today's standards"

You say heretical, I say highly interesting. I would very much enjoy having more time to study these materials.

"Belief in Jesus Christ as a figure of religous importance cannot be seperated from the early Catholic Church because they are the ones who defined what being a Christian is."

I deny anybody the authority to tell me what is, or is not, a Christian. Not you, not the Diet of Worms, not the Pope, not St. Peter. I am responsible for my own faith. It's between me and my God. Everybody else can butt out, unless they happen to be interested in my understanding of God. In which case, I'll be glad to share what I've got.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[drinkypoo]

Why isn't there a commandment about keeping your nose out of other people's business?

Because it's covered by the golden rule, which most Christians totally miss the point of, and wouldn't care if they did get the point in the first place.

It's not just treating others as you would want to be treated. It's proactive. Do unto others. But part of that is leaving them the hell alone just as you would want them to. It's about respecting their faiths, as you would have them do for you.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[ranton]

I deny anybody the authority to tell me what is, or is not, a Christian.

You seam to be simply changing the definitions of words just to suit your own viewpoints. That comment is no different than my saying:

I deny anybody the authority to tell me what is, or is not, a Honda Civic. I dont care if you call it a Ford Mustang. Not you, not Ford, not Honda, not Car and Driver Magazine. I am responsible for my own beliefs. It's between me and my car. Everybody else can butt out, unless they happen to be interested in my understanding of my car. In which case, I'll be glad to share what I've got.

If you went to a car mechanic and demanded that you get a Mustang intake manifold they would hardly take you seriously. The early Christians defined what it is to be Christian, just as Honda defined what is a Civic. If everyone just went around calling trees -> rocks and telephones -> staplers, then how could you possibly have a meaningful conversation with anyone?

If you are just making up your own faith based on what you hope God is like, that is even less worthy of respect than fundamentalists. At least they can blame it on being brainwashed.

--

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[SimHacker]

If you're getting offended that people lump you together with Ted Haggard and the Pope, then maybe you shouldn't be calling yourself a "Christian".

The term "Christiantity" is very well defined and widely understood, just like the words "Scientologist" and "Nazi". So what if you decided on your own personal reinterpretation of the Nazi ideology, that left out all the stuff about hating jews, taking over the world, eugenics, heiling hitler, etc. So what if you call yourself a "Good Nazi" because you don't believe in its bad parts? Then you should certainly expect for people to lump you in with the "Bad Nazi" and not make a special distinction for you as a "Good Nazi". You can't label yourself with the word "Nazi" and then get all huffy when people don't give you the benefit of the doubt. You need a new term to label yourself!

Maybe Tom Cruz is a "Good Scientologist" who doesn't believe in all the stuff about the xemu and body thetans and space aliens flying over in the dc-10s and living in the volcanos, etc. But that's the Scientology Party Line (even though you have to pay lots of money before they're tell it to you). So if you label yourself as a Scientologists, then people are going to naturally assume that you're a brainwashed member of a mind control cult.

So here's another question: Do you support gay marriage? If not, then justify. If so, then why do you label yourself with the same name and associate yourself with people who overwhelmingly don't?

-Don

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[dch24]

You seam to be simply changing the definitions of words just to suit your own viewpoints. That comment is no different than my saying:

I deny anybody the authority to tell me what is, or is not, a Honda Civic. I dont care if you call it a Ford Mustang. Not you, not Ford, not Honda, not Car and Driver Magazine. I am responsible for my own beliefs. It's between me and my car. Everybody else can butt out, unless they happen to be interested in my understanding of my car. In which case, I'll be glad to share what I've got.

Comparing religion with cars, eh? That's actually something I've never seen before, but then maybe I just haven't seen enough of these debates. What's wrong with the guy having his own personal religion? And why can't he apply the label "Christian"? I mean, that's a pretty broad label, so leave him be, I say.

If I went to a car mechanic and demanded a Mustang intake manifold, they might think I was crazy, but if I insisted long enough, they would order the part and hand it to me and say, "Here. You fix your Civic."

So why don't you just hand him links to the texts you are quoting (Gnosticism, etc.) and say, "Here. You be a Christian."

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[SimHacker]

If most of Christianity totally misses the point, then why do you apply their label to yourself, then get all huffy when people assume you believe in the same ridiculous superstitious myths as the Christan Party Line dictates? The true believers certainly don't think you're a Christian, if you don't believe their party line.

We are all individuals! (But I'm not.)

-Don

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[drinkypoo]

If most of Christianity totally misses the point, then why do you apply their label to yourself

I most certainly do NOT label myself as a Christian. I'm just this guy who likes some of the things that some guy who may or may not have existed named Jeshua allegedly said. And if you can find where I call myself a Christian, I'll give you a dollar.

The true believers certainly don't think you're a Christian, if you don't believe their party line.

That is very much my point.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

Well, golly, thanks for bringing in a car analogy. I'm sure that that will make things way clearer.

I don't require anybody's approval or support to have a relationship with God. Period.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

"If you're getting offended that people lump you together with Ted Haggard and the Pope, then maybe you shouldn't be calling yourself a "Christian"."

I'm not offended. I'm simply pointing out that that label is a pretty incomplete description of ANYBODY'S religious beliefs, never mind my own.

I have absolutely nothing to do with Ted Haggard of the Pope. I don't happen to think that either of these people are particularly good people. I don't, however, care to insert myself into their relationship with God. That's their business.

I follow the teachings of Christ, therefore I am a Christian. That's the only label that makes sense to me.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[ranton]

What's wrong with the guy having his own personal religion? And why can't he apply the label "Christian"? I mean, that's a pretty broad label, so leave him be, I say.

He can have whatever beliefs he wants, I was responding to this comment (with my original post) that he made earlier:

No. Christ defined what Christianity is.

He can have whatever relgious beliefs that he wants, but to have a meaningful conversation then you have to use your words correctly. If I mistake France and Italy in a discussion about ancient Rome, and start to talk about the glorious civilization of Gual that conquered most of the known world, I am just confusing the situation. Changing the definition of well accepted words is generally not acceptable.

Take the word "faggot". It has had many definitions throughout history, from a bundle of sticks to men hired into military service just to fill out the ranks to a manufactured vote for party purposes. But if you go to a homosexual march/rally and say "Lets burn some faggots", it doesnt matter if you actually mean a bundle of sticks. It is the wrong word in today's society, irregardless of if it was the correct word hundreds of years ago.

Christian is the wrong word if you do not agree with the Council of Nicea's version of Christ. You can call yourself a Gnostic, a Marcionist, or even a Diest. But Christian is the wrong word. It is impossible to study comparative religion if you cannot agree to adhere to the accepted vocabulary.

so leave him be, I say.

I would have left him be, but he was telling someone else that they were wrong. Once you try to criticize or correct others you lose all rights to being left alone.

I never really even had much of a problem with him calling himself a Christian in the first place. It was the fact that he claimed Jesus Christ defined what Christianity is. We have no writings that can reasonably be believed to be the exact words of Jesus Christ. It is arguable that we have no texts that were written by anyone who had ever met Jesus. Our knowledge of the man comes from stories and allegories, most of which are found in the New Testament. That is where our knowledge of Jesus comes from. And that is what defines Christianity.

--

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[SimHacker]

I'm sorry, I had you confused with the other guy in this thread who labels himself a Christian. You have a reasonable position that I respect. I agree that Jesus had a lot of good stuff to say, but I believe he was just a regular human being, and I don't buy into all the supernatural magic mumbo-jumbo.

-Don

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[ranton]

I don't require anybody's approval or support to have a relationship with God. Period.

I dont care if you have a relationship with your dog Spot. My only point was that you were correcting someone else with a false argument. You started the argument.

You said that "Christ defined what Christianity is." Based on your later arguments, you should have just said "I define what Christianity is for me" That is a valid argument. You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care, as you would just as much common sense as any Christians.

But you were trying to say that someone was wrong, and implied that you were correct. I dont care if you want to think the world is flat, but if you try to argue your point then dont expect for people to agree with you.

As I said in another post, we have no writings that can reasonably be believed to be the exact words of Jesus Christ. It is arguable that we have no texts that were written by anyone who had ever met Jesus. Our knowledge of the man comes from stories and allegories, most of which are found in the New Testament. That is where our knowledge of Jesus comes from. And that is what defines Christianity.

You can create your own definitions for words if you like, but dont expect other people to agree with them.

--

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

"You said that "Christ defined what Christianity is." Based on your later arguments, you should have just said "I define what Christianity is for me" "

Well put. I didn't frame my argument well. I subscribe to Christ's teachings. I interpret what I read in my own context, and it's not up to anybody else to tell me that it's OK for me to believe the way I do. I may or may not agree with any other person on any other issue, and that's fine.

"It is arguable that we have no texts that were written by anyone who had ever met Jesus."

Yep. And if one were to base one's faith on an orthodox view of a historical Jesus, one might have a problem there. If one doesn't, one doesn't.

"You can create your own definitions for words if you like, but dont expect other people to agree with them."

That's not what I'm after. What I'm saying is, there are LOTS of different stripes of Christians, and a lot of them think that the reactionary evangelical white-house-visiting jesus camp guys are not particularly good disciples of Christ. Treating Christianity like it's some sort of monolithic entity is meaningless. It's like talking about "black people" or "redheads" or "arabs" as if they're some sort of monolithic whole. It's sloppy thinking.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Creedo]

the idea that Mormons are not Christian is preposterous.
Because the theology is different. Mormonism redefines God and humanity in a way that is incompatible with orthodox Christianity. If Mormonism is Christian, so is Islam. Without arguing about which one is correct(if any), the fact remains that they are not the same.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[johnmig]

Good brief history lesson. Just one nit to pick, Unitarians (prior to their merger with the Universalists) did have real problems with the whole Council of Nicea thing, and therefore the whole concept of the Trinity. But they were definatly Christian. However, since the time of the merger of the two denominations, they have moved markedly to the left of the religous spectrum; and are no longer considered by either themselves or others to be 'Christian', what ever that means. So while they might be a 'fringe group' to some, they are certainly NOT a fringe CHRISTIAN group, nor are they in the same conservative mold as the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) or the Witnesses, or the Adventists etc. Perhaps Ghandi said it best when he said: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ."

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[galaxyboy]

Islam defines Christ as a prophet from what I understand. Mormonism (like orthodox Christianity) defines Him as the Saviour of mankind. There is a fundamental difference in belief. Without Christ, there is no Mormonism. Without Christ, Islam (arguably) would still exist. Yes there are differences and if you define Christianity as how the various councils defined it starting in the 4th century then they are certainly incompatible in some doctrines.

Since Christ is at the root of the word Christian and the fact that the term (or at least the idea in another language) predates Nicea, I would consider them Christian. The fundamental difference between mainstream Christianity and Mormonisn is the belief of what happened between the time of Christ and the councils. However, those differences aside (and they do create some fundamental doctrinal differences), it still goes back to Christ under both beliefs. So whether you say they are mainstream Christian or orthodox Christian or not, they are Christians.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[colinrichardday]

If Christ defined was Christianity is, then what room would there be for personal interpretation?

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

Guess that's between me and Christ, isn't it?

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[SimHacker]

Did you miss the question about gay marriage, or ignore it on purpose because you're afraid to define and defend your beliefs in public? Why do you self-identify with a group of people who overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, and actually think that making gay marriage illegal is an important social issue, worthy of a constitutional ammendment? Do you or do you not agree with them?

Have you confronted any of those gay-bashing people and tried to convinced them that they're wrong, with as much enthusiasm as you're trying to convince us that your own personal definition of "Christianity" is valid? Why don't you try to change the opinions and behaviors of people who are actually trying to hurt other people, instead of us?

-Don

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[SimHacker]

Talking about knowing how Christ defined Christianty, as if you knew, is extremely sloppy thinking.

You're interpreting something written by an interpreter (with his own political agenda) translating something written by a bunch of manipulative old bastards who never met Christ themselves. So who says your interpretation is correct? You have no idea how Christ really defined Christianity. It's an unknown. Your incredibly sloppy thinking is that you're making up your own personal interpretation of a bunch of lies, and expecting people to understand your unstated redefinition of a well known term, and give you the benefit of the doubt that you've thrown away all the stupid parts and retained only what's true. I call bullshit.

-Don

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[SimHacker]

Guess that's just your wishful, self-serving, flip-flopping, goal-post-moving, sloppy thinking.

-Don

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Creedo]

Mormons teach that God is simply an exalted man. Jesus was, likewise, a human whose purpose was to show how to become exalted and gain Godhood. This is a fundamental break with Christianity, pre-Nicea or not. The difference is no less than the nature and identity of God.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

I didn't miss the question, but you apparently ignored my answer. Not a problem...this thread has gotten pretty elaborate.

I think the State should have nothing to do with the definition of marriage. I think the State should be the intermediary in any contracts that one person might enter into with another person. I think that the benefits and responsibilities currently conferred by marriage should be accessible to all people. I think a "marriage" should be between you, your partner, and a figure of religious or secular authority with whom you agree.

I'm in favor of cutting the Gordian knot. I think that marriage is much more devalued by the posturing of elected windbags than it is by a gay couple who loves each other.

(On a personal note, two members of my wedding party were not straight, and I'm proud to be attending two gay marriages this year, and my wife and I seriously considered not getting married because we don't like the fact that it's not available to everyone. You are arguing with the wrong person on this topic.)

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Moofie]

"wishful"

I wish you'd lay off the ad hominem attacks.

"self-serving"

Well, who else would I be trying to serve? My faith is for me.

"flip-flopping"

Oh man. You're not serious, are you?

"goal-post-moving"

You're gonna have to walk me through that one.

"sloppy thinking"

If you say so, Clyde.

We're done here. I've got to assume that you're one of these new-fangled atheists who read that article in Wired a couple months ago, where Richard Dawkins told you that it's OK to be an asshole if you're an atheist. I do not agree with him, or with you.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[galaxyboy]

No, it is a fundamental break from post New Testament Christian doctrine. There is nothing that Mormons teach that is not in perfect harmony with the Old and New Testaments.

Minor correction. Mormon doctrine is that God is an exalted and perfected man. That is true. Jesus was both. He had a divine father and a human mother giving him characteristics of both (ie. he could die but he had power over death). Even Christ "increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man". He suffered temptations and pain. But he had a divine ability to overcome all of it.

As for our destiny, He commanded his disciples "be ye therefore perfect even as I and your Father in Heaven are perfect". Why would Christ tell them (or us) to be perfect if it was not possible for us to achieve perfection? He made it possible.

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong (I don't really want to argue) both doctrines claim Christ to be the chief cornerstone of faith so why can't they be classified under the same umbrella? I am happy to include your Christ in my umbrella (because when all is said and done, I think we are worshipping the same God).

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Doctor Faustus]

There were other views of Christ that survived until the sixth century, such as Gnosticism and Marcionism, but they would be considered heretical by today's standards simply because they did not agree with the council of Nicea.

I'm not really as familiar with it as I'd like to be, but I'm pretty sure there was another view of Christ that made it into Islam.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[SimHacker]

I wish you people who believe in supernatural magic would lay off attacking world trade centers and athiests and gays and the educational system and science.

I thought you served Jesus first, not yourself. No wonder you never got invited to the last supper. You would have eaten all the fish, and JC would have had to perform another miracle.

Sure, I'll walk you through the flip flopping and goal post moving: You made up your own unique definition of the word "Christianity", which flagrently disagrees with the official definition, and only under repeated questioning did you reveal little by little that your definition is totally different than the standard definition. That's moving the goal posts. You should use another word if you're going to redefine it whenever it seems convenient, or you should state up front that you're a Christian except that you 1) don't hate gays 2) don't believe the bible 3) don't believe in creationism, etc.

It's ironic and hillarious that you, a Christian, would accuse other people of sloppy thinking, when you think you know what Jesus Christ actually taught, yourself. That's extremely sloppy thinking. The bible was not written by God, and if you believe that, you're a sloppy thinker. But if you believe that the regular human beings who wrote it and translated it were actually telling the truth, didn't distort anything, and had no political agenda, then you're a sloppy thinker, and a gullible fool.

