Slashdot Mirror


Surprise Arrest For Online Scientology Critic

destinyland writes "An online critic of Scientology was confronted at a routine hearing Tuesday with surprise arrest warrants and thrown into jail. Six years as a fugitive ended in February. (After picketing a Scientology complex in 2000 over the unexplained death of a woman there, he'd been arrested for 'threatening a religion' over a Usenet joke about 'Tom Cruise Missiles.') But 64-year-old Keith Henson had been out on bail, and was even scheduled to address the European Space Agency conference on Space Elevators. He's a co-founder of the Space Colony movement, and one of the original researchers at Texas Instruments. In this interview he discusses both space-based solar energy and his war with the Scientologists — just a few days before he was arrested."

954 comments

  1. This is what happens by 42Penguins · · Score: 4, Funny

    when you mess with dark lord Xenu!
    Hail xenu!

    1. Re:This is what happens by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Scientologists don't like Xenu, so surely this is what you get for following Xenu, not messing with him ;) Xenu is the Scientologists's Satan, whereas LRH is their Jesus.

    2. Re:This is what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as one progresses through a series of auditing "levels," one can eventually be restored to native state and can attain the status of "operating thetan," wherein one is free of attachments to the body and, even while "exterior" to (outside) the body, one can consciously control matter, energy, space, time, thought, and life. Hubbard's writings and lectures include many tantalizing details of the god-like abilities that may be gained through auditing.

      For most individual Scientologists, recovering these god-like abilities (and encouraging and assisting others to do so as well) is the primary goal of participation in Scientology. The "levels" through which a participant progresses make up what is called "The Bridge to Total Freedom." Progress through all the levels of the "Bridge" often takes many years of dedicated study and practice, and the cost in fees for services for the Bridge is currently estimated at approximately $300,000 - $500,000 in US dollars.

      http://www.xenu.net/archive/infopack/6.htm

    3. Re:This is what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! That's the combination of my luggage!

    4. Re:This is what happens by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I believe that the writers of South Park aptly portrayed Scientology fairly accurate, in a funny way. My personal experience is one of chilling reality; Walk away, but do not turn your back on them.

  2. How is this appropriate for slashdot? by astonishedelf · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why is this news?

    1. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      It's just a fucking wanker meta bitching.

      Next time you are about to post a "Why is this news?" comment why don't you do us all a favor and hit yourself in the face with a keyboard.

    2. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by dr_dank · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't be hasty modding this a troll. Judging by the GP's number, he/she may not have been around for the scientology incident.

      To answer your question, CmdrTaco was essentially forced several years ago to remove a comment from an AC that Scientology lawyers claimed was DMCA protected, namely a portion of their "sacred/copywritten" texts for OT3. The story is here.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    3. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged".

      His name was Xenu."

      I hope that's short enough for fair use

    4. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      HEY,

      When you summarize it like that it sounds insane. :)

    5. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by enjerth · · Score: 1

      When you summarize it like that it sounds insane. :) It was in quotes. I don't think that's a summary.
    6. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Deinhard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you read the entire version it sounds just as insane!

      --
      Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
    7. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking psychiatrists!

    8. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope that's short enough for fair use

      If not, here is a shorter version:

      Watch Battlefield Earth, or read the book by L. Ron Hubbard. Take that as your bible. (Not exactly but close enough.)

    9. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Hartley · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's fair use, but I received a letter from the cult's lawyers for putting precisely that quote on my website. They don't sue to win, they sue to shut people up.
      http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_14.htm

    10. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by grazzy · · Score: 0, Troll

      And god created the universe in seven days. How is that any *LESS* insane. All fucking religions are made for nutcrackers by nutcrackers.

    11. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Six days, Mon. The seventh day was a nap on the couch & watch football day remember.

    12. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ummm... have you watched Battlefield Earth? Every religion has a creation myth, but I know of no other religion that uses badly written Science Fiction as their basis.

    13. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by mad.frog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As opposed to, say, the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

    14. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, a troll is just too stupid to even bother commenting on. Oops, I guess I just did!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the problem I have with this is that 95,000,000 years ago, we had Nega-X bombs, which are far more powerful than some crappy H-bombs, who would bother to use those, and second, 'Xenu' was the name of a popular soft drink throughout the Galactic Federation, not an overlord. And it was an ingredient in the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster, too. Next time I invent a religion, I sure as hell won't hire some third-rate SF writer to fill out the details. No sir; I'll hire Stephen King AND H.P. Lovecraft. And next time you see that bastard John Titor, you tell him he still owes me 500,000 quatloos over that bar bet he lost in 46,000AD when we were at that resort where Hawaii would be someday. The whales DIDN'T take over the earth.

    16. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Stevecrox · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dunno it sounds like a really good blurb for a science fiction book, that hubbard guy should have tried his hand at fantasy.

    17. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by OddesE · · Score: 1

      LOL, it actually does sound just as insane. Why would Christianity be any better than Scientology? Can you point out an item in his summary that is not true (well ok... maybe the 'zombie' part :-)

    18. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand - the Jewish zombie story has been around MUCH longer and believed by more people so it MUST be true. mad.frog truly funny - no mod points but you have my fake mod: funny!

    19. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about it though! He died, then was ressurected three days later. Ring any bells? Totally a zombie.

    20. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I hope that's short enough for fair use

      You forgot something:

      THIS IS WHAT THE SUPER ADVENTURE CLUB^W^W^WSCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

      There, fixed it for you ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      ...and it's not even "symbolically eat his flesh"... Catholic dogma states that with transubstination, people are eating Jesus' actual flesh.

    22. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

      I suspect the "Zombie" part was referring to him coming back from the dead

    23. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by rbanffy · · Score: 2

      Actually it looks just bad sci-fi.

      What looks remarkably insane is that people really believe it happened.

    24. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And god created the universe in seven days. How is that any *LESS* insane.
      Generally, only the really conservative religious people still believe that the world was created in six Earth solar days. Most reasonable people interpret "day" as something like "era", as in the saying "back in my day". Not to mention the fact that the sun doesn't show up until the fourth day.
    25. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      So now, we have a Jewish zombie made of bread and wine?

      Or would the term "golem" be more appropriate?

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    26. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

      Fucking psychiatrists! You mean Psychlo Catrists, right?
      --
      ---GEC
      I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
    27. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes, a troll is just too stupid to even bother commenting on.

      Sounds like an "ad hominem" fallacy to me.

      Simple name-calling doesn't make you look smart, and it certainly doesn't persuade people to see your point of view. If you think his representation of the story is misleading, then provide some good reasons for your opinion.

      Did he leave out contextually-significant details which make the statements make more sense? Provide them, and demonstrate their significance. Did his summary include factual errors? State them, and cite some references showing their inaccuracy.

      If you cannot do this, then you are the troll. And a bad one, at that.

    28. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Funny

      With an IBM Model-M?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    29. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      So, why is this comment insightful?

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    30. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I never had actually read any of the actual text before. This guy doesn't know how to write. It sounds like the garbage level anime/manga that comes out of japan - you know, where the author alludes to a series of incidents but leaves the reader confused. He also uses a lot of parenthesis when he could have made it flow a lot better by expanding those into full sentences.

      Man, the BIBLE was written better than that. Even if I don't believe it, at least I'm not ROFLing at the quality of the writing.

    31. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      So, why is this comment insightful?

      You must be new here Mr. "40,751-short-of-one-billion"

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    32. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      So now, we have a Jewish zombie made of bread and wine?

      Or would the term "golem" be more appropriate? Wow, all this flesh-eating zombie talk is making me reconsider being christian (I'm currently agnostic). When I come back from church, I can tell my friends that I just ate the flesh and drank the blood of a zombie, who we worshiped by telepathing our thoughts to an omnipotent power. I can also talk about how this zombie is also a ghost, and can cast "Heal" and "Cure" on to people, restoring their hitpoints and sight. Then I will mention how this badass Zombie-Ghost-Jew will someday come back from the netherworld and will totally flip out on the non-believers by summoning four horsemen (think Knights of The Round divided by 3) to destroy everything and rain hell-fire (aka casting "Meteor") on all of planet earth.

      Fucking badass! It's alot better than saying "I just came back from church."

      ...I play too much final fantasy.
    33. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So, why is this comment insightful?

      He is commenting on the rewrite of the "Xenu" thing, by doing a similar rewrite of my Christian Bible (yes, I'm paying to host that).

      Of course, the difference is that you or I can see the "original" King James Bible, whereas the Scien[ce fiction]toligsts' bible is verbotten to you or I. You has to pays yer moneys.

      Yes, it was a bit flamebaitish but it did illustrate his point very well. I'd have modded him as the other mods modded, despite the fact that I'm Christian.

      Real religious people aren't afraid of words (in fact real faith destroys all fears). It's a weak faith that can't stand up to mere words. If you're looking at a pebble it's pretty hard to convince you pebbles don't exist. When God has manifested Himself to you, it's likewise pretty damned hard for someone to shake your faith.

      If you don't believe in Africa you sound pretty foolish to someone who's been there, no matter how convincing your argument.

    34. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      have you watched Battlefield Earth?

      Don't watch it. Read it. Like every movie adaptation that ever came out of hollywood, 99% of the content of the source book was left behind. Never assert a literary opinion based on a movie, because you're not being exposed to the book, you're being exposed to a minor, and probably modified, fraction of it.

      Having said that, it's quite a long book, as well written as anything else Hubbard ever did, mildly entertaining in an apocalyptic way, and not so much the basis for scientology as a work that uses scientology as basic principles. Which is about what you'd expect, since scientology came first.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    35. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      You must be new here Mr. "40,751-short-of-one-billion" I think you found 3 digits that aren't really there...
    36. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      You left out the part where the Cosmic Jew Zombie was the son of Jenova, in one variation of the name...

    37. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      But Jesus was pretty articulate for coming back from the dead after being nailed to a cross.

      Aren't zombies . . .y'know dumb. . .and all they talk about is brains.

      He's not:

        a ghoul - Ghouls only eat the flesh of the living,
        a ghast - same deal,
        a vampire - only feasts on the blood of the living, doesn't morph into anything
        a ghost - Doh! OK for us Trinity believers he's part of the Holy Ghost, but Thomas found out he was corporeal post crucifiction.
        a wight or barrow wight - Post crucifiction he didn't even hang around his tomb. Had someone else tell the myrrh bearing women he was alive.

      Did I miss any undead creatures?

    38. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      As opposed to, say, the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...


      At the very least, Jesus was accepted as being a man who lived about 2000 years ago. As a man he was poor, not very educated, but was very intelligent. The dogma is without a doubt on the wacky side of things.

      Prince Siddhartha (Buddha) at the very least is accepted as being a man who lived about 2600 years ago or so. As a man, he was born into a very wealthy family. As a man he was very well educated, and one might argue his choice of words have helped to draw connections between many Indo-European languages. The dogma is also wacky, no more or no less so than Christianity.

      But dogma aside, if your belief in the wacky helps to promote compassion and wisdom, then that's your business. Religions generally are good things... religious followers are another story.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    39. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by redmond_herring · · Score: 1

      Wow, all this flesh-eating zombie talk is making me reconsider being christian (I'm currently agnostic)

      Wow, all this flesh-eating zombie talk is making me hungry!

      --
      Stephen Colbert on race: "While skin and race are often synonymous, skin cleansing is good, race cleansing is bad."
    40. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda humorous, but your version is not a *direct quote* of the religious source.

    41. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by quintesse · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do know that even in this document they're using FUD tactics, don't you. The case where they say "a Dutch court found an individual and numerous Internet service providers" was not won by them at all for example: http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/12/sci entology-v-xs4all-supreme-court.html

    42. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Zardoz44 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Not knowing the entire background for scientology, I can't completely disagree, but I really didn't see anything related to the cult in Battlefield Earth. I took it at face value and tried not to read into it anything from the other myth. Given that, I'd recommend reading it, if for nothing more than the scene where the alien thinks humans eat raw rats. But get it at your local library or used book store, or whatever way will prevent any money from going to the cult. The movie on the other hand...yikes.

    43. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Talgrath · · Score: 1

      The difference is that (most) Christian churches don't say "you must pay us money to be a Christian"; most Christian churches request donations but none of them (exception: Christian "cults") require you to pay money.

      In fact, I think that's the biggest difference between most cults and a real religion; real religions don't require you to spend money, they just ask you and if you can't spare the money, you can't.

    44. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'original' King James Version included the Apocrypha, just for the record.

    45. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vexorian's UID of 959,249
      add to your .."Mr. "40751
      only sums to ....1,000,000

      "...You must be new here Mr. "40,751-short-of-one-billion..."
      i guess you're new to math?

    46. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by grazzy · · Score: 1

      Have you seen that craptastic movie with Mel Gibson? Me and my friends were watching it at EASTER and we were laughing. Mostly about how fcking boring the movie was.

      Scientology doesnt base their "religion" (or whatever they like to call it) of any movie. Some guy made a movie that has some farfetched ties to scientology and you say its their religion? I dont know whats worst, me openly disrespecting your (?) religion or you not realising how inaccurate you are.

      I saw the da vinci code not so long ago, would you say it is a faithful portrait of christianity? I'd say it is based on your above conclusions.

    47. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 1

      This is what Scientologists actually believe.

    48. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      No they don't actually come out and say that you'll be damned for not sponsoring the church. They imply it through stories such as tithing (commanded to the Jews and no one else, along with the 10 commandments and the entire Old Testament), and through Christ's instruction to have nothing to do with people who don't support spreaders of the word, but to warn them of Damnation (Luke 10:1-15). Yes the Church really does imply very heavily that if you don't support it through donations, you will be damned.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    49. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A weregod?

    50. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Christian faith, communion means you eat the flesh of Jesus itself, it's not a symbolic gesture, you can see the effects after you have done so. Telepathy is irrelevant, faith has nothing to do with it. You can see the effects of the evil force all around you. Rib-woman? What's that? The tree of knowledge of good and evil was magical? I didn't know that.

    51. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may think that what you're saying is insightful or clever, but it's not. According to Christian faith, Jesus is God himself and communion means that we eat His body (whatever that means to you), which appears in this world as bread and wine, otherwise people wouldn't eat it. Calling Him zombie or things like that may make you think it's funny, while it's very inaccurate. As a matter of fact, your post simply indicates that you're ignorant about the christian dogma.

    52. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been a christian for all my life; this is the first time I learn that Christ said such a thing. Let me tell you what he said (from the original ancient greek text, rough translation): if you enter a city and its inhabitants do not allow you to spread the word of the God there, go to the city square and tell everyone: "we will remove from our feet even the dust from your city streets. However, be aware that God's kingdom is approaching." That's quite different than what you say. Since this is slashdot and I haven't seen your claims anywhere else, when choosing who to believe (you or myself) about the correct translation, I choose the latter. Cheers

    53. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Never confuse ignorance with mockery.

      Of course I am aware that nobody actually believes that Jesus's actual flesh and blood were bread and wine. My viewpoint is, however, that transubstantiation is a poor substitute for understanding a ritual in a symbolic context. Symbols are powerful, and the metaphorical slight of hand involved in beliefs such as transubstantiation is just plain silly.

      The idea of the communion is simple: one is re-enacting a ritual from the last supper where the bread and wine are used as a tool of remembrance and meditation relating to Christ. If we want to say that these are symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ, sure. If we want to say that they are religiously the same thing, that is OK too. But to hold that it is physically transformed is to demand that people deliberately misunderstand metaphore and is a powerful testiment as to the errors in mainstream Christianity.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    54. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by mink · · Score: 1

      So FFVII is just Church of Satan propaganda?

      I dunno if I want to join the Church of Sepiroth. I read operation vgcats so I know the real deal.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    55. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no. The jesus myth is not universally accepted as being true.

      There are quite a few historians who have shown that the evidence for a historical jesus is shaky at best.

      After all, there really is only one source outside the jesus cult that even exists as possible evidence for a historical jesus. And all the "evidence" from within the cult is suspect at best, and in most cases clearly tainted.

      I'm not an expert on buddha, so I can't say anything about the history or accuracy of buddha as a real person. I suspect that it's more verifiable than the jesus myth, though.

      Of course, all of the supernatural bits of both are pure fantasy, but that's another discussion entirely.

    56. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, reasonable people realize that it's just a primitive creation myth, much like many others from many other religions.

      And it's all a bunch of hooey. It really doesn't need to be reinterpreted as being "eras" instead of "days" - the problem with both are not the timeframe, the problem is the "god" bit. That's the problem with all of it. No god, no creation. Sorry, didn't happen.

    57. Re:How is this appropriate for slashdot? by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      It really doesn't matter, since absolutely no one read my first post, apparently, but your translation doesn't cover Luke 10:11-15. Since you're posting Anonymously, and are quoting text that's not available to 99% of "God's Christians", I will promptly LOL and return to my life unaffected by your blathering.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  3. How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...can you be arrested for 'threatening a religion' ?!

    Threatening a person, yeah, but a religion? If I express a wish that Christianity or Islam die out can I be arrested? What happened to America's much touted freedom of speech?

    1. Re:How the hell... by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Especially when most of the mainstream religions seem to have explicit "all the other religions are crap" clauses somewhere in their bylaws.

    2. Re:How the hell... by Applekid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a California law.

      Seems to me, though, that it's one of those laws that aren't really enforced except when local authorities are pressured. The linked interview also suggests there's some collusion between the local government and Scientology... claims of a falsified "Failure to Appear" warrant dated from 2000, illegally storing documents not entered in the dockets.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    3. Re:How the hell... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      What happened to America's much touted freedom of speech?

      That went out the window in 1798.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:How the hell... by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't the thing you're threatening have to be an actual religion, not just some made-up bullshit about space aliens who fly around in 747s, too?

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    5. Re:How the hell... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      You assume of course that you can actually call Scientology a religion.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    6. Re:How the hell... by AccUser · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Richard Dawkins is fscked if he ever goes to California then.

      --

      Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.

    7. Re:How the hell... by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the whole thing about zombie jesus and his invisible sky daddy isn't just some made-up bullshit? Seriously, what's the difference?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:How the hell... by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a religious person, it's a REALLY dumb law...

      I mean seriously, we're getting to the point now where even doing something that could possibly be maybe related to a threat against a person/place/idea is a criminal offense. If you can be thrown in jail for picketing a group, especially if you have a good reason, then you have lost way too much freedom. I mean, if someone came and picketed my church I'd probably be more curious to hear their side of the story than wanting them thrown in jail.

      Ugh...whatever happened to the place where you could jokingly punch your friend in the shoulder in school and say "I'm gonna kill you for that" then go off and demonstrate peacefully about something you care about and the police wouldn't care a bit?

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    9. Re:How the hell... by pla · · Score: 1

      How the hell...can you be arrested for 'threatening a religion' ?!

      As a better question, to commit such a crime, wouldn't you need to threaten, y'know, an actual religion rather than some drivel made up 50 years ago by a second-rate hack of a scifi author?

    10. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...can you be arrested for 'threatening a religion' ?!


      Not really. But threatening criminal organizations in a corrupted country is always a risky idea.

    11. Re:How the hell... by arivanov · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lazarus Long as usually has the answer: One Man's Religion as Another Man's Belly Laugh

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    12. Re:How the hell... by Rycross · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, most religions don't require you to pay to learn the religious texts. Donations and the like are "heavily encouraged" but not required.

    13. Re:How the hell... by philwx · · Score: 1

      Let the Scientology --> Christianity bait and switch arguments, commence.

    14. Re:How the hell... by Mordaximus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Strange that a state law can trump a Constitutional right, no?

    15. Re:How the hell... by philwx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think what he means is, the leaders of Scientology probably do not even believe what they are preaching themselves, but are merely basking in the control and power it gives them. This would make it a different motivation, to say the least, than someone who genuinely thought they were trying to save your soul.

    16. Re:How the hell... by hkgroove · · Score: 1

      The man to ask is Arnie Lerma. He runs one of the anti-scientology sites - http://www.lermanet.com

      His writing is a bit haggard some time to time, but I guess that's a side-effect of eating nothing but rice and beans on the SeaOrg. I wouldn't be surprised if he showed up in this discussion. You can say his name 3 times in-front of a mirror and he'll appear. Just like Biggie Smalls.

      He was recently summoned here: Scientology thread on SomethignAwful

    17. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I'm gonna kill you for that"

      I feel threatened by you and I'm calling the police. The governement needs to do more to keep me safe. Maybe if it knew everybody's photograph, fingerprints and RFID chip, I would feel safer. Except for me of course, since I wouldn't hurt anybody.

    18. Re:How the hell... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1, Troll

      Not threatening a religion.
      He was convicted of interfering with a religion. The same law would apply to someone with a Nazi arm band protesting out side a synagogue with sign saying "Dirty Jews killed Jesus!". And I for one would be hard pressed to shed a tear if some was arrested for that.
      He was protesting at their church. While I don't like Scientology and think they manipulate the law very effectively I have to say that there is also the Freedom of Religion in the US. People have the right to worship as they choose without being harassed. The balance between freedom of speech and freedom of religion is the question here. Now getting arrested for the Tom Cruse missile joke on a news group. That is totally bogus.
      The law has good intentions but I don't know about this case. I also think this guy might be a little paranoid. I just don't see gangs of Scientologists killing people in county jails as being very likely. But then this is California so who knows.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    19. Re:How the hell... by Hatta · · Score: 1, Insightful

      think what he means is, the leaders of Scientology probably do not even believe what they are preaching themselves

      And Ted Haggard does?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    20. Re:How the hell... by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      "illegally storing documents not entered in the dockets"

      But the paperwork has been on display in the town hall basement since 2000!

      *wishes he could remember Hitchhiker quotes better*

      --
      Insert Sig Here
    21. Re:How the hell... by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

      He was explicitly threatened with being killed in Jail, during his trial. It doesn't take a gang of scientologists to make this happen, just a bit of money.

      Read up on what Keith has gone through. Scientology is a very dangerous organized crime operation.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    22. Re:How the hell... by Coleon · · Score: 1

      Im even afraid of posting this very words... :-S

      I will go to jail?...
      Someone is knoking my door...
      and saying.. FBI?? what is that....

      Have to go....

    23. Re:How the hell... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Remember 5 years ago when the Church of Scientology claimed it WAS NOT its own religion, and it was a way of living that complimented all religions that already existed?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    24. Re:How the hell... by jcgf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The same law would apply to someone with a Nazi arm band protesting out side a synagogue with sign saying "Dirty Jews killed Jesus!". And I for one would be hard pressed to shed a tear if some was arrested for that.

      I would be upset though I wouldn't shed a tear. If the person was just standing there with a sign not hurting anyone, he should be able to.

    25. Re:How the hell... by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Of course, I'm sure Keith skipping the country to Canada didn't do anything to help the process of trial and appeals that could get the issue heard in federal court -- where most certainly they would have had that state statute struck down and the precidence made.

      (also, IANAL)

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    26. Re:How the hell... by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't stop there. I'd say that the leaders of most mainstream religions don't believe in God. Maybe at lower levels you find sincere people just trying to do some good, but I doubt you will find them at the higher echelons. I'd say they all enjoy the money and power over the people in what is largely a social engineering experiment.

      --
      blah blah blah
    27. Re:How the hell... by Rycross · · Score: 5, Informative

      From what I remember of the case, he skipped town because he received a lot of threats that, if he went to jail, that he wouldn't make it out of jail alive. It was heavily implied that they would use their connections to make this happen. Skipping town would start looking like a very good option to me.

    28. Re:How the hell... by Vihai · · Score: 1

      They were DC-9s. Now I'm gonna SUE YOU!

    29. Re:How the hell... by Vihai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh fsck... they were DC-8s... now I have to sue myself, bastard!

    30. Re:How the hell... by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And the whole thing about zombie Jesus and his invisible sky daddy isn't just some made-up bullshit? Seriously, what's the difference?

      Are you comparing Christianity to Scientology? Here are a few other difference you may not be aware of:

      Christianity has a historical significance. Romans really did crucify people using crosses. King Herod really did exist. Other examples form HERE

      The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible. Of course, there is really no scientific evidence of anything in the Bible, no more than say proof that George Washington was president? However, to compare the Bible with Dianetics is a bit of a joke. Is there any historical evidence of ancient, interplanetary 747's around? If not, then there is more archaeological and historic evidence backing the Bible than scientology.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    31. Re:How the hell... by uglyduckling · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do you mean:

      "I eventually found the papers on display in the cellar-"

      "that's the display department"

      "-I had to go down with a torch-" [flashlight]

      "the lights had probably gone"

      "-so had the stairs. I eventually found them on display in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying 'beware of the leopard'".

      Is that the one?

    32. Re:How the hell... by arivanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While as a hack he is second rate, as a religious inventor he has demonstrated us his prowess. The idea to use a DIY lie detector as a primary religious object is awesome. No wonder it is the religion with the least number of defectors.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    33. Re:How the hell... by stratjakt · · Score: 0

      It wasn't "threatening a religion", it was "interfering with religion", which is basically just a rewording of "disturbing the peace".

      Nothing here says what he's in jail for *now*. Likely, he didn't pay the fines or show up for court for the original (misdemeanor) charges, and has now gotten himself in *deeper shit*.

      Which is what happens when you do that. A 20 dollar unpaid parking ticket can turn into jail time, once you start pissing off the courts.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    34. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I think the problem is strictly limited to scientology and islam. Mocking or saying anything inappropriate about any other religion is still 100% legal and acceptable.

    35. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, one MAJOR difference (and I'm not of either of these religions) is that Christianity gladly and freely makes its gospels and religious texts available for you to read, such as Gideons in hotel rooms, plethoras of organizations willing to mail you free bibles, etc. Of course these organizations have their own reasons for doing this beyond pure altruism, such as hoping you'll convert, and either donate money or services back to them.

      Scientology, however, keeps its religious texts secret and hidden, and you are not allowed to view them until they deem you worthy. So if you decide to set off on the path of becoming a scientologist, you have no idea what beliefs you're ultimately going to be expected to hold until you've already spent considerable time and money to make it to high-enough level to be justified to view those texts. And at that point you've invested enough time and money that you won't want to back out, etc.

      I also think that in Scientology if you decide to leave the 'Church' then other Scientologists are required to shun you. And considering that one needs to invest years to advance to the higher levels and that a significant fraction of their friends will be Scientologists, this makes it even difficult to leave the Church.

    36. Re:How the hell... by grub · · Score: 1


      ...can you be arrested for 'threatening a religion' ?!

      Scientology is a money grubbing cult. Just like any other religion.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    37. Re:How the hell... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      The difference is that it's old. Like, stepping into a pile of dogshit makes you curse, but stepping into a pile of dinosaur shit makes you famous.

      Despite both being crap.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    38. Re:How the hell... by denmarkw00t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Strange that a state law can trump a Constitutional right, no?

      No. Well, I don't think its all that strange. In court, once this case were to reach a federal level things would probably be overturned, but if he doesn't appeal to a higher court then he's bound by California law.

    39. Re:How the hell... by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      That'd be the one...

      Or the old Netrunner CCG card "Urban Renewal" which had a derivative flavor text: "The paper work has been clearly posted in the basement closet of City Hall since last Thursday."

      --
      Insert Sig Here
    40. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DC8s, not 747s

    41. Re:How the hell... by VAXcat · · Score: 2, Funny

      This misrepresentation of Scientology is unconscionable! And I will not tolerate such lies being spread about it! You should be ashamed of spreading such malicious misinformation! Everybody knows that it was DC-9's that did the interstellar flying, not 747's! The two look completely different!

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    42. Re:How the hell... by maynard · · Score: 0

      Zombie Jesus, by miracle, turned bread into brains. Duh!

    43. Re:How the hell... by LWATCDR · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why? You value his freedom of speech more then the people going to the synagogue's freedom of religion? Both are protected under the law. He is not prevented from saying what he wants he is just limited from saying it in a way that violates other peoples rights.
      As I said it is a balance between the two rights.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    44. Re:How the hell... by jesterpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, to compare the Bible with Dianetics is a bit of a joke. Is there any historical evidence of ancient, interplanetary 747's around?

      Exactly the same amount of evidence as there is for a gigantic wooden ship floating around an earth completely covered with water. Or Nefilim roaming the earth, or people rising from their graves, or Herodes killing every young boy.

      --
      Trust me, I work for the government.
    45. Re:How the hell... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what you are saying the Bible is just an old newspaper that has gotten some facts wrong just like modern news agencies do.

      I can live with that.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    46. Re:How the hell... by lastchance_000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't discount the ability of people to delude themselves, especially when there's a huge paycheck attached.

