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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[killjoe]

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

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

[muffel]

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

You mean the lawyers and hairdressers?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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

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.

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

[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.

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

[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.

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.).

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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

[hotdiggitydawg]

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

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

What, no linkage to Operation Clambake? :)

[bad_fx]

Here's all the info you need on Scientology

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.

Re:hm

[AndroidCat]

Scientology didn't even do their standard Fair Game defamation page on Stan, I'm shocked!

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

[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

[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

The moral of the story is

[ClosedSource]

Don't mess with space 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: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?

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: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.

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).

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

[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...

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

Obligatory...

[Any Web Loco]

cult: (n) A small, unpopular religion. religion: (n) A large, popular cult.

Tomato, Tomato.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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.

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?