If you weren't such a sloppy thinker, then you should be able to think through all the fairy tales and convince yourself that they're bullshit. If Christ ascended to heaven after the resurrection, then where is heaven? How high up is it? Is it higher than the atmosphere extends? Why didn't he suffer from explosive decompression? Why hasn't the space shuttle run across any angels? Come on, it should be at least as easy for an grown adult to figure out the bible is bullshit, as a 12-year-old kid can figure out that Santa Clause couldn't possibly exist. Do the math!

-Don

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Creedo]

Mormon doctrine is that God is an exalted and perfected man. That is true.
Bingo. That breaks with all Judeo-Christian belief right there. Jewish belief is that God pre-existed everything else. There was no "before" for God, certainly no point where he was a human. Christians inherited that belief. Joseph Smith tossed it. With a completely different conception of who God(and therefore Christ) is, it is simply false to equate the two. Regardless of which side is correct, you do a disservice to both by playing semantic games.

both doctrines claim Christ to be the chief cornerstone of faith so why can't they be classified under the same umbrella?
Because the two conceptions of Christ/God are completely different. It's the same reason that Gnostics are not considered "mainstream" Christians. The names are the same, the substance is different.

I am happy to include your Christ in my umbrella
I'm agnostic, so I have no umbrella. Believe what you will, it doesn't matter to me. But at least be honest, and admit that you follow a different religion.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[galaxyboy]

My problem is the monopolistic use of the term Christianity. Your argument is based on the fact that modern day Christians and modern day Jews have a different belief in God. Mormon doctrine is that Christ was the God of the Old Testament, that He created the world, and therefore is the author of Judaism (which had fallen into apostasy by the time He lived) and Christianity (or true Judaism under the Christian belief). Mormons believe that modern Christianity has lost truth (including true nature of God). The belief is not that Joseph Smith "tossed" out a truth but that he restored a truth that was lost. So what authority do they have to decide who is or is not Christian? One can debate the validity Joseph Smith's claim but they have yet to be disproven and therefore, Mormons should be classified as Christians. If you want to make a distinction, which I agree you should, you can call them restorationists (as done by wikipedia). But you can't offer any legitimate academic argument to exclude them from the umbrella of Christianity. Modern mainstream Christians do that because their umbrella isn't wide enough to handle the fact that some truths might have been lost or misinterpreted shortly after the deaths of the apostles.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[Creedo]

Mormons believe that modern Christianity has lost truth (including true nature of God).
You can feel free to believe anything you like, true or false.

One can debate the validity Joseph Smith's claim but they have yet to be disproven and therefore, Mormons should be classified as Christians.
What? Smith wrote about numerous wars and cultures spanning North America. You don't find it odd that absolutely no authentic relics or structures have ever been found? Ever? Comparative DNA studies show that the Native Americans could not have migrated here in the time frame Smith claimed. There is ZERO evidence of Smith's claims. What else is there to disprove? Give me the name of any reputable non-LDS archeologist who supports any of those claims.

If you want to make a distinction, which I agree you should, you can call them restorationists (as done by wikipedia).
That would imply that there was something lost, which Smith restored. Give me evidence. Show me the writings of some ancient Hebrews talking about how God was a man, and that they'd get to become the God of their own world. If you can, you'll be the first in LDS history. Secondly, show me some proof from Christian sources. We have numerous extra-biblical writings from Christians, including some written concurrently with or before parts of the New Testament. Even the Gnostics don't show signs of this belief.

But you can't offer any legitimate academic argument to exclude them from the umbrella of Christianity.
No, the problem is that your religion has offered no academic argument to be included. If you can't back up your claims with research showing their validity, why would you expect anyone, Christian or otherwise, to accept them?

Modern mainstream Christians do that because their umbrella isn't wide enough to handle the fact that some truths might have been lost or misinterpreted shortly after the deaths of the apostles.
No, modern Christians simply do not redefine core beliefs to suit fringe groups who can offer nothing to back up their claims. And, as an agnostic, I don't choose to muddy the water any further by lumping separate religions under a single definition. And that's without digging into the odious teachings of the various LDS prophets. I could quote some of Brigham Young's more colorful teachings, if you like.

MOD PARENT UP

[despisethesun]

Instead of modding up the comments mocking the GP about his "Jewish mosque" comment, people with mod points should mod up the comment that points out how dangerous the "church" of scientology is.

The moral of the story is

[ClosedSource]

Don't mess with space aliens.

Re:The moral of the story is

[sokoban]

Don't mess with space aliens. Only mess with illegal aliens.

Re: "The land of the free" bullshit

[Paracelcus]

I guess you're from Europe and did'nt know any better.

The US of America has the best legal system money can buy!

And we have a constitutional right to freedom of speach, and our gummermint has a right to break in to our homes sieze our property
put us on a (very special) plane and send us to an undisclosed location where there is no constitution.

And never come home, ever.

Re:Yeah they're oppressed too

[despisethesun]

No, screw them because they think they're oppressed when that couldn't be further from the truth.

Re:Clash of the nutjobs

[Ungrounded Lightning]

So basically what we're talking about here is crackpot versus crackpots.

Ad Homenim. You lose.

Just think about it: Many people would consider a Slashdot poster to be a crackpot. (Especially if he has strong beliefs about something like the unsuitability of the massively-market-accepted mainstream OS, for instance.)

Does this mean such a poster should be unable to exercise free speech when his postings annoy an organization with significant funds and political connections?

Philosophical question

[Farmer Tim]

And yes, it is pointless to karma whore as an AC.

If an AC karma whores in a forest of posts and noone mods him up, does he really karma whore at all?

Re:Philosophical question

[Farmer Tim]

A valiant effort, none the less.

Noted for its high level of Bliss

[Headcase88]

I think you forgot about a little planet called Blisstonia.

Freedom of religion is a bad concept

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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

Freedom of religion is simply a horrible concept. People should have freedom of belief, and freedom of expression. Whether or not what you choose to believe in or advocate is called a religion by anyone should be irrelevant.

Similarly, the reasonable practice of religion (for example, by gathering for collective worship) is generally covered by other established freedoms, such as movement and association.

This being the case, the expression "freedom of religion" is usually used as an excuse, an implicit claim to more rights than someone else has, or to have one's own wishes valued more highly than another's. Following a certain religion does not earn you those rights, any more than someone following a different religion (or no religion) has those rights at your expense.

One can readily extend this argument to anti-discrimination legislation. Why should it be necessary to prohibit discrimination on explicit criteria? If something is important enough to protect in this way, why not simply require that any decision be made based only on information relevant to the matter at hand?

Re:OT Child and Religion

[raju1kabir]

I have found kids want a way to explain the world as much as adults and a God can be useful in that way.

Useful to shut them up so they'll stop asking you difficult questions, but not useful if you want to help those children grow up with critical thinking skills.

Re:hm

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Mod Parent Down

[PRMan]

It may be annoying to you when the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door or when you have to skip that Christian channel on your TV, but it isn't like they are stalking you or giving everyone missile coordinates to your house!

"Interfering with religion"

[misterhypno]

If there's a law against that, then EVERY proslytizing S.O.B. who tries to convert me on the street and won't take "NO" for an answer and keeps following and haranguing me, should be open to prosecution for interfering with MY religion!

Keith is a very interesting man

[JediTux]

I had the pleasure of working in a cubicle next to Keith from 2003 until he fled back to US in 2005. He is one of the most interesting characters I have met in long time. He is very likable and really easy to get along with. It boggles my mind how any religion like Scientology is able to strong arm so many law enforcement officials as well as misuse international courts in the manner that they have with Keith. Although he likes to poke the lion, so to speak, he stands up for what he believes in. It's unfortunate that the law has finally caught up to him and I can only hope that he returns to being a free man instead of a fugitive in the near future.

Re:Yeah they're oppressed too

[bladesjester]

Flamebait? Apparently the mods have never actually lived in the bible belt.

Unfortunately, the parent poster isn't kidding. These are the same people that scream that because the teachers in a public school aren't allowed to force students to pray that the students aren't allowed to pray (which isn't true. They can pray all they like. They just can't be forced to do it) and go "la la la I can't hear you" when they are told what I just put in parentheses.

They're also the same people that scream that, if everyone in the community isn't Christain, that it's just plain wrong and unholy. They act like the beliefs that someone else holds affects *them* on a personal level and that nobody should be able to believe differently than they do.

Sounds crazy, I know, but there are people out there like that. For some reason, a lot of them have a persecution complex because they aren't allowed to force their beliefs on everyone else. Trust me on that one - as someone who is "not a member of the fold" (I'm Taoist), I've often been on the receiving end of tirades that I am what is wrong with the world.

Some portions of them may be in the minority insofar that they think others should be exactly like them, but it's a really *really* vocal minority.

How they recruit

[Anonymous Coward]

One of scientology's primary recruiting tricks involves
the use of a fairly old hyponosis trick called regression.
(They call it 'auditing'). See Franz Anton Mesmer

People with very serious emotional issues will often get enough relief
to be convinced that scientology is some kind of miracle and
out comes the checkbook.

Many religions, emotional 'technologies', etc, use these tricks
and very often claim they are new or groundbreaking. Nah. Same
shit different bag.

Anyone can learn to do this themselves and should avoid those who
wrap it in other packages (and there are many out there).

Re:Mo free will

[totallyarb]

Heh. Shouldn't that be DCXVI?

Sitting Out Appeals... In Jail

[cmholm]

Given the circumstances under which Mr. Henson was tried, it seemed likely that he was going to be sitting out his appeals in jail. While I find it likely that an appeals judge would have forced a new trial, Henson was running out of the cash needed to adequitely defend himself. About the only difference between he and I is 12 years and a mild alt.religon.scientology post. If I was getting railroaded by my county DA and trial judge because of my aerospace background, I'd consider foriegn travel, too.

Re:Sitting Out Appeals... In Jail

[Anonymous Coward]

It is my understanding that Mr. Henson received one or more threats on his life from representatives of Scientology, Inc. to the effect that if he went to jail in Riverside County, he wouldn't get out alive. I believe that was the real motivation behind his flight from the USA.

Scn, Inc. has, as one of its more then 200 front groups, a prison 'ministry' called Criminon.

Not the usenet posting

[KenSeymour]

I read in TFM that he was tried and convicted based on his picketing activities outside a Scientology film studio. Since then, I have not been able to get to TFM.

You can read about it here.

So he was not arrested for that usenet discussion. He has been sued in civil court
for publishing Scientology documents. He defended himself and lost, to the tune
of $75,000. He then declared bankruptcy. At that time, he started repeatedly picketing
a Scientology film studio.

When he was convicted and sentenced to six months in jail (for the picketing),
he chose to flee to Canada because he believed that Scientologists would have him
killed in prison.

He applied for political asylum in Canada. After three years, Canada asked him
to appear in person to hear what the decision was. Fearing deportation, he packed up
and left Canada the night before.

So no, usenet posting, in this case, did not get him arrested.

Re:Not the usenet posting

[rbanffy]

I see a need for a law that denies religious texts some copyright protection.

If something is a religious text and it expresses the truth (as far as the writer will admit)m it has a value for society that cannot be ignored.

therefore, the text should not be allowed to be secret, as its publication would be for the greater good of all mankind.

Re:Not the usenet posting

[Skreems]

he chose to flee to Canada because he believed that Scientologists would have him killed in prison.

Given some of their other exploits, I can't say that's completely unfounded...

Re:Not the usenet posting

[ivan256]

If copyright terms were returned to their original, more reasonable length, this would be a non-issue.

Re:Not the usenet posting

[close_wait]

So no, usenet posting, in this case, did not get him arrested.

Incorrect. His usenet postings were one of the two things he was tried for. As it happens, the july cleared him of making bomb threats, but convicted him of interfering with a religion - ie standing on public ground outside the Scientology base, holding a placard stating "it's not a crime to think". He wasn't allowed to tell the jury what his placard said.

Also, his usenet posts were one of the major items of evidence used in the trial.

Re:Not the usenet posting

[Lord Apathy]

Its been a billion years since I followed any thing on Shitntology but if I remember correctly the $acred text are not copyrighted but are trademarked and classified as a trade secret. How the fuck you can trademark a religious text is beyond me but I think that is how the bastards to it.

By the way since I've read all they $acred scriptures and survived I think I should be OT 12 now. By what I remember I should be able to leap tall building in a single bound and shoot lightning out my arse.

Re:Not the usenet posting

[AndroidCat]

I read in TFM that he was tried and convicted based on his picketing activities outside a Scientology film studio.

The film studio bit is just a cover story. As well as that, it's really a headquarters known as Gold Base, Gold or just INT.

Re:Not the usenet posting

[sumdumass]

The CA law musthave changed to some extent sinc't then. The version i read says you have to use force in the process. simply protesting in a peacfull manor shouldn't have kicked that into play. (maybe the thing was rigged). Un;ess he asaulted someone who triedto remove him from the site or something. Then that would be a use of force.

So far I havn't seen anything the clearly says he did or did not use force in his supposed crime. The sad thing is that even if he could apeal it bas on whatever made the law change or even prove he didn't use a force, his fleeing might have him sitting in jail for the same amouint of time as the sentence orgiinaly would have been for.

Re:Not the usenet posting

[nexex]

I think you'll have to take that up with Tom: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2007030603,00 .html

Re:Not the usenet posting

[Lord Apathy]

Well, nice to know when role is called in hell I won't be at the front of the line...

Re:Not the usenet posting

[jcr]

When the court is corrupted by intimidation, the law is kind of beside the point. Keith's trial was illegal on many, many points, which is why people are objecting to it.

-jcr

Re:Not the usenet posting

[sumdumass]

Right, if that is true.

But the way to corect it isn't running and hiding. There is supposed to be a process that allows that type of behavior to be placed in check. Hidding does't allow for it to happen.

Apealing upto and on a federal level should remove the illagalities. I don't know the full story so I cannot comment whether he is guilting or not or wrongfuly acused. It could be that he trespassed in his demonstrations and asaulted someone who was attempting to remove him from a property. But i don't know what was eledged to have happened or what was claimed really happened.

Re:Not the usenet posting

[jcr]

Keith's choices were to stay in Riverside and get killed in jail (something the clams were gloating about, both to his face, and on the newsgroups), or to seek asylum and continue to tell people about the appaling crimes of the scientology cult. I'm not about to second-guess his decision.

-jcr

Re:Not the usenet posting

[eloquent_loser]

As far as I can see, he was indeed *arrested* in part at least because of the Usenet posting: however he wasn't convicted of that offense.

Re:Yeah they're oppressed too

[gobbo]

I don't get it... screw them because they're oppressed?

You DON'T get it, the GP was pointing out that if fundies don't feel like they're in totalitarian control of laws, morals, and the imperial enterprise, then they're 'oppressed.'

Of course, not all fundamentalists think this way about society and conquest. Some are just interested in prescribing my sex life and lying to my children.

Re:Because it's "hate speech" or "hate crimes"

[AndroidCat]

If you post about Scientology on your MySpace, it'll be deleted. It seems they are smurfing complaints about anything critical of Scientology to get it removed as "hate crimes". Check out a message that one sent out, especially the part about not reading the pages that they should complain about.

re: stalking behavior, etc.

[King_TJ]

If you really look into the "religion" of Scientology, you see they've got a pretty scary agenda. As far as I can gather, the real shame is that our nation continues to offer these cultists legal protection under the guise of "religious freedom".

I mean, for starters, the whole thing is based on the writings of a science-fiction author (and a controversial one at that - who at least some folks claim was a compulsive liar, etc.). But even that aside, you quickly realize that they place an increasing financial value on these "teachings". Becoming and staying a member of this "religion" involves a considerable expenditure! Their teachings even include the concept that you're either "one of them" or you're basically worthless, and should eventually just be killed off. The non-Scientologists are primarily useful for extorting money from, to further the group's cause.

We're at *war* with people of a much more "legitimate" religion, with a MUCH longer heritage, for similar beliefs!

Re:hm

[Enzo the Baker]

Clearly you can see the difference between the church heirarchy co-ruling with the civil government, and politicians pandering to the religious sentiments of a large chunk of the population.

Missing the most interesting bit of the article.