    47. Re:How the hell... by Ryokos_boytoy · · Score: 1

      I would have modded that funny but insightful works as well. WTF is going on that you can be charged with threatening a thing? And not a real thing but a concept(really just a poorly conceived pyramid scheme). Looks like the local gov has been infiltrated by those space-cootie infested, child molesting morons (yeah, I f*cking said that). It's pitchfork and torches time. I can't believe Arnie would let this crap go on. A god fearing nazi would never let that happen.

      --


      If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it. -- Calvin Coolidge
    48. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Doesn't the thing you're threatening have to be an actual religion, > not just some made-up bullshit about space aliens who fly around in 747s, too?

      They were DC-8 airplanes, you insensitive clod!

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

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-8

    49. Re:How the hell... by mrpeebles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Comparing Chistianity to Scientology is like comparing Aristotle (who's science was wrong) to that voice that uses genetic technobabble to narrate the beginning of Heroes (its science is wrong too.) Christianity has had the great geniuses of the Western world contributing to it over last 2000 years, and it based on the Hebrew Bible, a great work as literature. It may or may not be wrong, but it has important, or at least sophisticated, things to say. Scientology has Tom Cruise and John Travolta, and is based on Dianetics. (I haven't read Dianetics, but I have seen the film version of Battlefield Earth, and that is enough for me.)

    50. Re:How the hell... by Wicko · · Score: 1

      Hahaha you crack me up. Good point.

    51. Re:How the hell... by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      And Anne Rice writes in her books about actual places, etc. Does not make her books any less fiction though.

    52. Re:How the hell... by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      However, state law apparently cannot trump federal statute, hence the DEA sweeps on medical marijuana dispensaries.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    53. Re:How the hell... by Frymaster · · Score: 1

      However, to compare the Bible with Dianetics is a bit of a joke. Is there any historical evidence of ancient, interplanetary 747's around?

      about as much proof as there is of the red sea parting. or manna from heaven. or the instantaneous destruction of soddom and gommorah... or a flood that covered the entire earth.

      so, yeah, if evidence is your hallmark of a valid religion, i think both camps are in trouble.

    54. Re:How the hell... by Rycross · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He didn't prevent people from practicing their religion. I don't see how you can claim that picketing a "church" somehow violates freedom of religion. You have a right to hold and practice religious beliefs, but you don't have a right to never have your religious beliefs challenged or insulted.

      Your right to religion doesn't give you a right to silence all speech related to said religion. Free speech is important.

    55. Re:How the hell... by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      You are SO sued...

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    56. Re:How the hell... by rworne · · Score: 1

      It's not you. It would be your church leaders who do not want you to be curious about who is picketing their church or why. They also may not want it known if there are any problems between your church and previous members or the community at large.

      This is the issue with Scientology. The "management" does not want the members to know anything is wrong with their "community". Picketers also discourage new memberships and the cashflow that comes from them.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    57. Re:How the hell... by Guuge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, both Scientology and Christianity have nonsensical mythologies. (It's not politically correct to say that, but it is true to the best of my knowledge.) There is no evidence of alien space ships. There is also no evidence of angels, demons, or gods.

      There certainly was a Roman Empire. They did crucify people. There was probably a Jesus. But, there is also no dispute that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. None of that has any bearing on whether the magical stuff really happened.

    58. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you make it sound like 99% of their stuff is secret. They are currently offering over 6,000 hours of taped lectures, and hundreds of pounds of books.

      This is 1%? what is the actual percentage, pray tell?

    59. Re:How the hell... by honkycat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A guy with a Nazi armband and a sign offensive to those in the synagogue does not violate their rights in any way, nor does it prevent them from exercising their religious freedom. They're free to practice their religion, not free not to have to look at a sign they don't agree with, not even free not to be insulted. It's not a matter of balancing rights -- as long as the picketer is behaving in a civil manner and not inciting violence or other criminal behavior, he should be free to express whatever view he likes in any public place.

    60. Re:How the hell... by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      How is saying (for peacefully protesting) anything violating their rights? If I walk around with a sign saying Slashdotters are evil MS loving, Walmart shopping Nazis, the most that could happen is someone may ask me "What are Slasshdotters?" I have not deprived anyone of their rights. If I shut down /. , then I have interfered with free speech.

      The same with protesting in front of a church. I can protest, but not prevent people from entering. If I make them uncomfortable or angry, then that is their issue, and nothing requires me by law to ensure you do not become uncomfortable or hear things you do not like.

    61. Re:How the hell... by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      What about the whackos who go to funerals of servicemen and women with their "God Hates Fags" and "God is killing soldiers for our sins" signs? Just sayin...

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    62. Re:How the hell... by DoohickeyJones · · Score: 1

      How does him standing outside their building prevent them from practicing their religion? If he is blocking the entry, or blaring air horns (which crosses over into 'Disturbance of the Peace'), or some such, sure...not he is infringing on their right to practice their religion. Standing out front with a sign? Free Speech. Yes, that goes for the nazi wanna be in front of a synagogue, as well as this guy standing in front of a $cientology building. In the case of the nazi, I think he is a scumbag wasting his time. In this guys case, I'll just settle for 'wasting his time'. In either event, though, I'll support their right to Free Speech, regardless of whether or not I agree with what they are saying.

    63. Re:How the hell... by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      so, yeah, if evidence is your hallmark of a valid religion, i think both camps are in trouble.

      I think you are missing the point. I'm not here to say that everything in the Bible can be and has been proven as fact. I am saying that there is some fact in it. On the other hand, Dianetics is no more a religious text than The Hitchhikers Guide. The Bible at least deals with events accepted as historically accurate, even before they were "known" to be historical events.

      What does it take to qualify as a religion under your definition?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    64. Re:How the hell... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    65. Re:How the hell... by morari · · Score: 1

      Christianity and Islam should die? I second that! Can we add all of the other monotheistic cooks as well? :P

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    66. Re:How the hell... by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      And Anne Rice writes in her books about actual places, etc. Does not make her books any less fiction though.

      It makes it less fiction than the tales of Xenu and his interplanetary 747's! So even though I would also consider "Riceologism" ridiculous, it would still carry more weight than scientology.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    67. Re:How the hell... by DoohickeyJones · · Score: 1

      Yep. Free Speech. Again, we don't have to like it, we don't have to agree to it. Heck, I would personally clap and cheer if those morons were to die in a fiery car crash. They still have a right to Free Speech, though.

    68. Re:How the hell... by Kemanorel · · Score: 1

      <Devil's Advocate>
      How is standing outside a church (let's assume on public property) with a sign interfering with someone's freedom of religion? He wouldn't be preventing them worshiping as they wish, merely expressing his view. Even if he was screaming and shouting at them as they went in, it's still not preventing them from doing so. I see no interference there.

      Now, if he ran naked down the aisles of the temple while screaming, "For great Care Bear bukkake!", that would be interference. Just picketing, not so much. The line between the two isn't particularly blurry.

      </Devil's Advocate>
      --
      Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
    69. Re:How the hell... by rthille · · Score: 1

      And I for one would be hard pressed to shed a tear if some was arrested for that.

      And that is what's wrong with this country. The point of freedom of speech isn't to protect the flowery speech you agree with, or to stuff the people you don't agree with off into 'free speech zones'.

      As my teenage daughter says, "You don't get it! You don't get anything!"

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    70. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Christianity or Islam die"

      Judaism too.

    71. Re:How the hell... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Nothing new, see the 2nd amendment and the 20,000+ laws on the books regarding firearm restrictions at all levels - Fed, state, county, city, even Home Owners Association

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    72. Re:How the hell... by Jtheletter · · Score: 1

      I'd say they all enjoy the money and power over the people in what is largely a social engineering experiment.
      Given how long most organized religions have been around (of course this excludes the very recent Scientology) I would say they are well past the experiment phase and are quite far along in real-world trials. These organizations have been influencing culture, society, governments, and people for centuries to milennia, they're pretty good at it these days.
      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    73. Re:How the hell... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      just like anti-abortion protesters or union strikes, as long as the protest is on public right-of-way(ie road or sidewalks) and doesn't block access (prevent people from enter/exit without confrontation) then it's not criminal. Unless this law adds something else because it's "religion".

    74. Re:How the hell... by philwx · · Score: 1

      The difference is, one is a cult, and one is a religion.

      Which are in fact, two different things. Playing ignorant to the differences doesn't give you a point to make.

    75. Re:How the hell... by Franso6 · · Score: 1

      Well... Leopard is only due to come out in October... You shouldn't worry too much yet.

    76. Re:How the hell... by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Hey! Who are you calling a Wal-Mart shopper?

    77. Re:How the hell... by philwx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't stop there. I'd say that the leaders of most mainstream religions don't believe in God So then most of the problems with religion are due to Athiests. Burn!

    78. Re:How the hell... by morcego · · Score: 1

      And the whole thing about zombie jesus and his invisible sky daddy isn't just some made-up bullshit? Seriously, what's the difference?


      Is nothing else, Jesus is a real historical person. Can you say the same thing about Xenu, Xemu whatever ?
      --
      morcego
    79. Re:How the hell... by philwx · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he believes it's wrong, but cannot stop his biological urges. So yeah, I'd say he does. hah!

    80. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >What about the whackos who go to funerals of servicemen and women with their "God Hates Fags" and "God is
      > killing soldiers for our sins" signs?

      I had to help restrain a guy from literally killing Fred Phelps once. Phelps to this day does not realize how lucky he was.

    81. Re:How the hell... by prelelat · · Score: 1

      Honestly people still do it, they still say I'm going to kill you for that all the time. I've said it at work, and I still work there. It comes down to some twit who honestly feals threatened. It's rediculous, he stood up and picketed sharing his feeling of scientology, should be free speech. I don't know how many people offend Chatholics a day or Muslims or so forth. Honestly I believe some jerk decided this guy needed to told to shut up and looked for some way to make him be quiet. It wasn't like he had plans to blow up the building, even if he made the joke of Tom Cruise missles(which is funny). If anything he felt threatend by Scientology because they were not being in his mind properly investigated for the death of said person. His fear is more substantial and yet hes the one going to court.

      If it is a California law it should be deemed un-constitutional to be used in this case.

    82. Re:How the hell... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Your right to religion doesn't give you a right to silence all speech related to said religion. Free speech is important."
      And so is freedom of religion. I do go to church and I have seen people protest at some events related to my church. They tend to be peaceful, none threatening, and frankly wasting their time. My faith teaches that only a fool is takes offense when not is intended and it is a bigger fool that takes offense when it is, sort of a spiritual version of "don't feed the trolls". However some protesters can be be threatening to people and stiflings to their spirituality. That can be violating their freedom of religion. Think about that church in Kansas and some of their protests at funerals. While my faith makes me want to be Christ like I have to admit that they make it very hard.
      You are seeing everything in black and white terms. I don't know exactly what was going on but isn't it possible that they where blocking the door or gate? I wasn't there so I don't know. Also how is saying that you can not protest at a place of worship silencing all speech related to said religion? I know Scientology is using copyright law to stop criticism of their church but that is a different issue than this law.
      I am just trying to show what the law intends to do. I can see it's good points and it's bad. It can be abused but it can also protect a freedom. I can see how some people would be very grateful of it's protections. I am trying to present both sides of it. It is just too simple to jump in and be outraged just because I happen to really dislike Scientology.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    83. Re:How the hell... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I'm not playing ignorant, I am ignorant. Since you seem to know, what specific differences are there between a cult and a religion?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    84. Re:How the hell... by Wiseman1024 · · Score: 1

      In America, anybody with enough fat lawyers can sue anybody else for anything. The lawware industry is thriving. And when we add American puritanism and religious zealots to the formula, we get a "threatening a religion" crime.

      Lol land of freedom, lol freedom of speech. I believe I would be allowed to criticize those scientology morons in North Korea, by the way.

      --
      I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
    85. Re:How the hell... by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >Why? You value his freedom of speech more then the people going to the synagogue's freedom of religion?

      And the way it works is this: If he doesn't actually prevent them from going to the synagogue, and as long as he stays in a place where he has a right to be, that is First Amendment Protected Activity. On the other hand, if it can be shown that he is intentionally trying to start a riot, those protections can be abridged, due to a compelling state interest in maintaining the peace. If he sets foot on the synagogue's property, it can be trespassing; and if he's carrying a weapon, it's a felony trespass in some places. If he prevents someone from entering, it's assault. If he touches someone in order to prevent them from entering, it's aggravated assault. All this goes both ways; nobody can push the guy off the public square, touch him, display a weapon while challenging his rights, etc.

      It's quite simple really, even if it sounds complicated. You have a right to hold a sign while standing in a place you have a right to be, unless a reasonable person would believe you intend to start a riot.

      Something like that. IANTM. (I am not the Mayor.)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    86. Re:How the hell... by cens0r · · Score: 1

      How is picketing hurting their rights at all. He's not keeping them from the synagogue. He isn't hurting their freedom of religion in the slightest. The second he hurts someone or physically stops someone from entering the synagogue he's stepped over the line, but until then it's free speech.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    87. Re:How the hell... by philwx · · Score: 1

      The difference is (drumroll): One is a cult, the other is not. As a scientific community, you should not be wishy washy about your definitions. They should be clear and differences discernible. So you say, what is the difference between a cult and a religion? I'm glad you asked that. Rule of thumb: Religion - You can leave it. Cults - You can't leave it. If you ever find you cannot leave a religion without some kind of threat, or repercussion (beyond the supernatural); then it is in fact a cult. Another difference is the impetus. Religions will (in general) be concerned with your spiritual well being as their motivation for existing. While with cults they are only interested in how they can control you and grow in power from controlling people. There are varying degrees of borderline situations (jehovahs witness, mormons) where there is pressure not to leave and social consequences for doing so (though none that are illegal); there are sects like Waco that would qualify as a cult. But these are a small subset. Overall you simply cannot call Christianity a cult, because you can leave it. Cults and religions share one thing in common, belief in supernatural things that cannot be validated scientifically. However, assuming slashdot is a scientific community, since when does one thing in common imply equality? Take my brother, an agnostic. We used to go to church growing up, Christian church. He does not go anymore. He has not received threatening phonecalls, nor has his image been "black balled", nor has anyone from the church ever said anything to him, at all. Therefore, the Christian church I went to growing up, was not in fact, a cult. Just using this single counter example, you cannot say that all Christians faiths are a cult. There is really only a small subset of them qualify as such, when you look at the types that compose the largest popular religions. Muslims? They're on their own, I don't care if you consider them a cult or not; not my problem, as long as you consider the guidelines above. But you can't say Christians are, for the above reasons. In short, Christianity is not a cult. I can prove it, I'll go to church one Sunday, and stop going for 6 months (and I have done this in the past). QED.

    88. Re:How the hell... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      You've got that exactly right. I know you were probably just trying to flame, but you actually stumbled upon an example that illustrates very nicely what freedom of speech is.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    89. Re:How the hell... by Red+Weasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know who originally posted this but it is the best explanation I've read.

      Cult: small unpopular religeon
      Religeon: A large popular cult

      --
      ..which just shows that the human brain is ill-adapted for thinking and was probably designed for cooling the blood-T P
    90. Re:How the hell... by Red+Weasel · · Score: 1

      Yes I spell for crap. Sorry

      --
      ..which just shows that the human brain is ill-adapted for thinking and was probably designed for cooling the blood-T P
    91. Re:How the hell... by callmetheraven · · Score: 1

      to compare Bible with Dianetics is a bit of a joke.
      I agree with what you didn't mean to say.

      All religions are pathetic and insane. Believers are willfully delusional, ignorant, and/or stupid. All of their books are jokes. All of their beliefs are jokes.

      Sarcasm not intended.
      --
      You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
    92. Re:How the hell... by philwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (Reposted due to horrible formatting)

      The difference is (drumroll): One is a cult, the other is not. As a scientific community, you should not be wishy washy about your definitions.They should be clear and differences discernible.

      So you say, what is the difference between a cult and a religion? I'm glad you asked that. Rule of thumb: Religion - You can leave it. Cults - You can't leave it. If you ever find you cannot leave a religion without some kind of threat, or repercussion (beyond the supernatural); then it is in fact a cult.

      Another difference is the impetus. Religions will (in general) be concerned with your spiritual well being as their motivation for existing. While with cults they are only interested in how they can control you and grow in power from controlling people. There are varying degrees of borderline situations (jehovahs witness, mormons) where there is pressure not to leave and social consequences for doing so (though none that are illegal); there are sects like Waco that would qualify as a cult. But these are a small subset. Overall you simply cannot call Christianity a cult, because you can leave it.

      Cults and religions share one thing in common, belief in supernatural things that cannot be validated scientifically. However, assuming slashdot is a scientific community, since when does one thing in common imply equality? Take my brother, an agnostic. We used to go to church growing up, Christian church. He does not go anymore. He has not received threatening phonecalls, nor has his image been "black balled", nor has anyone from the church ever said anything to him, at all. Therefore, the Christian church I went to growing up, was not in fact, a cult. Just using this single counter example, you cannot say that all Christians faiths are a cult. There is really only a small subset of them qualify as such, when you look at the types that compose the largest popular religions.

      Muslims? They're on their own here, classify them as you may; as long as you consider the guidelines above. But you can't say Christians are, for the above reasons. If you require additional proof, I'll go to church one Sunday, and stop going for 6 months. Oh wait I've done this already.

      Notice I did not say that Christianity is provable, I said it's not a cult. Please don't twist my words because I've made a good point. The debate lives on, but you no longer have the "cult" rhetoric to use.

    93. Re:How the hell... by abigor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      L. Ron Hubbard really existed.

      DC-10 aircraft exist.

      There are other planets in the universe, even in our own galaxy.

      Hydrogen bombs and volcanoes exist.

      What never happened are the fantastical events linking them all together as described by the Church of Scientology.

      Similarly, the Bible mentions all kinds of stuff that existed (ancient cities, a few historical figures [of which Jesus is probably not one]) and links them together with fictional stories. It's just been around for a lot longer, that's all. But at one time, Christianity was freshly invented too.

    94. Re:How the hell... by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 1

      "However, to compare the Bible with Dianetics is a bit of a joke. Is there any historical evidence of ancient, interplanetary 747's around? " I seem to recall a few landing strips in South America on the Nazca (sp?) Plains....? And since flying saucers use the VTO method...

      --
      the significance of a signature is insignificant
    95. Re:How the hell... by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      Christianity has a historical significance. Romans really did crucify people using crosses. King Herod really did exist. And Scientology has a geographic significance. Hawaii really does exist and has volcanos. The earth is a planet.

      Picking out a few associated facts described in a religion and equating that with having meaning is a little silly. I can certainly understand that there are reasons why people believe in Christianity. I don't think having occasional historical truisms is one of them (or, at least, it shouldn't be).
    96. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh...whatever happened to the place where you could jokingly punch your friend in the shoulder in school and say "I'm gonna kill you for that" Good riddance to those days. More often than not, the term "friend" was used instead of "victim", and hence no person of authority would do anything about it.
    97. Re:How the hell... by abigor · · Score: 1, Informative

      There are no contemporaneous, third-party accounts of Jesus that we know of. Everything about him was written after he supposedly died. It seems likely Jesus is a fictional figure.

      For example, see here: http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

    98. Re:How the hell... by philwx · · Score: 1

      I'm very, very glad you asked this. I came prepared. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234217&cid =19069487 Readeth, and weepeth.

    99. Re:How the hell... by philwx · · Score: 1

      My explanation is better (and invalidates yours)

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234217&cid =19069487

    100. Re:How the hell... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Except that Scientology is really a pyramid-scam masquerading as a religion to hide its true nature. As such I fail to see how it warrants protection as a religion. If I recreate the ancient Indian cult of Thugee in the modern day, is it suddenly okay for me to murder innocent people because its a religious activity? Why is it okay for Scientology to defraud people of their money using an elaborate criminal scam just because they are masquerading as a religion?

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    101. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Check out the flash animation on the Scientology website: its hilarious. http://www.scientology.org/

      "A Civilization without insanity.
      Without Criminals
      And Without War
      Where the able
      Can prosper
      And Honest Beings
      Can Have Rights
      And Where Man
      Is Free
      To Rise to Greater Heights
      Are the Aims of Scientology (by L. Ron Hubbard)."

      So much of that is ironic, due to current circumstances. Mostly the part about "Without Criminals" when they threaten to kill a man in jail, and "Honest Beings Can Have Rights" when they are specifically trying to prevent the right of freedom of speech.

      By far the best part though is the end, with the little "By L. Ron Hubbard" text, like Scientology is some book that Hubbard wrote. Oh, wait . . .

    102. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That definition may reflect positively on christianity now, but it hasn't always in the past. See the Hundred Years War and the persecution of pagans and ex-christians by the church and society from say the 7th to 17th centuries.

    103. Re:How the hell... by code_nerd · · Score: 0

      Especially since he'll be violating the anti-undead laws in the state constitution of California ;)

    104. Re:How the hell... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      The difference is, one is a cult, and one is a religion.

      a religion is merely a cult that has grown too large to be called a cult.

      i imagine Christianity was regarded as a cult 2,000 odd years ago, now look at it.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    105. Re:How the hell... by Darby · · Score: 1

      Romans really did crucify people using crosses.

      Got anything to back that up? Every piece of credible information I've ever found denies this. The Romans used sticks basically. There was no cross bar.

      Of course, there is really no scientific evidence of anything in the Bible

      Actually, there is. Several ancient cities have been found by archaeologists using just the Bible. So there is plenty of scientific evidence for *some* of the events and places in the Bible. Just the whole Jesus thing and all the mystical stuff appears according to all available evidence to be nothing but nonsense.

    106. Re:How the hell... by Speedracer1870 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are many rights guaranteed by the Constitution. We DO NOT, however, have the right not to be offended. Taking harsh action against someone who offends you without actually preventing you from exercising your protected rights is akin to violently hitting a guy who calls you a "stupid head." The reaction only proves he was right. --- I may not agree with what you say, but I'm willing to die to protect your right to say it.

    107. Re:How the hell... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Note that it's "honest beings," though - presumably by their definition of "honest."

    108. Re:How the hell... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Rule of thumb: Religion - You can leave it. Cults - You can't leave it. If you ever find you cannot leave a religion without some kind of threat, or repercussion (beyond the supernatural); then it is in fact a cult.

      So you would claim that the Amish or even Mormons are a cult since they shun people who leave? Catholicism was a cult in the 1500s, but it's not anymore?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    109. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? According to Christian scripture, Christians should kill the non-believers, except the virgin woman. That sounds like a cult to me. Just because this week, the Christians aren't killing anyone in the name of their God, does not mean that won't do so again in the future.

      Numbers 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
      Numbers 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
      Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
      Numbers 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    110. Re:How the hell... by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And a Lazarus answer to you is:Delusions are often functional. A mother's opinions about her children's beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth..

      As far as the original topic is concerned Lazarus also has to say:

      • Exact description of the event: It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
      • A description of the underlying problem: History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
      • And a good summary of the correct approach: Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proved innocent.
      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    111. Re:How the hell... by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I don't believe I'm responding to this because it's such a F'ing joke, but here it goes:

      L. Ron Hubbard really existed. ...and he died. No one is claiming that he has resurrected or performed any other miracles in life. There is no evidence of scientology existing before LRon dreamed it up.

      DC-10 aircraft exist.
      According to Wikipedia, "The Douglas DC-8 is a four-engined jet airliner, manufactured between 1959 and 1972." I'm afraid DC-8's were not around in Xenu's time. If the Bible told of Jesus driving around in a Volkswagen, I'd consider it bullshit as well.

      Hydrogen bombs and volcanoes exist.
      Volcanoes are hardly evidence of a religion, still, I'll grant the point. However, hydrogen bombs were not designed until 1951, still way before Xenu's time. Still, don't you think a civilization that traveled across the galaxy to populate earth would have something better than human 1950's tech?

      But at one time, Christianity was freshly invented too.
      Fine, if scientology survives for 2000 years, I'll consider it a valid religion. Not my religion, but a valid one nonetheless.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    112. Re:How the hell... by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

      ...can you be arrested for 'threatening a religion' ?!

      Threatening a person, yeah, but a religion? If I express a wish that Christianity or Islam die out can I be arrested? What happened to America's much touted freedom of speech?


      It's alive and kicking!

    113. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "However some protesters can be be threatening to people..."
      If they're making threats that's a crime, call the police.

      "...and stiflings to their spirituality."
      Oh, honestly, that's grade A bullshit. A religion founded by a guy nailed to a cross, which had a formative period of persecution by the Roman empire* and you're bothered by a placard? If a piece of cardboard causes you spiritual trouble you just plain aren't a christian.

      *Assuming you're some kind of christian, if not then obviously I retract my statement.

    114. Re:How the hell... by hrtserpent6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, one MAJOR difference (and I'm not of either of these vendors) is that OSS gladly and freely makes its gospels and religious texts available for you to read, such as The Cathedral and the Bazaar, plethoras of organizations willing to mail you free software, etc. Of course these organizations have their own reasons for doing this beyond pure altruism, such as hoping you'll convert, and either donate money or services back to them.

      Microsoft, however, keeps its religious texts secret and hidden, and you are not allowed to view them until you buy the product. So if you decide to set off on the path of becoming a Microsoftie, you have no idea what beliefs you're ultimately going to be expected to hold until you've already spent considerable time and money to make it to high-enough level to be justified to view those texts. And at that point you've invested enough time and money that you won't want to back out, etc. I also think that in Microsoft if you decide to leave the 'Church' then other MCSEs are required to shun you. And considering that one needs to invest years to advance to the higher levels and that a significant fraction of their friends will be vendor-locked, this makes it even difficult to leave the Church of Microsoft."

      Now does it make sense? Scientology is obviously closed-source.
    115. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, most flavours of Christianity and Islam require their adherents to shun those who "betrayed the faith".
      And the concept of having all your religious texts out in the open is a relatively recent one.

    116. Re:How the hell... by Khomar · · Score: 1

      Well, one MAJOR difference (and I'm not of either of these religions) is that Christianity gladly and freely makes its gospels and religious texts available for you to read, such as Gideons in hotel rooms, plethoras of organizations willing to mail you free bibles, etc. Of course these organizations have their own reasons for doing this beyond pure altruism, such as hoping you'll convert, and either donate money or services back to them.

      It is a bit off-topic, but I wanted to point out that Gideon International is a non-profit organization, and nearly all of its donations go directly to the cost of producing and shipping Bibles to locations all around the world. Nearly all of the members are volunteer businessmen, and they certainly do not work for Gideon International to make make money or get services. Sometimes just wanting to do good for your fellow men is enough incentive, and they believe that by distributing Bibles to as many people as possible they are doing just that.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    117. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I also think that in Scientology if you decide to leave the 'Church' then other Scientologists are required to shun you. And considering that one needs to invest years to advance to the higher levels and that a significant fraction of their friends will be Scientologists, this makes it even difficult to leave the Church.


      Almost. They are required to persecute you, no holds barred, anything goes. There are documents that attest to this all over the web, but I'm not going to link to them here...


      Who wants to bet this thread is censored like the other Scientology thread a few years back?

    118. Re:How the hell... by LilBlackDemon · · Score: 1

      Jesus existed. The Romans have logs of a man named Jesus from Nazareth being chosen for execution by crucifixion. Not the Christians, but the Romans. Granted, these records could have been falsified. Even as a practicing Catholic, I have my doubts. But that's why its a _faith_ and not a _fact_. You can't prove faith scientifically. You can only say "something might have happened."

    119. Re:How the hell... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      So you would claim that the Amish or even Mormons are a cult since they shun people who leave? Catholicism was a cult in the 1500s, but it's not anymore?

      'Shun' != threat. Do the Mormons or Amish practice "Fair Game"? Didn't think so.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    120. Re:How the hell... by LilBlackDemon · · Score: 1

      Actually, three of those four examples have historical precedents. Depending on the winds coming from the surrounding areas, the Red Sea can part itself long enough for one to walk across. Also, manna exists, and the technology to make it was around in Biblical times. Finally, erosion patterns suggest that sometime within the past 5000 years there was a flood large enough to cover mountains. I'm not saying that this stuff is supernatural or from divine intervention. I'm just saying that it's evidence that it could have happened. Attaching faith to it is your own prerogative.

    121. Re:How the hell... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Scientology, however, keeps its religious texts secret and hidden, and you are not allowed to view them until they deem you worthy.
      What, like Christianity until the reformation? Masses in Latin only, no public access to the Bible? Cardinal deliberations in secret?

      I have HUGE problems with Scientology, but they are no different than a lot of religions.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    122. Re:How the hell... by samkass · · Score: 1

      "Nothing new, see the 2nd amendment and the 20,000+ laws on the books regarding firearm restrictions at all levels - Fed, state, county, city, even Home Owners Association"

      Just so we're on the same page, the 2nd amendment is the one that doesn't actually mention the word "guns" or "firearms", but does use the phrase "well-regulated", right?

      --
      E pluribus unum
    123. Re:How the hell... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      or a flood that covered the entire earth.

      Actually the theory that I find easiest to accept is the Black Sea deluge theory. Think about the culture and technology of the times. If that actually happened it would be very easy to assume that the world was being flooded. Then the story was passed down from generation to generation and was eventually assimilated by the Jews in their holy book.

      Name me a plausible theory that can find historical reference for Xenu.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    124. Re:How the hell... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Well regulated being defined in the vernacular of the times as "well equipped and provisioned", militia being any male over a certain age and under another certain age (national guard wasn't until more than 100 years later). And "the people" in the 2nd are the same "the people" in the first and other amendments....

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    125. Re:How the hell... by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      And the whole thing about zombie jesus and his invisible sky daddy isn't just some made-up bullshit? Seriously, what's the difference?

      It's not the story, it's the behavior. Nobody would give a smelling rat's ass what you believe in if you're seemingly sane, peaceful and tolerant. Otherwise, what you give is what you get.
       

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    126. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Got anything to back that up? Every piece of credible information I've ever found denies this. The Romans used sticks basically. There was no cross bar.

      Hoisting people up on a gibbet to die of exposure is something pretty much every culture has done. A lot of them had them pre-made for that purpose. NAILING someone there is probably an embellishment. Generally they used rope.

      The thing about the Bible is, stories of wandering miracle-working prophets were a dime-a-dozen around that time. That the stories got attributed to one composite identity is hardly a surprise.

    127. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% vs. 1%... made up numbers. How accurate is your 6,000 and "hundreds of pounds"?

      It's a moot point none the less. One could generate thousands of hours of tapes and hundreds of pounds of documents without any of it more than remotely touching on the core of your belief. The fact that Scientology goes to such great means to keep their true nature hidden is enough to question the motives of these individuals. Question why if they're so keen to share some information about their beliefs why other information must be so meticulously guarded.

    128. Re:How the hell... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've never been shunned from the only family you've ever known. Guilt and loneliness are just as painful as any physical threat.

      And still, what about catholicism during the spanish inquisition? Apostasy was punishable by death, does that make it a cult? If so, it was the most mainstream and most powerful cult ever.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    129. Re:How the hell... by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      Well, it's very hard to debate though that it's a very good business model, paying customers, for life.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    130. Re:How the hell... by LilBlackDemon · · Score: 1

      Except that much of the Old Testament (which includes the book of Numbers) is considered outdated by the New Testament in Christianity. How many times did Jesus (not Moses) tell anyone to kill someone else? I've read the four gospels, and none of them come close to saying that. Granted, there may be more gospels, or the entire thing could be a hoax, but I'm going to work with what I can.

    131. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it take to qualify as a religion under your definition? Spirituality is believing the scientifically unprovable. Religion is the organization of a group of people who believe the scientifically unprovable.

    132. Re:How the hell... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've never been shunned from the only family you've ever known. Guilt and loneliness are just as painful as any physical threat.

      Guilt and loneliness don't directly kill you or cause you harm or financial ruin.

      And still, what about catholicism during the spanish inquisition? Apostasy was punishable by death, does that make it a cult? If so, it was the most mainstream and most powerful cult ever.

      I don't buy "all the other religions used to do it too" as being a defense of Scientology.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    133. Re:How the hell... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Wait? Are you implying that holding a sign outside a building while standing on public property is infringing on the rights of someone inside somehow?

      Really?

      Cuz there's a whole lot of example cases (generated by the anti-abortionists) that says you are wrong.

      Had your thetans cleared recently? I think you are about due, there is a bit of dissonance going on in your aliens or something.

    134. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey since we are now allowed to make up our own defintions rather than consult a dictionary i have one: philwx=moron! Another words, your explanation, much like religion is made up crap. I especially enjoy how you berate us for not using clear scientific definitions and then proceed to pull one out of your ass.

      But rather than be a complete ass, I will provide the definition of cult according to Oxford American Dictionaries:

      cult noun a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object : the cult of St. Olaf. a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister : a network of Satan-worshiping cults. a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing : a cult of personality surrounding the leaders.

      So whoever made the "religion is a cult that got too big" comment was correct and funny.

    135. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are used to citing wikipedia when posting on the internet, yet you fail to do so. The wikipedia link about a historian of the Jesus era says you're in all likelihood wrong.

    136. Re:How the hell... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to defend Scientology. I'm just trying to get a clear distinction between cults and religion. As far as I can tell there's not one.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    137. Re:How the hell... by Zenaku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the Bible told of Jesus driving around in a Volkswagen, I'd consider it bullshit as well.

      Why, exactly? The bible tells of Jesus healing the sick with his touch, raising the dead, replicating bread and fish, changing water into wine, predicting the future, and rising from the grave. Is traveling in time or creating a Volkswagen beyond his omnipotent abilities? And that's just the New Testament -- in the old you get talking animals, world wide floods, giants, pillars of salt, rivers turning to blood. . . .

      Why would this thing, a Volkswagen, be the final straw that makes the story ridiculous? When it comes to every other logical impossibility in the bible, God's omnipotent magic is explanation enough for you, but somehow a Volkswagen is beyond the pale -- what makes it different?

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    138. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And still, what about catholicism during the spanish inquisition? Apostasy was punishable by death, does that make it a cult? If so, it was the most mainstream and most powerful cult ever.

      I don't buy "all the other religions used to do it too" as being a defense of Scientology.


      That wasn't a defense of Scientology -- it was a condemnation of Christianity.
    139. Re: How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you remove any religious influence in your thinking, you easily can compare scientology to christianity.

      BOTH rely on unprovable ideals.
      BOTH rely on your faith in what is told to you (not what you learn through the real world).
      BOTH have distorted views on real world interactions (christian science, anyone? Telepathic powers, levitation, etc?).
      BOTH attempt to re-write history (Jesus may have been real, but superpowers? Xenu the supreme intergalactic commander?).

      The major difference as I see it --beliefs aside-- is that christianity has been around long enough to have a significant impact in the world around us. Most people in political power claim to be christians (freemasons really). Laws were made to protect religious organizations. Churches take in a good deal of money from their patrons. Religious groups have control on morals and ethics that are broadly applied to everyone. Scientology is attempting to play catch-up, mainly by catering to those who are least intelligent with the most money (actors and actresses). Of course, that's where all the power lies -- in who you can bankroll. Once you've rooted your organization into the throes of the government, it's only a matter of time and money before you have protected control and influence...

    140. Re:How the hell... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      Masses in the ...latin...of its time? Not letting the illiterate peasants paw through a hand copied book, probably the only one that priest would ever get to make or have made? Church leaders chosen by the church from its educated and learned? Yeah, just like Scientology.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    141. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's DC-8s, you insensitive clod!

    142. Re:How the hell... by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that with scientology you can actually track its progress from money-making scam, to becoming a self-perpetuating cult, to living beyond the founding scammer / cult leader, to reaching critical mass and becoming a full-blown religion. We've never had that with the other religions, where the early years are shrouded in mystery.

    143. Re:How the hell... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I am and it really doesn't bother me. I actually find thinks like Nazis and KKK more disturbing. For some reason I get more upset with the persecution of other than silly protests against my own church. You asked so I will tell you.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    144. Re:How the hell... by ArcherB · · Score: 1
      Why would this thing, a Volkswagen, be the final straw that makes the story ridiculous?

      To slightly modify a quote from the worst Star Trek movie, EVER!

      Why would God need a Volksagen? As to the rest of it, the sick, the dead, bread, fish, water, wine and so on, it all existed in that day... compared to Scientology, that has Xenu blowing up "people" at the bases of volcanoes in Hawaii, Japan, The Philippines, the Himalayas and several other places 75 million years ago (did Hawaii exist 75 million years ago? Were the volcanoes in the Himalayas and Washington state active that long ago?), using human 1950's technology. I think that goes along with Jesus using Continental airlines as his primary mode of transportation. In other words, THE PLANES AND THE COMPANY DID NOT EXIST! I can't prove what Jesus did or didn't do in the 0030's, but I can honestly say that Xenu did not use a hydrogen bomb to blow up people he sent here on DC8's before sending their "souls" to theatres to give them the Clockwork Orange treatment in 75000000 BC. There is 0 evidence of anything in Dianetics happening. Quite to the contrary. We have fossil evidence of life on earth dating back over 3 billion years. Scientology claims that man walked the earth with thriving civilizations 75 million years ago. The earliest fossil evidence of primates (not even man) dates back 60 million years, much less DC8's!

      Now, please, stop trying to claim that Scientology is anything more that a fraud based on a science fiction novel, and a very bad one at that, certainly not a religion.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    145. Re:How the hell... by Keebler71 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You aren't really comparing the ancient practices of one religion with the current practices of another,... are you?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    146. Re:How the hell... by maop · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you wouldn't use the law to get rid of a guy who picketed in front of your church accused your religious leaders of crimes and saying things that offended your religion? All religions have a way too much control on our government. We can't clean up government until we end religion with rationality.

    147. Re:How the hell... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Masses in the ...latin...of its time?
      Gee, I didn't know latin was in common use from the middle ages onward. Maybe that's because it wasn't?

      Not letting the illiterate peasants paw through a hand copied book, probably the only one that priest would ever get to make or have made?
      Does the change the fact that the laiety were not allowed access to scripture, or that the leadership of the church controlled all access to the fundamental "truths" of the church?

      Church leaders chosen by the church from its educated and learned?
      Hah. You mean church leaders chosen by the church for their secular political influence and familial financial contributions to the church, right?

      Yeah, just like Scientology.
      Yes, just like Scientology.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    148. Re:How the hell... by rts008 · · Score: 1

      BZZZZT!! Wrong answer:

      'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

      Definition: Arms:
      "arms
                n 1: weapons considered collectively [syn: weaponry, implements
                          of war, weapons system, munition]" from (http://dict.die.net/arms/)

      Good luck next time- come back and play again soon.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    149. Re:How the hell... by maop · · Score: 1

      Actually the way that First Amendment is interpreted by the Supreme Court is that religions get special protection by the government. Priests don't have to report people if they know they are committing crimes and religious organizations can discriminate against people when hiring even for nonreligious jobs.

    150. Re:How the hell... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Yes I am, since it helps people understand the issues involved wrt Scientology.

      For that matter, it's important for people to understand their own history, including the history of the organizations to which they belong.

      Oh, and additionally -- it's not ancient history for some Mormon sects, nor is it "ancient practices" for some Christian sects who keep their members in the dark about the inner workings of their church.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    151. Re:How the hell... by modecx · · Score: 1

      Jesus existed. The Romans have logs of a man named Jesus from Nazareth being chosen for execution by crucifixion. Not the Christians, but the Romans.

      Jesus was a common name in the era and the locale. Some documents saying Jesus got crucified by some Romans are not entirely unlike, for example, some documents from any particular New York Italian mob in the 1920-1940 era saying that they whacked some knucklehead named either Joe, Frankie, Vinnie, or Mario--take your pick.. I mean, back then, you could pick up a rock chuck it into a crowd of people and you'd likely brain someone named Jesus.

      Mind you, I'm not saying or implying that the Jesus we all know and love didn't exist, but we need some perspective. There were tons of Jesuses running around.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    152. Re:How the hell... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to defend Scientology. I'm just trying to get a clear distinction between cults and religion. As far as I can tell there's not one.

      I think the GP had it right. If you choose to leave the religion and you face any negative repercussions (beyond the supernatural) then it's a cult.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    153. Re:How the hell... by durin · · Score: 1

      What freedom of speech?

      --
      Why, yes! I AM new here.
    154. Re:How the hell... by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Romans crucified people on "T" shaped structures, not crosses. They would have permanent vertical beams planted in the ground, and would nail or lash the person to a crossbeam and hoist it up and set it on top of the vertical beam.

      Oh, and if they nailed you up, it was through your wrists, not your palms. It wouldn't support you if you nailed through the palms.

    155. Re:How the hell... by durin · · Score: 1

      it has important, or at least sophisticated, things to say

      So does the Qur'an and the Bhagavad Gita. Strange that you did not mention them...

      --
      Why, yes! I AM new here.
    156. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget though that for a long time the Christian Church didn't make the bible freely available. It was in Latin only, and if you only spoke English (such as the vast majority of the members of England), you only knew what your local pasture said and did what he said without knowing why.

      And as I recall, the people who first translated the bible from Latin to English were killed by the church as well.

      That the bible is currently free and readable does not mean that it was always this way, or this is the only distinguishing difference between "for-profit cult" and "for-souls religion".

      (Now that I think about it, you could start talking about the reformation and several other interesting and relevant aspects of history to this conversation, but that seems a bit out of scope for this post at least.)

    157. Re:How the hell... by durin · · Score: 1

      "We must respect the other fellow's religion

      Why? He/she will (usually) not respect yours.

      --
      Why, yes! I AM new here.
    158. Re:How the hell... by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      If someone is arrested for just saying something, then it is very sad. I do not agree with hatred, and I long for the day where people can all live in peace with eachother, but putting people in jail for speech that does not threaten an individual with harm is not the way to stop people from spreading hate. Letting people critisize freely is the only way to shed light on organizations that would otherwise keep secrets in the dark. It does not matter if you're critisizing Neo-Nazis, the Catholic Church, Scientology, Islam, Republicans, Democrats, Communism, Pastafarianism or any other group you can think of, big or small. It's a fundamental right that no one should be restricting and we should all be celebrating.

    159. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but somehow a Volkswagen is beyond the pale -- what makes it different?

      Oh, come on. A Volkswagen?

      If they said he was driving a Porsche, sure. Or maybe a Lexus. Even a Cadillac, if he really insisted on "Buying American".

      But a Volkswagen? No way would Jesus drive a Volkswagen...

    160. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How nice that you're so pleased with it.

    161. Re:How the hell... by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Reread Article 6 of the constitution, specificly:

      "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

      California law and therefore it's judges are bound by the constituion.

    162. Re:How the hell... by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Where is the proof or evidence that Jesus was a real person?

      Historical? If you include myths and legends like Zeus and Paul Bunyon and his blue ox Babe then yes.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    163. Re:How the hell... by LouisZepher · · Score: 2, Funny

      The reason Jesus never drove a VW is because his father wouldn't lend him the car because he wouldn't cut his hair...

    164. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Christianity wins. It has evidence in the form of accounts that claim to be passed on from eyewitnesses; these accounts are known to have existed a much smaller interval after the events they describe than Dianetics.

    165. Re:How the hell... by Khaed · · Score: 1

      And a lot of old works have a flood in them, including Gilgamesh, and there are a lot of similarities between Utnapishtim from Gilgamesh (the character who was in the flood) and Noah from the Bible. I think it's pretty safe to say at some time in our history, some ancient guys in robes got flooded out and at least one lunatic with a boat managed to survive. It might not have even been a boat, he could have floated around on his roof or something.

    166. Re:How the hell... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, give it a few thousand years.

      I'm pretty sure at about 100 years after Jesus died, there were still people who knew someone who knew him and they certainly knew more about it than we do today.

      What do you think what stories will be told about Ron in about 1000 years? Provided the religion still exists.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    167. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Why would this thing, a Volkswagen, be the final straw that makes the story ridiculous?
      >When it comes to every other logical impossibility in the bible, God's omnipotent magic
      >is explanation enough for you, but somehow a Volkswagen is beyond the pale -- what makes
      >it different?

      Because it's a stupid argument.

      "Volkswagen" would mean nothing to the people of that day. If we found "Volkswagen" in scripture, it would be a clear anachronism linked to a modern-day business entity and immediately suspect.

      As to all the other events happening, they're somewhat plausible with the right technology, or at least simulated.

      "The bible tells of Jesus healing the sick with his touch" -- topical medicine

      "raising the dead" -- cardiac resuscitation

      "replicating bread and fish" -- Food reconstitution

      "changing water into wine" -- Kool Aid

      "predicting the future" -- The Weather Channel

      "rising from the grave" -- resusitation again

      These aren't explanations, of course, just modern day examples of similar events.

      "Is traveling in time or creating a Volkswagen beyond his omnipotent abilities?"

      Actually, an entity capable of time travel could pretty much control everything...like a god.

      "And that's just the New Testament -- in the old you get talking animals" -- Is that you, Wiiiilllllbur?

      "world wide floods" -- Global Warming

      "giants" -- Yao

      "pillars of salt" -- The wrath of the Lord could turn you into anything. Salt seems reasonable enough. Certainly more than something like a granola bar.

      "rivers turning to blood" -- Algae bloom, sediment run-off, food coloring

      If you somehow had access to today's technolgy 2000 years go, you'd could be credit with all sorts of miracles mentioned in the Bible.

      If scripture said "Jesus rode in a carriage that moved without aid from Man or Animal", that would be believable. If it something crazyily specifc like "Jesus drove a Volkswagon", then you've got reason to give it doubt.

      Of course, it doesn't say any of those things.

    168. Re:How the hell... by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      What about the whackos who go to funerals of servicemen and women with their "God Hates Fags" and "God is killing soldiers for our sins" signs? Just sayin... They are acting in EXTREMELY poor taste, and are likely the scum of the Earth, but I agree they are allowed to do that, as long as they stay non-violent, and law-abdiding. If they protested in such a form as to break other laws, or endanger lives, then that is a problem. Otherwise, you can simply ask them if they could leave, to which they will likely refuse.
      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    169. Re:How the hell... by zxsqkty · · Score: 1

      If the Bible told of Jesus driving around in a Volkswagen, I'd consider it bullshit as well.

      http://www.highrock.com/personal/WWJD/

      heathen...
      --
      Caution: May contain nuts.
    170. Re:How the hell... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      1. "Latin would persist as the main language of diplomacy until, with the rise of the French Bourbons in the 17th century, France became the strongest monarchy in Europe." from here And I am quite certain it was widely used until the Reformation by the educated.

      2. And how would they have done so? Perhaps by mystery plays? Or the carving and stain glass on the churches? The educated certainly did have access to the Bible, or do you assume Martin Luther tacked up his Thesis and the peasantry went "Uh, sure, sounds good, we'll do that." Or is it that you want to put a modern spin of "The Man" keeping "The People" down?

      3. Yes, because no other political organization has ever had issues with that sort of thing. I am sure everyone that graduates Harvard does so out of ability not "their secular political influence and familial financial contributions". Please you can fill that line in for any organization through history, it hardly is a condemnation of the Church.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    171. Re:How the hell... by Zenaku · · Score: 1


      You seriously think I'm trying to claim that Scientology is more than a fraud based on bad fiction!?!? I'm not claiming that. On the contrary, I contend that Scientology is ridiculous pile of hogwash. And so is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, the gods of Olympus, and (forgive my horrible blasphemy) Pastafarianism.

      My point is not to defend Scientology. I just want to know what makes the bible less ridiculous. The fact that fish, water, and wine all existed does not make the miracles involving them any more believable.

      The existence of fish does not in any way lend credibility to the statement that Jesus used his magic to multiply them, Just like the existence of planets and volcanoes lend no credibility to the story of Xenu. Both are groundless fiction proclaiming as truth events that violate the laws of physics.

      You seem to be saying that Scientology is CLEARLY bunk because it flies in the face of even the most basic observable evidence. So does Genesis, and so does rising from the dead.

      So I'm asking you -- not in defense of Scientology, but in defense of reason -- what makes the statement "Jesus was omnipotent and drove around in a Volkswagon" less credible than the statement "Jesus was omnipotent and could walk across the surface of liquid water?"

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    172. Re:How the hell... by Lijemo · · Score: 1

      "Cult: small unpopular religeon
      Religeon: A large popular cult"

      So, your saying that A religion is a "large popular small unpopular large popular small unpopular large popular small unpopular..."

      and that a cult is a "small unpopular large popular small unpopular large popular small unpopular large popular..."?

      I think I'm experiencing a memory leak. My brain just crashed.

    173. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Cuz ev'ryone done knows, Christ our Lord would always buy AMERICAN!

    174. Re:How the hell... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying the Bible is just an old newspaper that has gotten some facts wrong just like modern news agencies do.

      I can live with that.


      I could consider that to be a reasonable view, too, but most Christians (or at least Protestants) insist on the idea that every word in the bible is factually correct, along with the idea that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent (The Problem of Evil notwithstanding -- and no, Free Will doesn't clear it up because that's incompatible with omniscience). I don't understand why people get so caught up in the infinite ideas, but it's just silly.

    175. Re:How the hell... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      1. Language of diplomacy, not the language of the masses, nor the language of everyday use. So a small subset used it for diplomacy -- this has no bearing on the common usage of the language, which is the concern when we're talking about transparency of the church to worshippers in the church.

      2. Again, you're conflating a small percentage of people "in the know" with the masses, who are the ones being fleeced. This is even more a parallel with Scientology, since in both cases the wealthy who belong have access to doctrinal scripture. The distinction is that Scientology restricts acess by rule, whereas in Catholocism the restriction existed because of economic background. However, the restriction is no less real just because it arose from different sources.

      3. So you agree that the problem existed in the Catholic Church. It actually exists in Scientology, too -- which is why the parallel is valid. How can you use the existence of parallels to counter my argument that there are parallels?

      You seem to think that I'm condemning the Catholic Chruch. I'm not -- I'm simply showing the parallels between the earlier Catholic Church and Scientology. Your need to defend the Church says a lot.

      I have to address this in a separate section, since it's fundamental to the comparison:

      Or is it that you want to put a modern spin of "The Man" keeping "The People" down?
      Are you saying that the Church was not used for this purpose? Or rather, to take advantage of "The People" in the interest of "The Man"? Or are you saying that Scientology doesn't do the same with its recruits?

      Even going back to the 5th century, the Church was used to secure and maintain hegemony. It was wielded as a political weapon by Constantine and others expressly to consolidate control of people via the destruction of rivals and the persecution of 'heretics'.

      I don't know how you could argue that this is not a parallel to Scientology, who use orthodoxism to persecute 'heretics' and use the structure of the church to enrich both the church and themselves.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    176. Re:How the hell... by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to debate the logic behind faith because, by definition, there is none. However, even though you may see all religions as ridiculous, you have to admit that a religion based on a man that has proven to exist is a bit more plausible than one based off of, say, Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars or Flash Gordon.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    177. Re:How the hell... by vinn01 · · Score: 1

      Jesus would love the little flower holder on the steering column of a Volkswagen

    178. Re:How the hell... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Freedom of religion means the government won't interfere with your religion, freedom of speech means the government won't interfere with your speech. Neither applies to private parties so any non-government entity is free to protest any and all religion.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    179. Re:How the hell... by mrpeebles · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is strange at all. The original comment compared Christianity to Scientology. Also, I would shy away from saying anything about either Islam or Hinduism since (unfortunately) I know practically nothing substantive about either of them. I wish I knew what you were trying to imply with your rather cryptic post, though.

    180. Re:How the hell... by honkycat · · Score: 1

      Did you reply to the right comment? I wasn't trying to flame, merely to disagree, but I didn't think this post would be mistaken for flameage...

    181. Re:How the hell... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      1. diplomacy AND education. If you wanted to read a book about or have a discussion about engineering, do you think in the 10th century it was written in Celtic?

      2. Not every Monk or Nun came from a wealthy family. Martin Luther's father owned a copper mine, he was middle class at best.

      3. I point out that they are not valid because as the parallels exists everywhere and because of that it stops being a useful metric. It is like the whole Kennedy/Lincoln coincidences, sure there are parallels, but they aren't really useful, and you can find them between all sorts of other unrelated people.

      "Your need to defend the Church says a lot." Not really, I am not (nor have ever been) Catholic. I do find it sad that you decided to make this personal though.

      As to your separate issue see number 3 above, many organizations do this. But I think there is a turn of phrase in there that is interesting - "the Church was used" - I agree, the Church was used, and it itself used its power. And this is where I think Scientology is Evil. No one uses Scientology, Scientology only uses people.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    182. Re:How the hell... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Especially when most of the mainstream religions seem to have explicit "all the other religions are crap" clauses somewhere in their bylaws.

      That'll change when Discordianism becomes mainstream! For Discordianism, that clause reads, "All religions, including this one, are crap."

      Of course, once it becomes mainstream, most Discordians will quit it, I suppose. Kinda like what happened to Punk.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    183. Re:How the hell... by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      I will admit that as a historical text, the bible contains accounts of many people, places and events that did exist/occur, and records them in a way that is not completely divorced from what actually happened. Considered in this regard, as a history, it is vastly superior to the works of L. Ron Hubbard.

      But the portions of the bible that are historically accurate, don't make it any more or less valid as a religious text -- the portions that relate fantastic tales of sorcery and godhood are just as much a matter of faith as the tale of Xenu.

      But as pertains to this discussion, it is the religious aspects that seem relevant to me -- Christians, if they are truly believers, do not go to church and worship Jesus on the grounds that he existed and was mentioned in a historical document that can be partially verified. They worship him on the grounds that he is GOD.

      The fact that the unverifiable "miraculous" parts of the bible are embedded into a real history doesn't buy them any credibility as a doctrine. It just makes the fact to bunk ratio more favorable. Clearly, the fact that Jesus existed and was executed by Rome has little bearing on the veracity of the claim that he was God. Similarly, it has no bearing on the veracity of the claim that he was a God who drove a Volkswagen. Or the claim that he was a God and rode around in silver chariot drawn by flying dolphins.

      The bible absolutely contains more true statements about the history of civilization than Scientology does -- but the "real religion" cred of both is on equal footing.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    184. Re:How the hell... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      So you're telling me that at the height of it's power, the Catholic church was a cult? How do you square this with other definitions that consider cults to be small, close-knit, and non-mainstream?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    185. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good god could you have at least spelled "religion" correctly??!??

    186. Re:How the hell... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      No, I replied to the right comment. If you didn't try to flame... well, the nazi substitution mechanism is a common flame technique. I still think your post is neither a disagreement nor an endorsement - it is an example of a form of protected speech.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    187. Re:How the hell... by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      I teach ancient literature and languages. I'm not a historian per se, but I deal with it on a daily basis.

      In general when ancient sources describe events concerning an individual, it is reasonable to infer that the individual existed; the events and deeds of that person are, generally speaking, what is going to be open to doubt.

      In this specific case: self-proclaimed Messiahs, and cult-leaders whose followers attributed miracles to them, were a dime a dozen in the ancient Near East; they kept popping up every few decades, often more than one at a time. That being so, there's no particular reason to suppose Jesus was too much different from them, except in the trivial sense that his sect eventually took off. Questioning his existence is unhealthy scepticism (questioning the details of his biography, obviously, is not).

    188. Re:How the hell... by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      Except that much of the Old Testament (which includes the book of Numbers) is considered outdated by the New Testament in Christianity. So essentially you're saying:
      • The BIBLE v1.0 is now superseded by THE_BIBLE v2.0
      • THE_BIBLE v1.0 was a valid source until the version update, but v2.0 conflicts with various modules.
      • All religious personnel are directed to utilize the doubleplusgood resources of minitrue to remove all history of the v1.0 past. v2.0 was always right and always will be right.
      • All personnel are directed to forget they read this.

      NOTE TO ALL BELIEVERS: THE_BIBLE v3.0 - coming soon!
      Brought to you by sourceforge. A community effort.

    189. Re:How the hell... by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      Eris would indeed be pleased at that, but then who gives a damn what she thinks?

    190. Re:How the hell... by MarsGov · · Score: 1

      Greek religions had "mysteries" that were available only to the initiated -- and to this day we don't know what some of them were.

    191. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, there's already proof in the bible that the disciples had a car. No really, there's several points where it says "The disciples were all gathered together in one Accord."

      *rimshot*

      Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week!

    192. Re:How the hell... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Losing access to organ donors from your family, the fiscal and social support of your spouse or children or parents, and being unable to find a co-signer for a loan or work recommendations because you have been "shunned" is indeed fiscal harm. So is being unable to work, or sleep, or visit the community you spent the lat 10 years and invested your life into.

      I agree that "other groups have done it" is not an excuse. If it were, the Middle East would be filled with factions each trying to avenge the crimes of their neighbors ancestors.

      Wait......