[a_karbon_devel_005]

This is the most telling part of the article I think:

Last week, Henson unsuccessfully asked the judge to dismiss the prosecutor's case because the government showed bias by not investigating the deaths of Ashlee Shaner and Stacy Meyer. Both women died at the Golden Era Productions location.

Two women DIE in a Scientology facility and it's not even INVESTIGATED, while the man who is trying to get prosecutors to look at the case winds up convicted.

Odd? No, it's Scientology's usual MO. If you don't think so you've NEVER done any real research on the group.

Re:hm

[Rob the Bold]

Other religious organizations (Roman Catholic for the best example) dumped influencing governments centuries ago.

How about this: http://www.mocatholic.org/StemCell-Cloning/SCHCDex .htm ?

Or this newspaper story: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/ politics/15869428.htm ?

Re:Interfering with a religion, eh?

[Archangel Michael]

Please define Mainstream Islam. Is it Sunni or Shiite?

You know, that both consider each other heretics, and worthy of death, which is what the whole civil war in Iraq is about, right???

You know that every place that has a significant muslim population has a surge in violence, right?

You know that they blame Israel and the USA for all their problems, even when Israel and USA have nothing to do with the conflicts they have in certain regions (eg Cashmere, Indonesia etc)

While I agree that not ALL muslims are hateful people, and violent, a significant portion of them are. And even more importantly, the violent hate filled portion have the loudest voice. In fact, most people would appreciate more and louder voice from the peaceful, non-hating muslims. But like the rest of the world, the peaceful muslims buy into at least PART of the ideology of hatred and violence that is propagated by that significant portion that they tacitly support them.

All you need to do is see the video of Channel 4 of the Imams hate speech from the Mosque to realize that Islam is under the control of a radical and significant portion of Muslims.

So, by definition, I would almost agree that "mainstream" Islam DOES incourage violence (not just against not muslims, be even against other muslims, which aren't muslim enough). The evidence of world wide violence by a significant portion of muslims is all one needs to conclude this.

--- By significant portion, I do not necessarily mean a majority, or even plurality, just enough to be viewed as something other than an oddity. It is at this point that many ignorants try to portray Tim McVey or other "Christian" extremist as some sort of norm in Chritianity, which is clearly not the case.

So, you can try to portray me as some sort of "sad fucker" all you want. The problem is, you are either ignorant or stupid to suggest that "mainstream" Islam is anything, without actually backing it up with facts.

Lastly, what does Bush's approval rating have to do with what Islam and Muslims teach? Or you just used to non-sequitors to try and win points. Yes Bush is an idiot, but so is everyone else in Washington. I think it is a qualification for the job of politician.

Re:hm

[morsdeus]

Apparently, the bulk of American Protestantism is the most of immature of immature religions, by your standards. Not to mention both Shi'ite and Sunni Islam; and I wouldn't exempt Roman Catholicism either - you'd be shocked at the sheer degree of influence they have over Italian politics, and on a larger scale on the sociopolitical trends and climates of Latin American countries.

Re:hm

[lbbros]

He's talking about the Roman Catholic Church in general, and his statement is generally true. Whether fanatics in your country are going beyond that has nothing to do with the Church itself.

Freedom of Religion = No Freedom for Humans?

[FreeUser]

"He fled to Canada after being found guilty of "interfering" with a religion."

I certainly hope the law is more precise (and just) than that phrase implies, although given who was arrested, and how long they've hounded him, I rather doubt it.

So we can't "interfere" with religion. What, pray tell, constitutes "interference?" Speaking out against the irrationality of religious belief? (Better arrest most of the brightest 5% of the country then)

Speaking out against specific religious practices? If so, which ones? Catholicism's stance on gays and women? Mormonism's stance on women and polygamy? Islam's stance on women and jihad. Sounds like women are screwed regardless.

Or do they imprison you for picketing a church these days? If so, better go arrest all those civil rights activists who, in the 1960s in the US picketed their churches (protestant and Catholic alike) for not allowing blacks to worship in the same building as whites.

Religions have absolutely no compunction when it comes to interfering in our lives, whether it is sending missionaries to our doors to harass us, organizing boycotts to impose their choice on what products, music, television, and films are available to us (often in censored form), passing laws that define sizeable portions of us as second class citizens (gays being denied rights the rest of us enjoy, women losing out when the Equal Rights Amendment was squashed, largely as a result of Mormon and right-wing Christian mobilization), imposing their beliefs on our school systems ("intelligent design", anyone?) or even threatening our lives when we dare disagree with their dogma (as numerous cults, including $cientology, are reputed to have done).

Seems to me that allowing religions to interfere with the rest of us the way they are, and then disallowing the rest of us from interfering with their often toxic agendas, is a sure-fire recipe for a theocratic hell-state.

Re:OT Child and Religion

[mpapet]

Correct. I didn't make that clear.

Alternate Scientologist in a Bar Joke

[hullabalucination]

Note: the following joke is subject to final script approval by Mr. Tom Cruise, in accordance with his production company's contract with United Artists.

OK, see, this Scientologist walks into a bar with a frog on his head. And the bartender says, "HEY...what the hell is THAT?!" And the frog says, "Well, I'm not sure exactly, but it started out as a wart on my ass."

* * * * *

The best ideas come as jokes. Make your thinking as funny as possible.
--David Ogilvy

stupid law, trumped up charges, and fishy DA

[gsn]

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.

Re:stupid law, trumped up charges, and fishy DA

[rbarreira]

The man said we should aim cruise missles at them.

Not just cruise missiles, Tom Cruise Missiles. Imagine how dangerous they can get with their Eyes Wide Shut...

Re:stupid law, trumped up charges, and fishy DA

[MikeBabcock]

As a religious person myself, i see no reason interfering with a religion should be illegal. Disseminating hate, perhaps, like saying "kill all scientologists" but as I understand it he never did any such thing. Hate speech is a crime up here in Canada of course, rarely prosecuted but a crime nonetheless. I don't understand how interfering with a religion even works considering most Jews obviously disagree with Christianity and the latter would probably argue a Shintoist is wrong too. Many people have said that sects of Mormonism is a cult without being arrested; how does that happen?

Re:stupid law, trumped up charges, and fishy DA

[NoMaster]

Not just cruise missiles, Tom Cruise Missiles. Imagine how dangerous they can get with their Eyes Wide Shut...

Aye, it's a Risky Business indeed...

Re:stupid law, trumped up charges, and fishy DA

[ShadowsHawk]

It's unbelievable that he was charge with terrorism, but it's even worse that the JURY convicted him. Who in their right mind would see this as terrorism?

Re:OT Child and Religion

[lbbros]

You can like science and be religious. You make them seem like opposites, but they aren't. (and yes, I'm a religious scientist)

Re:hm

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, If you think that the Roman Catolic Church does not influence goverments, is because you don't live in Latin America. Here in Chile they influence the goverment as much as they can (they influence the conservative sectors), For example, in Chile even the therapeutic abortion (when the mother's integrity is at risk) is illegal, and we owe it to the influence of the catolic church in some political forces. They have also tried (but failed) to impede emergency contraceptives and divorce [sorry about my english]

Re:Scientology and its ilk are all CUNTS

[Slashcrap]

There, I fixed the spelling for you.

You may call me immature, but at least I don't believe we're all infested with Thetans.

I did once feel the love of Jesus Christ enter me, but fortunately it had worn off by lunchtime and I soon made a full recovery.

Typo

[Anonymous Coward]

He fled to Canada after being found guilty of "interfering" with a religion...

Should read:
He fled to Canada after being found guilty of interfering with a "religion"...

Re:hm

[jitterman]

I believe we're discussing cases where a religious organization is attempting to control/influence/use the government. Whether Bush is Lutheran or Baptist or whatnot doesn't mean that those groups have motives to gain control -- the individual in power is simply putting his/her personal moral views into their policy-making efforts.

Re: stalking behavior, etc.

[ScentCone]

We're at *war* with people of a much more "legitimate" religion, with a MUCH longer heritage, for similar beliefs!

Oh, come on. If we were at "war" with Islam, I do believe things would take on a slightly different appearance, don't you? We probably wouldn't have just had a lenghty academic argument over whether or not a newly elected (Muslim) federal legislator should get to use Thomas Jefferson's old copy of the Koran while being sworn in, or have trade relations with all sorts of primarily Muslim countries. Similarly, I don't think Scientologists have dispatched loony suicidal types to kill thousands of people, or pump money, supplies, and deluded basket cases into operations that drive truck bombs into vegetable markets full of women and children (notably, other Muslims).

Don't confuse this with any sort of defense of Scientology (hah! not hardly), but rather a defense against the notion that we're at war with Islam, in its entirety. It's just not the case, at least in that broad of a context. We should be, though, as modern western cultures, completely horrified by our own smilig tolerance of a rapidly expanding theocratic movement that causes things like this to even be in the news. To even be an issue at all. Honestly ... Sharia court establishments that talk in terms of putting people in jail because they want to stop being Muslims? There's no point being 100% tolerant of movements that consider tolerance to be a crime. But that's not the same as "being at war" with the religion, per se.

Re:hm

[LurkerXXX]

So the Catholic church hasn't had tried to influence the direction of any governments lately? I guess before the last presidential election when the Bishops and Cardinals were urging their followers to not support anyone pro-choice, and were refusing communion to any politicians who were pro-choice (though not refusing it to any non-politicians in the congregation who happened to be pro-choice), that was all my imagination that the Catholic church was trying to influence government policy. Right.

Re:hm

[RexRhino]

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.

Re:Mormons Rejoice

[Ilgaz]

As a non American, I have no problems with Mormons since they didn't sue anyone for joking, they didn't troll the Usenet with their beliefs and legal threats, we see an IT company which was never questioned for their practices (except stupid msft deal).

Also as I know how cults, especially the ones deeply involved in money/politics work, posting them the truth or making 100s of South Park episodes, setting thousands of Xenu.net won't work.

Guy is already brainwashed seriously.

Re:hm

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

He's talking about the Roman Catholic Church in general, and his statement is generally true.

The only reason the Catholic church doesn't meddle is because they've lost the influence to make a difference. It doesn't stop them from trying and in countries like the Philippines, where the population is 94% catholic, the Church still exercises enormous political influence. For example, there are no condom factories in the entire country - they all have to be imported, primarily because of the Church's anti-contraception policy.

Predestination!

[Xerotope]

Actually, you don't have to do anything. Either God has predestined you to go to heaven or you're SOL.

So the US court Law still didn't recognise a scam?

[someone1234]

It is so mind boggling, Scientology is still considered a religion? The US is the home of a strong christian population which naturally opposes any other religion or wanna-be religion. The people also supposed to be well educated (at least at government level). How could Scientology still proliferate there??? I would not be so stunned if this is in Nigeria, or even Russia.

Yeah!

[freeze128]

It seems to me, that if you actually *CAN* interfere with a religion, that it wasn't a very good one to begin with.

intolerant idiocy

[poptones]

dude... if you dont tolerate people who are intolerant then you are denying them their right to ignorance and stupidity. By saying you "don't tolerate intolerance" you are saying people have no right to be stupid - you deny them their basic human right to freedom of thought.

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

No, it isn't - it's just another way to justify persecution of others who don't share your idiotic beliefs. Political correctness is fascism.

Scientology is dangerus

[jonfr]

Scientology is dangerus, it is also not a "relegion". This is not the first time they do this to people how critise them. There are cases that date back to 1990 far as I rember, but then scientology was tapping into other peoples fones just because they where critiseing them. /includes spelling errors.

Obligatory...

[Any Web Loco]

cult: (n) A small, unpopular religion. religion: (n) A large, popular cult.

Tomato, Tomato.

Re:Mo free will

[EsbenMoseHansen]

How did this get modded troll? Funny maybe. The roman numerals were a nice touch, but probably too subtle for this crowd. But it was a joke pertaining to the article, and not one of the overwrought ones, either.

Ah well, I suppose the religious types didn't like the slam to the basis of all religion, i.e. irrationality.

Re:free speech

[bussdriver]

Common sense isn't common. (so it doesn't really exist)

Hate speech is speech and it should be protected. As soon as you give an inch you open the flood gates to further exceptions to the rule on similar grounds. WHO decides just exactly what one can say? Obviously, there must be some reasonable interpretation--we all hope... but often it doesn't work.

When I hear "think of the children" or "think of the terrorists" I get many times more skeptical. Reactionary laws that exploit the times (like some horrible recent event) to pass laws which attack liberty either on purpose or simply lack depth because the real purpose is to apease the mob.

There are PLENTY of laws one could apply if he went too far. But hate speech and protests are not enough. We already have "free speech zones," how bad does it have to get??

When you allow people to lay blame on hate speech, video games, movies, etc. You are undermining the concept of free will and showing a lack in belief in its existance. DNA excuses will further undermine our whole system within my lifetime.

Unfortunate...

[Synchis]

Its unfortunate that Keith has finally been arrested. While he was in Canada, I worked closely with him on a few R&D projects. He was a good guy who always had an interesting story to tell. He fought very hard to get political refugee status from the Canadian Gov't while he was here, and was eventually denied after about a 3 year struggle. He left on his own terms, returning to the US in his own time, claiming that if he was escorted properly across the border, he would be a dead man.

In all the time that Keith spent in Canada, he was never once left alone by the cult of Scientology. I was involved with one incident with a P.I. that was following him, and there were numerous other occasions that I had heard about from him.

He was a good friend, always willing to stick his head out for ya. I sure do miss him now, and sincerely hope that nothing terrible happens to him now that he's been arrested.

Re:Unfortunate...

[Synchis]

Yes, the status was denied. They had set a date for which he was to be deported back to the US. Keith had expressed genuine fear that if he was escorted across into the hands of the US authorities, that he would be a dead man. And so he left on his own terms to an unspecified location. I had had email contact with him but that was all.

Re:Freedom of religion OK, establishment bad

[whoever57]

I have never understood how religions can be recognised the the IRS and others (including hate-crime laws that specifcally protect religions) without falling foul of the constitutional ban on "establishment or religion".

Think SCOX vs IBM? Think years and years and years

[walterbyrd]

The scox scam has gone on for nearly four years. This Henson guy has already been on the run for six years - and for what?

"the law can be used very easily to harass ... The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage, rather than to win - if possible, of course, ruin [the target] utterly"
--- L. Ron Hubbard

Scientology is NOT a religion

[GuyverDH]

Never has been, never will be.

I still have the original print of the book, where L. Ron Hubbard himself clearly states that he did not consider it to be a religion, nor did he intend to allow it to become a religion. Gee, did he actually die of normal causes? Or was there some other more sinister event?

Freedom of speech, China style.

[MacDork]

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.

I think it should go a little further than that... I think the law is ripe for abuse by those who would stifle free speech in the name of copyright and should therefore be overturned entirely.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Those of you may recognize that very clear language as the US Constitution, Amendment 1. As this story indicates, it is trumped by Article 1, Section 8 of that same document...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Hmmm, the language isn't so clear there. I mean, I pretty clearly see "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," but what I don't see is where in Article 1, Section 8 Congress manages to secure for limited times without... making a law to do so. But hey, I just know how to read... it isn't like I'm a constitutional lawyer or anything. Ok, so you guys probably recognized those two. Does anyone recognize these words?

Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

I guess I'd need to be a Chinese constitutional lawyer to reconcile those words with the actual conduct of the government too....

i'm talking action

[circletimessquare]

not thought

We have to define

[Z00L00K]

if scientology is a religion or not. One rumor is that it was a wager between Robert Anson Heinlein and Ron Hubbard.

If I make a religion out of making people silly am I protected against all lawsuits then?

Moofie, I respect your point of view

[spun]

Just wanted to let you know, as you seem to be getting a lot of flack from the anti-christians. I hope my original comment didn't offend too much. I was pointing out that by the common definition of the word "Christian" there is a "party line." I didn't really make that comment to put down you or Christianity, more to point out that in the beginning, there were some very interesting questions raised, and people had very different and conflicting answers. The organized religion known as Christianity that we have today is based on the outcome of the power struggle epitomized by the Councils.

What you practice is more properly called the Christian Mysticism, which emphasises personal experience with the Divine above all else. You have a personal relationship with Christ, you say that makes you a Christian, and I agree. But you have to understand, most people will take that to mean that you identify as a member of the organized religion known as Christianity, and that is well defined and not open to personal interpretation. I could claim that because I occasionally drink wine and eat biscuits that I am a Christian. Few others would accept my interpretation, and that is perfectly fine. Words have to have a commonly accepted meaning to be useful. Blue is not red, no matter how many times I say it is I won't get many to go along with me.

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[Moofie]

"The organized religion known as Christianity that we have today is based on the outcome of the power struggle epitomized by the Councils."

You say that like there's only one organized religion known as Christianity. I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding.

"What you practice is more properly called the Christian Mysticism"

You may label me however you wish. I can label myself however I wish. What's the problem?

"But you have to understand, most people will take that to mean that you identify as a member of the organized religion known as Christianity"

Which I am...

"and that is well defined and not open to personal interpretation."

Which I dispute.

"I could claim that because I occasionally drink wine and eat biscuits that I am a Christian."

You could. I submit that that's not a particularly descriptive label. Me? I think "Follower of Christ" maps pretty well on to "Christian". There are lots of people who attach lots of other ideas to that word, but I don't think those ideas are applicable. You, of course, are free to disagree with me (which is true for all values of "you" and "me").

"Words have to have a commonly accepted meaning to be useful."

Yes. And I think that the mapping of "You are a Christian IFF you agree with Ted Haggard/Dobson/Billy Graham/The Pope/David Koresh" is not a particularly useful or accurate definition. I think my definition is better, and I'm sticking to it.

Blue is not red, but I follow Christ. That's between me, and Christ. What's the problem?

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[spun]

Hey, I'm not saying you agree with wingnuts. I'm just saying, people have been KILLED over making up their own definitions of the word "Christian," you dig? The Ecumenical Councils defined what scriptures were included in the Bible and what beliefs you could profess without being killed as a heretic. They specifically EXCLUDED some people who were calling themselves Christians. That's factual history. The organized religion known as Christianity is very specifically defined as those churches that follow the dictates of the Ecumenical Councils. You are free to disagree with them, but that is the commonly accepted definition, for over a thousand years.

Why not say, "Follower of Christ," if that is closer to what you mean? You can't expect people to know what you mean when you use a word differently than everyone else! I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you are redefining a word to mean what you want it to mean. Don't be upset if others get confused, is all.

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[Moofie]

"I'm just saying, people have been KILLED over making up their own definitions of the word "Christian," you dig"

Oh, I know. The Catholic Church liked to kill people with the audacity to translate the Bible from the original Latin (heh heh) into local languages. I happen to think that Christ would have taken a pretty dim view of that.

My point is this: In this (and every other instance of bigotry), by self-identifying as Christian (or Jewish or black or Pakistani) some people assume that you are somehow responsible for every awful thing that anybody else who self-identifies the same way has done. I wish to underscore that I think that's a lousy assumption.

That is the beginning and end of my point. "Christian" isn't a portmanteau for "illiterat backwards sheep-herding Bible thumping slack-jawed idiot". There are lots of intelligent, considerate, respectful, friendly folks who self-identify as Christian, and it's not fair to subject them to the vitriol that should be reserved for people who spew hatred.

Bigotry is bad. Always.

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[spun]

Absolutely. And not all Christians are idiots who believe in ridiculous fairy tales, as some here seem to believe. I just wanted you to know that some of us here understand that. Some of the nicest, most moral, smartest people I've met have been Christians. They have all been like you, people of quiet faith. They never stick it in your face, never judge, just try their best to live their lives as they believe Christ would want. I've never thought that being a real Christian meant going to church or following anyone other than Christ.

I'm not a Christian myself. I opened my heart and really, really tried. Accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior, etc., etc. It did nothing for me. I felt no connection, no personal relationship to Christ. Christianity was just not meant to be my path. If their is a God worth worshipping, I'm sure He/She/It understands. :) But I respect all people of faith even though I have none.

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[drinkypoo]

Oh, I know. The Catholic Church liked to kill people with the audacity to translate the Bible from the original Latin (heh heh) into local languages. I happen to think that Christ would have taken a pretty dim view of that.

I don't necessarily think that's what he's talking about. Members of various Christian sects were killing each other over who was right. In fact the fact that the debates over the proper beliefs of Christianity was causing bloodshed between Christians was specifically what caused there to be the ecumenical councils.

My point is this: In this (and every other instance of bigotry), by self-identifying as Christian (or Jewish or black or Pakistani) some people assume that you are somehow responsible for every awful thing that anybody else who self-identifies the same way has done. I wish to underscore that I think that's a lousy assumption.

By self-identifying as whatever, you are giving that movement strength. Christianity as organized religion is far more about a system of control and disrespect than about anything else. Jeshua himself only preached about treating other people well and pleasing God... mostly through that first part.

That is the beginning and end of my point. "Christian" isn't a portmanteau for "illiterat backwards sheep-herding Bible thumping slack-jawed idiot". There are lots of intelligent, considerate, respectful, friendly folks who self-identify as Christian, and it's not fair to subject them to the vitriol that should be reserved for people who spew hatred.

I agree that it is unfair that the name "Christian" has become overloaded, having been coopted by people who want to use a system of belief as a system of control. However, I still believe that you have to accept that Christian does today mean "someone who follows the Christian party line" and that frankly Jesus never wanted the title of "Christ" anyway, never claims to be the son of God (except in Paul's writings, which many bible scholars believe constitute an organized effort to subvert Christianity to specific purposes) and never says anything that should lead people to believe that all this ostentatious display-of-wealth shit that Christianity is associated with today, especially the Catholic sect. In fact he continually speaks out against it.

In fact Christianity today would be basically unrecognizable to a Christian of that time if you just changed the words. The first Christian churches were in people's homes and often officiated by women, but when the Romans got involved they put an end to that shit, because women were nonpersons in noble Roman society. In fact of all the people on the planet today, probably the closest to the original Christians in their behavior are the Amish. Quite ascetic and deliberate. Unfortunately they do a number of things that Jeshua would not have approved of, like forcing children to drop out of school in the eighth grade because education supposedly causes pride, and their abject sexism towards, domination of, and emotional abuse of all of their women. Guess you can't have it all.

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[Moofie]

"Christianity was just not meant to be my path."

I wish you all the best in finding your own path.

Do you think we could patent the idea of two people who don't agree, but have mutual respect? There's not a hell of a lot of prior art...

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[Moofie]

"By self-identifying as whatever, you are giving that movement strength"

I think the opposite. I think that when you assume that Christianity is a homogenous whole, you give the noisy reactionary right-wing fundie wingnuts way too much authority.

"and never says anything that should lead people to believe that all this ostentatious display-of-wealth shit that Christianity is associated with today, especially the Catholic sect. In fact he continually speaks out against it."

Huh. I kinda feel the same way as he did. What a stunning coincidence.

"Guess you can't have it all."

Sure I can. I can benefit from the philosophy of Jesus, and also the fruits of my own intellect and experience. I can choose what aspects of Christian doctrine I wish to subscribe to, and which I think are incorrect, and join a congregation of people who (more or less) agree with me, without compelling or requiring anybody to do anything ever.

I'm completely incapable of understanding what's wrong with that.

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[spun]

Hehe, it actually happens on slashdot more than you might think, if you are open to it. Believe it or not, it's one of the main reasons I keep coming back here. I'd rather live in a peanut gallery than an echo chamber. At least in a peanut gallery you occasionally see some peanuts you've never seen before.

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[drinkypoo]

Sure I can. I can benefit from the philosophy of Jesus, and also the fruits of my own intellect and experience. I can choose what aspects of Christian doctrine I wish to subscribe to, and which I think are incorrect, and join a congregation of people who (more or less) agree with me, without compelling or requiring anybody to do anything ever. I'm completely incapable of understanding what's wrong with that.

And I'm completely incapable of understanding what makes you believe that I think there is, especially when I never said so, but mostly that's because I like to read comments for their contents, and not what I think they might have wanted to say, or what they could have said.

My entire argument with which you disagree is that if you are referring to yourself as a "Christian" then you must necessarily accept that many people will apply a stereotype to you, and moreover they will be somewhat justified in doing so. And, in fact, by the very terms of the Christian religion, if you do not believe certain things, you are not a Christian. You can still call yourself one, but you're applying a term to yourself that frankly does not apply, the fact that "Christian" means "One relating to, belonging to, or resembling the Christ" notwithstanding. The term is understood to have a certain meaning - that you are a member in belief of a religion whose terms were decided by men during the Roman empire - and to use it otherwise is to misuse it. That's okay! You can do that. But you are just going to have to accept that people are going to assume you mean that you buy into the Christian package of dogma.

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[Moofie]

I agree completely. (There we go again!)

The reason I stick to my guns and pursue discussions like this is because I sometimes find value in them. Way to be valuable. : )

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[Moofie]

"then you must necessarily accept that many people will apply a stereotype to you"

I don't know how to state it any more baldly: Those stereotypes are sloppy thinking, and lead people to bad conclusions, and I think that people would be wise to dispense with them.

"And, in fact, by the very terms of the Christian religion,"

By the terms you have selected to define the Christian religion...

"if you do not believe certain things, you are not a Christian"

You are a Christian IFF you are a disciple (follower believer in) Jesus Christ. That's the only definition that makes any sense.

I don't care what they think, for all values of "they".

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[drinkypoo]

I don't care what they think, for all values of "they".

How can this be true when you have spent so much time and effort today arguing about what "they" think? I think you doth protest too much.

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[Moofie]

Clearly, I find value in this discussion, otherwise I wouldn't pursue it. I certainly am not at all invested in whether or not you agree with me, for all values of "you".

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[SimHacker]

Dogmatic Christian beliefs are incredibly sloppy thinking, that lead people to bad conclusions, and horrible behavior. Much sloppier than the stereotypes that make you so huffy.

So why aren't you all huffy and in-your-face with the dogmatic Christians who are giving Christianity a bad name? When's the last time you had an argument with a Creationist, and tried to change his small closed mind? They're doing a lot more damage to Christ's legacy by calling themselves Christians, than the open-minded evidence-driven people who think Christians are insane and stupid because the majority of them act that way. Why don't you "protest too much" to the dogmatic Christians who are actually causing the problem by being stupid and acting evil?

-Don

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[Moofie]

"So why aren't you all huffy and in-your-face with the dogmatic Christians who are giving Christianity a bad name?"

I am.

"When's the last time you had an argument with a Creationist"

Last week.

Any other questions I can help you with?

Re:Moofie, I respect your point of view

[SimHacker]

How do you know what Jesus really taught? Your definition of "Christian" is essentially the same as the definition given on the KKK web site, a self-proclaimed "Christian" organization. So how does simply claiming that you follow the teaching of Christ make you any better than the KKK? You don't know what Christ really taught, and neither does the KKK. But both of you claim to be Christian and follow Jesus Christ. You seem to have a lot more disagreements with mainstream Christianity than the KKK does, so are they more Christian than you?

Some people get confused because our name is The Knights Party, but we use some of the symbolism of the Ku Klux Klan, and volunteers for The Knights Party are called Klansman or Klanswoman etc. Let me explain using the term Christian. A Christian is a man or woman who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. There are many opinions about what those beliefs are. There are religious systems that have been built up over the centuries which organize Christians into different groups (church denominations) all of who may or may not believe quite the same. The central theme however is obedience to Jesus Christ and his Word. No church today can claim direct ties to Jesus Christ - Although the ancient church of Britain preceded Rome in the acceptance and national adoption of Christianity.

-Don

Re: "The land of the free" bullshit

[corbettw]

and our gummermint has a right to break in to our homes sieze our property
put us on a (very special) plane and send us to an undisclosed location where there is no constitution.

Really? This happened to someone? When?

'Plausible predictions' or 'crackpot claims'

[Moses2k]

Which relevant claims, specifically, do you take issue with?

The two human cryopreservation non-profits in the US claim only that their vitrification techniques and cryo-storage significantly preserve a patient's brain structure in the long-term. They point to plausible (not impossible under known physics & info theory) fields of future tech/medicine that might be used to repair or read & emulate that brain. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's not a long shot. The confidence levels on any probability of eventual recovery must be low, but non-zero. It's simply the only currently scientifically plausible non-zero chance for a person to live again after legal death.

Do you think a functional description of brain/mind/consciousness is likely possible, for instance, or do you think there's some unknowable hocus beyond that.

Regarding MNT, here's a bibliography of cites to physical chemistry experiments, etc., followed by a link to further challenges.
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Nanofactory/AnnB ibDMS.htm
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Nanofactory/Chal lenges.htm

Futurist thinking isn't entirely the realm of crackpot; it just attracts them. How far out can you imagine? The next version of Java, ubiquitous wireless, head-mounted displays and power-gloves? :) Transhumanism/exptropianism, as I see it, is a catch phrase for people want "better living through science and technology". Critical thinking is still BYOB(rain), of course. ;)

You do not get arrested just for being a critic.

[andres32a]

I'm a Scientologist, have been for several years now, and i can tell you this... i've been in disagreement with the church on many subjects, and i have never been arrested or blackmailed or anything like that. So it seems to me that something is just not being said here, I just don't see how can anyone get arrested for a Usenet post. "He fled to Canada after being found guilty of "interfering" with a religion, and spent the next 6 years living as a fugitive." Is that actually the charge?

Just my humble opinion. Please don't start insulting me.

Godwinned!

[dch24]

Don, you should know better. Godwin's Law.

Re:Godwinned!

[SimHacker]

Godwin's Law applies double, because Scientology is the new Nazi!

-Don

It was a misdemeanor -- why run?

[HappyCleanerDude]

Apparently, he was convicted of a misdemeanor. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/422.6-42 2.95.html

Why run? He has been a fujitive for years? The worst he could get was a year in jail (bad) or a $5000 fine (bad, but doable, and probable). By running, he is now worse off than he was before.

Really, if he were to be somehow damaged by some so-called cult members, wouldn't that have happened by now? Did he really have anything to fear? Perhaps he confused Scientology with some other world religion that has an issue with critics and goes after their critics in a more, shall we say, personal way.

I think the Church of Scientology should drop the charges. Problem is -- they can drop the charges, but he is still guilty of running away from the Law. Say what you want about Scientology, you cannot screw with the Law.

Re:It was a misdemeanor -- why run?

[HappyCleanerDude]

You really believe this? Does this sound even vaguely rational? Do you realize for that to be true, the East River would be choked with the corpses of those that were ordered "whacked" by Scientology? Can you even cite one instance where this so-called "murder in prison" happened?

I certainly see that Scientology flames the passions of certain people. Shouldn't passion be tempered by reason?

Re:Interfering with a religion, eh?

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"Please define Mainstream Islam. Is it Sunni or Shiite?"
you know perfectly well that parent was referring to the moderate center of the group of people self-identifying as muslim, who think that the shia/sunni distinction makes about as much difference as most mainstream christians think the protestant/catholic distinction makes. Each sect has wildly differing ideas about how to be christian/muslim, but when it comes down to it, it really doesnt matter.

"You know, that both consider each other heretics, and worthy of death, which is what the whole civil war in Iraq is about, right???"
My sunni and shiite acquaintences beg to differ with you. Would you care to cite the appropriate sources, be they texts or speeches by The Leader of each sect stating thus? Sectarian violence is nothing new, nor is it something exclusive to Islam. Ever hear of the 30 years' war? yeah... Equating sectarian violence with the practice of Islam is really stereotypical knee-jerk xenophobic ignorant intolerant bullshit, and I'd suggest you consider educating yourself about a topic before opining on it.

"You know that every place that has a significant muslim population has a surge in violence, right?"
Once again, would you care to cite a figure and source for that statement? I think you're talking directly out of your ass, and would be intrigued to see if there is a study or anything behind this statement, or if its just another in a line of baseless rhetoric.

"You know that they blame Israel and the USA for all their problems, even when Israel and USA have nothing to do with the conflicts they have in certain regions (eg Cashmere, Indonesia etc)"
I am of the opinion that a plurality of the problems in the Muslim world can be traced back through conditions created as a result of U.S. foreign policy from WWII on, and as such would say that this is not that outrageous of a belief on their parts. however, I'm not convinced that the pronoun "they" is appropriate, unless you'd like to cite a study showing that a majority of the muslim world actually assents to such a statement, which I'm not convinced exists.