    193. Re:How the hell... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Check out Steve Hassan's page on Wikipedia, or some of his books. He lays out the distinction pretty carefully, especially when he descibes a destructive cult in terms of the inability of members to safely leave or change their beliefs.

    194. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Jesus was an American, by God, and he wouldn't drive any damn import car!

    195. Re:How the hell... by JavaRob · · Score: 1

      It is a dumb law, but you might be surprised what people will do when they feel threatened. Now remember you aren't dealing with just "people", you're dealing with an extremely tightly controlled organization that has enjoyed huge financial success reliant on a steady stream of gullible new members (which picketing threatens)... and who has a crack legal team that works constantly to snuff out any and all criticism using whatever laws they can find.

      And so he's in jail. Again.

      I'm sure the law was originally passed in response to far more malicious behavior against religion that was less of a snowjob business, and then wasn't called into play much. But that's how lots of laws tend to go, until expensive lawyers manage to dig them up again to earn their pay.

      ----
      Grammar nazi postscript: I think you mean "As a religious person, I feel it's a REALLY dumb law...."
      Otherwise you're saying that the law ("it") is a religious person.

    196. Re:How the hell... by honkycat · · Score: 1

      Ok, well I'm not sure you're following the thread closely then. My post was in response to someone suggesting that a Nazi protesting outside a synagogue violated the rights of the worshipers inside. I think it was pretty clearly disagreeing with that, and I'm not the one who brought up the Nazi example. Anyway, I'm not sure what you're trying to say...

    197. Re:How the hell... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      You can tell the difference much more easily than that. A cult becomes a religion when it begins to kill people outside its own membership.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    198. Re:How the hell... by martinX · · Score: 1

      Well they wouldn't be mysteries if you knew them. You'd probably post them on the innanet, and then EVERYONE would know them. The worms would have de-canned, the cat has left the bag.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    199. Re:How the hell... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      And look what happened to the people who opposed it, they got smited.

      /me looks around nervously for scientologists with Anthrax.

    200. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What people are also used to is posters not reading their own links, a tradition you continue. This suggests that Josephus' text is extremely corrupt, though a majority of modern scholars believe it may say something about Jesus. Of course a citation to the study is missing, so whether the majority of modern scholars are themselves of the Christian faith would itself make an interesting study. For a little more background on the evidence, or lack thereof, for a historical Jesus, check out the Jesus Puzzle.

    201. Re:How the hell... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      1. No, however, we're not talking about engineering, we're talking about religion, in which the common man participated, though he did not have access to the liturgy.

      2. True. But within the structure of the church, positions of power were largely granted for reasons other than the spiritual. Bishoprics, for example, were bought, sold, granted as largesse to supporters, etc.

      3.

      I point out that they are not valid because as the parallels exists everywhere and because of that it stops being a useful metric
      Well, I'd disagree a bit because wnot all religions share those parallels. Individualistic religions, for example, don't, nor do communistic religions like the Amish Protestants. However, wouldn't your point support my theory that Scientology doesn't differ that much from early Catholicism, since abuse of the common worshipper is intrinsic to any organization, and thus Scientology shouldn't be singled out?

      "Your need to defend the Church says a lot." Not really, I am not (nor have ever been) Catholic. I do find it sad that you decided to make this personal though.
      I didn't mean to make it personal; I should have expounded on that point. Needing to defend the Church isn't about whether or not you support the Church; rather it is about how you approach a comparison of the Churches of Catholicism and Scientology. It seems that your point of view is founded on my argument being "Catholicism is like Scientology". If one starts from the basis that the two are intrinsically different, then 'defending' Catholicism (admittedly bad terminology on my part) is a way of proceeding in the discussion. However, and I should have been clearer about this from the get-go, my point is that Scientology and early Catholicism are two sides of the same coin, and rather than 'defending' Catholicism, it might be more constructive to take the opposing point of view and see where that leads you.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    202. Re:How the hell... by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Jesii?

    203. Re:How the hell... by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      But the portions of the bible that are historically accurate, don't make it any more or less valid as a religious text -- the portions that relate fantastic tales of sorcery and godhood are just as much a matter of faith as the tale of Xenu.

      What you are trying to create here is a "Guilt by Association" fallacy. You are trying to say that Scientology is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Scientology is ridiculous. Therefore, Christianity is ridiculous.

      And, rather than letting that fallacy fall on its own, I challenge the premise, which is wrong on my part.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    204. Re:How the hell... by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      The books of the bible are one of the few text around that just happen to be older than Mickey Mouse(tm-Disney). Most newer religions still have the protection of copyright. If you don't think that at least some Christians would like to keep people from quoting the bible except in preapproved context, then do a quick search in how long it took for the bible to be translated from Hebrew and Greek so that the masses were even able to read it.

    205. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'The same law would apply to someone with a Nazi arm band protesting out side a synagogue with sign saying "Dirty Jews killed Jesus!".'

      Bad analogy: both the nazi armband and the "Dirty Jews" comment are unambiguously racist and go beyond simple religious criticism. Keith did not claim that the followers of scientology should be mass-murdered, nor even that they are globally guilty of some sort of crime. He demonstrated peacefully against the abuses committed within a cult. Hence your analogy should be: the same law should apply to someone outside of synagogue with a sign saying "The bible misleads you!". I would feel as uneasy if that someone was thrown in jail for that.

    206. Re:How the hell... by LilBlackDemon · · Score: 1

      All religious personnel are directed to utilize the doubleplusgood resources of minitrue to remove all history of the v1.0 past. v2.0 was always right and always will be right.

      I'm going to argue your point about removing history of "v1.0" (Old Testament). You can't just say "Oh, here's Jesus, here's what he said," and take every word literally. The Bible was written by quite a few people over thousands of years, and, in my opinion, the fact that it's as cohesive as it is says something to its basis in historical fact. Also, what is in the New Testament is targeted at specific groups. Matthew, Mark, and John spoke to the Hebrews, so you must know what that group had as a prior teaching to understand why Jesus may or may not have been successful in reaching them.

      Interesting fact: There are 3 creation stories in the Bible (2 in Genesis, 1 in the Gospel of John). All of them contradict each other. And, as a practicing Catholic, I'm more than willing to admit this.

      The reason that Scientology is considered a cult is because they hide what their beliefs are. They don't want just anyone going and looking at their most sacred texts. However, most "accepted," mainstream religions will share their source texts with anyone who asks.

    207. Re:How the hell... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I thought it was DC10's. Also a mentally ill man in Chicago who wrote a lot in the 1930's could get them for copyright infringement on the more lucid bits - unfortunately I can't rememeber the name of the group that obsessed over these writings.

    208. Re:How the hell... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      a few historical figures [of which Jesus is probably not one])

      Jesus sent me stock tip emails from the future - he must be real!

      Sorry to get waaay off topic but I did find that spam amusing.

    209. Re:How the hell... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The problem is this thing is a known and well documented confidence trick. Arguing whether established religeons are also confidence tricks is really irrelevant and is playing into the hands of these confidence tricksters.

    210. Re:How the hell... by Artoo45 · · Score: 1

      Never mind their fake space air-force, what about the fake religion's fake navy . . . Li'l Davy's Navy(TM)? I hope when I start my Fake Religion(TM) that I can have my own fake navy with realistic fake navy uniforms . . . in the desert. What a bunch of ass-hats.

    211. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ".and he died. No one is claiming that he has resurrected or performed any other miracles in life."

      Go seek out his last letter, AKA OT8, the highest level of scientology. He says that he will soon leave this world only to return and complete his mission with another Identity. Further down he says he will not come as a religious leader but a politician, but only after scientologists create a pure body for him to manifest in.

    212. Re:How the hell... by mink · · Score: 1

      Volkswagons have been manufactured in North America for decades.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    213. Re:How the hell... by mink · · Score: 1

      Hinduism (Hare Krishna branch) has a unique take on it. God (Vishnu) incarnates as a giant boar and lifts the earth (as in the planet) out of the waters with his tusks. The flood was caused by a demon, one of two who were key to several incarnations of Vishnu, carrying the earth to the bottom of the "heavenly ocean"*. They used to be guards at his abode, but they hassled a group of young sages who were attempting to see Vishnu and were cursed. Once they found out who the kids were they begged forgiveness and they were offered the choice of living on earth as normal men for seven lifetimes, never seeing their lord during that time, or be born as demons and killed by Vishnu three times. They decided that separation was unthinkable and it would be a great honor to be killed by God and chose that option.

      I'm pay good money for a decent translation of the Mahabharata. India has so many richly told epics and stories, if you have ever read/liked some of the elements (wild adventure, epic heros/villians) of "The Worm Orobouros" (while a story started by a child, it was a delightful read) check them out. Besides Hinduism has a bit of lore that I enjoy "a tortoise that supports the four elephants which support the world on their backs".

      *Not the ocean AFAIK that was churned by the demons and demigods to get the nectar of immortality (the demigods promptly cheated the demons out of it), gave animals/insects poison, and Shiva his color.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    214. Re:How the hell... by mink · · Score: 1

      I dont think Scientology will last, however the Albertian Order of Leibowitz will be here for the long run.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    215. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time, dont!

    216. Re:How the hell... by mink · · Score: 1

      I thought Jewish=religion not genetics. Is there some genetic thing that shows if someone is Jewish or not? How is this triggered in people who become Jewish (say through marriage).

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    217. Re:How the hell... by mink · · Score: 1

      So Polytheism it is then.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    218. Re:How the hell... by abigor · · Score: 1

      "I don't believe I'm responding to this because it's such a F'ing joke, but here it goes"

      No joke. Your initial reaction just shows how illogical you are.

      As an example of your silliness:

      "Fine, if scientology survives for 2000 years, I'll consider it a valid religion. Not my religion, but a valid one nonetheless."

      So when Christianity was first invented, it wasn't a valid religion, but only became so when it reached this magical 2000 year old mark? What a pathetic argument.

      Oh wait, are those church bells I hear? Better run along, sheep.

    219. Re:How the hell... by Friggo · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, but Hawaii didn't exist 75 million years ago...

    220. Re:How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus xianity is just as plausible as a religion based off of, say, Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars or Flash Gordon.

      Because "jesus" HAS NOT been proven to exist. Not even close.

    221. Re:How the hell... by samkass · · Score: 1

      Um, you made my point, thanks. Why do people focus on guns with respect to the 2nd amendment? We might as well claim the right to carry around live hand-grenades. Or have an atom bomb in every home.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    222. Re:How the hell... by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      That's not my argument at all. My argument is:

      All systems of belief that are based on accepting the truth of clearly impossible statements are religions.
      Scientology is based on accepting the truth of clearly impossible statements.
      Christianity is based on accepting the truth of clearly impossible statements.
      Therefore, both Scientology and Christianity are religions.

      It is you who is making an "innocent by association" argument, suggesting that Christianity is somehow a "more true" religion, because of the presence of history in its sacred text and because it's been around longer, and I am arguing solely to refute that notion.

      While it is true that I think both are ridiculous, it is not because they are associated with each other. It is because both present fairy tales as fact.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    223. Re:How the hell... by rts008 · · Score: 1

      You are severely deluded if you think I made your point for you.

      As for the rest of ypour post..Sounds Great!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  4. I blame the voters by Bert+the+Turtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you all insist on voting for people because of their religious affiliations (and indeed, expressly WOULDN'T vote for atheists) then what did you expect? Vote for religious people, and they protect religious ideas. No matter how perverse they are. To allow you to deride Scientology would risk allowing you to deride born again christians or catholics.

    1. Re:I blame the voters by Pyrion · · Score: 1

      Derision and threats are two very different things.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    2. Re:I blame the voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote for religious people, and they protect religious ideas. No matter how perverse they are.
      So vote for athests and they will destroy religious ideas no matter how charitable they are?
      Not everybody is an extremist, though they tend to grab the most influence, most people (both religious and athiests) try to maintain a balance.
    3. Re:I blame the voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you, of course, are absolutely correct, they are very different.

      but what two different words (and, at least to *some* degree, what we believe they represent) aren't different,...

          also, we may ask ourselves if there is(are) any way(s) that someone might not move from derision to threat,... or from derision to unrecoverable physical harm...

      is it possible that he "derided" religion and that you felt "threatened" --

            or is it more likely that I'm parading myself as some peacemaker, when all I'm about is venting some mental steam...

      that said,... I think the GP was (unintentionally ?) trolling,... and we both bit,...

              I'm gettin' off the hook,...

      peace

    4. Re:I blame the voters by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well for one the law isn't about deriding a religion it is about "Interfering with a Religion".
      Second freedom of religion is protected. People have the right to worship how they please. This law isn't to prevent you from making comments about a religion but to protect peoples right to believe as they choose.
      I don't like Scientology but they have a right to their beliefs just as much as you do. Even if their beliefs where the result of a bet with Asimov about creating a religion.

      I have to give them some credit. Recruiting celebrities is brilliant. Scientology is all about how great and powerful you really are and how things of this world hold you back. I can see how that can be very attractive to a certain personality type. Then you have the people that wish to be like celebrities following them plus all the great pr you get from them. Of course I expect no more spiritual, moral, and political guidance from an actor or rock-star than I do my plumber I find it all very silly but way too many people do fall for it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:I blame the voters by lusid1 · · Score: 0, Troll

      People with strong religious affiliations shouldn't even be allowed to hold public office. It's a conflict of interest. We really should only allow atheists to hold office, but we could let the occasional agnostic hold office if enough atheists will vouch for his religious impartiality.

    6. Re:I blame the voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are athiests religiously impartial? Seems to me they believe they are better than anyone else which is an important part of being a religion.

    7. Re:I blame the voters by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      For the record, Catholics are Christians.

      -Peter

    8. Re:I blame the voters by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Care to explain how peaceful picketing is "interfering with religion"? You skipped completely over that part and went on to praise the scientologists.

      Is shilling a part time thing, or do they pay you well for it?

    9. Re:I blame the voters by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what happened. Where you.

      My praise for the scientologists was much like my praise for Hitlers public speaking. Both good tactics for what is in my opion a not so good purpose.

      It is also called giving the Devil his due.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:I blame the voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ready for something different? Politics is the religion, politicians are the disciples, the voters are the followers, voting is the act of worship, and the god is power (government) itself: the special "right" to employ coercion which supposedly can solve any conceivable problem.

      Anarchy is to politics what atheism is to religion: some of us just don't believe. Can you see why?

    11. Re:I blame the voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly. Worshiping Mary and a few dozen other "Saints" ?

      Sounds like blasphemy to me.

    12. Re:I blame the voters by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      would risk allowing you to deride born again christians or catholics.

      I dunno, I've yet to see a born again christian with two belly buttons.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    13. Re:I blame the voters by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with you, people who are 100% atheist can be asshats. By saying that they are 100% sure without any evidence, they are being intellectually dishonest, just like the religious folk. I'm about 99.999% sure that there is no god, at least as the organized religions tell it, but I'm open to argument if you have some new and interesting physical evidence. Agnostics might be the solution, they don't really have a reason to not be impartial.

  5. beware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    beware the tom cruise missle

    1. Re:beware by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hi, I have an arrest warrant here for an A. Coward...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    2. Re:beware by NotTheNickIWanted · · Score: 1

      In other news, anonymous sources claim that Tom Cruise's "missile" is really just an average pee shooter.

      --

      unsigned int question = 0x2B | ~(0x2B)
    3. Re:beware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I'm a tad more afraid of the Britney Spear.

    4. Re:beware by Locutus · · Score: 1

      Now you've done it.... LOOK OUT!

      http://www.missileballoon.com/Hummer-fhm04.jpg

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    5. Re:beware by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      is there more to that comment, because all the views I've seen compare no differently than the "Di Vinci Code" does to the Catholic Church... that movie makes accusations similar in scope to that usenet post.. or what about that Rushdie (name wrong) book about islam from 10 years ago that all those Islamic people wanted punished? Those things were far more publicized than some usenet post.

    6. Re:beware by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm a tad more afraid of the Britney Spear.

      Don't worry, you can protect yourself from it using the Brooke Shield.

  6. What I want to know... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it okay for a religion to threaten me with hell, but not okay for me to openly state that I'm trying to bring down a religion? Isn't it my state-given right to work to destroy unfavorable institutions so long as I work within the confines of the law?

    A law against "threatening" a religion is a violation of my right to freedom of speech.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:What I want to know... by Rycross · · Score: 0

      Does this sort of thing apply to religions in general? I mean, I've had people tell me things to my face that ranged from "I hope Christianity dies down" to "We should put religious people in camps (seriously)" and nothing ever happens to them.

      I think the difference with Scientology is they have a lot of money, and they're very active in using that money to destroy your life if you ever badmouth their "religion."

    2. Re:What I want to know... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 5, Informative

      I still question whether you can call Scientology a religion at all. I think for a group to claim a nonprofit status as a religion it should be required to offer free religious services and only request donations. Scientology requires big $ to pass through their hurdles. That is a business, not a religion.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    3. Re:What I want to know... by rnelsonee · · Score: 2, Informative
      I think criticizing a religion is protected by free speech, but threats against a person, or group of people, no matter how large, are not not necessarily so. Among the several things the First Amendment doesn't protect (fire in a crowded theater, sedition...), out-and-out threats are in there.

      Now, that being said, I think the statements he made should be considered criticisms, not threats. It's not like he said he was going to kill every Scientologist.

    4. Re:What I want to know... by philwx · · Score: 1

      I didn't know Scientology believed in hell..

    5. Re:What I want to know... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up!

      How very insightful of you. Why should there be a problem with it? If I say I'm working to defeat the Neo-Nazi movement, it would seem no one would care but the Neo-Nazis and most folks would cheer me on. It wouldn't seem likely a judge would have me arrested, either. But as soon as I say I'm working to bring down Scientology, I'm 'threatening a religion'? As long as I work within the confines of the law, I should have the right to say what I want against any institution. That's why the Framers wrote the 1st Amendment -- because bad institutions should be openly criticized.

    6. Re:What I want to know... by Rycross · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, I'm not really sure how they can get tax-exempt status, given they're running the thing as a business.

      Watch out, looks like theres Scientology fans with mod-points today :)

    7. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I still question whether you can call Scientology a religion at all.

      Well, at least in Germany, courts have ruled they are a commercial enterprise and not a religion

    8. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because religions have a good lobby in politics/lawmaking, or had such good lobby in the past.

      Look: a religion can write up loads of nonsense and other false claims and get by with it, even can ask actions against others who pinpoint that their claims cannot be true. A book written centuries ago by one or more fellow humans can be claimed to have special status into which nobody can interfere.

      The situation is similar to that of the media industry. Any industry in the world has to compete and survive on its own, finding novel products and distribution methods when the times are changing, or sometimes the whole industry dies when there is no more demand for their products or method of distribution.
      Not so with the media industry, whose old-fashioned methods get protected by an unrivaled set of laws, rules and taxes. They have a lobbying position similar to religion and thus find themselves in a comparably comfortable position.

    9. Re:What I want to know... by bcharr2 · · Score: 1

      Let me play devil's advocate here. Consider the following statements:

      "I am going to destroy your organization if I have to personally talk sense into each and every member of your group. In 20 years, no one will believe as you do!"

      "I am going to destroy your organization if I have to plant the C4 charges myself!"

      "I am going to destroy your organization even if I have to personally fund the lobbyists that convince Congress to revoke our citizens 'freedon of religon'."

      The first statement is OK, the second statement is probably criminal, the third statement is just plain scary.

    10. Re:What I want to know... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't it my state-given right to work to destroy unfavorable institutions
      The state cannot grant rights; it can only restrict them. To say that any right is granted at the pleasure of the state is a recipe for disaster.

      As to whether that law restricts your free speech, the claim is that "hate speech" is not protected by the Constitution, particularly when it interferes with the right of others to worship freely. The logic is that allowing people to threaten religions is implicit State approval of those threats.

      I believe Scientology abuses the law; but I also believe the law is necessary to protect people's right to worship freely.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    11. Re:What I want to know... by D-Fens · · Score: 1

      German!=Nazi

      dickhole...

    12. Re:What I want to know... by aztec+rain+god · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How big does a cult have to get before it molts into a religion? It seems to me like size is the only difference.

      --
      Sig cannot be found.
    13. Re:What I want to know... by xENoLocO · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd mod you up if I could.

      Along the same lines... (speaking generally, not to you in specific) As a human, you have rights. The constitution was created to guarantee your rights are not trampled on. The constitution does not grant anything, it protects right you alredy had from being violated by a government.

      Believe it or not, this country was founded upon the experience of people who were ruled by fundamentally corrupt governments. Over the years they've found ways to constrict how the constitution defends your rights... and that's why we have the sad state we're in today.

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    14. Re:What I want to know... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, I'm not really sure how they can get tax-exempt status, given they're running the thing as a business.


      As a former treasurer of a 501(c)(3) religious organization, I can tell you that it's not illegal for a tax-exempt organization to charge money for things. It's done all the time. Ever buy Girl Scout Cookies?

      In fact, non-profits are expected to run as a business -- they are required to use GAAP methods for accounting and everything.

      Non-profits are only prohibited from, among a few other things, participating in politics -- doing things like backing or opposing particular political candidates or parties for office, from backing or opposing particular pieces of legislation, etc. Also, they're required to donate a certain percentage of their income to charity. There's nothing wrong with making money -- it's just that whatever is brought in has to go either to administration cost, towards the organization's stated purposes in line with its bylaws, or towards a charity that is in line with the organizations goals and purposes.

    15. Re:What I want to know... by Rycross · · Score: 1

      Thanks for explaining that for me.

    16. Re:What I want to know... by camusflage · · Score: 2, Informative
      That is a business, not a religion.

      That's not what the IRS has to say, and they're the authority (in the US) on what is and is not a religion. Now, that might have something to do with 2,500 (yes, that's two thousand five hundred) lawsuits filed by CoS against the IRS. It might also have something to do with CoS paying for private investigators to dig up dirt on IRS officials. It would be nice to be able to answer these questions, but the IRS has refused to officially release any documentation regarding the agreement with the CoS over tax status.

      Now, surprise surprise, when people have tried to use this as a basis to deduct their religious donations (a couple tried to deduct 55% of payment to a school on behalf of their kids--That portion deemed for "religious education"), they were given the legal smackdown. In this case, interestingly enough, the appellate judge said, essentially, if you don't think this is fair, sue. Quoth Judge Silverman:

      "If the IRS does, in fact, give preferential treatment to members of the Church of Scientology--allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and disallowed to everybody else--then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to put a stop to that policy. The remedy is not to require the IRS to let others claim the improper deduction, too."
      --
      The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
    17. Re:What I want to know... by deets · · Score: 1

      The ironic thing here is that it is not a state given right, but rather a God given right.

    18. Re:What I want to know... by happyemoticon · · Score: 1

      Clearly this is the next step for Google.

    19. Re:What I want to know... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Along the same lines... (speaking generally, not to you in specific) As a human, you have rights. The constitution was created to guarantee your rights are not trampled on. The constitution does not grant anything, it protects right you alredy had from being violated by a government.

      I realize you weren't necessarily talking to me, but I'm disagreeing anyway.

      The constitution very much does grant something, it grants you some measure of protection in the form of law.

      "Rights" are a meaningless, bullshit concept. You very much do not have a right to life. So far as I know, no one lives forever. You don't have a right to liberty - even the government will take that away from you. I guess you have a right to the pursuit of happiness, but some people are chemically imbalanced to the point where they may never be able to be happy.

      In this world there is only what you can take and hold, and that which you cannot.

      I like the idea of Rights, but stating that you have a right doesn't actually make anything happen, or change anything. So I don't believe in them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:What I want to know... by davecb · · Score: 1

      In Canada, the "Hate Speech" prohibition exists, but is modeled on "inciting a riot", so that the crown has to demonstrate that a crime such as assault, murder or destruction of property will follow, to substantial degree of probability.

      I tend to think of it as an "accessory before the fact" charge, with appropriate hurdles for the prosecutor to get over, soas to ensure it isn't used to lable everyone who criticises my religion as a criminal.

      --dave

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    21. Re:What I want to know... by morethanapapercert · · Score: 4, Informative
      A definition I've always used, based on something Robert A Heinlein wrote, is based on the demographic makeup of the group.
        If the majority of a faith's adherents are people who were born and raised into that faith then it is a religion. If the majority of the faith's adherents are people who have joined as allegedly freely consenting adults then it is a cult. Cults are also often characterized by their more blatant and strident attempts at brain-washing the flock and vigorously defending their legitimacy. (A religion doesn't need to be as obvious in it's brain washing since it gets most of it's members while they are young at a time when there are no other competing theologies in their brains that need to be displaced. It also doesn't need to defend it's legitimacy as vigorously because it's been around so long that it has become an institution...) This definition isn't perfect however, as it leaves such conceptual groups like the followers of the FSM or IPU in the class of cult rather than religion.


      Personally, I think the whole concept is futile and consider myself to be an Ignostic

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    22. Re:What I want to know... by jcr · · Score: 1

      That's not what the IRS has to say, and they're the authority (in the US) on what is and is not a religion.

      No, they're not. They're the agency that has to triage whether they can afford the litigation to fight it when an organized crime operation decides to sue them, and in the case of scientology, they caved in.

      Google for "IRS and Scientology". There's something very odd going on there, and it looks like the cult found something they could use to blackmail the IRS commissioner at the time.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    23. Re:What I want to know... by Cruise_WD · · Score: 1

      A "cult" is usually defined by being based around a singular figure. It's broadened slightly by our use of "cult" films, but still the idea is similar - devotion to a specific and singular thing or person.

      Naturally, said person doesn't include a Deity - a cult is devoted to a material, rather spiritual/imaginary existence.

      --
      [ cruise / casual-tempest.net / xenogamous.com / transference.org / quantam sufficit ]
    24. Re:What I want to know... by servognome · · Score: 1

      Along the same lines... (speaking generally, not to you in specific) As a human, you have rights.
      Rights are restrictions we use to protect the individual from the collective to facilitate participation in society. "Inherent human rights," are just those more universally agreed upon.

      The constitution was created to guarantee your rights are not trampled on.
      The Constitution is a social contract that outlines the rights agreed upon by society. A different society may have a different set of rights, for example the right to bear arms is not one that is universally shared.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    25. Re:What I want to know... by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      When Amway gets just a little bit bigger, it'll be a religion, too!

    26. Re:What I want to know... by fotbr · · Score: 1

      Minor nitpick -- You said "right to the pursuit of happiness" not "right to happiness" -- even the chemically unbalanced can pursue happiness, though it may be a Don Quixote or Capt. Ahab type of pursuit.

    27. Re:What I want to know... by bloobloo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First they came for the neo-Nazis...

    28. Re:What I want to know... by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "That's not what the IRS has to say, and they're the authority (in the US) on what is and is not a religion. "

      Excuse me, but no government agency may make any determination one way or another as to what is, and what is not a religion. Any basis on which they could possible do so would be a law respecting the establishment of religion, and would be fundamentally contrary to a basic founding principle of the country.

      What the IRS can and does do is to evaluate what is, and what is not, profit and capital gain.

      While I personally believe that all should be taxed equally or else none should be, I do not believe that the IRS policies have anything to do with religion, and it's *because* of that, that Scientology gets exemptions.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    29. Re:What I want to know... by aztec+rain+god · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you're basically making my point: that there is no fundamental difference in the structure, just the size. Just because Catholic schools are hookin' em young doesn't mean it's not brainwashing. I think a better way of defining things is that a cult is a young religion, a religion is an old cult.

      --
      Sig cannot be found.
    30. Re:What I want to know... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      Your OP:

      Isn't it my state-given right to work to destroy unfavorable institutions so long as I work within the confines of the law?

      A law against "threatening" a religion is a violation of my right to freedom of speech.
      Your parent to this post:

      "Rights" are a meaningless, bullshit concept. You very much do not have a right to life. So far as I know, no one lives forever. You don't have a right to liberty - even the government will take that away from you. I guess you have a right to the pursuit of happiness, but some people are chemically imbalanced to the point where they may never be able to be happy.
      It seems you are talking out both sides of your mouth. On one hand, you claim rights and use that claim as justification for disagreeing with something; on the other hand, you say that there are no such things as rights.

      I'm confused, which is it?

      I like the idea of Rights, but stating that you have a right doesn't actually make anything happen, or change anything. So I don't believe in them.
      It's semantics, but "Rights" describes a set of values... whether or not they are capable of being trespassed upon. Not believing in Rights simply because they aren't immutable is akin to not believing in the concept of variables, because they have no value outside of the context they are discussed in.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    31. Re:What I want to know... by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 5, Interesting
      But it is not legal, when you buy Girl Scout cookies, to deduct the price as a contribution. Fees for goods or services are never tax deductible. You can't get around this by calling it a "contribution" if it's a fixed "contribution" for a particular good or service.