I think you would be well served to explore your own prejudices before you go off ranting about how hateful Islam is. I personally have heard nothign come from even the most hateful Imam that i've not heard mirrored in the speech of the extreme Christian Right. How do you think Christians are judged based on Jerry Falwell and his ilk? As a moderate somewhat agnostic christian, it sickens me that i'm in any way associated with such nonsense, and every single muslim I've ever met feels the same way in regards to the hateful imams you list as being representative of mainstream islam.

You are wrong, and you dont know what your are talking about.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.

A proposal

[twistah]

This man is married to Carolyn Meinel. I propose we let him go based on time served (i.e married to her) and arrest her instead.

Re:hm

[dbIII]

If you are going to bring radical anti-intellectual Christianity Lite groups into it - yes they play badly as well. To top things off they call themselves "conservative" to hide how radical they are and their willingness to flout the commandments - you can tell it isn't conservative by any measure when their leader calls a Fatwah on the President of a nearby country. The uncertainly created by merchants in the temple exploiting people makes it possible for someone to declare a ponzi scam a religeon and actually get some people to beleive it.

It is too!

[The Creator]

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

That pretty much makes it a textbook example of organized religion.

I'd say he needs to relax

[Master of Transhuman]

I rather doubt that California state prisons are so full of Scientologists that he has any real likelihood of being assassinated in there.

Even if that were true, it probably wouldn't be hard to gain the friendship of some other cons and be relatively protected.

Besides which, if he only has six months of sentence to do, he can do that in "The Hole" if he has to - it's not that bad. That would keep him out of general population and reduce his risk considerably.

As for the Scientologists themselves, somebody needs to do a "Rambo" on the whole organization and reduce it to rubble - including Tom Cruise, Travolta, and the rest of the celebrity shills.

Re:Interfering with a religion, eh?

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Please define Mainstream Islam. Is it Sunni or Shiite?

Both. The difference between the two is that the Sunni branch believes that the first four successors to Mohammed rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. Shiites believe that only the heirs of Ali are the legitimate successors of Mohammed. Based on percentages though, Sunnis have, I believe, an eighty-five percent advantage over Shiites. Iran is one of the few countries with a Shiite majority.

You know that every place that has a significant muslim population has a surge in violence, right?

No, I don't. Turkey, Iran*, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, and the UAE (United Arab Emirates) are some countries that do not experience this "surge in violence" that you keep referring to.

While I agree that not ALL muslims are hateful people, and violent, a significant portion of them are.

In other words "I don't want to overgeneralize, but here is my overgeneralized statement anyway. Thank you very much have a nice day."

So, by definition, I would almost agree that "mainstream" Islam DOES incourage violence (not just against not muslims, be even against other muslims, which aren't muslim enough). The evidence of world wide violence by a significant portion of muslims is all one needs to conclude this.

Again, your argument would be much stronger were you to provide some research and say "blah blah reported that x percent of all violent crime around the world was done by Muslims, those shitty bastards." What is this evidence that you keep alluding to? Your logic results in "Muslims are very violent people because they are just simply very violent people."

Based on what you've written, it seems like you are making a lot of your statements based on articles and headlines that you have read in the paper and not through actual travels across the globe. Perhaps you have traveled to the Middle East, but had a very different experience from me. Every nook and cranny in this planet has violent crime. If you can find me a plot of land on this planet that has peace and prosperity, I will buy it from you. (Antarctica does not count.)

The problem with going solely based on the media is that the media rarely reports the good news. The Middle East is a hotspot right now and every car bomb that goes off will be amplified around the world. It's what sells. People will not buy the newspaper to read about kittens being saved from trees and old ladies being helped across the street. No, the media does not have some hidden agenda in making Islam look bad. Just expect to hear nothing but the most shocking news come from that region.

I do agree with one of your points. The moderate Muslim population has done little to try to get the message across. And if they have, we are not hearing about it. But I do not recall one instance where a moderate was interviewed and for them to say "Oh, we fully support the Jihad against infidels." At the same time, I do not hear their disdain for violence. If they are truly protesting extremism, then, it is not as loud as the extremists.

So, you can try to portray me as some sort of "sad fucker" all you want. The problem is, you are either ignorant or stupid to suggest that "mainstream" Islam is anything, without actually backing it up with facts.

This part of your rambling post was what gave me the biggest chuckle. You chastise the parent for not providing facts about Islam, yet, you come across as someone who only discovered Islam after 9/11 by providing ZERO facts of your own. You may have a pHd in Islamic studies, but, based on this post, you make no mention as to where you are getting your information from.

You are not a "sad fucker", though, as your post was obviously based on your thoughts and not bigoted feelings. And, much like those that post on /., I certainly respect your thoughts.

*By the way, I am not a Muslim. Being Persian, I am quite resentful of the role Islam and Arabs in general played in the history of Iran. I just hate broad generalizations about any topic. And yes, I have been to the Middle East.

Re:OT Child and Religion

[Apocalypse111]

They aren't "opposites", but they are at odds on points of fact, especially to those who take their religious texts literally. One need only see that the correct helio-centric model of the solar system to invalidate many religious assertions that the earth is the center of the universe.

Re:oddly though

[ArcherB]

Look, I'm not going to sit here and argue religion with all of you. You believe what you want and leave me alone to do the same. However, if you are going to claim that the whole of the world's major religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and so on, are on par with a religion formed in the past 50 years based on a book written by the same guy that wrote Battlefield Earth... Well, let's just say you're fucked in the head. At least no one is still alive to say that Moses never parted the red sea so it's based on faith, but there are plenty around who can testify that LRon never parted anything other than his hair.

Old hat

[adrianbaugh]

These days you need a TacTom Cruise Missile to kill those xenu bastards :-/

No to religion

[ChameleonDave]

There should be freedom of speech for everything except religion, instead of giving religion extra protection.

Mankind needs to grow up and forget superstition.

Let me check my Z meter..

[zogger]

Lawyers cost money. In this nation, if you don't have enough money, chances are you will lose in court, even if you deserve to win. Just is is all. Helps to be a rich powerful company or organization as well.

With that said, firin' up my DIY Z meter I constructed to detect truthiness in cults...hmmm raelians hit at coo-coo level.... kim ill dung and his cult of one true leader of exaltation falls into dangerous retardoville...and yes, scientologists off the scale, pegged at total nutjobs!

careful there

[BitterAndDrunk]

Keep talking to me like that and I'll sick the aliens with the face dealies on you.

I made no value judgement on the Scientologists (but if you'd like I can now - they're wackaloons, dupes, or hucksters depending upon where they are in the order) but simply contested the idea that the Bible is a valid historical work. It's not; it contains historical bits muddled about with religious bits in much the same way the Iliad and Guns of the South do. . . . history is the setting for a work of fiction.

From what I can tell...

[Anonymous Coward]

What Keith did first was mock Scientology by showing copies of their hidden religious texts. The Church of Scientology then bankrupted him by suing him for copyright infringement. Keith then took to picketing CoS buildings, and I believe this picketing is what got him arrested for 'interfering with a religion'. Usenet posts were used as 'evidence' that he planned violence against the church.

The Church of Scientology does have a long history of brutal lawsuits against individuals defaming it, and repeatedly uses copyright law to persecute people who make their religious texts publicly available. I find this baffling- any other religious group wants as many people as possible reading their books. You probably know more about your religion than I do, but I encourage you to find out more about your Church through (non-offical) sources. Look up some of the controversy about Scientology on Wikipedia.

Re:You do not get arrested just for being a critic

[Darlantan]

If I may ask... ...why the hell are you a scientologist? I mean, the secret is out. You're on /., you're bound to know about Op Clambake. Why on earth would you still be following them? Once you know what they aren't willing to divulge up front, it becomes a painfully obvious ponzi scheme.

Not intending to be a jerk here, just genuinely curious as to what would motivate you to stay with them.

Scientology fears the free flow of information

[Anonymous Coward]

What motive would CoS have to expend so much energy attacking it's critics??? Consider that prior to the existence of the net it was highly unlikely that an average potential recuit would have had any easily available oportunity to become aware of the ultra wacky secret doctrines of the "church" (most of which are today relativley public knowledge via the net, south park etc.).

It would seem that a key element to the "personal growth and development" strategy of the organization is the psychological effect of having this information revealed at an appropriate point during the indoctrination process. (this notion is supported by accounts from former members: http://www.xenu.net/ )

People who dissemenate these secrets, and other damning information, present a real threat to the continued ability of Scientology to exist and gain new members, through it's normal method of proseletyzing, recruitment and indoctrination along with the obscurity factor that many of their actual teachings are not supposed to be public knowledge.

And now the court cases...

Viewed in this light Scientology is acting very much like the RIAA or MPAA in it's struggle for continued existence based on a (now demonstrated to be failed) business model which is structured upon attempting to restrict the unbridled flow of information.

It seems to me that this is the only rational explanantion for why there is such a rabid animosity coming from this group towards it's critics. They must actually have something to hide.

The only way

[dgr73]

There is only one response to this kind of behavior from the scum Thetans.

A real (as opposed to well meaning, but unorganized First Church of Xenu) church must be founded and registered as a religion, with the express intention of spreading the true gospel of our Lord Xenu!

Too long have the Thetan scum distorted religion, too long have they lied! I, Xhadesh Gorg, the great Moog of the third deep of Falgon's rise, will tell you the real story:

Long ago, a great galactic empire existed, ruled by the benevolent council, of which Councilor Xenu was a member. All species lived in piece with each other and harmony ruled the galaxy. It was rumored among the scientists that the Great Transformation might be possible in mere million years, give or take some millenia. All was well, praise Hrz'Ohm!

But then, out of the void, came shapeless drifters that called themselves the "Third Nation of Thet". These Thetans, as we then called them claimed to come in friendship and were welcomed with open tentacles. They claimed to be able to enhance our harmony if we allowed them unfettered access to our bodies. Some people were cautious, but having been at piece of 800 000 years, we expected no trouble. Thus many allowed themselves to undergo treatment.

The first signs of trouble came when many of those that were "harmonized" by the Thetans took off to the Zildaar sector and started building spacefaring vessels of weird design. They looked as if they were primitive athmospheric craft, but they were clearly meant for spaceflight. Upon finding out that they were armed with D-Rays, Novaspikes and EH-Torpedoes did we begin to see ill intent, but by then it was far too late. The galaxy was engulfed in a storm which swept all in it's way. We broke out the nanofactories on forgotten moons, but the trickle of Asteroids class fighters and Galaga class frigates was not enough to stem the tide of the Thetan horde. Too late, oh too late did we realize.. Manir lay in ruins, council dead or lost, with trillions dead and more going every day. It was a dark time. The galaxy's very light of life was being exterminated by this ruthless and unwarranted attack.

But one councilor had survived, Xenu! This brave councilzrak of N'vaa'frak IV collected the remnants of Historical Re-enactment Society's warriors and a handful of nanofactories and set up a colony inside the Peteeti nebula. There, with the nebula's stars providing more than enough energy and matter they slowly built up a fleet, biding their time to liberate the galaxy or atleast make a last stand worthy of a song. ......

A 1000 years pass, a mere distraction to some species, but generations to others. A fleet such as the galaxy's never seen before stands ready, an entire nebula had been sucked into it's creation and lo, it is a magnificent sight. Millions upon millions of improved F-Wolf fighters and U-Boot Infiltrators support a cluster of Panzer class warcruisers the size of a small moon. Inside a formation of thousands of battleships stands the flagship Maus, which alone casts a shadow the size of a planet. From his commandbridge, the Benevolent Dictator Xenu gives the historic command:

"Nzeeek! N'gezik kar Wree ka'dzil zo'rka nizit. Ha zhe, HA ZHE PA Z'REEEEEEEE!!"

Those eternally wise words have been carved into the surface of the giant planet-memorial K'leet with letters so large that they can be seen with a bare sensoprobe from lightyears away.

What Xenu's troops found during their crusade to free the galaxy was the true nature of the Thetans. They are soulsucking creatures that inhabit their hosts for a period of few years, sucking the joy of life out of them, leaving them bare husks capable of only the most menial of tasks.

After what has now become known as the Xenu Crusade, the Thetans were locked into their current hosts with the T-rays specifically designed for the task, then placed in confinement aboard their own Dreadcruisers and Murderships until it could be decided what to do with them.

Buddhism and War

[Valdrax]

Offhand the only major religion that doesn't condemn anyone or anything is Buddism.

Actually, militant Zen Buddhism was a unifying force in WWII Japan. Much like promises of eternal reward after death helps assuage fears for believers in Judeo-Christian teachings, the beliefs in impermanence and reincarnation assuage the fears of death for Buddhists. Soto Zen has also been criticized for racial discrimination [PDF] in the treatment of the former Japanese lower caste members. You can read a long list of essays about Buddhism going wrong (particularly Japanese Buddhism) here.

Then, of course, there was the White Lotus Revolution which overthrew the Mongol Yuan dynasty and established the Ming dynasty. That was basically a Buddhist nationalist secret society. The ethnic struggles in Sri Lanka are between the Buddhist Sinhalese and the Hindu Tamils, so Buddhists aren't all innocent either.

The problem is not the religion -- it's the people that practice it.

Burr-Brown rocks.

[drolli]

The analog circuits designed by Burr-Brown are among the best what you can buy for rasonable Money. Their broad selection of Low-noise/High-performance OpAmps is a real relief for anybody who has built his own sensitive preamplifier. I am in research and I can say that whenever I verified the performance of an Burr-Brown (Ti part of the series) if gave the specs out of the box, while beeing extremly hard to kill. Their datasheets are among the best examples of documentation which I have seen and indeed some of their Example circuits are used without modification in our Lab for 10 Years or more, replacing much more expensive electronics.

Christian Left

[Valdrax]

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.

That was the Christian Left -- the same radical religious movement that gave birth to unions, trust-busting, and women's lib in America. It was the Secular Right that fought against it mostly. The Temperance movement was very closely tied into the women's rights movement (as drunkenness was blamed for domestic abuse). It's no coincidence that the 18th & 19th Amendments were passed so closely together. It was a major part of the Progressive movement.

It was mostly secular conservatives that opposed Prohibition in its early days. Progressivism and its related policies were very strongly tied to religious fundamentalism back in the day. The tie between fundamentalism and right-wing politics is a function of the latter half of the 21st century and fear of communism.

Re:Interfering with a religion, eh?

[Archangel Michael]

"No, I don't. Turkey, Iran*, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, and the UAE (United Arab Emirates) are some countries that do not experience this "surge in violence" that you keep referring to."

Actually, since you mentioned it, Turkey has had a great deal of Muslim violence over the years, just ask the Armenians and the Kurds. But since both have been almost disappeared, there isn't much violence anymore. Kuwait and UAE are small almost quaint countries, and I would agree that they are exceptions to the rule, but you'll see why later on in this reply. Honestly I don't know much about Kazakhstan.

Now Iran is interesting story, because we had the very long, and recent war with Iraq. Not to mention the violent overthrow of the previous (albeit tainted) administration. I actually fear for the entire middle east should Iran get nukes. Their involvement in the sectarian violence in Iraq is also quite suspected.

Okay, so of the several you mention, only two small emirates are relatively violence free, and mainly because they are small enough that they really don't matter much. Saudi Arabia is also relatively peaceful, as is many other Muslim countries.

I dare say that this is because most of these are homogenized Muslim countries, being largely of one sect or another. You are free to worship Allah, just as long as it is in the prescribed way according to that country's position. Anything less is not tolerated, and is purged, often violently.

"You chastise the parent for not providing facts about Islam, yet, you come across as someone who only discovered Islam after 9/11 by providing ZERO facts of your own. You may have a pHd in Islamic studies, but, based on this post, you make no mention as to where you are getting your information from."

I think I mentioned the Channel Four secret video of Muslim Clerics preaching their hatred. There are plenty of information available. The most chilling is what Islam teaches its children and promotes on National TV programs ...

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=924

The reference about Pepsi is quite telling about the Muslims of the world.

"Basmallah: The Pepsi company."

For those who may not understand the referrence the little girl made to "PEPSI", there is a lie circulating among Muslims worldwide, that the company is owned by the "Jews" and that the popular drinks name is an anagram, meaning;

    "Pay Every Penny Save Israel"

This is being PROMOTED on NATIONAL TV (Iqra TV) by the MODERATE Islamic state of Saudi Arabia. Little three year old girl saying she would kill a Jew. Nice.

Now tell me, where exactly does Mainstream Islam stand on such issues? All I hear is deafening silence. I understand why, death threats usually silence all but the truly heroic people.

Re:Yeah they're oppressed too

[Doctor Faustus]

For some reason, a lot of them have a persecution complex because they aren't allowed to force their beliefs on everyone else.
Of course, you hear all the time about how America was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. The Quakers were, yes, and probably a couple of other groups. The Puritans, however, had already escaped religious persecution by moving from England to Amsterdam. However, there they had to live around people who didn't believe as they did, so they came to America.

Henson Legal Support Fund

[PerlDiver]

Donations to assist Keith's defense can be made here.

Please mod this up to make it more visible (or better yet, can it be edited into the main article, Hemos? Thanks)

More like limits to "freedom" from being offended

[colinrichardday]

The main problem isn't whether Scientology is or is not a religion, but to what extent people shouldnot offend Scientologists (and others).

hahaha

[geekoid]

TOm Cruise Missle. Thats just priceless.
It begs the question: How to you get a missile with such an enormous head to fly?

Re:Yeah they're oppressed too

[bladesjester]

The thing I loved was how often I was told that I was going to hell. It's the reason I stopped doing anything there even remotely resemboling volunteer work. I got tired of getting my hand bitten by the people I was helping.

The really funny one (not in the haha manner, but in the sad way), though, was the fact that the little brother of one of my best friends in high school would gleefully tell me that I was going to hell. He seemed genuinely happy about it.

His mother was of the same basic opinion (the whole family was, really, except my friend. He basically learned to take me as I was), only she kept trying to get me to come to her church instead of telling me directly that I was going to hell.

Said friend went to the same college that I did after we graduated from high school. After he left his parents' house, he finally came out of the closet. Now I'd known for years - even before he admitted it to himself (heck, I had to quietly explain to my cousin, who was rather fond of him, why he only dated her for a short time before saying it wasn't going to work out), but his parents went ballistic. His mother all but disowned him and it took her a good six months before she'd even talk to him again. Tore the poor guy up inside, and all of this because he finally admitted to himself and his family what I'd known since were were kids.

It's amazing how fast some of them will turn on people; even people they claim to love. I'm acutally sort of amazed that I wasn't accused of corrupting their son because I wasn't Christain.

people abuse their freedoms

[circletimessquare]

government is the natural, inevitable product of people wanting to regulate the freedoms of others around them, because people abuse their freedoms

no one is truly "free": i have to eat every day. if i don't, i die. i am a slave to my biological needs

being truly free really is just about maximizing the range of theoretical freedoms you have, taking into account the natural tensions that exist between your freedom and with the freedoms of other people, and the fundamental lack of freedom that is your biological needs

government will always exist. anarchy is really just the unregulated imposition of other people's restrictions on your freedom: i decide because i have the gun, for example. while government is the regulated imposition of other people's restrictions on your freedom

the existence of others always limits your freedoms (and empowers them in other ways, btw). the question is if you want that imposition to be regulated and controlled or random and unjust

Being told I'm going to hell SCARES me...

[AmazingRuss]

...so that would make the relegious people terrorists, right?

Re:Being told I'm going to hell SCARES me...

[freakmn]

I wouldn't say so. I know you're probably (hopefully) not being serious, but if you are, the thought that you might think of me as a terrorist scares me, so then would you be a terrorist?

trebuchet

[Lehk228]

Wood, Bags of sand,rope, and bolts

is all you need to construct a modern day trebuchet to deal with local scientologist colonies.

what you load into your trebuchet is up to you.

I think you meant...

[Ltar]

RAmen.

My take on this...

[Arcturax]

First off, if Hanson was following people home as some stated above, that hurts his case a bit, because it makes him no better than these people. But the real problem is in how he handled this court defeat.

Instead of running, he should have appealed it and got it up to a court that was not either stupid or somehow bought off by the Co$.

A higher court probably would have thrown out the case or declared a mistrial due to the irregularities of the initial trial. He might well have been free within weeks.

Instead he fled and made his case worse. All this, "I'm afraid they will kill me" is not a good excuse. If you are afraid of possibly being killed, you shouldn't be out messing with members of a criminal terrorist organization like this. This is America's Al Qaida we are dealing with after all. Best thing to do is to work in groups and just educate people from online. People do seem to be wising up to the Co$ and from what I understand, they have been shrinking in membership for some time now, especially since the internet has made it so easy to learn about how psycho and dangerous this organization is.

So yeah, this guy was better off taking a risk and going to prison and fighting it through appeals. It might well have brought a higher court down and even got the media involved in looking at the major irregularities in the original trial. More than likely, he would have gotten out of jail in 6 months if nothing else. I doubt the Co$ wanted to create another martyr like McPherson.

The Final Answer

[masterofhisdomain]

All your base are belong to Xenu!!

Sorry, it had to be done. :P

Re:Never join a religion

[dangitman]

That sounds like a wager to me.

Scientlogy should be outlawed as seditious.

[Archeopteryx]

They are no more a religion than Al Queyda is.

They are dangerous, and their assets should be frozen and their leaders arrested as terrorists.

However, it is a misguided policy, at best.

[the_REAL_sam]

The thing that bothers me most is that the ones who evangelize in a non-intrusive way get lumped in with those who are complete jerks. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, if I remember the expression correctly.

Well I've also seen them going too far, but there is such a thing as not far enough:

The Church at Laodicea: Revelation 3:14

14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write, 'These things says the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God:
15 "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot.
16 Therefore, since you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of My mouth.
17 Because you say, 'I am wealthy, and have become rich, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked,
18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold having been tried by fire, so that you may become rich; and white robes, so that you may be clothed, and the shame of your nakedness may not appear; and eye salve, so that you may anoint your eyes, in order that you may see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and discipline. Be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, then I will come in to him and I will dine with him, and he with Me.

Re:However, it is a misguided policy, at best.

[freakmn]

Very true. Being lukewarm is not something to strive for. But I don't think that it's in God's plan to go too far and turn people away. I strive to be honest and willing to share. If the questions are asked about what I believe, then I answer them accordingly. I don't force it upon people, because He gave us free will. I offer the option, and some take it, some don't. You do bring up a good point, though.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:You do not get arrested just for being a critic

[dangitman]

Let me start to answer your question with a statement: You have no idea what I believe. You just do not know. If you think I believe what you are told I believe by people who,

So, why don't you tell us what you believe in?

The first thing you should know about Scientology is that it is the only religion, except Buddhism, that I know of that does not ask you to take anything about it on faith. "If it is true for you, it is true." Likewise, if it is not true for you, then it is not true. What this means, in lay terms, is that if you read a book and think "this is bullshit" then put the book down and move on.

I find that hard to believe. You need to pay them money to have the teachings revealed. Why would you part with your money for unkown and unseen teachings, without any faith? And if they are cool about it working or not working for individuals, why do they try to suppress discussions and criticisms of Scientology?

The spiritual side is not easy to test for, being by definition non-physical, but there are evidences for it. But, as I said, if you are one who is in denial about the spiritual, then, you are going to have some problems with the subject.

In other words, it requires faith. Which contradicts your first point.

You will find value in Scientology's study technology. Very simple to do, but very profound. We, as a society, are asking children and young adults to learn new subjects, and then force-testing them into compliance without a decent set of study tools. Current schools are dicking around with "no child left behind."

OK. So, if you believe that Scientology's teaching techniques are so valuable - and that children are being harmed by mainstream education - then why not freely and openly spread those techniques? Why keep them secret and charge all that money? Do Scientologists want to improve education and the lives of children, or do they just want to make money?

Sadly, there are cases where some people have done some criminal activities, but they are so rare that you could easily draw up a list of every Scientologist who has done some sort of crime (as I know our critics have). The percentage is very small. Certainly smaller than the general populace.

Do you have any evidence for this?

But, I felt like a little writing today, and I like /. normally, and get f'ing tired of reading the uninformed mass-hysterical drivel of people who should know better.

Well, if people are uninformed about Scientology, then it's hard to blame anyone else than Scientology. Why does the organization act so secretly? Why are great lengths taken to keep CoS documents secret? Why is so much effort expended on shutting down critics of Scientology?

If Scientologists want less hysteria and misinformation, maybe they should start being more open about the facts of the church?

Finally, you will notice that no Scientologist has ever martyred himself in a public place,

Really? Tom Cruise seems to be doing a great job of martyring himself in the name of Scientology.

Re: Anonymous Coward

[the_REAL_sam]

Perhaps you could read the list and identify to yourself what you found to be so objectionable:

(1) Love the LORD as much as you can.
(2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
(3) Keep the 10 commandments & the Law; live righteously.
(4) Love your enemy, always forgive, and return kindness in exchange for evil.
(5) Refrain from sexual immoralities.
(6) Help the poor and recognize that the love of money is the root of all evil.
(7) Give to those who ask; lend to those who ask; be a good samaritan for those in need.
(8) Don't go around thinking you're totally wise and all-knowing, or totally holier than your neighbor.
(9) Do not judge other people, and remain aware that whatever they're doing that is wrong, there was a time when you made your own mistakes, as well, and IF you've been living more righteously it's due to the LORD's own grace, and NOT b/c you're a better person than they are.
(10) Faith can move mountains, ask and you'll receive, knock and it will be opened to you. Think about that. Jesus raised Lazarus from the DEAD. The LORD parted the entire RED SEA for the Hebrews to walk that sea's floor.

While I'm not sure he's all there...

[binarysins]

After reading a bit on previous Scientologist antics I'm convinced they're apeshit fucking insane.

Bad publicity for the church of Scientology

[Rick17JJ]

It is ironic how much bad publicity the church of Scientology has generated for itself by these repeated attempts to punish and silence Keith Henson. Like many Slashdot readers, I had barely heard of the church of Scientology. This discussion about the arrest of Keith Henson is my first real source of information about Scientologists. They may have won several battles in the court room against Keith Henson, but in doing so, lost several major battles for public opinion. Is publicity like this what they want people to know about their organization?

Back in the 1970s, I was once a member of the L-5 society but never attended any of their meetings. I just enjoyed reading about the ideas presented in their monthly newsletter. Keith Henson was a co-founder of that organization. I vaguely remember the name Keith Henson, but had never met him. L-5 Society members could probably be considered to be a bunch of overly optimistic technology enthusiasts who wanted to promote the idea of building self-sufficient cities in space using existing technology. It was an intriguing vision of the future which never happened and probably won't happen within my lifetime. They were an idealistic bunch of engineers, scientists and, what we would now call geeks, who in their own way wanted to try to build a better world. So imagine my surprise at reading on Slashdot that Keith Henson was a Scientology critic who had just been arrested a few miles away from where I live here in the quiet little town of Prescott, Arizona.

So far, I still don't know very much about the church of Scientology, but here is the general sense of what I have have learned today so far on Slashdot and the various links. The church of Scientology is allegedly a rich and vengeful religious cult. They apparently have lawyers who are ready to sue their critics. The church was founded by a science fiction author. People can be sued for excerpting their scriptures (are they copyrighted?). I don't know it that is a totally accurate picture or not, but that is the general impression that I get by following the news stories about Keith's arrest. If other readers are reacting the same way, then it looks like the church of Scientology may have won in court, but in doing so has generated lots of bad publicity. At least in that sense they have lost. They may have only turned Keith Henson into a martyr and symbol for the Scientology critics?

I saw a link to the "Henson Legal Support Fund" and my contribution check is now in the mail to help pay for his defense.

Call the jail!!!

[Sargeant Slaughter]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scient ology/msg/11d21f1756109be2

Re:Yeah they're oppressed too

[CptPicard]

This kind of false argument is not restricted to US religious wackos, but is a really general modus operandi for a minority that tries to pull out the persecution card whenever someone else is not like them, i.e. when their own intolerance of the surrounding world is exposed. They always try it, as the concept of "tolerance" is easy to abuse when the audience is not thinking critically.

My own pet favourite are the Swedish-speaking Finnish nationals (a 5,5% language minority concentrated along the coastline) that I just love taking on regarding their dogmatic belief that everyone in the country must be like them against all proof to the contrary, lest they feel horribly oppressed. The amount of personal abuse one receives can be impressive if one just simply suggests that my mother tongue is Finnish, my family tree hasn't got a single Swedish-speaker in it as far as I know, Swedish is for me essentially a foreign language, NO I do not support more arbitrary legal requirements to help Finnish-speakers find use for the mandatory Swedish they're taking in school, and that I am equally opposed to the consequent "helping" of us passing those arbitrary requirements by ... you guessed it, even more Swedish. It seems to be perfectly acceptable to just scream down anyone who suggests there just might be some circular logic hidden here somewhere.

Listening to their sales pitch really reminds me of a fundie Christian trying the softly-softly approach of "... but receiving Jesus as your saviour certainly can't harm you, can it? Believing in him is just a positive! How could you be so closed-minded and intolerant as to exclude the possibility of God? Wouldn't it be great if we could all just be a happy Christian family?" -- you end up having an obligation to share their faith, where none really exists and you're just fine the way you are, and they are the ones who should deal with it.

Unfortunately, the constitution here says that the state is bilingual (that is, it must be able to provide services in both languages in those mentioned coastal areas). This is being milked to all it's worth to push the (wrong) interpretation that this means that every citizen has the personal obligation to share some sort of bilingual identity. If you disagree, you're a nasty nationalist who hates the minority. This is equivalent to the US religious right managing to pass the amendment about defining the US as a "Christian country", thus establishing a state religion for every individual citizen, really...

"Clambake" is not what scientology is about.

[andres32a]

My thoughts exactly. I also wanted to thank the users on /. for posting a valid question without being insulting. I do not except anybody to believe in what i believe. But is seems to me that most people here just don't know what is Scientology really.
I've seen the information and made a choice. I'm a proud scientologist that acknowledges that there are things to be improved. Does the church of scientology over react on certain situations? Probably. Does "operation clambake" or whatever it's name promotes hatred? Yes. I think we all need to be carefull of prejudice.

Re:"Clambake" is not what scientology is about.

[timetourist]

Please understand with all due respect to you all that are scientologists or believe in scientology the people posting dissenting opinions of scientologist are in no way attacks on you as a person or of a personal nature. What many people have a serious valid concern with is the many corroborated reports of the abuses and behavior that that the curch of scientology and it's leaders committed against it's members and anyone it considers to be an enemy because they don't agree with them. Please don't take these opinions as attacking you personally as human beings cause I think we can all agree that they are not directed at you. With that in mind I, as I'm sure many others have some questions about the COS.

1. I've heard that you are told to "disconnect" from family and friends who do not agree with what the church is doing or think it's a cult, etc ... Is this true and have you personally experienced this or do you know anyone in the church who has?

2. Many of don't understand why it is that you have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to reach a state of "clear". (And level OTVIII or NOT [whatever it's called now] costs up to $500,000) Can you tell us why?

3. Why is the COS and it's members so opposed to psychiatry as to say it should be outlawed? (I have reservations of some of psychiatry but it does help many many people some of whom I know personally who have been helped by it). By the way, some scientology techniques are just psychiatry techniques that have been reworded or "borrowed" by the COS.

4. These auditing sessions seem to be asking 'pre-clears' to creating little problems in their own minds that don't really don't exist for the 'pre-clear' and then saying that 'engram' is now gone (sorry couldn't articulate it better but I think you know what I was trying to say). What has been your experience or point of view on that?

5. The end result that the COS and scientologists, i.e. last level, they are trying to achieve is as I see it imposing the COS will or the scientologists will on others. Isn't that the purpose of the person, thetan, or whatever you want to call them, to have the power to control matter, energy, space, and time. That's cause it's control without the restrictions of nature or the natural world. (I'm not sure I explained that in clear terms. By the way, that same sort of control seems to be the theme of many science fiction tv and books. Interesting how people try to acquire unlimited power.)