      Unless you're a Scientologist.

      This is the very ultra special tax break that Scientology members get - Fees for auditing, to the tune of (last I heard) $700/hour or so, are fully and completely tax deductible, in spite of a Supreme Court ruling that they were not. The IRS overruled the Supreme Court and said Scientology auditing fees were fully deductible in 1993.

      Now, you may well ask, how come the IRS has the authority to overrule the Supreme Court? That is an extremely good question that I would really, really love to see answered.

    32. Re:What I want to know... by andyteleco · · Score: 1

      Non Profit?

      Just check out what they do with the money inside their fortified base:
      http://www.clambake.org/archive/ronthenut/tabayoyo .htm

    33. Re:What I want to know... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      As to whether that law restricts your free speech, the claim is that "hate speech" is not protected by the Constitution, particularly when it interferes with the right of others to worship freely.

      All expression is protected by the constitution. The only issue is when one person's right to express themselves comes into conflict with another person's constitutionally protected right. For example, if I tell my crime syndicate goons to go kill you, and I'm caught, I still go to jail for conspiracy to commit murder, even though my only act was expression. That is because my right to free expression was trumped by your right to live.

      The question then, is: "does some given 'hate speech' conflict with another right, such as the right to religious freedom?" I'd say it does only when it is likely to interfere with that right, which most hate crime laws use the probability of some violent action, being the determining factor. Is it reasonable to assume people would act violently against Scientologists or Christians or Muslims, because of what I said?

      Here's a puzzler for you. Suppose I found a religion with two basic principals. First, we will use our magic powers via meditation to make everyone who is not a member either become a member or die of cancer by the invisible hand of our god. Second, in order to be saved, we must spread the word and tell everyone of our religion.

      What happens to the application of CA law to Scientology in that instance. Sure a person is threatening another religion, in fact all other religions... but it is their right under both free speech and freedom of religion to do so and to stop them would be to deny them both those rights for the sake of theoretically protecting a different religion from a threat which is not scientifically credible. How does California's law have any claim to constitutionality in such a circumstance?

    34. Re:What I want to know... by Guuge · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but no government agency may make any determination one way or another as to what is, and what is not a religion.

      That's a bit naive. You might also think that no government agency can decide what is, and what is not a marriage. They do decide just that, establishment clause be damned.

    35. Re:What I want to know... by rthille · · Score: 1


      I'm not sure about girl scout cookies, but in California, in rest areas and other places like view points (say on the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge), vendors can only ask for donations, they can't charge a price. To test this I've walked up, picked up a candy bar and a soda, said thanks and walked away. I got no response from the vendor, because they know the laws.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    36. Re:What I want to know... by phunctor · · Score: 1

      "Isn't it my state-given right..."

      No, it's your *inherent* right. What the State can give, the State can take away. A state that prevents the exercise of inherent rights is a tyranny and should be overthrown[1].

      --
      phunctor
      [1] Hancock, J et al, 1776.

    37. Re:What I want to know... by frostband · · Score: 1

      He should make a religion that is devoted to the destruction of Scientology. I wonder what benefits he would encounter by being a religion. It seems that you shouldn't have any more rights being a religion vs being an individual, but for some reason, realistically I don't think that is the case. A religion threatening another religion is nothing new. (It's a stupid law, and he shouldn't have to go through the hoops I mentioned to have to get around it, but none-the-less it may be a way.)

    38. Re:What I want to know... by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

      From what I remember it's not the size of the cult that counts, but the number of lawyers. They basically fought the IRS for tax-exempt status and eventually wore them down and got it.

      That's what I vaguely remember from 20/20 or something in the 90s.

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    39. Re:What I want to know... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "501(c)(3)... Also, they're required to donate a certain percentage of their income to charity.",/i>"

      Cite?

      Icann is a 503(c)(3) and they sure don't contribute to any charity. We looked at this stuff pretty hard in the formative stages of this stuff and the charity bit doesn't sound right to me. Got a citation?

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    40. Re:What I want to know... by antibryce · · Score: 1

      but I also believe the law is necessary to protect people's right to worship freely.

      How exactly does standing outside with a sign on violate someone's right to worship freely? I can see if I'm attacking people to keep them from worshipping however they see fit, but how in the world does your supposed "right" to not be offended trump my right to free speech?

      If something I say is such a horrible assault on your faith I would suggest your faith is weak, and that nothing I'm kept from saying will change that.

    41. Re:What I want to know... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      How exactly does standing outside with a sign on violate someone's right to worship freely?
      That's not the kind of expression that is covered by the law.

      I can see if I'm attacking people to keep them from worshipping however they see fit, but how in the world does your supposed "right" to not be offended trump my right to free speech?
      How about someone stating that they will firebomb a church, with the intention of keeping people from attending that church and organizing in re: a social movement (such as the civil rights movement)? This is the kind of threat that the law is supposed to cover, not someone picketing.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    42. Re:What I want to know... by kwoff · · Score: 1

      And why can pro-lifers picket people going into an abortion clinic?

    43. Re:What I want to know... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now, you may well ask, how come the IRS has the authority to overrule the Supreme Court? That is an extremely good question that I would really, really love to see answered.
      Duh.

      IRS == Treasury Department == Executive Branch.

      Supreme Court == Judicial Branch.

      Didn't you know that the Executive Branch now supercedes the other two branches?
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    44. Re:What I want to know... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      If the majority of a faith's adherents are people who were born and raised into that faith then it is a religion. If the majority of the faith's adherents are people who have joined as allegedly freely consenting adults then it is a cult.

      I think another important distinction is the incentive a group would have for wanting you to join. Any Christian church I've been around would be perfectly happy to have you come, decide that they're correct, then leave and go worship at another church that you feel more comfortable in. Cults don't want you to go to another cult if it fits better - they want you to stay put. For me, a cult is a group that wants you to join so that they can grow in power or income. A religion is a group that wants you to join so that you can be happier.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    45. Re:What I want to know... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Well, at least in Germany, courts have ruled they are a commercial enterprise and not a religion

      Bear in mind though that European countries generally don't have the same robust prohibitions against establishment of religion that we have in the US.

      I agree that Scientology as an organization is hardly a religious group. The Church of Satan is more religious than they are and has *always* had a for-profit status. But in the end, I think that ideas make a religion, not the organization. I also think that the organizations need to be evaluated on ideologically neutral grounds.

      Also note that here in the US, the Supreme Court recently ruled (Gonzales v. UVD) that religious groups could use (and import) otherwise illegal drugs as part of sincere religious practices. So religious organizatons have a *lot* more leeway legally than any other type of organization.
      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    46. Re:What I want to know... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Hey, what form do I get to do that?

      Not a scientologist, but willing to claim to be one on a tax form.

    47. Re:What I want to know... by cartman · · Score: 1

      As to whether that law restricts your free speech, the claim is that "hate speech" is not protected by the Constitution

      The constitution does not limit the kind of speech which it protects. Of course some interpretation must be made, but "hate speech" (ie oppositional speech) is precisely the kind which the constitution was written to protect.

      particularly when it interferes with the right of others to worship freely.

      Speech does not interfere with the right of others to worship freely. Even after a dissenting view, worshippers still are capable of walking through the temple door.

      The logic is that allowing people to threaten religions is implicit State approval of those threats.

      That's utterly absurd. Just because the state allows a person to voice his opinions, does not mean the state endorses his opinions. As an example, there are many people whom I allow to speak without trying to injure or confine them, but that doesn't constitute some kind of "implicit approval" of their opinions on my part. The idea was that the state would be neutral and its coercive powers could not be used by either side.

      I believe Scientology abuses the law; but I also believe the law is necessary to protect people's right to worship freely.

      Oppositional speech does not interfere with a person's right to worship freely.

      ...It amazes me how frail is the notion of free speech in a country where it supposedly is so much a part of the national character. Everyone is in favor of "free speech" until they list their exceptions: "speech should be absolutely free except when it opposes something I believe in, in which the speaker should be tossed in jail..." or "speech should be completely free as long as you don't speak against ..."

      It amazes me there could be such confusion on this elementary notion. It should be perfectly clear that "free speech" with the qualifications listed in the previous paragraph ("free except when the speaker offends...") has no meaning whatsoever. Free speech means precisely the right to OPPOSITIONAL speech. Oppositional speech is precisely the kind envisioned by the authors of the constitution and precisely the kind intended to be protected by that document. Nobody has ever tried to ban speech which is in accordance with accepted views and present leaders. That kind of "free speech" exists everywhere (even in the most tyrannical dictatorship) and so does not require protection from a constitution. "Free speech" in the sense of "agreeable speech" is a meaningless right because it imposes no serious restraint on the actions of the coercive authority.

      A republican democracy is not just the right to vote and speak. Even in STALINIST RUSSIA (heh) you had the right to vote (for communism) and to speak (in favor of communism). The idea here (which apparently has been missed by a sizable portion of Americans, incredibly!) is that you can vote for, and speak for, what you believe in, EVEN WHEN the point of view is not sanctioned by someone else. Doing so does not interfere with the rights of the church, the state, worshippers, people with other opinions, etc.

    48. Re:What I want to know... by Darby · · Score: 1

      For me, a cult is a group that wants you to join so that they can grow in power or income. A religion is a group that wants you to join so that you can be happier.

      So you're saying that religions don't exist and everything that calls itself one is really a cult?
      Makes sense.

    49. Re:What I want to know... by Darby · · Score: 1

      Minor nitpick -- You said "right to the pursuit of happiness" not "right to happiness" -- even the chemically unbalanced can pursue happiness, though it may be a Don Quixote or Capt. Ahab type of pursuit.

      Major nitpick.
      "Pursuit" in this context means an activity one regularly engages in, not something one chases after.

      Your failure to take into account the historical context and the meaning of the word at that time it was used led you to make a major mistake in your interpretation.

      Hope this helps.

    50. Re:What I want to know... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Oppositional speech does not interfere with a person's right to worship freely.
      I wasn't talking about dissenting views, I was talking about direct threats, there is a big difference -- sorry if I didn't make it clear.

      This is where the Scientologist use of the CA law is abuse of that law.

      Are you familiar with the CA law and the climate under which it was passed? As an example, there are many people whom I allow to speak without trying to injure or confine them, but that doesn't constitute some kind of "implicit approval" of their opinions on my part.When the state knowingly allows people to threaten others with physical harm for their religious views, then the state is condoning that action, thus tacitly approving the action, thus tacitly denying the freedom of religion guaranteed by the CA Constitution.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    51. Re:What I want to know... by multimed · · Score: 1

      Now that seems like a rather questionable comment for a judge to make. INAL, but I'd bet if I try and sue the IRS because of how they treat an organization that I have nothing to do with, my suit will be dismissed because I don't have standing. I can sue because they're not fair to me, but as a third party not directly affected, there's not much I can do.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
    52. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it okay for a religion to threaten me with hell, but not okay for me to openly state that I'm trying to bring down a religion? Isn't it my state-given right to work to destroy unfavorable institutions so long as I work within the confines of the law?


      note - religions threaten people with eternal life in hell fire.

      the bible does not. it clearly says that those who refuse to "play nice" with the community will die and that the dead know nothing.

      this begs the question - how come so many christian religions refuse to believe the bible? the bible actually answers that question - they prefer tradition over truth.

      don't put on god the folly that is the tradition of people (control freak people, no less).
    53. Re:What I want to know... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      And yet the right to the pursuit of happiness (even with the contextural definition applied) does not imply that one must exercise that right in order for the right to exist, which drinkypoo implies in the GGP to this post.

      As such, the GP's point still stands.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    54. Re:What I want to know... by fotbr · · Score: 1

      I don't happen to agree with your interpretation -- one of the common definitions has always been to attempt to obtain, and that definition applies in this context as well.

      But I'll agree to disagree since the rest of the points were pretty valid.

    55. Re:What I want to know... by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      I prefer:

      Cult: Small unpopular religion
      Religion: Large popular cult

      Regards
      elFarto

    56. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no details about this particular case, but your idea is close but not quite.

      It's not that the executive branch superceds the others always so much that in this case their power render the other branch's power moot. Much like "Congress doesn't superced the Supreme Court, but if Congress passes an amendment to the Constitution it makes relevant past judgments of the Supreme Court moot."

      My guess is that it is something like "the IRS in the executive branch choose to not execute this legal privilege," much like a police officer can choose to not arrest a person who is speeding, or the president can choose to pardon a person.

    57. Re:What I want to know... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      My bad. On that particular point (but not on the others), I was confusing our group's own bylaws with IRS 501(c)(3) requirements. 501(c)(3) requirements do limit the activities that an organization can be purposed for -- including promotion of religion or benefiting science or eduction or benefiting the homeless or poor, etc. IOW, the groups major activities must be included in what's listed in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

    58. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANL.. but.. The IRS does not fall under judicial preview. This is just what I understand of it, I think its basicly correct. but it could be completely wrong. its just what I've personally been able to figure out on it with my very limited reading on the subject. Needless to say its more complex than this too.

      Back during the Civil War, Lincon passed an income tax law. Later that law made it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court knocked it down. An Amendment to the constitution is needed to collect income tax, no matter how much it is needed by the government, the government can't tax basic income without an Amendment. So for a few years income tax went away. Durring that time two Amendments were proposed to make it legal, both never made it past the review process after leaving the legislative branch. Evidently noone in their right mind wanted to allow the government to take their hard earned money. So, the government did an end-around. Instead of making an Amendment, they would just pass the law by creating another law which only in its extremely liberal writing, and even more liberal reading, would it actually look like it was able to collect income tax. Which is why you get films and all sorts of other things about there being no law that says we have to pay income tax, there is nowhere, a law on the books that explicitly states anything about income tax on the federal level. Anyway, the upshot of this is because there is no "law" per say, that says we have to pay income tax, there is also no law for the Supreme Court to actually make a ruling on. Instead all laws for income tax basicly fall under whatever the IRS actually feels like charging us. The check on the IRS, to the extent that it is a check, is the Legislative and Executive Branch's can, and do, pass laws stating things we CANNOT be taxed for, under the heading of income. A law is never passed that states we must pay any sort of income tax. Its one of the great gray areas that keeps the government running, and that everyone in government actually knows. Is it Unconstitutional? Yes. Is there any other way it could be done.? No. Does it need to be there? Yes. People will never pass an Amendment to the Constitution granting income tax to the Federal Government, nor will the man on the street like it once all of the projects the government does, suddenly goes away without funding(yes some of us disagree with a large number of those projects). I'm not defending the Government here, I don't actually like income tax. But, its the largest problem the US faced in actually being created, so its the most limiting factor of the constitution. Remember, this isn't the first draft of the Constitution, nor is it even the first "Constitution" the US has governed its under. The Articles of Confederation which came before it failed almost totally because of tax laws. Its pretty hard to have a government without taxes, and its almost impossible to sell taxes to people who just fought and won a war over unjust taxes. Tax law is, and always will be the most crap part of the US law system by nature of what the US is.

    59. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's how it's *supposed* to work, yes, but that's not how it *actually* works anymore.

    60. Re:What I want to know... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Funny

      Go for the Discordians. They're more fun at parties, and you get to eat hot dogs.

    61. Re:What I want to know... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >You might also think that no government agency can decide what is, and what is not a marriage.

      Marriage is a tax institution, not a religious one. You haven't read my rants on that :-)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    62. Re:What I want to know... by AlinuxNCSU · · Score: 1

      Now, you may well ask, how come the IRS has the authority to overrule the Supreme Court? That is an extremely good question that I would really, really love to see answered.

      I am not familiar with the Supreme Court case you are referring to, but depending on the situation, it is possible for an administrative agency to rule opposite to what the Supreme Court does. If the Supreme Court is deciding a case that requires it to interpret a statute or an agency rule, they might rule one way. If the agency has rulemaking power, then it can later change the rule.

      I'm not saying that happened here, but it can happen.

    63. Re:What I want to know... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Personally I think the history of this group speaks for itself and they are neither - more a combination of a gang and a pyramid scheme in my view.

    64. Re:What I want to know... by asninn · · Score: 1

      I think you've got it wrong, at least in part. Rights are, first and foremost, an ethical concept - something that we recognise to be inherent in every person.

      You're right (no pun intended) when you say that rights are meaningless insofar as that without any way of protecting them, they are irrelevant; if somebody's violating your rights, then you can tell them "you're violating my rights!" as often as you want, but unless you have a way to stop them, they'll just say "yes, so what?" and continue.

      However, that does not make rights *inherently* meaningless; I think you're conflating two similar but subtly different things here, although it's probably an easy mistake to make. Put another way, if rights are inherently meaningless, then why is it important to protect them - or why is there anything you can protect at all?

      Your inherent rights are basically ethical entitlements, and the recognition of these rights by - e.g. - the US constitution turns those ethical entitlements into legal entitlements (and the state - that is, the government - then makes sure that these legal entitlements, in turn, are worth more than the paper they're written on). However, if no ethical entitlements existed, there'd be nothing to base the legal entitlements on, and the only solution for that inconsistency would be to adapt the opinion that your (legal) rights are *granted* by the state rather than recognised (since there wouldn't *be* anything to recognise). And down that road lies madness, of course.

      I'm sure you're actually aware of that, but I think it goes to show that inherent rights are not actually a meaningless, bullshit concept. You need a foundation to build a house in which you can live, and the foundation is important even though you couldn't live in the foundation if no house had been built upon it.

      --
      butter the donkey
    65. Re:What I want to know... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of what they do and that what they do is bad. But running a non-profit like a business isn't one of those things.

    66. Re:What I want to know... by andyteleco · · Score: 1

      You say that "whatever is brought in has to go either to administration cost, towards the organization's stated purposes in line with its bylaws, or towards a charity that is in line with the organizations goals and purposes"

      I can't really see in which of these categories all the luxury stuff that the leaders were buying falls.

    67. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The excess price is tax deductible. If you bought a $7 girl-scout cookie, you're allowed to claim the excess you paid over "fair value" (subjective, just document it and so long as it's approximately market prices, it's okay) as a charitable donation. Thus, on itemized deductions, you would put ($7-$1.50) = $5.50 as a charitable donation, documenting that you paid $7 and what you believe an acceptable fair value is. It's generally a good idea to over-estimate the fair value so you're erring on the side of caution. It's good to be cautious because the IRS auditors are allowed to look back 7 years and charge 20% APR, so if they find you took larger deductions 7 years ago, you'll have penalties and interest to pay.

    68. Re:What I want to know... by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1

      mmm, while I certainly agree with your description of religious schools (Whether they be Catholic, Hebrew or Sunday schools)I don't think the only difference is in size. Your closing sentence mentions this, age is an important criteria. I think that a religion is a cult that has survived and grown to the point where to has gained an aura of respectability. Thus both age and size count, with the equation giving a slightly greater weight to age than to size. This weighted measurement also justifies larger/older/more established religions to look down upon the newer, upstart little faiths.
      (Which "justified" the Catholic Church's persecution of the "The Cathar Heresy") An inexplicable behavior done once is an anomaly, repeated a few times is aberration, keep doing it for years and it becomes a hallowed tradition.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    69. Re:What I want to know... by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1

      By that criteria, *any* faith can swing back and forth between religion and cult depending on the character of it's leadership. The Inquisition was certainly NOT about making people happier (except perhaps the power-mongers who sponsored it.) but rather making sure the Church had no potential rivals for power.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    70. Re:What I want to know... by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your philosophy. Rights are something you already have. They're not a restriction, unless you meant it in that it's a restriction for everyone else to violate your right to something. Rights are something every human has. Basic treatment, basic ability, basic starting point. Nothing has ever said "You are granted the right". It's always "You have the right". You have the ability with reason.

      Politics are somewhat like religion in this aspect. This country was founded on the notion that humans have certain rights, and the constitution was drafted to protect those rights from other people and the government.

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
  7. All religions suck by boristdog · · Score: 0

    And I hereby officially threaten their deities with bodily harm.

    Can I be arrested now?

    1. Re:All religions suck by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      most deities are not believed to have bodies, try better.

    2. Re:All religions suck by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      Oh. Care to step outside and repeat that?

      God
      Supreme Non Existant being and heavenly champion in 5 seperate spiritual divisions.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    3. Re:All religions suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I hereby officially threaten their deities with bodily harm.

      Can't Catholics be done for this? After all, they claim that the bread and wine is literally transformed into the flesh of Christ, and then they eat it! How is that not GBH and cannibalism?

    4. Re:All religions suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Scientology is a religion WITHOUT a deity. L. Ron Hubbard claimed to be a reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes, Maitreya (the future Buddha) and a hero who lived 70 billions (or quadrillions) years ago. Scientology claims it is compatible with whatever god you believe in (Buddhism does the same, actually - I have met atheist, monotheist (in Indonesia for example everybody HAS to be a monotheist) and polytheist buddhists), but Scientology is not compatible with christianity (which they want to destroy) nor Buddhism (which they try to embrace & extend).

    5. Re:All religions suck by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      more or less that makes L. Ron Hubbard a deity. A narcotics abusing, fraudster, sci-fi writing deity. Ah well, that's more interesting than most deities.

  8. Total BS! by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a Christian, I don't like seeing people criticize my religion, but I certainly don't want them arrested for it! WTF makes scientology so damn important? The same could be said for Islam. Why is throwing a koran in the toilet a hate crime, but dumping a cross in a jar of urine not?

    I don't want to see people arrested for criticizing Christianity and I sure as hell don't want to see people jailed for criticizing other religions either! Why is the free speech of non-Christians important than that of Christians??

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Total BS! by SengirV · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Because liberals hate Cristianity. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      --

      Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

    2. Re:Total BS! by starX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the crucifix in the jar of urine was art, and the Koran in the toilet was torture. If you put a Koran in a toilet in the middle of a museum, it would be art, and therefore okay.

      I want to start an off topic discussion with you (seriously, I'm not trolling). Have you played Bible Fight at adultswim.com, and if so, what do you think? Grievous insult to the Christian faith? Over the top satire? Humorous satire? Not especially playable? I'm just curious.

    3. Re:Total BS! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      And conservative Christians hate liberals. Plenty of hate to go around!

      There are liberal Christians but they don't get counted of course.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    4. Re:Total BS! by jav1231 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "There are liberal Christians but they don't get counted of course."
      Cool! You get it! Frankly, I'm not sure you can be a Christian and a Liberal.
      Mod me, Baby! Spread the love!

    5. Re:Total BS! by DiscoFreq · · Score: 1

      WTF makes scientology so damn important? It's a billion dollar business: getting lots of money from rich idiots :)
    6. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe putting the Koran in the toilet was performance art?

      It seems to be an odd thing to devalue the meaning of the word "torture" by stretching it to cover both Koran-dunking and fingernail-pulling, racking, finger-chopping, slow disembowelment, etc. Perhaps it would be better to come up with another term for things like Koran-dunking. Maybe "taunting" or something like that would more accurately express the true horror of the crime of koran-dunking?

    7. Re:Total BS! by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Maybe there is a link with the fact that Christianity clearly draws a line between law of the men and law of God and consider them equally important.

    8. Re:Total BS! by sheldon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is throwing a koran in the toilet a hate crime, but dumping a cross in a jar of urine not?


      Frankly, I don't think either are particularly damaging. They're just things. As a Christian, my faith is not based on earthly things.

      So I'm curious why you brought it up. Was it somehow important to you? Why?
    9. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Christian, I don't like seeing people criticize my religion, but I certainly don't want them arrested for it!

      But that has not always been true. Christianity is a relatively mature religion, which has past the age where its followers think that they should convince everyone else to join, and that they can achieve that (and other goals) by saying doom to anyone who is not in the club or has anything to say about it.

      There are more religions like that. They enjoy the feeling without hurting others.

      Then there are a couple of religions and "religions", usually young and immature, whose followers believe they are the only right ones, and who violently act against anyone who dares to say anything about them, the religion, the one who invented it, or the book he wrote.
      Even explaining to them that they are immature and behind the times is dangerous, as some people in this country have already found.

    10. Re:Total BS! by KoldKompress · · Score: 1

      My Christian friend loves it. But then again, she's a bit more liberal than most. I think people do overlook Liberal Christians, and only hear the voices that cry louder than anyone else, the conservative Christians.

    11. Re:Total BS! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I brought it up to show a double standard. Burning a flag that has Allah inscribed on it is a crime. Burning a Bible is not. Dropping a koran in a toilet is a "hate crime". Dropping a cross in urine is not. Giving muslem students a ham sandwich is a hate crime (reprehensible, sure. But a crime?), making a video game where the object is to kill as many "Jesuses" as possible is OK in the state of California, that has this law.

      See my point here?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    12. Re:Total BS! by starX · · Score: 1

      Well yes, I agree. Actually, I was being hyperbolic in the last post. In fact, in principle, since religion is the primary weapon being used against us, I wholly support, from a strategic point of view, working to turn that weapon into a weakness wherever possible.

    13. Re:Total BS! by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Liberal Christians are called Catholics. They might not be down with the whole abortion thing, but they'd rather see union friendly politicians than legislate their morality.

    14. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why is throwing a koran in the toilet a hate crime, but dumping a cross in a jar of urine not?"

      The "Age of Enlightenment" happened in Europe. And since Europe was dominated by Christianity, it affected the way Europeans, christian and non-christian alike, thought/think about religion, about reason, about the place of speech and ideas in cultural life. The US was founded by people influenced by those ideas.

      No similar movement happened in the Middle East.

      And the scientologists-- well they are just another corporation protecting their brand.

    15. Re:Total BS! by Jonny_eh · · Score: 1

      You really think that a Koran in a toilet in a museum would NOT cause riots?! Why, because it's free speech? We saw how well that worked out for the Dutch cartoons.

    16. Re:Total BS! by starX · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it wouldn't cause riots, I'm saying (and saying tongue in cheek, mind you) that it would be art. Don't go puting words into my mouth. Some might argue that only the best art that causes riots.

    17. Re:Total BS! by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      We saw how well that worked out for the Dutch cartoons.

      Danish cartoons.

      Why do people keep mixing up Denmark and The Netherlands?

      Denmark is the place of bacon, ridiculous car prices (180% tax, baby!), legal porn since 1969 and extremely hot blonde and fair-skinned women.

      The Netherlands have free pot, wooden shoes, windmills and tulips. :-)
      --
      Eat the rich.
    18. Re:Total BS! by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      Anything can be considered art. Just imagine the artistry involved in pulling fingernails from your torture victims.

    19. Re:Total BS! by SengirV · · Score: 1

      No, there are moderate Christians who have the ability see thru the BS. And they are the ones who sway elections.

      --

      Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

    20. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the crucifix in the jar of urine was art, but the Koran in the toilet never happened. If you look back you should find that the actual incident was that someone was peeing against a wall and some urine splashed onto another inmates Koran. Please get the facts straight.

      Also, there is no requirement that something be displayed in a museam to be considered art. I've seen plenty of art displayed in private residences, on the internet, in the notebooks of classmates, and even in lockers that have never been anywhere near a museam of any kind.

    21. Re:Total BS! by morcego · · Score: 1

      You know, I have a hard time grasping all this symbology stuff. I mean, isn't religion (any religion) about the message they try to transmit ? What does it matter if I set fire on a bible, koran, whatever ?

      I was raised a catholic, and I always got into some good discussions with priests about the whole "son of god" and "virgin Mary" stuff. My point was always: why should it matter ? What is the merit of being a good person just because you are afraid of going to hell ? How is that any different than pointing a gun at someone's head, and making them going something good ?

      Most strange of all, I did meet some priests that agreed with me at least twice.

      --
      morcego
    22. Re:Total BS! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      But it's fine for me to burn in hell for eternity for not believing in the zombie jesus? Cheers, pal! You're a star!

    23. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems Liberals have a lot more hate to go around.

    24. Re:Total BS! by starX · · Score: 1

      Touche. Next time I'm going to print the words THIS IS HYPERBOLE somewhere in the post.

    25. Re:Total BS! by bsmoor01 · · Score: 1

      That's because there is no such think as a 'Liberal Christian'. Liberal Christians are no different from conservative bible-thumpers or hardcore muslims. They all believe in things written in a book hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago, and let it guide their life. I'm sorry, but no matter how 'liberal' your beliefs are, if you adhere to any religion, you're part of the problem and not the solution.

    26. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the Koran in the toilet was torture. If you put a Koran in a toilet in the middle of a museum, it would be art, and therefore okay.