There are many more questions but that a start. I hope you appreciate the time and effort I put into this post. I hope that we all can have an intelligent discussion here without resorting to personal attacks.

Re:"Clambake" is not what scientology is about.

[andres32a]

1. I've heard that you are told to "disconnect" from family and friends who do not agree with what the church is doing or think it's a cult, etc ... Is this true and have you personally experienced this or do you know anyone in the church who has? In Scientology people aren't told what to do. I have not had any experience with this at least personally. I have seem aomeone "disconnecting". A person who disconnects is simply exercising his right to communicate or not to communicate with a particular person. Usually this is done when there is no tolerance on the person's new belief's and that intolerance is in most cases rooted in false information. On my 15 years as a scientologist, i have only seen this once. And i can say that THAT particular scientologist was an idiot (yes I acknowledge there are a lot idiot scientologists as there are a lot idiots pretty much everywhere.) He could probably handled the situation by saying: "Hey i love you and i appreciate you worry 'bout me. Please understand, don't attack my beliefs and be tolerant. I am still a member of this (family, group, whatever) and i am also a (whatever religion, group o belief system)... can we still be friends? 2. Many of don't understand why it is that you have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to reach a state of "clear". (And level OTVIII or NOT [whatever it's called now] costs up to $500,000) Can you tell us why? The first thing is first. Charges are not "up to 500,000". I, as a Scientologist have spent about 9000 USD on scientologist books, training, auditing and donations. This is for 15 years. Was it worth it? absolutely. A person who donates for auditing receives one-to-one personal and effective assistance to solve problems in life, to communicate more freely with others and to handle the upsets of life preventing his true spiritual freedom. An entire team of Scientology staff members is required to deliver auditing, which is always individual, and/or training to a parishioner. Compare this to a church with a single priest or minister who delivers a single sermon to a congregation of perhaps 1,000 and the difference starts to become apparent. It would take about 650 ministers just to audit 2,000 Scientologists (one auditor can counsel three parishioners per day with some administrative assistance), and this does not account for all other staff who provide the services necessary for the Church itself to function. The training delivered by Churches of Scientology could be compared to taking a course in a school or similar facility. Four years at a typical university would cost between $30,000 and $40,000; four years at a top university would run between $80,000 and $90,000 or even more. And those figures do not include additional costs such as books and supplies. The most thorough study of Scientology available is the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, which takes more than 50 weeks to complete, at 40 hours per week of study. It provides a student with a full understanding of the mind and life and is the functional equivalent of a complete college education. The requested donation is between a fourth to a tenth of that charged by universities. Yet, the manpower required to deliver such training is very comparable. And Scientology churches provide this service without being supported by any government funding, as many universities are. Students who are learning to become auditors must audit others as part of their training. In many cases, they co-audit each other and, of course, there is no donation requested for that. A person can receive the majority of his own auditing in this manner. 3. Why is the COS and it's members so opposed to psychiatry as to say it should be outlawed? (I have reservations of some of psychiatry but it does help many many people some of whom I know personally who have been helped by it). Psychiatry need serious reform. I for one, don't believe that psychiatry should be outlawed but i do believe certain practices of psychiatry should, namely, enforced and harmful psychiatric me

Re:"Clambake" is not what scientology is about.

[andres32a]

1. I've heard that you are told to "disconnect" from family and friends who do not agree with what the church is doing or think it's a cult, etc ... Is this true and have you personally experienced this or do you know anyone in the church who has?

In Scientology people aren't told what to do. I have not had any experience with this at least personally. I have seem aomeone "disconnecting". A person who disconnects is simply exercising his right to communicate or not to communicate with a particular person. Usually this is done when there is no tolerance on the person's new belief's and that intolerance is in most cases rooted in false information. On my 15 years as a scientologist, i have only seen this once. And i can say that THAT particular scientologist was an idiot (yes I acknowledge there are a lot idiot scientologists as there are a lot idiots pretty much everywhere.) He could probably handled the situation by saying:
"Hey i love you and i appreciate you worry 'bout me. Please understand, don't attack my beliefs and be tolerant. I am still a member of this (family, group, whatever) and i am also a (whatever religion, group o belief system)... can we still be friends?

2. Many of don't understand why it is that you have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to reach a state of "clear". (And level OTVIII or NOT [whatever it's called now] costs up to $500,000) Can you tell us why?

The first thing is first. Charges are not "up to 500,000". I, as a Scientologist have spent about 9000 USD on scientologist books, training, auditing and donations. This is for 15 years. Was it worth it? absolutely.

A person who donates for auditing receives one-to-one personal and effective assistance to solve problems in life, to communicate more freely with others and to handle the upsets of life preventing his true spiritual freedom. An entire team of Scientology staff members is required to deliver auditing, which is always individual, and/or training to a parishioner. Compare this to a church with a single priest or minister who delivers a single sermon to a congregation of perhaps 1,000 and the difference starts to become apparent. It would take about 650 ministers just to audit 2,000 Scientologists (one auditor can counsel three parishioners per day with some administrative assistance), and this does not account for all other staff who provide the services necessary for the Church itself to function.

The training delivered by Churches of Scientology could be compared to taking a course in a school or similar facility. Four years at a typical university would cost between $30,000 and $40,000; four years at a top university would run between $80,000 and $90,000 or even more. And those figures do not include additional costs such as books and supplies. The most thorough study of Scientology available is the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, which takes more than 50 weeks to complete, at 40 hours per week of study. It provides a student with a full understanding of the mind and life and is the functional equivalent of a complete college education. The requested donation is between a fourth to a tenth of that charged by universities. Yet, the manpower required to deliver such training is very comparable. And Scientology churches provide this service without being supported by any government funding, as many universities are. Students who are learning to become auditors must audit others as part of their training. In many cases, they co-audit each other and, of course, there is no donation requested for that. A person can receive the majority of his own auditing in this manner.

3. Why is the COS and it's members so opposed to psychiatry as to say it should be outlawed? (I have reservations of some of psychiatry but it does help many many people some of whom I know personally who have been helped by it).

Psychiatry need serious reform. I for one, don't believe that psychiatry should be outlawed but i do believe certain practices of psychiatry should,

Tom Cruise Missiles

[CrossChris]

Remember: there have been more and bloodier wars fought over religion than any other reason.

Re:Tom Cruise Missiles

[gfreeman]

Except land. The chief reason is land ... land and money ... money and land .... the two reasons are money and land ... and thirst for power .... The *three* reasons are money, land, and thirst for power ... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... The *four*...no... *amongst* the reasons.... Amongst the reasons ...are such elements as money, land .... I'll come in again.

What if you thinking I'm a terrorist...

[AmazingRuss]

...for thinking you are a terrorist scares somebody else...some innocent bystander? Does that make us a terrorist cell?

And what about The Children?

Re:What if you thinking I'm a terrorist...

[freakmn]

I suppose if you are thinking that anyone who scares anyone else is a terrorist, then yes, this would be a terrorist cell. I can't quite tell if you are making a joke or not, so I'll be the jerk who explains away a joke that he doesn't get. If someone actually thinks that if someone scares them, then they are a terrorist, then I think that the first person needs to toughen up. There are other people in the world, with other opinions, that may not agree with yours. To try to get everyone to agree with you, just to make it convenient for you to live your life is extremely selfish, and just isn't fair. There's other people around, deal with it

-end rant-

Re:What if you thinking I'm a terrorist...

[AmazingRuss]

If someone actually thinks that if someone scares them, then they are a terrorist, then I think that the first person needs to toughen up. I agree...if we weren't such a bunch of pussies, there wouldn't be much reward for terrorist tactics. The whole war on terror thing is embarrassing, futile, and shows the world that the United States will thrash around like a paniced water buffalo at the sound of a firecracker. The Soviet Union was brought down in large part by scaring them into burning cash on military toys. It cost the United States bajillions of dollars to build the toys that scared the Soviets. Now the same thing is being done to the United States by a bunch of random whackjobs with a few million dollars here and there. Maybe our empire was done anyway...we are becoming irrational and decadent. Dignity and courage have pretty much left the building.

Great...

[KitsuneSoftware]

I really can't wait for Taliban-style fundamentalist Sharia-law Muslims to use the same approach...</sarcasm>

May the bunnies protect us.

[jotaeleemeese]

I thought the state was an organizational tool to protect people from each other and to aim for the common good.

You make it sound like if the state is an end on itself.

Very Sovietic attitude that of yours, unfortunately the history of the XXth century argue against your lame case.

Re:May the bunnies protect us.

[monkeydo]

I thought the state was an organizational tool to protect people from each other and to aim for the common good.

I don't think that any definition of "state" changes the meaning of what I wrote. If you interpreted what I wrote as somehow condoning socialism, then I think you either misunderstand my post, or socialism, or both.

hummm

[DirtyFly]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquem ada I remember the mel brook's song about this dude ...

Re: Anonymous Coward

[the_REAL_sam]

Perhaps you could read the list to yourself and explain why I need to believe in the LORD or FAIRYTALES about the RED SEA to do 2, 4, 6, 7, or 8?

You don't. On the other hand, you do need to do 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 in order to keep in line with the teachings of Christ, and to do them the right way you'll need to pray, and to pray it helps if you have the faith that the LORD will answer your prayers. You could pray without that faith, but i spent 15 years as an agnostic, and I really never felt an urge or interest in prayer until I had my eyes opened in a place full of demons.

REASON is much more RELIABLE [than faith].

Your argument contains a flawed assumption, since reason and faith are not at odds with one another.

Well, I could ask you to explain some things; I've called a coin toss 15 times in a row. The odds of that are 1/2^15. One in 32768. Ok, fine, there are lottery winners in this world, but I knew I was going to get them all right. I've seen a double concentric rainbow all the way around the sun, at high noon when there wasn't a cloud in the sky. I saw the same phenomenon a second time 3 days later. I've seen miracles in daily life. My prayers have been answered on a consistent basis ever since I began praying. They have not been answered in a cheesy stereotypical "astrology column vaugeness" way; they've been answered in an unmistakable way.

Life is filled with significance and a richness of meaning that could not be replaced by anything of this world. Prayer is answered in a wonderful way. To ignore that makes even less sense than ignoring a gold mine in your own back yard.

FAITH can BLIND people and cause them do DUMB things

The structure of your argument (aversion to "dumb things") suggests that you never drink alcohol, or do any drugs, or fall in love, or get spring fever, etc..?

Some of the accomplishments of Christ, and/or of the prophets and/or of the LORD include: liberating the tribes of israel from slavery, raising the dead, healing lepers & the blind, feeding thousands of people with a single basket of loaves and fishes. Those things don't sound dumb to me. It's actually your statement that is completely backwards, since Jesus healed the blind with faith.

5 requires a DEFINITION of IMMORALITIES, which I doubt we can AGREE ON

Well, it sounds as if we agree that molesting is wrong. That's a good start, but it's not enough. The cities of sodom and gomorrha wouldn't have agreed on a definition either, but the LORD edified their mistake.

If you're still sitting there denying the LORD's existance, well, I can ask the LORD to show you a sign, but, honestly, I don't control the LORD, and how/when He reveals Himself is His own decision to make. Your own attitude and reverence could be a deciding factor, but eventually you'll be sure the LORD exists. The main question you'll have, on that day, is what you were doing in between now and then.

kooks

[gemtech]

does anyone know how their e-meter works?

Re:kooks

[zinjifar]

1) It doesn't
2) While it's not working; it's also not working the way they say it does.

It's a wheatstone bridge, it reacts to galvanic skin resistance (not 'measures'.)
According to Scientology, it 'reads' (meaning, shows a change) when something 'traumatic' is mentioned (an 'engram' or 'incident' etc.)
It's got an undamped needle, so it tends to wild swings and the 'auditor' constantly changes the baseline resistance to keep the needle on the dial.

In practice it's used like a Magic 8 Ball, or 'Hotter/Colder' game while the mooch is questioned.
This is the 'research' that Hubbard used to 'discover' the marvels of Xenu, the transtemporal, intergalactic 'Psych Conspiracy' and the 'Martian Implant Stations' all to within an accuracy of microseconds over gadzillion years (longer than the universe has existed anyway.)

Naturally, this is the short version. The 'Tech' has lots of names for various kinds of 'needle bounces', all of which supposedly have very special and specific meanings. If you get a 'Rockslam', it means you're having bad thoughts about Ron Hubbard or Scientology :)

See: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/

Beyond that, the e-meter also serves as an analogue to the hypnotist's 'swinging watch'; as a distraction from what's actually being done to the victim.

Although it's not considered 'auditing', the e-meter is also used in the 'Sec Check' (security check, also called the 'Scientology Confessional'.) There are number of different flavors, regular, ethyl, joberg, gang-bang and even one just for kids (which is pretty disgusting.)

My favorite is the 'Whole Track Sec Check' which 'locates' the targets 'crimes across the 'Whole Track', i.e. in past lives.

Did you come to Earth for evil purposes?
Have you ever smothered a baby?
Have you ever enslaved a population?
Have you ever destroyed a culture?
Have you ever torn out someone's tongue?
Have you ever zapped anyone?
Have you ever eaten a human body?
Have you ever made a planet, or nation, radioactive?

there are lots of funnier ones, but you can google them.

Re:kooks

[gemtech]

very thorough answer, more than I expected. that was actually a trick question, I know exactly how it works, at least from an electrical standpoint. The original units were indeed a wheatstone bridge because they were all analog. MarQ VII, and VIII (I'll bet you haven't heard of that one yet) all have A/D converters with microcontrollers doing the work, measuring resistance by applying a small amount of current and measuring the resultant voltage. After that, it's all magic (refering to what the auditor does). or voodoo. But you've got them nailed on what they do. or don't do. or just plain do-do.
I've met some of them, they are nice people but very sheep-like, they need direction in their life and C$T provides that for them, to a fault.
What gives me the most heartburn is what they've done to people that try to leave. Can you say: "cult"??

Re:kooks

[zinjifar]

Your 'sig' reminds me of the 'Scientology Litany':

We didn't do it
You can't prove we did it
Everybody else does it too
Everybody else does it worse
It was done by infiltrators trying to make us look bad
It was done by a rogue scientologist who was an infiltrator
We did it for the good of Mankind
Look! It's Tom Cruise!
We didn't do it
(repeat ad nauseum)

Zinj

Re:kooks

[gemtech]

hmmm... that was not my intention. I've had that 'sig' for over 4 years, and have only had contact with "the church" for the last 3.
You seem to know a lot about them. If I might ask, is this personal experience or just web research on cults?

Re:kooks

[zinjifar]

I've had the pleasure of knowing Keith for better than 10 years now and the entertainment of similar if lesser levels of harassment by the 'Church's' in-house Gestapo, the 'Office of Special Affairs'. At the same time I've had the experience of knowing many Scientologists; in, out and out-but-still-believing and in general consider them well-meaning and often very intelligent people who just happened to fall into a marcabian mind-trap that they didn't deserve.

It's nice to see the camoflage begin to flake off in the past few years (Thank you Tom!) and, while as wacky cults go, they have a lot of amusement value, the actual *harm* they cause is unspeakable, and, unfortunately, all too seldom spoken of.

Thanks to Keith for allowing, however involuntarilly, a visible demonstration of 'What is Scientology' and more 'Keeping Scientology Working.'

It's a recursive phenomenon; it's *always* worse than you think. And, worse than I think it is.

As Gandhi would have said

[oliverthered]

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ

Re:As Gandhi would have said

[Valdrax]

I just used this very quote in a response to another post without even realizing that you'd posted this. This is my favorite quote to inspire humility when thinking about religion.

Re:hm

[dave420]

What really gets my goat is the massive mutli-million-dollar cathedrals. Couldn't that money help the poor? Or did Jesus advocate spending money on fancy churches? It's so blatant it's sickening, yet people are giving money hand-over-fist just to look good in their community. Religion, at best, makes people do the right thing for the wrong reason. It's not helping anything.

Religion?