      Okay? That's a way to incite jihad! It's far from 'okay'.
    27. Re:Total BS! by starX · · Score: 1

      I don't find it strange at all. I myself was raised Roman Catholic, and I have found that Catholic priests tend to be very well educated and well read, and are generally open to discussions of ecumenical philosophy. As far as the symbology goes, remember that the signs and artifacts of an idea are what people rally behind. I doubt most Americans have read or understand the Constitution, let alone thought about the implications of it in both an historical and contemporary context, but they'll pledge allegiance to the flag just about every time. And when they don't they tend to be actively rejecting the symbol, which means that they are perforce recognizing its power as such.

      Symbols have power. In the case of religion, they give us a concrete and visceral connection with what is in the Abrahamic religions and ephemeral divinity. I can remember studying Hinduism and being completely impressed with the unity of physicality and spirituality and wondering why we didn't have that in the Western traditions. It took me about two minutes to figure out I was just criticizing the religion of God made flesh for lacking that physical connection. We've tended to ignore that aspect over the past couple of thousand years in favor of the more eschatological ones, which has a great deal to due with the roots of early Christianity, but the symbols of the faith have become the gateway to unity with the divine.

      Not being a Jew or a Muslm, I can't comment as well on their particular philosophies, but I suspect the signs of the faith remain the same.

    28. Re:Total BS! by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

      I brought it up to show a double standard. Burning a flag that has Allah inscribed on it is a crime. Burning a Bible is not. Dropping a koran in a toilet is a "hate crime". Dropping a cross in urine is not. Giving Muslim students a ham sandwich is a hate crime (reprehensible, sure. But a crime?), making a video game where the object is to kill as many "Jesuses" as possible is OK in the state of California, that has this law.

      See my point here? Point being, you want to play the victim? :) "There, there. Poor you. You and your religion are treated so badly and no one cares at all."

      Don't worry about it. Christians are much more holy when they're being persecuted. Just remember the wise lessons the Amish teach us: "A local boy kicked me in the butt last week - I just smiled at him, and I turned the other cheek. I really don't care, in fact I wish him well - 'cause I'll be laughing my head off when he's burning in hell."
      --
      ---GEC
      I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
    29. Re:Total BS! by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but no matter how 'liberal' your beliefs are, if you adhere to any religion, you're part of the problem and not the solution.

      Actually, you just pretty clearly indicated that YOU are part of the problem. The problem comes in when one Person A's beliefs (whether religious or not) cause him or her to try to change the way of life of Person B against Person B's will -- even when that way of life has no real impact on Person A. Your statement puts you in the Person A category. If instead you had said "if your adherence to a religion is causing you to tread on the freedoms of others...", then your statement would have been more accurate. But you are inferring that anybody who adheres to a religion needs to be gotten rid of. I'm hoping I don't have to explain to you where that path will take you.
      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    30. Re:Total BS! by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1
      The crucifix was not actually art, just the art world's equivalent of a troll. It was created because some people enjoy pushing boundaries and the uproar over the Mapplethorpe Exhibit (which was actual art and not just trolling, by the way) put those boundaries in the spotlight.


      And while there were people who upheld it being categorized as art, on principle, even though they knew better, the resulting ramifications are still felt by people who seek public money for their art. The changes made by politicians as a result of the controversy were a polite society's equivalent of rioting. The whole thing was similar to the way actual musicians stood up for 2 Live Crew's right to ramble on in whatever infantile way they wanted.

      I've not played the game you mention but I suspect that if Jesse Helms (or whomever his living successor is...I think Helms is deceased) walks in on his kids playing it today, it will be front page news tomorrow. The decisions society makes about which kind of expression is acceptable are mostly based on emotion and emotions can be easily manipulated by those in charge.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    31. Re:Total BS! by Altus · · Score: 1
      Christianity is a relatively mature religion, which has past the age where its followers think that they should convince everyone else to join, and that they can achieve that (and other goals) by saying doom to anyone who is not in the club or has anything to say about it.

      oh really?

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    32. Re:Total BS! by starX · · Score: 1

      Why does that make it not okay? Why are you afraid of jihadists?

    33. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is throwing a koran in the toilet a hate crime, but dumping a cross in a jar of urine not?

      Since we don't need manmade laws to enact a punishment.

      Desecrate some other holy book, etc and you'll only face possible earthly sanctions.

      No need to put someone in jail, etc for descrating the Bibile when they'll get punished by God.

    34. Re:Total BS! by morcego · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your excellent reply.

      Yes, your answer is along the same line I've got from those priests I mentioned.

      I also failed to mention that all the priests that agreed with me were Jesuits, which are pretty much the scholar branch the Catholic church (gross generalization, I know). But, in all fairness, 90% of the priests I've talked to were Jesuits.

      I find it oddly depressing that, without all that symbology, people tend to simply ignore (or not accept) a religion. So, in the end, the symbols became more important than the message. Hence, these laws, hate and stupidity.

      --
      morcego
    35. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They invaded Iraq and built a concentration camp at Gitmo?

    36. Re:Total BS! by syntaxglitch · · Score: 1

      See my point here? I think most people understand your point, they just don't see the relevance. Anyways, are you expecting to find people on /. to argue with you? The state of affairs you argue against is indeed foolish, and I don't reasonably expect there are many people here who would champion its cause.
    37. Re:Total BS! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Because the crucifix in the jar of urine was art, and the Koran in the toilet was torture. If you put a Koran in a toilet in the middle of a museum, it would be art, and therefore okay.
      Freedom of speech, the right to protest and freedom of religion are all guaranteed by the Constitution. Art, however, is not mentioned. So how is it that art trumps the Constitution?

      I want to start an off topic discussion with you (seriously, I'm not trolling). Have you played Bible Fight at adultswim.com, and if so, what do you think? Grievous insult to the Christian faith? Over the top satire? Humorous satire? Not especially playable? I'm just curious.
      I've only seen it once, but IIRC, I found it offensive, yet funny. About the same as I would a Mel Brooks movie or Monte Python skit (big fan of all three BTW).

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    38. Re:Total BS! by starX · · Score: 1

      I never said that art trumped the Constitution. Art is the child of freedom of expression, and thus no art is possible without the First Amendment. I'm saying this a lot today, but I was being hyperbolic when I said that. Still, a Koran in a toilet or a post on Slashdot can ultimately do nothing to undermine the freedom of individuals to practice the religion they so choose. They right to choose whether or not to practice a particular religion, and the right to choose whether or not to criticize a particular religion are part and parcel of the same thing. Some people express this in a way that can be deemed "artistic," and some do not.

      This is not to say I would ever dignify Scientology by referring to it either as science or religion. It strikes me as being a few notches below LARP in the grand scheme of things. Then again, there are many who would disagree with my assessment. Now if I take my sentiments and produce a play using them as a central theme, perhaps I have created an artistic expression. Either way, I'm sure Scientologists would take offense, and either way I'm quite sure I have the right to express my opinions, and I'm also 100% positive that Scientology won't be going anywhere, and the freedom of Scientologists to practice, will not be impinged upon as a direct result of me stating my opinions. I think the law would agree.

    39. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intent.

    40. Re:Total BS! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Why is throwing a koran in the toilet a hate crime, but dumping a cross in a jar of urine not?

      Purpose. Probably better explained by someone with more knowledge of both art and religion than myself. Quoth Wikipedia:

      Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic, consecrated virgin and Catholic nun, voiced her approval of Piss Christ. She explained in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as a statement on "what we have done to Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.

      So there you have it: the Koran was thrown in a toilet as a simple act of desecration aimed at a specific individual already under duress, wheras "Piss Christ", while undoubtedly intended to be controversal, implies meaning that can be found by someone who I'd wager has more of a commitment to their religion than you, thus it's inclusion in the world of art.

      It's always easier to take offence at the superficial aspects of art than actually think about the message behind it, and righteous indignation is always more immediately satisfying than intellectual discovery. It also easy to forget that plastic trinkets are not God incarnate, and that the paper the bible is printed on is a mere conveyance for the content...I'm sure I read something about "graven images" somewhere, but it obviously wasn't that important, considering how much a piece of cheese toast sold for on eBay recently. "Jesus came to me in the form of melted cheese, so I'll make some cash off the gullible" - who is really pissing on Christ here? The artist had a point; don't be offended by how it was said, be offended that it needed to be said.

      Why is the free speech of non-Christians important than that of Christians??

      Oh please, it has been a very long time since Christians were a persecuted minority. The reality is that in the west Christians are the majority, and as a group their views are always heard and often enforced by law. But feel free to cite an example of a Christian leader being censured for statements about another religion that wouldn't have caused outrage if the names were reversed. I'd be very surprised to see it.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    41. Re:Total BS! by chthon · · Score: 1

      Isn't it because some famous people pour a whole lot of money into scientology (I refuse to write it with a capital. As Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven said, there is a special place in hell for people who create fake religions) ?

    42. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Christian, I don't like seeing people criticize my religion

      Then just maybe you might look into a belief system which isn't demonstrably bullshit?
      I mean seriously, your beliefs are not even internally consistent. They contradict themselves so often and so deeply that they aren't even fixable.
      While the existence of a deist god with no interest in humanity or the world is unfalsifiable your faith is easilly falsified by a child with a decent grasp of logic, and some basic interest in looking honestly into the matter.

      So, it's easy for you to get people to stop criticizing your religion:
      Pick one that isn't so blatantly false and complete bullshit!

      Why is the free speech of non-Christians important than that of Christians??

      Because Christians are generally the evil fuckers trying to fuck things up for everybody else because they can't get through their heads the idea that their stupid invisible fairy man only gets to rule over those stupid enough to buy into such idiotic bullshit. Also, the stated goal of the various Christian terrorist ggroups in the US is the destruction of the constitution and its replacement with religious rule. So basically, terrorist organizations actively engaged in treason don't have the same rights as us decent people.

      Also, they're generally much more likely to have anything worthwhile to say than some ignorant hate mongering savages.

    43. Re:Total BS! by Darby · · Score: 1

      As a Christian, I don't like seeing people criticize my religion

      Then rather than whine about it why don't you work to make your religion into something that isn't *deserving* of criticism and contempt? That would be the simple honest straightforward path.
      This is just more of the same bullshit entitlement no personal responsibility crap that's plaguing this country.

    44. Re:Total BS! by Darby · · Score: 2, Informative


      I also failed to mention that all the priests that agreed with me were Jesuits, which are pretty much the scholar branch the Catholic church (gross generalization, I know).


      It's really not a generalization gross or otherwise.
      There does not exist a single Jesuit who isn't *very* well educated.
      Other Church folk than the Jesuits engage in scholarly pursuits, and the Jesuits do more than just read books but neither of those facts makes your statement a generalization any more than saying that the Navy is pretty much the ocean branch of the US military.

    45. Re:Total BS! by rayvd · · Score: 1

      Because the crucifix in the jar of urine was art, and the Koran in the toilet was torture. If you put a Koran in a toilet in the middle of a museum, it would be art, and therefore okay.

      Except half the muslim world would want to kill you....

      There IS a huge double standard when it comes to criticizing Christianity. Probably a good thing. I wish other religions (Islam, Scientology in specific in this context) would learn to be a little less "sensitive".

    46. Re:Total BS! by sheldon · · Score: 1

      See my point here?


      Considering the cross thing happened, god I don't know, it's so long ago I can't remember. But almost daily I have to listen to asshats whining about it. Not to mention the whole Global War on Christmas thing....

      I'd say your point is most simple.

      you like to whine
    47. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say it is about time to outlaw all Religions in every country. Religion has caused all problems in history.

      -ks
      http://www.myspace.com/kevinshelley

    48. Re:Total BS! by starX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So half the Muslim world would want to kill me, how's that any different from half the Muslim world wanting to kill me for being an American?

      No, I agree, there is a huge double standard, but I think it's not a good thing. Christianity itself is of course the dominant religion in the west, and I think it's fair to say that rejections of the signs of Christianity tend to be more equated with a rejection of the values of the old establishment (i.e. one's parents) than of the values of Christianity itself. Christianity is not the problem, the way that Christianity was practiced, and thus the way in which it came to be perceived, is the problem.

      That doesn't make it right that Islamic fanatics suddenly feel they have the right to kill me, but here again is the issue behind the issue: what proportion of American Muslims do you think would be signing up for a fatwa against an artist? I think you'll find that the number would be inversely proportionate to the same percentage of, say, Iranian, or Saudi Muslims willing to do the same. It's not a matter of the religion itself being the inspiration for the anti social behavior, but rather the religion provides a catalyst.

      The Scientologists, on the other hand, have to justify themselves as a religion. They've convinced a few people, but they behave a lot more like a well organized cult running a good con game based on a badly written science fiction role playing game than they do a religion. I think that people would understand the true motivations of the "church" of Scientology a lot better if they changed their name to an acronym ending in AA.

    49. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is throwing a koran in the toilet a hate crime, but dumping a cross in a jar of urine not?

      You're making the mistake that nearly all Christians make when they talk about the "elements" of Islam: you're equating them to the wrong things.

      It's natural for Christians to think of the Koran, in particular, as "equivalent to" the Bible. But it's not - it's much more than that. Muslims believe that the Koran is the literal, verbally dictated word of God himself.

      That makes it much more than a Bible. In Christianity, Jesus is the "Word". So the Koran isn't equivalent to the Bible - it's equivalent to Jesus.

      Now imagine how you'd feel if someone forced you to watch Jesus himself - not an icon or a model or an actor, but the man himself - being given a swirly. That's how a Muslim feels about watching the Koran being mistreated.
    50. Re:Total BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its also now a hate crime to leave a koran with some bacon in it lying around. FBI will investigate you and you will get in serious trouble.
      http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti cle?AID=/20070410/NEWS01/704100343

    51. Re:Total BS! by pingveno · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, the alleged incident with the Qur'an being tossed down the toilet was done by a US government employee (a soldier) on the job (in Guantanamo Bay). That's not a hate crime, but it's certainly not in line with the ethics the American people expect of their government employees.

      --
      "it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
    52. Re:Total BS! by nimid · · Score: 1
      As a Christian, I don't like seeing people criticize my religion... Why is the free speech of non-Christians important than that of Christians??

      What makes Scientologists more important than Christians? What makes any person of religious conviction any more special than an athiest? Let me tell you that this is how it feels for athiests who regularly have their rights and beliefs trampled in the name of religion in its various flavours.

      --
      A hundred and twenty characters ought to be enough for anyone...
    53. Re:Total BS! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I'd say your point is most simple.

      you like to whine


      So, because I value YOUR freedom of speech so much that I think it includes YOUR right to violate MY religion... I'm a whiner? I said that I don't think this guy should go to jail for criticizing scientology. People criticize Christianity every day and don't go to jail, why should this guy?

      My other point was to reveal the obvious double standard, which is the other side of the argument. People criticize Christianity as a sport, but saying something against Islam, or even scientology is taboo. Rosie O'Donnell went on TV and called Christianity a bigger threat than Islam. (Really? How many planes have Baptist Ministers hijacked lately?) She was applauded. If she had said that Islam was a bigger threat, she would have been sued to oblivion, much like the "5 Imams" are trying to sue to the passengers that refused to board a flight with 5 figity Muslim men screaming Alahu Akbar while boarding the plane.

      So, I guess Martin Luther King was a whiner also. Rosa Parks would fit as well since she pointed out a double standard. Caesar Chavez... WHINER!
      (I'm not comparing myself to these great people. I am comparing YOU to the bigots that called them whiners and told them to shut up and take it)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    54. Re:Total BS! by senor_burt · · Score: 1
      I've always been kind of curious about this, myself. I'm not a Christian, but my reading of the 10 commandments make it pretty clear that idolatry is right out. Turning a cross or a bible into an idol in this manner seems antithetical to the commandment. I mean, I recognize that as symbols of a faith, they represent something tangible about said faith, but I'd think that what they represent is an interpretation of the divine, rather than the objects themselves.

      Frankly, the jarring nature of the visual of the disrespect inherent in the visual should make people more aware of this distinction.

      Unfortunately, I suspect that the folk who have issue with such things tend towards literalism, and may not really grasp the substance of their faith.

      That said, I suspect the earlier post had more to do with the violent reaction in the Muslim world to what they term as disrespect to objects of their faith (e.g. cartoon of Mohammed, desecration of a Koran) contrasted with the Christian gritted-teeth forced tolerance. In the case of the Muslim response, well, that's probably much more complex, and involves politicalization of faith, the legacy of colonialism, and anachronistic aspects of Islam. And of course, the disrespect to the Koran indicated above is also likely a reference to the torture and inhuman conditions at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib - deliberate attacks against a person's faith to humiliate and cause pain and anguish. A sensible reaction to this would be to get upset. Hell, I'm pretty critical about many ideas in Islam, and I'm pissed off about that.

      I'd consider the parent to be trollng, but your response to be insightful.

    55. Re:Total BS! by HuguesT · · Score: 1
      Hello,

      They all believe in things written in a book hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago


      Euclid's elements were written more than 2000 years ago, yet the content is provably correct. Age of a document has nothing to do with truth and accuracy.

      I'm sorry, but no matter how 'liberal' your beliefs are, if you adhere to any religion, you're part of the problem and not the solution.


      That's amazingly tolerant of you. Prove that you have never had, and never will have any irrational thoughts or beliefs of your own.

      Personnally I believe tolerance it the issue. What other people believe is none of my business as long as it does not affect people who do not share these beliefs.

      In fact many core Christian or Islamic values are commendable and useful in society : generosity, tolerance, peace, understanding, and more. Problem arise when people call themselves members of such and such religion while simultaneously upholding only a small, carefully selected subset of their tenets.

    56. Re:Total BS! by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      There IS a huge double standard when it comes to criticizing Christianity.

      Whose double-standard, though? I'm ok with putting bibles or korans into the toilet, if someone thinks that's art. Personally I think it's retarded, but it's still free expression and I don't need to like it. I accept it because I'm for free expression, and that means I need to respect other people's _right_ to express themselves freely, too. Now those muslims who burn embassies and kill people because of some cartoons, probably do not actually believe in free expression. While their actions would make them assholes, it does not make them hypocritical - they don't claim to want everybody to be free, they want everybody to live according to their rules.

      Now if you refer to people who complain about prisoners being forced to watch something destroyed which they hold dear, but not complaining about christian symbols being defiled in museums - there is a difference in these situations. Certainly both cases are not torture, but I don't think it's something which a civilized country should do to prisoners. If it became standard practice in the US to urinate on bibles in front of Christians prisoners, I would think that to be uncivilized, too.

      BTW, while I'm at it "pain approaching that of organ failure" - I'd really recommend some people to visit an ER, and watch patients with kidney stones cry. Anybody who thinks inflicting that on purpose wouldn't be torture is a deranged monster.

    57. Re:Total BS! by sheldon · · Score: 1

      So, because I value YOUR freedom of speech so much that I think it includes YOUR right to violate MY religion...


      Your religion?

      When you look at the world, and all the abuses which have been committed in the name of religion, it is always people such as yourself. Those who have little faith, who define themselves not by the word of God, but by the word of God's critics. Who are afraid that the critics might be right, such that they lash out and try to punish them.

      I don't see any basis whereby you can claim it is your religion, considering how little faith you have.

    58. Re:Total BS! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Your religion? That's what I said, wasn't it?

      When you look at the world, and all the abuses which have been committed in the name of religion, it is always people such as yourself. Those who have little faith, who define themselves not by the word of God, but by the word of God's critics. Who are afraid that the critics might be right, such that they lash out and try to punish them.

      I don't see any basis whereby you can claim it is your religion, considering how little faith you have. Did you read my post? I said that this guy should be free to criticize religion. Are you ignorant, illiterate or just blinded by your own bigotry? Why does saying that someone should be free to criticize religion somehow translate to "I define myself by my critics"?

      Also, I have not killed anyone. I think you got the wrong religion. We are not all the same you know. You should research it. Knowledge is the cure for ignorance.

      In the mean time, I'll pray for you.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    59. Re:Total BS! by sheldon · · Score: 1
      I don't think you are ignorant, I think you simply don't want to understand.

      You really aren't any different from those you complain about. You exhibit intolerance towards others, and then whine about how they display intolerance towards you. As such, you reinforce the problem and your own sense of victimhood.

      In the mean time, I'll pray for you.


      As you've already established, you have no faith in God so what would be the point?
    60. Re:Total BS! by mink · · Score: 1

      If you manage that, all that will happen is people will use something like what end of the egg they start from as an excuse to kill each other.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    61. Re:Total BS! by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      It's nice to think of a world without religion until you realize that in history nearly every civilization that digressed morally fell. Without a moral code, why should be be civil? To what end? So we can "get along?" Why? What inherent need is there? As an animal my responsibility is to procreate and stifle my competition. The greater good is simply to inject and humanist religion to replace the theistic one. Why should man be god? If there is no god, your well being means nothing to me. Mine does.

    62. Re:Total BS! by mink · · Score: 1

      WTF does that have to do with my response?

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    63. Re:Total BS! by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Doh! Sorry, should have been a reply to the AC reply.

  9. Remember by Grashnak · · Score: 5, Funny

    No one expects the Scientology Inquisition!

    --
    Life needs more saving throws.
    1. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sadly, we are starting to expect it now. And I mean that in the least threatening way possible.

  10. What a strange world. by u-bend · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not knowing all the particulars of the supposed threat he was posing to the religion, it strikes me as odd that this can cause him so much trouble with the law. If he had been criticizing Catholicism as vocally for instance, would the same have happened? So remind me which elements of free speech we're not supposed to exercise anymore? We're not allowed to criticize Scientology, certain liberal agendas, certain conservative agendas, what else?

    --
    u-bend
    1. Re:What a strange world. by ArcherB · · Score: 1
      If he had been criticizing Catholicism as vocally for instance, would the same have happened?

      I'm going to take a guess NO.

      LOS ANGELES, CA - On April 12, 2007 (12:00 - 9:00PM), Niche.LA Video Art presents "Christ Killa," featuring digital and video artist Eric Medine.

      Described as the ultimate arbitration between politics and Christianity, "Christ Killa" is a video game linked to video projectors and television monitors. A first person shooter in which the player shoots hordes of homicidal Jesus Christs, the game landscape is filled with Googled images of Christian propaganda posters, religious shrines such as St. Peter's in Rome, and clichéd representations of Christ who constantly mumbles messages of tolerance and compassion.

      The audience is invited to participate in the carnage by playing the video game and watching short videos of the game in action.
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:What a strange world. by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Not knowing all the particulars of the supposed threat he was posing to the religion,

      The threat he posed was to expose their idiotic (and expensive) teachings, their lies and to illustrate what a malignant mind control cult they really are. This made him their enemy and they have been hounding him with nuisance lawsuits ever since. Unfortunately for him he made some throwaway remark on a usenet forum about aiming a missile at their HQ and they somehow managed to get him prosecuted for making terrorist threats as well as interfering with a religion.

      His unrelating persecution by scientologists to silence and even jail the guy show who the terrorists really are.

    3. Re:What a strange world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, this looks awesome! If I can't do it in real life, I guess a video game is the next best thing!

    4. Re:What a strange world. by Hartley · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately for him he made some throwaway remark on a usenet forum about aiming a missile at their HQ"

      Not true - he was replying to a post on alt.religion.scientology that referred to 'cruise missiles'. Cruise. Tom Cruise. It was a joke.
      But this is hardly arcane, hard to find stuff. See the Wikipedia article on Keith Henson.

    5. Re:What a strange world. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I know what said and I know that nobody could take it seriously as a threat. However it was a mistake to say anything remotely threatening because the cult could and did use it against him.

    6. Re:What a strange world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll let you know while we're ramming the hot poker up your butt in Gitmo.

  11. Canada has no free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you say something that is deemed politically incorrect, you can be hauled in front of the Human "Rights" Tribunal and sent to jail for offending other groups of people.

    This makes me sick.

  12. Brave people by clickclickdrone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After reading that I'm surprised anyone dared to post anything in case they ended up in jail. Crazy, just crazy. Land of the free. Umm yeah.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re:Brave people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not familiar with California are you? It is generally regarded as being wacko and out of touch with common beliefs in the US. For the most part if California thinks it's a good idea, the rest of the country doesn't.

    2. Re:Brave people by gitargr8 · · Score: 0

      For the most part if California thinks it's a good idea, the rest of the country doesn't.

      So why is it that laws first passed in California (.08 BAC = DUI, or no smoking in public places) are then slowly adopted by the rest of the states? Perhaps by "wacko" and "out of touch" you mean forward thinking? I'm not saying CA is perfect, but at least our women nearly are...
  13. Why only Scientology? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is Henson the only person to ever have this happen to them? Has anyone had the same treatment for speaking out against christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, etc?

    If so, who was it and what happened to them? If not, why?

    How long until people wake up and realize that scientology is not a religion but a dangerous, money-grubbing, control-freak cult/business?

    Name one other religion that refuses to open its documents so someone can look at them WITHOUT you having to pay to see them.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Why only Scientology? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      but a dangerous, money-grubbing, control-freak cult/business?

      and this is different from most big popular religions how?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Why only Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not exactly sure what happened to them but it had something to do with being put into a volcano... Or was that in Joe Versus the Volcano? Crap, I keep get my plots all screwed up. Which one had the nuclear explosions?

    3. Re:Why only Scientology? by philwx · · Score: 1

      No one is going to kill you for not going to church? or leaving the church?

    4. Re:Why only Scientology? by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      Name one other religion that refuses to open its documents so someone can look at them WITHOUT you having to pay to see them.
      Spaghettology ?
    5. Re:Why only Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone had the same treatment for speaking out against christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, etc?


      Usually Christiantity and Islam just had them executed.

      Name one other religion that refuses to open its documents so someone can look at them WITHOUT you having to pay to see them.


      Catholic Church?

    6. Re:Why only Scientology? by jkorz · · Score: 1

      Please don't confuse Christianity with the catholic church. Although the catholic church claims itself to be christian, almost no true bible-believers acknowledge what they do as christian. Just after Christ ascended into heaven and his teachings spread like wildfire, the roman emperor constantine discovered that Christians were popping up faster than he could kill them. With a if-you-can't-beat-em-join-em response he legalized Christianity but made himself over the roman standard (catholic) church. This church combined 98% of their traditional pagan worship with 2% biblical doctrine. Any true Christians went into hiding or were killed. Satan is the great deceiver, his method is to make his lies masquerade as the truth in order to drag more people away from Christ. The catholic church has been one of his strongest helpers over the course of history.

    7. Re:Why only Scientology? by Nezer · · Score: 1

      How long until people wake up and realize that scientology is not a religion but a dangerous, money-grubbing, control-freak cult/business?

      s/scientology/Catholicism/
      s/scientology/Judaism/
      s/scientology/Islam/
      s/scientology/Satanism/
      s/scientology/Mormonism/

      ad naseum...

      Name one other religion that refuses to open its documents so someone can look at them WITHOUT you having to pay to see them.

      Okay. The Catholic Church and the Church of Latter Day Saints.

      Wait, that's two. You're right, I can't name one other religion that does this.
    8. Re:Why only Scientology? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      Anyone is free to look at the bible or other related holy documents from both those religions. Yes, there are certain other documents* that you cannot look at but on the whole, anyone can look at the religious documents of both religions.


      The same cannot be said of scientology. It is verboten for anyone not part of the religion to look at any of their "holy" documents and even then, you can only see so much based on what you have paid to them. Further, if you are part of scientology, you cannot show anyone not part of scientology those documents or allow those documents to be released. If you do, the lawsuits ensue. See The Fishman Affidavit for evidence of this.

      Sorry, your example doesn't fly.

      *The Book of Mary being one that the Vatican refuses to allow anyone to look at. After all, can't have a woman's opinion be part of the male-only Catholic Church, can we?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    9. Re:Why only Scientology? by nickos · · Score: 1
      Islam is a "big popular religion". Here's what they think:

      Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: , irtidd or ridda) is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.

      All five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a sane male apostate must be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to some schools, or imprisoned, according to others.
      Remember, religion is poison.
    10. Re:Why only Scientology? by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find 1.1 billion people disagree with you.

    11. Re:Why only Scientology? by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Is Henson the only person to ever have this happen to them? Has anyone had the same treatment for speaking out against christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, etc?

      Salman Rushdie.

      In the UK, John William Gott was the last person to be found guilty of blasphemy and sent to prison, that was in 1922.

      Germany, on the other hand, found someone guilty of blasphemy and sent him to prison in 2006, and in 1994 a musical ridiculing the Catholic church was banned.