[Hoi Polloi]

I take issue with calling it a religion at all. It is a business. They charge for all of their basic services (analysis sessions, etc). I don't see the Catholic Church charging for Mass. They ask for donations but you can attend for free. Scientology is a "pay as you go" business. If you don't have the $ you can't play. Not requiring payment for religious services should be used as part of the legal determination if an organization is a non-profit or not.

Re:Yeah they're oppressed too

[ShadowsHawk]

It's sad that the family that you describe is what the public perceives to be the average Christian. The truth is, there are plenty of religious and non-religious people in the world who are intolerant of anything different. (I have an atheist coworker who tells the vocal Christian to go kill herself every morning) Take note of people who post things like "Only an idiot would believe in religion". A true Christian would not tell you that you're going to hell. A true Christian believes in love and acceptance.

Re:You do not get arrested just for being a critic

[dangitman]

Read the following books, all available from Amazon: Scientology: A New Slant on Life.

No, I asked what you believe, not what some books say. Reading the Bible doesn't tell me anything about what a particular Christian believes. Just like reading recruiting material doesn't tell me what you believe.

So to have the "teachings revealed" will cost you about $35 if you buy all of the above, or about $7 if you buy only one.

But we all know those aren't all "the teachings" - they are just the introduction.

Yet, somehow, we are secretive.

No shit. If you aren't secretive, then why does the Church sue over having other teachings revealed? If you are not secretive - then why is it that when I am approached by Scientology recruiters, they claim they are doing a "Personality test" and don't tell me that they are actually trying to convert me to Scientology?

Have you read any books on the subject? You have not.

Yes, I have.

You criticize, but have not even looked at what it is?

I have seen what it is. I have had personal experience with your recruiters and their recruiting centers and techniques.

As for stats on crime, etc., read Scientology's web site. The demographics are there, and in the book "What is Scientology?"

I mean statistics from a credible source. How would Scientology obtain such statistics, anyway?

Don't believe it? Drop by a church and count how many drugged out gang bangers you see.

Not all criminals are "drugged out gang bangers." In fact, the vast majority of criminals do not fit this stereotype. Many criminals are respectable-looking bankers, or religious preachers. Given the way that Scientologists mislead people for profit, I'd say that Scientology itself is bordlerline criminal, and in many cases probably crosses the line into outright criminality.

Re:Great post

[David_Shultz]

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.

Re:You do not get arrested just for being a critic

[ScnGuy]

I wish people would stop with the "criminal" bullshit. We have been around for almost sixty years. We have been banned, banished, taxed, confiscated, etc., etc. Every ban has been reversed. All confiscated materials have been returned. If our activities were truly illegal, we would have gone the way of Enron. Just because you cannot stretch your head to see how someone could believe something you don't, don't immediately label them as criminal.

I already answered your question regarding belief. I gave you a sincere answer. But, since you need more guidance, here is some of what I believe:

We are not material beings, we are spiritual beings, independent of matter, energy, space, and time. We are, in other words, souls, not merely a collection of molecules and electrons.

Being independent of the body (but not unaffected by it), we can live and be independent of it.

I believe that we are not doomed to fate, but can create our own lives.

I believe in the two rules for happy living: 1. Be able to experience anything. 2. Cause only those things which others can experience easily. (To the degree that people may have had negative experiences with Scientology, the Scientologist may have violated rule 2. The person affected violated rule 1.)

I believe in open versus closed communication. I also believe that we are free to communicate or not communicate at our discretion. For example, just because you ask me to tell you what I believe does not mean I am obligated to tell you. It is my choice.

I believe that when a person is confronted with a massive amount of confusion and unknowns, he or she can tend to shy away. But, since confusion and lack of knowledge and mystery can be physically painful sometimes ("I just have to know what's behind that door!) he or she will just pick up an easy-sounding answer, like, say, "God hates me," or "those people are nuts, anyway", rather than confront it and find out the real truth. It is difficult to confront what you don't know. It is easy to turn away and come up with some pat answer for it. This is called a fixed condition. You do not always know that you have them. Scientology can help you find them and discover the real truth.

I believe that attitude is everything. Two people go to the same job. One person is negative, bitching and moaning, and has the attitude that his is a dead-end job. The other comes to work with a positive attitude, looks for ways to improve his situation, finds ways to do his job better. Same job, totally different attitude. Who gets promoted?

That's enough. You have already made up your mind. You have the attitude that this is a cult, and I am brainwashed, and all the Church is in it for is the money. You aren't seeing what is there, or you are only seeing some slanted opinions of others with very little direct experience, but, hey, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Would that it were more informed.

Re:You do not get arrested just for being a critic

[dangitman]

I wish people would stop with the "criminal" bullshit. We have been around for almost sixty years.

And Scientologists have been lying to people and taking their money for just as long. It might be technically legal, it might not be. I don't really care. The lying is so immoral that it's as good as criminal. After all, there are some things which are illegal which should not be (drug use, consensual sexual acts) while there are other things which are legal, but are worse than "criminal" acts. Lying to influence people, especially when it involves radical lifestyle changes and money, is one of these things.

It might not be technically criminal, but it's despicable and immoral.

If our activities were truly illegal, we would have gone the way of Enron.

Huh? Many criminals and criminal organizations last forever, and get government and police protection. Why is the mafia still around? Why is Dick Cheney not in jail?

Just because you cannot stretch your head to see how someone could believe something you don't, don't immediately label them as criminal.

That's not what I'm doing. Believe whatever you want. But Scientology lies to vulnerable people, takes their money, and often forces them to cut themselves off from their non-Scientologist families.

But, since confusion and lack of knowledge and mystery can be physically painful sometimes ("I just have to know what's behind that door!) he or she will just pick up an easy-sounding answer, like, say, "God hates me," or "those people are nuts, anyway", rather than confront it and find out the real truth.

Or "Scientology can solve my problems."

You do not always know that you have them. Scientology can help you find them and discover the real truth.

And herein lies the real problem. As you have just stated, Scientology takes advantage of confused and vulnerable people, offering them "truth" - but they do not. They are offering a lie. Otherwise, why do they have to hide their recruiting behind "personality tests"?

It's the oldest trick in the book. Religion preys on the weak and vulnerable, offering easy answers, and then trying to control their lives.

That's enough. You have already made up your mind. You have the attitude that this is a cult, and I am brainwashed, and all the Church is in it for is the money.

But you really need to show some evidence that they aren't all about the money. If it isn't about money - why won't they tell you all the teachings free of charge? You can believe all you want. You can accuse me of having a closed mind, but it really seems you are the one who has a closed mind, and thinks just believing something makes it true. Are you open to the idea that you may be being exploited?

Re: Faith

[the_REAL_sam]

I assert the opposite -- to do them right you need to NOT pray.

I enjoy a good debate, but systematically gainsaying for-it's-own-sake does not group into that category.

I've seen a double concentric rainbow all the way around the sun, at high noon when there wasn't a cloud in the sky. I saw the same phenomenon a second time 3 days later.

Sounds more like you have a vision problem. But I'm not convinced it proves anything other than you saw something you didn't investigate well enough to understand.

Then I guess it was a group vision problem, since there were 3 other people there seeing the same thing on the first occasion, and there was one other witness (and not from those first 3) on the second occasion. I guess you might stipulate that they weren't there, either..? And that when I talked with them about it in the months that followed, that those were imaginary conversations, as well? That I hallucinated the witnisses to the event, as well as the event itself..and then all that followed? You're asking me to put faith in science over things that I've seen with my own eyes. You could search google images, if that would comfort you.

The LORD answers my prayers, and you'd have thousands of things to refute, if you wanted to play that game, but I know what I've seen. You seem to be claiming that to pray is to open the mind up to delusion, but in fact you are debating against the truth, and to keep your mind closed to the practice of prayer is a considerable mistake. Go ahead. Pray and ask for help in this debate. Pray and ask the LORD to help give us an accurate outcome.

So? You had a 50/50 chance each time. Streaks occur. Look it up.

As I told you, I knew I was going to get them right, each time, and it was only one of thousands of miracles/marvels, etc, that I've seen in my lifetime.

And if you had been wrong, you would have remembered the fact that you got 14 in a row.

The 16th one, I missed, but I knew I was going to miss it. In that sense it counts as another success. In any event, if I'd only gotten 14 of them right the odds were still less than 1/16000.

pray for peace in the Middle East.

I wouldn't stake my faith on peace in the Middle East, but it's not a bad thing to ask for.

what two consenting adults of the same gender do is of no consequence to me

Sure..Even if those two consenting adults are are your wife and your neighbor's husband? The spilloff of sexual immorality in the United States is staggaring: High divorce rates, single parent children (with all that that entails), STD's, people who sleep around until they are 40 and then realize they've just used up their youth for a series of meaningless flings, and that they aren't as "marketable" as they used to be, and must face the prospect of growing old alone. I presume that a divorced family is more likely to have two cars, two houses, two of everything, and that is a problem in and of itself, since (in some cases) it could amount to a 50% reduction in economic efficiency: half-families working twice as hard to pay for things they would already have paid for as a single family. (until they find new spouses, and then there's the whole kid juggling phenomenon)

I've prayed and asked the LORD if He will reach out to you. I certainly hope that you will subject everything to a strong degree of scrutiny, since there is such a thing as a false prophet. If you haven't ever seen any signs, it could be mind boggling when it first starts happening for you. It certainly was for me, before I had discovered that not every omen is from the LORD.

If you do start getting signs (as I once started getting them), just remember to pray and ask God for guidance asap.

Re:You do not get arrested just for being a critic

[ScnGuy]

As I grow older in life, I have come to grips with the fact that some people will never agree with you no matter how much you try. I used to get pissed off about it: "How can they not _see_ something so _obvious_ as ..." I realize now that someone's worldview and point of view is the product of years and years of observations, assumptions, fears, prejudices, and experiences.

One thing I realized is that while I will never be a Mormon, Jew, Catholic, or Atheist, and I consider some of their beliefs strange and in some cases outright "wrong", at least from my point of view, I have learned to be tolerant of their beliefs, and their right to choose their religion (or lack thereof). I have many, many deep friends (and family) who believe differently than I do. I work for a man who is a devout Christian, and while I do not share his exact belief, I share in his goal: to make this world a better place, and to help people touch and be inspired by divinity. I have friends of all faiths. A Jewish friend of mind said that the Jew has a pact with God to everyday make the world a better place. I respect that. I have Hindu friends who share a lot of what I believe.

I chose Scientology as my religion. It has been and continues to be my choice. My choice. No one coerced me. No one held me down and "programmed" me (thus requiring a violent "deprogramming" to get me "out"). No one electro-shocked me. No one drugged me. And no one hypnotised me. I read it, did it, and it works for me. Period.

Perhaps you may eventually come to realize that some people will not believe as you do, or see the world your way. I sincerely hope that you do.

Great article!

[fugue]

Just a note for those who don't click through everything: I believe that the fourth article ("Intensify the witch-hunt") in lixee's post is far more interesting and far-reaching than the others. Don't miss it!

Re: Faith

[the_REAL_sam]

There was a time when I would have made most of your arguments myself. However, given my experiences, it would be foolish of me to believe them now. I was, at one point in time, a very vigilant agnostic. There was no way I ever would have granted credence to the things I'm telling you now, and I guess you might have to find things out for yourself.

There were people who even told me about similar things when I was agnostic, and I never thought their statements were more than a passing moment's wonder, and then I'd go right back to thinking about things the old way again.

I really don't know how or why it would have to work that way, but perhaps that's just the way it works.

I guess the Lord reveals Himself in His own due time, and until then you're just doing whatever you would have done without Him.

The best advice I can give, if you really don't believe in the Lord, is to seriously live your life as if He were watching you, regardless, and to have reverance for the Lord (in the abstract, if that's the best you can muster). If you can get yourself to pray (even once) it could do wonders. One day you'll see, there really is no such thing as a moment alone, or a sin unobserved, and the good deeds of today (and the sin avoided) is as good as gold, tomorrow.

I wish you well as well.

Re:You do not get arrested just for being a critic

[dangitman]

My choice. No one coerced me. No one held me down and "programmed" me (thus requiring a violent "deprogramming" to get me "out"). No one electro-shocked me. No one drugged me. And no one hypnotised me.

Good for you. But that's not true for everybody. Many other people were lied to and coerced into Scientology. And that's what I have a problem with. Believe all you want, but people who lie and use coercion suck.

Perhaps you may eventually come to realize that some people will not believe as you do, or see the world your way

I do. When did I ever say that everybody believes as I do? In fact, your assumtion that I think this way makes you sound rather holier-than-thou and arrogant. In fact, I think quite the opposite - I'm well aware that my beliefs are not widely held or popular.

Re:That sect is...

[paitre]

nein.
Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and also the Jehovah's Witnesses (which I neglected to recall). /shrug.

Such as, say, a Semitic spell?

[benhocking]

And as an aside - the Israelis were slaves to the Pharoa (that looks mispelled) for how many years according to the Bible? Yet they're the only culture that has been enslaved for a period of that long and left NO archaelogical marks on Egypt, nor had any adoption of Yiddish/Hebrew into Egyptian, nor Egyptian insinuating itself into Hebrew?

Yeah, wouldn't it be great if someone found some evidence of Semitic influence in Egypt? If you want to read more about the history of Jews in Egypt, try Wikipedia.

(Note: I'm an agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. I also know enough about the Bible to know that there's a lot of historical fact in there.)

interesting

[BitterAndDrunk]

Doesn't disprove the lack of slavery, however.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is implication that they traded together more than anything?
And again, re: the Bible . . . I don't dispute there's facts in there. There's facts in the Iliad as well. Simply because there are historical facts mixed with untruths does not indicate there's a definitive "God" as proposed in the bible.

Disproving a negative?

[benhocking]

Doesn't disprove the lack of slavery, however.

No it doesn't. I probably would have worded that statement as "Doesn't prove the existence of slavery". :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is implication that they traded together more than anything?

No, it is an implication that there was an interaction, which corroborates (as circumstantial evidence) their existence in Egypt. Again, it doesn't prove the existence of slavery, either. However, I'm not sure why one would doubt that.

I don't dispute there's facts in there. There's facts in the Iliad as well. Simply because there are historical facts mixed with untruths does not indicate there's a definitive "God" as proposed in the bible.

Obviously, I'm claiming no such thing, and do not expect to ever find Adam's nor Eve's skeletons. I was going to mention Noah's flood, but there is also "corroborating" evidence there, too. By corroborating I mean:
(a) There's evidence that there might have been a flood that created the Mediterranean Sea and that this flood is in the collective consciousness of the region. That explains the numerous flood stories in different mythologies/religions.
(b) Various people keep claiming to find some evidence of the ark itself. Perhaps this would be more corroborating "evidence" than "corroborating" evidence, however.

Re:Disproving a negative?

[BitterAndDrunk]

Good points.

I whipped the post off at work, not thinking a heckuva lot about it so your corrections are, well, correct.

The final paragraph wasn't really aimed at you, per se, was just me reiterating the original point I was trying to make - a historical fact does not make a book completely valid. We wandered off-topic with the semitic spells and whatnot.
Regardless, that was interesting stuff as the last I'd read about Jewish history as it relates to the OT was a much older work (early 80s) so the updates and links you provided were good reading. So thanks for that.

Expanding on a statement I made

[benhocking]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is implication that they traded together more than anything?

Not necessarily. However, that assumption would agree with the Biblical texts. According to Genesis, the Jews had been trading with Egypt prior to their journey to Egypt. The "spell" is from 3,000 BC, and the journey into Egypt wasn't until 1,700 BC, so it's easy to believe that this was during their period of trading.

I should also point out, that this doesn't really prove much of anything beyond what any Biblical scholar already knew. There is plenty of historical evidence of Semitic and Egyptian interaction during the time period in question. Also, it seems quite consistent with other historical accounts that the Egyptians would have made slaves of foreigners. They certainly wouldn't be the last culture to do so (nor probably the first). I see no reason to doubt the Biblical account here. I think that if you read the Bible with a critical eye (and if you haven't already, I strongly recommend that you do), it's not difficult to separate the parts that should be read as historical from the parts that should not. A good rule of thumb (IMO) is the ratio of verses/years. As that ratio goes up, the historical accuracy is likely to go down. As with any rule of thumb, there are exceptions.