      So yes, it happens all the time. The thing that's different about Scientology is the unscrupulous methods they are prepared to use to silence critics. To see how far they'll go, read about Operation Snow White.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    12. Re:Why only Scientology? by mandie · · Score: 1

      Someone has a rather weak grasp on church history, as do many "Bible-believing" Christians - I saw it growing up in Texas.

      Christ ascended into heaven somewhere around 30 AD. Constantine legalized Christianity for the Roman Empire in 313 AD. Constantine was, therefore, not alive for any portion of the Disciples' or Paul's lives.

      And anyway, how did our nifty Bible get itself together in the first place, and then stay maintained for 1000+ years between the final booklist coming out and the invention of the printing press. Much of the reason Martin Luther nailed that note up in the right place, at the right time, and your form of Christianity managed to really get started was due to Gutenberg's work 60 years previous. Have you thanked God for Gutenberg lately?

      Also, as far as "pagan" goes, any knowledgable Catholic will cheerfully tell you that there's plenty of old "pagan" stuff that was "baptized" - put into the service of Christianity. If you have ever hunted Easter eggs, decorated a Christmas tree, or worn a wedding ring on your ring finger, congratulations - you've engaged in "pagan" traditions!

      By the by, I was raised Southern Baptist, and currently divide my time between an English-speaking Episcopalian/Anglican congregation and a local (German) Lutheran one. I'm a proud Protestant, but don't take kindly to others casting aspersions on their fellow Christians for finding God through the Roman tradition.

      --
      Grüß Gott aus Bayern!
    13. Re:Why only Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany, on the other hand, found someone guilty of blasphemy and sent him to prison in 2006,

      Who was that? By searching for this case now I just learned that somebody got 12 months of probation and was fined, but I could not find a case where somebody was actually sent to prison.
    14. Re:Why only Scientology? by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Suspended sentence.

      "In 2006 former prisoner 'Manfred van H' received a suspended sentence of a year in prison and 300 hours of community service after printing 'Koran, der Heilige Qur'än' on toilet paper and distributing it to the media and mosques."

      http://www.caslon.com.au/blasphemyprofile5.htm

      There are examples for Greece and Austria of actual jail sentences in recent years, so I think the point stands.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    15. Re:Why only Scientology? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      In Islamic religion if you leave the church you are to be executed.
      In Christian religion we killed tens of thousands in the name of our lord for they were evil.
      From what I can tell only the Indian religions and Buddhism are the only ones that do not exert control over you and try the kill the infidels angle.

      Mayan religions killed non believers, tons of religions do this.

      the current Christian church exerts control with Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Most do NOT teach what Christ actually taught but teach that which keeps the money coming in and the control over the populace of followers. Current Evangelical christian teachings actually GO AGAINST Christ's teachings and what the bible even says in it. It's all "interpeted" and as a lay-person you cant possibly understand it without a 6 year degree.

      I'm not defending the wack-jobs at the cult of scientology. I am saying they are acting absolutely no different than the other popular religions.

      Christian Scientists believe that God will remove that cancer through prayer if you pray hard enough! They are worse than the tinfoil hat alien beliving Scintologists.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    16. Re:Why only Scientology? by morcego · · Score: 1

      These days, true. But have you ever studied the history of the Roman Catholic Church ?

      --
      morcego
    17. Re:Why only Scientology? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >Name one other religion that refuses to open its documents so someone can look at them WITHOUT you having to pay to see them.

      How about the Mormons? Note that I *like* the Mormon faith in many ways, and don't intend this as a criticism of the faith, but the Church has spent a lot of money buying up documents about early Mormon history so that they disappear and stop being inconvenient.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    18. Re:Why only Scientology? by jkorz · · Score: 1

      First of all, you, having been raised in the SBC, should know that baptists are not a branch from the catholic church and are not protestants.

      I am sorry that I was vague with my timeline. Although you are correct, it doesn't change the point I was making. Constantine was not alive during the original disciples' lives, but he did nonetheless hijack Christianity.

      Until Gutenberg, bibles were hand copied. It wasn't until Tyndale that a word for word translation from the original text was created and I thank protestantism for him. Tyndale did not use the latin vulgate (look up alexandrian text for more info) as the catholic church did but translated from the original greek text.

      I was raised catholic, attended k-12 catholic school, went to mass every sunday with my family and was even an altar boy. I know catholic doctrine. That's what made my faith die. The papal override of God's word, worshiping mary and the saints (as mediators), using works and sacraments to get to heaven, etc... all made no sense to me and I figured that anything based off of these teachings were equally crazy if not more so. The whole issue of ishtar and christmas trees didn't help either. Later I became an independent baptist.

      The bible (romans more specifically) is crystal clear on how to get salvation.

      1) admit that you are a wicked sinner that deserves death (to the Lord, not a priest)
      2) believe that Jesus died to save you from your sins
      3) ask Christ to let his sacrifice pay the penalty for your sins

      The catholic church's plan of salvation is get the sacraments and do good works. This directly contradicts the bible. The catholic church not only ignores the bible's plan for salvation, but also leads aspiring believers to think that their deeds can get them to heaven. If they could, why did Jesus bother to die a gruesome death to pay for our sins????

      I do not hate catholics (most of my family are catholics) and I am not trying to make more people into baptists. I just want there to be more of you in heaven with me when Christ returns. Sadly, unless catholics have trusted Christ apart from the teaching of their church, they will be elsewhere at that time.

    19. Re:Why only Scientology? by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 1
      Not quite the same thing. The documents you're referring to are generally forgeries* (or at least are considered such) and are not used as a basis for the faith. The religion's main religious documents - The Book of Mormon, Bible, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price - are freely available.

      *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hofmann

      --
      Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
    20. Re:Why only Scientology? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Has anyone had the same treatment for speaking out against christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, etc?

      Well, I heard that story about someone getting stoned to death for solely religious reasons a few days ago, but nobody cares since it's in the middle east.
    21. Re:Why only Scientology? by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      The Church of the SubGenius?

    22. Re:Why only Scientology? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I agree. I just find it unnerving that the Church itself has paid a good chunk of money to purchase documents, whether forged or not, that have problematic material in them, while it hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, ever spent money on buying documents about property taxes or payroll documents from their time in Nauvoo, for instance. When an organized group is spending big money buying up only the potentially bad public relations parts of their history, it's worth noting.
      As I said, I generally have no problem with the Church and I don't think it's a hideous den of vile nogoodniks, unlike Scientology. But it does seem to be trying to expunge its history.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    23. Re:Why only Scientology? by rhizome · · Score: 1

      Anyone is free to look at the bible or other related holy documents from both those religions. Yes, there are certain other documents* that you cannot look at but on the whole, anyone can look at the religious documents of both religions.

      The second sentence seems to contradict the first. Are you saying that the documents the Catholic church withholds are not "related holy documents" to the bible?

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    24. Re:Why only Scientology? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Name one other religion that refuses to open its documents so someone can look at them WITHOUT you having to pay to see them.
      Mormonism.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    25. Re:Why only Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... no? You never have to give the Mormon church a cent of your money. Members are asked for a 10% tithe, which is never enforced and is nothing more than many other churches ask for. Try being educated.

    26. Re:Why only Scientology? by sdempsey · · Score: 1

      That's an excellent point about the books being closed. I think it's because they don't want celebrity scientologists to be exposed to even greater ridicule if their beliefs are exposed & they want to protect their income. At the moment followers have a degree of plausible deniability of the more extreme and silly documents in scientology. They can perhaps claim that it "worked for them" and that tech "helped them in their lives" without having to defend the specifics. However, with the books wide open then the religion's courses are in the public domain and they can't reasonably charge the large course fees. Equally, followers have to admit they paid for this sh*t and actually endorsed it. It's not so long ago that Monty Python's "Life of Brian" provoked a huge outcry in the Christian community. Then we realised it was actually quite funny & thought provoking. The christian churches didn't die out and many realised debate is a good thing. The Church of Scientology seems afraid of exposing its beliefs, never mind its methods. in public.

    27. Re:Why only Scientology? by G00F · · Score: 1

      Dude that is so BS, living in Utah I see Mormons giving away their books for free, all 3. Sure you could subscribe to their magazines, but you can also check them out for free from any of their churches if you wanted to read it.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
  14. Scientology aside... by Otter · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Scientology issue aside, since even the submission can't get the actual charge correct -- why is the European Space Agency requesting guidance from an enthusiast/crackpot with no relevant technical expertise?

    1. Re:Scientology aside... by holiggan · · Score: 1

      Because all the Space Colony and Space Elevator engineers and experts were busy...

      --
      "A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
    2. Re:Scientology aside... by Otter · · Score: 1
      I realized that after posting, but it still begs (or expands) the question -- isn't it odd for the ESA to convene a conference on a field where the "experts" are a bunch of moldy Usenet kooks?

      I mean, I was watching the NASA press conference on the supernova finding a few days ago, and I'd bet none of those guys have been fugitives in Canada for six years over a Usenet-related misdemeanor.

  15. Scientologists by ReadbackMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    The more and more I read about how they push people around, the more and more I think I should join up with the winning team. These guys seem to be acquiring the kind of power the Catholic church had before the Reformation.

    The only thing stopping me is I always thought L. Ron Hubbard was a terrible writer, and I can't imagine having to read all that crap as part of my 'religion'.

    1. Re:Scientologists by demastri · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because you actually read the whole bible (or talmud / koran / star trek fanfic canon / other holy text for your current religion...)

      :)

    2. Re:Scientologists by Cruise_WD · · Score: 1

      Yup, multiples times over in fact.

      Why do you ask? :P

      --
      [ cruise / casual-tempest.net / xenogamous.com / transference.org / quantam sufficit ]
    3. Re:Scientologists by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should join with the agenda of writing some better books for them. Imagine how much ground Christians could retake with Bible II: Jesus' Revenge.

      Pontius suddenly stopped and listened. What was that sound? "Hello? Is anyone there?"

      The darkness answered with the sound of steel scraping against leather. "Just your doom, Roman stooge!"

      "Guards! Guards!" he screamed, and then warned the avenger, "They'll be here in a minute. And we'll crucify you again, trouble-maker. You must be a glutton for punishment."

      Jesus grinned. "A lot can happen in a minute. Sure, it won't be anything like what you put me through, but I'll have you writhing ten seconds from now," and he menacingly advanced, with supernatural grace, his blade already dripping from the wounds on his own hands.

      When they finally arrived three minutes later, they found Pontius nailed to a wall, graffiti scrawled in blood beneath him. A guard remarked, "Romanes Eunt Domus? What the hell does that mean? Bloody illiterate peasants!"

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:Scientologists by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Well, except you are missing the fact that they tend to chew up and financially and otherwise destroy their own members...

      By all means, join them if you feel lucky....

    5. Re:Scientologists by durin · · Score: 2, Funny

      L. Ron Hubbard was a terrible writer, and I can't imagine having to read all that crap as part of my 'religion'

      Ever written a review of the bible? I think you should...

      --
      Why, yes! I AM new here.
  16. Tom Cruise Missiles by yamamushi · · Score: 3, Funny

    What was the joke about Tom Cruise Missiles?

    --
    - Aetheral Research -
    1. Re:Tom Cruise Missiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are only good for jumping on couches.

    2. Re:Tom Cruise Missiles by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      The Tom Cruise Missiles was the funny part, unforunately he preceeded it by saying people should be killed which is what has him in trouble now. Mr Hubbard was notorious for his policy of vendettas against any critics of scientology, by all and any means and it seems his spirit is alive and kicking in the movement.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
  17. California Hate Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are the laws of political correctness that liberals want to expand.

    1. Re:California Hate Crime by kennylogins · · Score: 1

      Yawn. The black and white/"liberal"/"conservative"/with us or against us mentality is tres hackneyed. /another slash for good measure.

  18. Xenu Built My Hotrod by hkgroove · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thankfully, they're a bit more tame in Pittsburgh. I don't even think the people working the store are in a high enough level to understand my "Xenu Built My Hotrod" tshirt. Or on Halloween when I went as Tom Cruise covered in thetans (condoms). I just got some weird looks that day.

    1. Re:Xenu Built My Hotrod by tooslickvan · · Score: 1

      You were dressed like Tom Cruise covered in condoms. Did you expect anything other than weird looks?

    2. Re:Xenu Built My Hotrod by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Wear a shirt advertising a non-Heinz Ketchup and see how long you last. :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    3. Re:Xenu Built My Hotrod by hkgroove · · Score: 1
  19. Religion? by schnipschnap · · Score: 0

    Uh ... My religion is: Apple-foeboyism. Don't interfere! Or else!

    1. Re:Religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm stabbing an Apple right now... Yep... good ol' tasty Macintosh...

  20. They sure have a sense of humor by MrKaos · · Score: 1
    Come out of the closet Mr Cruise Missile

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  21. Scientology is a business by arse+maker · · Score: 1

    Thats why they pursue legal action so strongly against all detractors, it protects their interests. Just like any company that gets slandered.. hurm.. i should have posted this through tor

  22. Arrested for 'threatening a sect' ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when criticizing a sect, recognized as being dangerous in various european countries, has become illegal in the country of freedom ?

    1. Re:Arrested for 'threatening a sect' ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people like the idea of legislating what people can think. Some would legislate respect for religion, or the flag, or patriotism, respect for black people or homosexuals or women.

      Europe has gone so far as to criminalize holocaust denials or attempts to tell Muslims the burka is bad.
      I actually agree with some of these ideas, but I do not support legislation. Someone may come along and tell me what I can think one day.

      In some ways these laws make things worse and harden people's hearts. Respect is not legislated. It is earned in our daily interactions with each other. And despite the neocon speed bump, we are interacting more and becoming a more tolerant society in historical terms without politicians telling us how to think.

      These hate crime/thought crime type laws are a liberal-conservative co-conspiracy as both sides are so convinced that their beliefs are so correct that they are prepared to legislate and impose those beliefs on others.

  23. He Made Mistakes in His Fight by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think this guy went about this in a very offensive way which lead to trouble. His posts were (in court of law) to have said things like

    Scientology is a business, and an unethical business at that. It is run by dishonorable men and women, and I will see it in ruins. Ahh, I love the smell of gun powder drifting on the morning breeze.
    Now, I don't think they ever proved he said that and what concerns me is that, though I'm not a lawyer, postings on the internet are very hard to authenticate. I don't think that this could be submitted as evidence in a court of law unless there was a hard link between the post, the time of the post and the defendent.

    If you want to "ruin Scientology," don't approach it like that. Don't align yourself with anyone that might make you an easier target for their lawyers. Ask questions. Investigate yourself. Don't do anything mildly against the law. Present your findings to newspapers or publish them online, but do not turn to violent attitudes. If you expect to be taken seriously about it, don't joke about it and don't joke about things that people might take the wrong way.

    These people have a lot of money and a lot of lawyers, you have to be smart and careful and cautious if you want to expose them for what you believe they are.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:He Made Mistakes in His Fight by maide · · Score: 1

      What's more, to succesfully fight an organization like Scientology, you need to be organized.

  24. Semi-Oblig. by orclevegam · · Score: 1

    What happened to America's much touted freedom of speech?

    You must be new here.

    or, alternativly

    Welcome to Soviet America.

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    1. Re:Semi-Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Amerika, tired joke posts YOU!

    2. Re:Semi-Oblig. by MECC · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Soviet America

      Isn't there some kind of law, like Godwin's law, regarding the likelihood of invoking the 'soviet' prefix as a way to criticize the sorry lack of free speech in america?

      Besides, if its that easy to throw a reactionary scare into a religion, its not much of a religion.

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
    3. Re:Semi-Oblig. by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Besides, if its that easy to throw a reactionary scare into a religion, its not much of a religion.
      Ummm.... Reactionary terror, fear for life, limb, and "immortal soul", and intimidation of non-believers are hallmarks of religion.
      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    4. Re:Semi-Oblig. by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      Godwin's law deals with comparing something/somebody to Hitler or Nazis.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
  25. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy crap... I'm just surprised that we (Canada) have a Swat Team.

    1. Re:WTF? by number6x · · Score: 1

      I've seen the mosquitos up there! You guys have to have a pretty well armed SWAT team with those things flying around. They could carry off a small child!

  26. Is this Real???? by Coleon · · Score: 1

    Can this be true?
    I think this is a bad joke, maybe some kind of aprils fool from some lost island in Papua New Ginea or some place lost in the world.
    Because its hard to belive that someone in a country that claims to be defending "humans right" all over the world could allow something like this to happend in his own soil.

    I hope its a joke... really

    1. Re:Is this Real???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's real, real fascism. Like that "Christian" above who thinks it's okay to kill a million muslims. One day we'll nuke them to hell, USA fascists go to hell!

  27. Heson is Fair Game to Scientologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    People,

    You have to dig down below the surface of this incident and look at the history of what has been happening between Scientology and Keith Henson. Keep in mind that 1. Scientology has a special relationship with the U.S. government through the Internal Revenue Service (hint: Scientologist's tax deductions are huge and not available to any other citizens) and 2. Scientology has a religious practice called 'Fair Game' which allows them to trick, lie to, or destroy people.

    You have been warned!

    AC and proud of it

  28. What is this "Threatening a religion" concept? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when does the fact that people believe in something make that something true, and, in this case, sacred? I am sick and tired for people justifying all sorts of preposterous (and quite frequently murderous - viz. the Muslim internecine war in Iraq) on the basis of religious beliefs.

  29. Along the line of by Alien54 · · Score: 1

    saying that firebombing a church was a good thing. I think you can agree that this would be a really bad thing.

    And since some geeks can be real jerks at times, and since scientology is a favorite religion to dump on, I can see the guy getting all OCD about it, being a jerk, saying something really stupid. and then afterwards "Who? Me? I'm so innocent"

    Of course, this could never happen. Didn't Imus just get fired for something that was taken as offensive to some? Of course, he said ity on the air, and was taped....

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Along the line of by Altus · · Score: 1


      fired is one thing, jailed is another.

      What I don't understand is if his original crime was a misdemeanor in California, why did he flee to Canada? I mean sure, the charges might have been BS bit its only a misdemeanor... how bad could the result have been?

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    2. Re:Along the line of by compro01 · · Score: 1

      how bad could the result have been?

      convincing threats that "you'll never get out of jail alive" tend to illustrate the answer to your question.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Along the line of by Altus · · Score: 1


      yea I did a little digging on the subject after this post and ran across that. I honestly find it hard to believe that this group could make good on that treat but hey, I don't honestly know that much about scientology... maybe they have mafia ties or something.

      I guess if he believed it its worth running over.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  30. Rights vs. Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahem, to address the "new kids on the religious block" who worship under the flag of Scientology, a hearty FUCK YOU to those who think for some reason your religion holds any more weight than any other religion. As obscene as this may sound, I make this statement as neutral as possible, to prove my point that Freedom of Speech should be the only thing prevailing here. Regardless of your religious beliefs, don't fuck with my rights. Period.

  31. Fair Game Policy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    Are you the Operating Thetan charged with trashing Henson online?

    The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly
    http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson
    1. Re:Fair Game Policy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Are you the Operating Thetan charged with trashing Henson online?


      OK. Scientology is a scam and all. There is no question of that.

      That doesn't mean that Hensen isn't a crackpot too.

      If you read the article you link to, you will find that he seems to be driven more by enthusiasm than by rationality.

      Druids. (check)
      Cryonics (check)
      Memetics (check)
      Space Colonization (check)

    2. Re:Fair Game Policy... by Otter · · Score: 1
      If you read the article you link to, you will find that he seems to be driven more by enthusiasm than by rationality.

      I was going to say, that Wikipedia article pretty effectively documents Henson as a kook. it seems like a funny thing to defend him with -- maybe it's that AC who is the real, errr, "Operating Thetan"?

  32. why you should care by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you beat enemies of free speech: religious fundamentalists, retarded ip laws, oppressive governments, etc. with more free speech

    the only reason anyone would oppose free speech is if what they have to say would suffer if it had more scrutiny

    scientologists have legions of zombie lawyers attacking anyone who infringes on their "intellectual property" and "religious principles" simply because if that crap got out in more general circulation, they would be revealed as the fascist ufo wackjobs they are

    same with oppressive governments, same with ip lawyer whores

    and so, in the spirit of the recent dmca take down notice on digg for a stupid numer, i would like to serve and support keith and attack the immoral, yet somehow, incredibly, legal basis for arresting him by serving his cause: posting stuff the church of scientology does not want posted

    the digg number fiasco prompted wordwide press coverage. this should to:

    it is the exact same issue

    expand the digg number revolution folks. use everything that was used in the digg number fiasco and make it used again. weidl it as a weapon agains tthose who wish to censor in the name of fascist religious fundamentalism and corporate greed. let this revolution continue! let them fear us, not us fear them!

    i will respond to this comment with another comment with text the church of scientology does not want known

    slashdot may get attacked by me doing this, slashdot has been forced to remove comments before. i may be attacked too. i don't care, because i know i am in the right, and i know this is important, and i know i have support

    the proper response to my post of the sensitive scientology information? post it some more yourself. post it and post it some more.

    post it more, post it more, post it more. post it everywhere. post it a million times

    scientology has legions of aggressive fanatical laywers, but we, who love free speech are yet legion more

    i support free speech, do you? did the recent imbroglio over that stupid number on digg stoke your righteous indignation at censorship in the name of corporate idiocy? well this man was just arrested in the name of religious fundamentalism. you should be stoked at this too. it is the exact same thing. let's make the revolution over the digg number a permanent fixture on the internet. let's band together and in the same of social justice fight these censoring fascist assholes

    the proper response to keith being arrested is bomb post every and all sensitive church of scientology material any of us can find. the more the material makes those fascist assholes squeal, the more it should be disseminated. digg, slashdot, fark, every and all sites you can find. bomb post away, bomb away, bomb away

    this is important folks. if a man can be arrested for making a dumb joke on a newsgroup, any of us can. so all of us should band together and prove the futility of what scientology thinks they are doing: when someone is arrested for simply criticizing their stupid church then us on the internet will respond by hurting them where they hurt the most: the mass public airing of that which they deem so personal and sensitive

    dear church of scientology and your legal whores: fuck you you fascist censoring pricks

    this is war

    fire away

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:why you should care by EaglemanBSA · · Score: 1

      This is honestly the type of thing that their lawyers are fighting, and exactly the kind of thing that is exacerbating the problem. Remember the Pilgrims who came here came so they could practice their own religions without persecution. Remember in the USA, a religion has the right to practice the way it wants, so long as it doesn't break any US laws in doing so, no matter if it is Satanism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or anything else.

      I agree that the arrest as read in the article doesn't seem constitutional at all, and I don't think it will hold up in a court of appeals, HOWEVER - I also don't think it's right to expose texts of the Church of Scientology that they don't want exposed. Should we take a video camera into the Holy of Holies and post it on the internet? I think a better response is to support the defendant and his civil rights, but stop the attacking nonsense. It's only a war because you make it one.

      The whole idea is to let the other religions (kooky as they may be) do as they please, until something like this happens. Certainly there are legal battles to be fought, but fight them in the right way.

      --
      Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
    2. Re:why you should care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what file sharing programs should be used for.

    3. Re:why you should care by axia777 · · Score: 1

      Better watch out friend, I think I hear them coming to your door next.....

      I agree with you 100% though....

    4. Re:why you should care by Darby · · Score: 1

      Remember the Pilgrims who came here came so they could practice their own religions without persecution

      No. The pilgrims were tossed out on their asses because all the rest of the people in their countries were sick of them trying to oppress everyone else. They were the radical intolerant extremists. That's why Europe is mostly free of these extremist whack jobs and we're plagued with them.

      At least get the basic historical facts correct.

    5. Re:why you should care by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

      CTS!?

      I never thought I'd say this, but you are my hero. I've never come across a post this moving to me.

      You know, I sometimes feel I am utterly awash in stupid, evil, unempathetic, worthless people. Bad government. Bad leaders. People with broken logic. People who seek to control or simply profit from others against their will.

      You provided a small bit of hope for me tonight. Thank you.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  33. Operation Clambake by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Informative

    From Operation Clambake: http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/ ------------ Who is Xenu? I'm going to tell you a story. Are you sitting comfortably? Right, then I'll begin. Once upon a time (75 million years ago to be more precise) there was an alien galactic ruler named Xenu. Xenu was in charge of all the planets in this part of the galaxy including our own planet Earth, except in those days it was called Teegeeack. Now Xenu had a problem. All of the 76 planets he controlled were over-populated. Each planet had on average 178 billion people. He wanted to get rid of all the overpopulation so he had a plan. Xenu took over complete control with the help of renegades to defeat the good people and the Loyal Officers. Then with the help of psychiatrists he called in billions of people for income tax inspections where they were instead given injections of alcohol and glycol mixed to paralyse them. Then they were put into space planes that looked exactly like DC8s (except they had rocket motors instead of propellers). These DC8 space planes then flew to planet Earth where the paralysed people were stacked around the bases of volcanoes in their hundreds of billions. When they had finished stacking them around then H-bombs were lowered into the volcanoes. Xenu then detonated all the H-bombs at the same time and everyone was killed. The story doesn't end there though. Since everyone has a soul (called a "thetan" in this story) then you have to trick souls into not coming back again. So while the hundreds of billions of souls were being blown around by the nuclear winds he had special electronic traps that caught all the souls in electronic beams (the electronic beams were sticky like fly-paper). After he had captured all these souls he had them packed into boxes and taken to a few huge cinemas. There all the souls had to spend days watching special 3D motion pictures that told them what life should be like and many confusing things. In this film they were shown false pictures and told they were God, The Devil and Christ. In the story this process is called "implanting". When the films ended and the souls left the cinema these souls started to stick together because since they had all seen the same film they thought they were the same people. They clustered in groups of a few thousand. Now because there were only a few living bodies left they stayed as clusters and inhabited these bodies. As for Xenu, the Loyal Officers finally overthrew him and they locked him away in a mountain on one of the planets. He is kept in by a force-field powered by an eternal battery and Xenu is still alive today. That is the end of the story. And so today everyone is full of these clusters of souls called "body thetans". And if we are to be a free soul then we have to remove all these "body thetans" and pay lots of money to do so. And the only reason people believe in God and Christ was because it was in the film their body thetans saw 75 million years ago. Well what did you think of that story? What? You thought it was a stupid story? Well so do we. Unfortunately this stupid story is the core belief in the religion known as Scientology.* If people knew about this story then most people would never get involved in it. This story is told to you when you reach one of their secret levels called OT III. After that you are supposed to telepathically communicate with these body thetans to make them go away. You have to pay a lot of money to get to this level and do this (or you have to work very hard for the organisation on extremely low pay for many years). We are telling you this story as a warning. If you become involved with Scientology then we would like you to do so with your eyes open and fully aware of the sort of material it contains. Most of the Scientologists that work in their Dianetics* centres and so called "Churches" of Scientology do not know this story since they are not allowed to hear it until they reach the secret "upper" levels of Scientology. It may take them many years be

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Operation Clambake by myth24601 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "After that you are supposed to telepathically communicate with these body thetans to make them go away. "

      What happens to the thetans? Where do they go?

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    2. Re:Operation Clambake by andr0meda · · Score: 1


      I, for one, think we should be welcoming the Thetans to our culture and planet.

      Hail Thetans! ..especially mine..

      --
      With great power comes great electricity bills.
    3. Re:Operation Clambake by Sanat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Washington

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    4. Re:Operation Clambake by Locutus · · Score: 2, Informative

      That'll cost you a cool $1.5 million to find out. But, you can then become a 'Quatro OT'. ooooooowwwwww ;-)

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    5. Re:Operation Clambake by DM9290 · · Score: 1, Informative

      is this any less plausible than talking serpents, men walking on water, water turning to wine, immaculate conception, talking bushfires, resurrection or giants that live 800 years but leave no bones?

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    6. Re:Operation Clambake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, the aircraft the "space ships" resembled were DC-10's. let's try to as much reality in Scientology as possible : )

    7. Re:Operation Clambake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone know of a cheaper way to get rid of my body thetans?

    8. Re:Operation Clambake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The ones who do know it are forced to keep it a secret and not tell it to those people who are joining Scientology."

      And we all know this because it's a secret right?

    9. Re:Operation Clambake by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, yes, it's much less plausible, considering that the founder of the CoS was a mediocre sci-fi writer.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    10. Re:Operation Clambake by Shai-kun · · Score: 1

      Of course not, but those stories are different in that they were conceived about 2,000 years ago, when such stuff probably seemed less impossible - instead of just 50 years ago, in a time when you think we would know better.

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
    11. Re:Operation Clambake by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Wall of text crits you for 3485789236729 damage...

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    12. Re:Operation Clambake by vought · · Score: 1
      And, the above, after being run through a summarization processor:

      Then with the help of psychiatrists he called in billions of people for income tax inspections where they were instead given injections of alcohol and glycol mixed to paralyse them. These DC8 space planes then flew to planet Earth where the paralysed people were stacked around the bases of volcanoes in their hundreds of billions. So while the hundreds of billions of souls were being blown around by the nuclear winds he had special electronic traps that caught all the souls in electronic beams (the electronic beams were sticky like fly-paper). When the films ended and the souls left the cinema these souls started to stick together because since they had all seen the same film they thought they were the same people. And the only reason people believe in God and Christ was because it was in the film their body thetans saw 75 million years ago. Unfortunately this stupid story is the core belief in the religion known as Scientology.* If people knew about this story then most people would never get involved in it. Most of the Scientologists that work in their Dianetics* centres and so called "Churches" of Scientology do not know this story since they are not allowed to hear it until they reach the secret "upper" levels of Scientology. Sounds about right. ;-)
    13. Re:Operation Clambake by digitig · · Score: 1

      Actually, the stories were implausible even then. Nobody would have bothered recording them unless folks knew that things like that didn't normally happen.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    14. Re:Operation Clambake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I think this is where "Lost" is heading!

    15. Re:Operation Clambake by TFGeditor · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know a guy named Vito who will get rid of any kind of body for $500.

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    16. Re:Operation Clambake by rbunker · · Score: 2, Funny

      They sell special shampoo for getting rid of body thetans.

    17. Re:Operation Clambake by operagost · · Score: 1

      Most of the events you list are documented in reliable writings made by multiple witnesses, not scrawled on a scrap of paper by a lousy sci-fi writer with the footnote, "very space opera."

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    18. Re:Operation Clambake by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's less plausible since it is a "competing" religion trying to discredit Christianity in particular, by explaining it away as a implanted memory. What about Buddhism or Islam on the other hand or did they fast forward during that part of the movie? Or perhaps Ron Hubbard didn't quite know enough about them?

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    19. Re:Operation Clambake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    20. Re:Operation Clambake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the events you list are documented in reliable writings made by multiple witnesses, not scrawled on a scrap of paper by a lousy sci-fi writer with the footnote, "very space opera."

      I do not think it means what you think it means.

    21. Re:Operation Clambake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its back to the cinema for the Thetans. They have an eternal Tom Cruise movie marathon there with only one pee-break per movie and stale popcorn.
      That is why Tom Cruise is so important to the scientologists, he's the one providing the raw material for the hell-dimension.

    22. Re:Operation Clambake by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
      -Andre the Giant
      There, fixed it for you.
    23. Re:Operation Clambake by Manchot · · Score: 1

      Yes. Scientology claims to be scientific in nature. That is, its operating principles are allegedly based on events that occurred without supernatural interference. However, we know that a DC8 can't fly through space without the occupants inside dying, even with rockets instead of propellers. Thus, we can say with as much certainty as physics allows that Scientology is false.

      The monotheistic religions are based on the intervention of a supernatural being. By definition, that supernatural being is not inside our universe, and is not bound by our physical laws. A good analogy would be a sentient AI living in an artificial universe, with its own set of rules (analogous to our physics). The person who programmed that AI and that universe is, in effect, God. The programmer can change virtual water into virtual wine, can violate conservation of energy, and can do pretty much whatever he or she wants: he or she is not constrained by that universe's rules. Clearly, the programmer is omnipotent. In fact, if the entire universe was one-dimensional, with one dimension of time, the entirety of that universe and its history could be viewed on a monitor, making the programmer omniscient as well.

      Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you have to accept that the idea is at least plausible. It is not unthinkable that a super-intelligent being in a five-dimensional space created the universe and is looking at all of spacetime on a four-dimensional monitor, adjusting the parameters until the optimal picture develops.

    24. Re:Operation Clambake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this stuff is so secret that it's only known by a few, select people at the very top of the chain....then how did you come about it?

    25. Re:Operation Clambake by Brickwall · · Score: 1
      is this any less plausible than talking serpents, men walking on water, water turning to wine, immaculate conception, talking bushfires, resurrection or giants that live 800 years but leave no bones?

      Well, one story is about 2,000 years old and is free, and the other is 50 years old, and costs you over $100,000 to find out. Neither is literally true, but which one do you think has a bigger chance of constituting outright fraud?

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    26. Re:Operation Clambake by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
      -Mandy Patinkin

      There, fixed it for you.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    27. Re:Operation Clambake by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      "I, for one, think we should be welcoming the Thetans to our culture and planet.

      Hail Thetans! ..especially mine.."

      It's supposed to be:

      I, for one, welcome our new Thetan overlords.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    28. Re:Operation Clambake by venicebeach · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
      -Inigo Montoya

      Fixed.

    29. Re:Operation Clambake by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      That has to be the weirdest most poorly written POS crap I ever read. Its silly in a non funny way.

      Who believes in this garbage? LOL

    30. Re:Operation Clambake by ozzee · · Score: 1

      Hey, I think this is where "Lost" is heading!

      No, there is a reason why it's called LOST !

    31. Re:Operation Clambake by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Informative
      reliable writings made by multiple witnesses

      You mean, found on codex fragments that at the earliest, are from 150 AD (and more likely 250 AD, simply because they are codexes and not scrolls), all part of one book and with no evidence whatsoever that speaks to the origin, or authorship, of those codexes, and further, no evidence of the existence of the central figure in the story, and further, found to contain stories that blithely refer to supernatural events, some of which would have been visible to any writer of the period, such as country-wide darkness during the day, of which there is also no record.

      The bible's "reliability" is entirely contained in the concept that the bibles we have today are very, very similar in content to the bible's content at the time it was first constructed. There is no "reliability" in the sense that anything of significance in the stories contained therein has been confirmed by any other source. In fact, the first mention of Christ or Christians occurs well after Christ was supposed to have died, in writings by one Josephus, a Pharisee who wasn't even born until 37 AD. And he is supposed to have said some things that a Pharisee would never have said, to wit, "He [Jesus] was the Messiah." That alone is a huge red flag to indicate that even the Josephus quotes have been tampered with. When we try to find something else as contemporary (if I may misuse the word a bit), we next find Tacitus, born in 55 AD (about 22 years after the crucifixion's purported date), writing in 120 AD, 87 years after the crucifixion, and he basically calls them pests - but his report is also suspected of being tampered with, because there are mistakes that are unreasonable, such as Tacitus referring to Pontius Pilatus as a procurator (unspecified as to what of), when in fact he was a prefect, which is something else entirely.

      So that whole "reliability" thing is really just a myth. Not saying there was or wasn't a Jesus; just saying that when people quote either the bible stories or the existence of Jesus himself as a "sure thing", "reliable", or any variation thereof, they're just showing that they are ignorant of the actual situation vis-a-vis actual contemporaneous historical records.

      But hey, other than that, yeah, I'm with you 100%. Hubbard was a space opera manufacturer (though to be fair, at the time, so were a lot of other SF authors, including some we hold in high esteem for the very space opera-ness of their output, such as E.E. Doc Smith.) Dianetics, later to deliquesce into Scientology, is an amazing tribute to the vulnerability of the left side of the IQ gaussian on the one hand, and to general gullibility everywhere across the bell on the other.

      PT Barnum had part of it right when he said: "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"; I like to add, you're not going to go broke overestimating their gullibility, either.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    32. Re:Operation Clambake by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      And we all know this because it's a secret right?

      We know it because a few people who got that far said "this is bull****" and quit.

      And those that survive are mostly trying to hide from the cult's retaliation.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    33. Re:Operation Clambake by Artoo45 · · Score: 1

      DM9290? Is that you Davy Miscavige? Are you sitting out there in Hemet, tiny fists clenched in rage that your "religion" is a laugingstock thanks to the internet? I bet is is you in your tiny little Commodore's uniform and tiny, shiny shoes. How is your landlocked navy doing? Davy's Navy(TM). I'm an atheist so it's all unlikely to me, but the Space DC-8's take the cake for made-up on the fly bullshite. If you're so "at cause" over "MEST", how come yer still so short, you and Tommy boy? Oh, and why haven't there been mass deaths due to pneumonia brought on by the premature exposure to the TRUTH about OTIII? Sad little man Davy. Sad little man.

    34. Re:Operation Clambake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      -William Goldman

      This must stop.

    35. Re:Operation Clambake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you people spread all these misguiding claims about Josephus? The wikipedia article on the subject says that the general consensus among historians suggests that Josephus did indeed write about Jesus, though not all texts that have been attributed to him are his writings. Check what Dr. Alice Whealy (University of California, Berkeley) has to say about this and other misconceptions regarding Josephus.

    36. Re:Operation Clambake by mink · · Score: 1

      SPOILERS!!!! You bastard!

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    37. Re:Operation Clambake by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      Why do you people spread all these misguiding claims about Josephus

      I have spread no misguidance whatsoever. Here is the passage in question:

      About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared

      The wikipedia article misquotes/mixes languages that line as saying "he was the Christ." You see, Christ, in Hebrew, means "messiah." And you can tell from context this is a title, not a name: It isn't "he was named Christ", it is He was the Messiah. Again, as I pointed out above, Jospehus was a Pharisee, and no Pharisee would have said any such thing, as they held that Emperor Vespasian was the messiah. Now, he might have written, in narrative form, "the Christians considered him the (or their) messiah", but he certainly would not have acclaimed him as the messiah even in speech, and certainly not in writing, as he'd be quite likely to lose his head for so doing.

      However... either way, it doesn't affect my conclusions; Jospehus was not a contemporary of Christ, and he cannot serve as contemporaneous evidence of the man's existence. No such records have come to light as yet.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  34. TFA is scary by faloi · · Score: 1

    So the guy speaks out against a religion, which falls under hate crime laws in the liberal bastion of California (tolerance is apparently enforced by law there). He flees to Canada...where he's promptly arrested after (probably) false tips are called in by the group he's picketing. Call my cynical, but I'm betting California, which seems to have a lot of rich Scientologists that also are politically active, isn't going to be the best place to go to trial. Especially over a law that doesn't exist (at least to that degree) in most other states.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
  35. Re:Way too much OCD going on here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    incompetent or bought/blackmailed off??

  36. United States of Scientology? by Iloinen+Lohikrme · · Score: 4, Informative

    Only in United States you would get arrested for criticizing church of Scientology. In Europe at least many governments have understood that Scientology is not a religion but a business: i.e. Wikipedia article about them states that "Germany classes Scientology as a business, rather than a religious organization, and Belgium, France, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Spain and the United Kingdom, remain unconvinced that Scientology is a religion"

    I also remember an incident from the beginning of 90's where a Finnish anonymous email re-mailer service was accused in US, actually in California if I remember correctly, on being a nest of pedophiles and Johan Helsingius the maintainer of service being a pedophile too. Actually if my member serves me good some California states legislator in public speach demanded that US uses to it's power to pressure Finnish government to crack down on service. Later it was found at that the church of Scientology was behind this campaign as a pressuring way and as a retribution Johan for not cooperating with them and disclosing information about on the users of service. Wikipedia has a small article about this in their section about Johan Helsingius.

    Just have to wonder how on earth US government hasn't cracked on Scientology and hard.

    1. Re:United States of Scientology? by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just have to wonder how on earth US government hasn't cracked on Scientology and hard.

      Wonder no more...
    2. Re:United States of Scientology? by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      "Just have to wonder how on earth US government hasn't cracked on Scientology and hard."

      You know the bit about Scientology having lots of cash right? I think you can guess the rest.

    3. Re:United States of Scientology? by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually if my member serves me good some...
      I would hope your member serves you well, you don't want bad service from your member, for most guys it's their best friend.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    4. Re:United States of Scientology? by Tom · · Score: 1

      some California states legislator in public speach demanded that US uses to it's p... ...

      Just have to wonder how on earth US government hasn't cracked on Scientology and hard. Why does everyone on /. answer their own questions?
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:United States of Scientology? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I wish that someone would mod this up - it took me a while to figure out what I was looking at in the link, but this is fascinating.

      It shows Richard Armitage's calendar from June 13th, 2003. The calendar was shown with respect to the Plame leak investigation, but the real - and largely overlooked - nugget is a 30 minute appointment with Tom Cruise, Tom David and Kurt Weiland. Weiland is one of the top legal bigwigs at Scientology, and Tom Davis is a presenter at meetings/trainings.

      It's fascinating the kind of access and influence that Scientology has.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:United States of Scientology? by antibryce · · Score: 1

      Only in the US you say? Well the Italians had no trouble charging Oriana Fallaci with "defamation of islam." This was while she was dying of cancer.

      Given Europe's extremely strict hate speech laws (and the recent EU law banning all hate speech) I'm not exactly sure they have a lot of room to criticize the US.

    7. Re:United States of Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Only in United States you would get arrested for criticizing church of Scientology. In Europe at least many governments have understood that Scientology is not a religion but a business: i.e. Wikipedia article about them states that "Germany classes Scientology as a business, rather than a religious organization, and Belgium, France, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Spain and the United Kingdom, remain unconvinced that Scientology is a religion"


      If you look down in the same article in the cult section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Scientol ogy_as_a_cult), several countries consider it a dangerous cult:

      In France, the Church of Scientology was categorized as a sect (or cult) in the 2468 report of the Assemblée Nationale (the legislative body), in 1995. A more recent government report (1999) categorized the church as an "absolute sect" and recommended that all its activities be prohibited. but of course, Sarkozy the French president elect received Tom Cruise a while back so this may change...
    8. Re:United States of Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to have been removed as well.

  37. Institutionalized Hate is A-OK! by FatSean · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if the IRS requires strict book-keeping from faith-based non-profits. I sure hope they do.

    --
    Blar.
  38. Original usenet posting? by PsyQo · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if this is the posting, but it is posted by Keith Henson in 2001 and has "Tom Cruise missile" in it.

  39. Operation Clambake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here is more information on Scientology.

  40. Erm by Hershmire · · Score: 0

    Anyone read the interview? This guy seems pretty whacked out himself.

    --
    if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll); //Stupid roommates.
  41. ...all over a usenet joke? by flipmack · · Score: 1

    wow. I've posted a lot of crap on usenet (alt.jokes.tasteless anyone?), but I never thought people took usenet all that seriously...I mean, most ordinary people don't even know what newsgroups are.

    just the other day, I asked some coworkers if they've ever posted/downloaded anything from newsgroups, and they were like..."is that anything like limewire?"

    I was like, wtf? *EVERY* tech-savvy person (who is my age or older) should be well aware of newsgroups...hell, even the "King of the Hill" TV show made a reference to alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters !!!

    BUT, all these young kids nowadays don't know anything about the struggling beginnings of the 'net. I told them that before I had a browser (NCSA Mosaic running from a VAX VMS), I used gopher...and before that, it was newgroups...and before that, it was BBS...

    I'm only 30 and I've become the cranky old man who, back in his day, walked barefoot fifty miles to school - and they liked it!

    (you get fifty points if you can name the reference for that old man joke)

    --
    semper ubi sub ubi
    1. Re:...all over a usenet joke? by gx5000 · · Score: 1

      I'm forty four next month, and worked at digital in the day...
      Spend all day with know it all MCSE's...argh, thank god I run the place...
      How do you think I feel ?
      Cheers !

      --
      End of Line.
    2. Re:...all over a usenet joke? by codepunk · · Score: 1

      Was talking to a programmer at work yesterday that had never heard of storing data on audio
      cassette tapes like we did in the good ole days..

      --


      Got Code?
    3. Re:...all over a usenet joke? by deets · · Score: 1

      I caled my ISP to get my usenet account working. The people I talked to had no idea what I was talking about.


      Me: I can't seem to login to the newsgroup server.
      Them: Um, what is that, email?
      Me: No. It is newsgroups.
      Them: I don't think we have that.
      Me: No usenet access at all? Your website says different.
      Them: Um, usenet...?
      Me: Yeah, newsgroups.
      Them: Hold on please.
      After a short break on hold.
      Them: Sir, OK, we have newsgroup access but not usenet access.
      Me: OK, then just setup my newsgroup access.

    4. Re:...all over a usenet joke? by flipmack · · Score: 1

      hey, at least you could afford the tape recorder and the interface cable.

      by the time I got a tape recorder and the ability to save my Basic programs (from my Tandy COCO3) onto tape, most people already had 3.5" floppies...

      yep. 3.5" floppies - not the 5.25" floppies...or the even bigger ones, but 3.5" floppies.

      figure that out in your timeline.

      --
      semper ubi sub ubi
  42. I think you mean by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Darth Xenu

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  43. Round and round by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1

    The more aggressively the Scientologists go after their critics, the more people hate them. And the more people hate the scientologists, the more they will criticize them.

    Scientologists should maybe think this through.

  44. Surprise? by gary+gunrack · · Score: 1, Troll

    The guy jumped bail in 2001 and "split for Canada"... How is this a "surprise arrest"? And while there's no denying that scientology is creepy and just plain silly, this guy seems to have a few screws loose himself.

    1. Re:Surprise? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Given the state of mind in the USA in 2001 and that some wacko had labelled him with the "terrorist" tag it was probably a good idea.

  45. Actually, not 747s but 737s by VampireByte · · Score: 1

    At least that's what they said on South Park.

    --

    Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

    1. Re:Actually, not 747s but 737s by Trails · · Score: 1

      No, southpark said they look "exactly like DC-8s except with rockets and fins".

      I think this means I get to sue you? The charge is threatening an aero-religious numerical designation.

  46. But Scientology is a religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The #1 identifier of religion is that it is forbidden to laugh at certain things. And if it is forbidden to laugh at something, "unenlightened" empirical inquiry will also be forbidden.

    Religion means that some hairless monkeys take themselves seriously, puff themselves up, and. above all else, stifle themselves so as not to burst out laughing at themselves.

    From what I've read about Scientology, those people take themselves seriously. Consequently, Scientologists want to forbid all Scientology-related laughter. Therefore, Scientology is a religion.

  47. What we need is... by ronanbear · · Score: 0

    ... the Flying Spaghetti Monster to protect us from the Scientologists.

    --
    the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
  48. This guy should have been arrested by ubuwalker31 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look, I am sorry, but if you are charged with a crime, you show up in court, and plead your case. Any judge with half his brain tied behind his back would have recognized this guys actions as free speech, and tossed his arrest. Then, he would have had a great civil rights suit against the police officers and the city for violation of his rights. But no...what this guy does is he flees the USA, because he thinks the scientologists are out to get him: "I couldn't be employed while I was trying to hide out from them. They have agents inside the IRS, so when you use your social security number, they just pull it and come and get you." I mean, come on, this guy is a complete nut job...give me a break. IHMO, he should be punished for not subjecting himself to the lawful authority of the court...but not punished for telling it like it is about the cult of Xenu.

    1. Re:This guy should have been arrested by networkBoy · · Score: 2

      methinks you underestimate this particular cult.
      They are a classic "twist your head" org, in that they effectively brain-wash you prior to deployment into society. You are completely normal, except when your masters come calling.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except that they DO have 'agents' in the IRS.

      Members of the Cult Of Scientology have been prosecuted for badly using their position in the IRS in USA, Canada and France.
      They are also known to "infiltrate" (get hired into) prosecutors offices. Again cases exists in the USA and France (a big scandal there in the 90's).
      Since you cannot discriminate future employees based on "personal believes" it is easy for them as long as they are competent in their domain.

      When a prosecutor and a sheriff showing up with a search warrant are all members of the cult. When the warrant is signed by a judge member of the cult. When the warrant specifies "documents" but the sheriff leaves with computers including screens, printers and even phones.
      When you lived thru these you tend to get paranoid.
      Yes you have recourses, but it takes months or years. The COS has billions of $$$. Even the Washinton Post backed off following a law-suit threat.

    3. Re:This guy should have been arrested by bobcat7677 · · Score: 2, Funny

      How is Tom Cruise at all "normal"?

    4. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly!

    5. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I take it you have never read about Operation Snow White?

      Basically, the Church of Scientology has a history of behavior that is questionable, but when you infiltrate government agencies like the IRS, well.... is it still a religion at that point? Or is it a cult? Or, hey, perhaps more like organized crime?

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    6. Re:This guy should have been arrested by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      He's a publicity figure, not normal at all, not supposed to be.
      I worked with a scientologist once, wouldn't know anything was wrong till I mentioned Xenu (WOW!)
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    7. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Da_Weasel · · Score: 2, Funny

      I for one welcome our new...oh, never mind....

      --
      If you must!
    8. Re:This guy should have been arrested by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFA. He was arrested and _convicted_ for "interfering with a church", a law which likely violates the Establishment clause on its face and freedom of speech as applied. THEN he ran, seeing that there ain't no justice and believing his life would be in danger in prison.

    9. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Why? What happened?

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    10. Re:This guy should have been arrested by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      He's a publicity figure, not normal at all, not supposed to be.
      I worked with a scientologist once, wouldn't know anything was wrong till I mentioned Xenu (WOW!)
      -nB Um... WOW what? What did he say/do?
    11. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      is it still a religion at that point? Or is it a cult? Or, hey, perhaps more like organized crime?
      Or perhaps all three? The Catholic Church, during certain periods of history, could easily have fallen under the modern definition of organized crime. The same is true for many religions, such as certain sects of Mormonism.

      The question is where (and how!) do you separate an organized crime syndicate from a religion? Is the crime syndicate equivalent to religious organization, or is it comprised of individuals within, but separate from, the organization?

      The only way to answer that is to have knowledge of the organization, which is why I suspect Scientology clamps down so hard on public availability of their written materials.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    12. Re:This guy should have been arrested by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      (I am assuming we are all discussing Xenu.net/operation clambake)
      *she* went off about the site being a pack of lies, quoting texts out of context, being illegal, and condemned, etc.
      too bad she was a nutter, as she was cute and could cook fairly well to boot.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    13. Re:This guy should have been arrested by HelloKitty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so the real question is how do we get california to abolish this "law", which is clearly unconstitutional.

    14. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cook breakfast?

      I used to do traveling tech support in Clearwater, Fl. Interesting people are scientologists. Saw some strange family dynamics there (10 year old kid answering door, directing tech support work (had check signed by dad), while wife was zombie like on couch). From the few times I talked with father, he was kinda' out of it as well. Kept putting the kid on to explain computer problems. Very weird.

    15. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Synchis · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll supress the largest bulk of the rage that I feel about your comments, and give you the facts, as you obviously have not researched this.

      When Keith fled the US to apply as a political refugee in Canada, I worked with him. I spent a good 3 years with the man or more and got to know him as a good friend.

      Keith *did* try to defend himself in the original trials. And in fact, there were more than just the original charges of "Interfering with a religion". The cult made motions in limine to exclude much of Keiths evidence and testimony based on copyrights and religios "secrets" that they didn't want put in the public eye. The court allowed this, and there went Keiths case. The assertions that he was a "terrorist" and threatening to bomb them were thrown out as ridiculous, even an idiot could see that the comments made were made in jest. *BUT* they did make the charges of "Interfering with a religion" stick, based on some far-fetched theory that his organised picketing was interfering with their right to practice their religion. *Thats* what he's supposed to go to jail for.

      The reason Keith fled the country, or at least the biggest reason was because he feared that if he went into prison for this so called crime, he would never come out alive. And after my involvement in an incident here in Canada, I would believe it. Even when Keith came to Canada, the $cilos never left him alone. They dropped false tips to law enforcement agencies here in Canada that resulted in a high-profile swat style take down of Keith in a local shopping center. It not only put Keith at risk (who was unarmed and very much not a dangerous man) but all civilians that were in the shopping center at the time. The take down was executed based an tips that Keith was a terrorist that was "Armed and Extremely Dangerous".

      Keith is a kind and generous man who wanted nothing more than to see justice served on this horrible cult.

      --
      Thomas A. Knight
      Author of The Time Weaver
    16. Re:This guy should have been arrested by HungSoLow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Organizations are, in general, always susceptible to organized crime. You place a few people in position of power, and as we all know, power corrupts. It doesn't matter what organization you consider, be they religious, charities, corporations, government, cult, education, the list goes on.... They are all susceptible to corruption and hence crime because of the fundamental nature of human beings. I dont think you can name a single well-known organization in history of humankind that has been free of corruption, and dare I say, free of atrocities (measured through human suffering).

    17. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The bill of rights was not supposed to originally apply to state laws.

      Don't be an asshole, of course it applies. The constitution delineates what powers the government has - if the feds aren't allowed to do something to us, why should the states be allowed to?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    18. Re:This guy should have been arrested by lazarusdishwasher · · Score: 1

      what would happen if another religous group protested outside, could anybody trying to stop the protest be convicted of "interfering with a church"?

    19. Re:This guy should have been arrested by GigG · · Score: 1
      No it really doesn't. Read the 1st Amendment.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
      The key phrase in the above is "Congress". In the constitution that means the Congress of the United States of America. Section 1 of the 14th says...

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
      Ratification of the 14th was finalized in 1868. They really should teach Constitutional history better in the schools.
      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    20. Re:This guy should have been arrested by alisson · · Score: 1

      I get the feeling you don't know much about scientology... It's funny, until you really dig into their past. They're a rutheless organization, and really have no reservations about killing people. When they're pissed at you, you don't want o be near them.

      So yeah, he was justified in running.

    21. Re:This guy should have been arrested by SnowCzar · · Score: 1

      Tanjing scientology...

    22. Re:This guy should have been arrested by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      What an unfortunate waste. Thanks for clarification.

    23. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you have recourses, but it takes months or years.

      It takes months and years to buy a gun?

    24. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Go read the base document: it doesn't tell the government what it may not do, it says what it may do. This means that the Bill of Rights is largely superfluous and a little bit dangerous, because people interpret it as if it were all we were allowed to do instead of a list of things that may not be infringed. The c'tion doesn't tell us what our rights are, it says what powers the fed has.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    25. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      The constitution delineates what powers the government has - if the feds aren't allowed to do something to us, why should the states be allowed to?
      From the U.S. constitution

      Amendment 10:
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
      Yes, that's terse and open to interpretation in this case, but it obviously allows the states to have "powers" that the federal government doesn't in some cases.
      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    26. Re:This guy should have been arrested by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      State and Local Governments inherit the powers not specifically designated to anyone. However, Federal law supercedes state law and state law cannot violate federal law, nor can it be unconstitutional. A state law, therefore, which violates the first amendment is NOT alloweded as it is unconstitutional.

    27. Re:This guy should have been arrested by GigG · · Score: 1

      Not before 1868

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    28. Re:This guy should have been arrested by edward2020 · · Score: 1

      The states have what is called police power. The federal government does not. And, before the 14th, the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and not to state governments. Buff up on some history and constitutional law before you call people assholes - ya asshat!

      Just joking. I wouldn't read any history or ConLaw.

      --
      Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
    29. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > [Dad] kept putting the kid on to explain computer problems. Very weird.

      What's weird about that? That's pretty normal.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    30. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      If some people had their way, yes.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    31. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Unlike most countries, the US constructs its government with the Constitution, which creates a government, giving it explicit powers (not "rights"), and none others.

      The Bill of Rights was fought over by two factions. Both agreed on the rights therein, but one didn't want it for fear that, by listing them, future politicians would try to pretend those, and only those, were the rights protected. The other side felt it was needed for fear of encroachment by future politicians who would try to pretend, in the absence of any listing, that they didn't exist.

      In the end, both were right. And that's truly sad.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    32. Re:This guy should have been arrested by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      good point.. funny how this happened over 100 years after 1868 not really changing my argument

    33. Re:This guy should have been arrested by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Including how the slaughterhouse cases fucked over the proper meaning of the 14th amendment and forced into existence that bullshit process of Incorporation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse_Cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_o f_Rights)

    34. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The confusion is cleared up when you realize the Constitution gives the government certain powers, and none others.

      States have much more power, though they are bound by the same Constitutional protections as the Federal government.

      IANAL, but IIRC, just because the Feds weren't authorized by the Constitution to do X, that doesn't mean the states, by the 14th Ammendment, are also no longer authorized. They are, however, restricted from abridging the same set of rights.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    35. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As others have mentioned, it varies. The First Amendment, for instance, explicitly applies only to Congress--not to the states. The Second through Ninth Amendments have no such limitations, while the Tenth explicitly states that all powers not prohibited to the states and not clearly granted to the federal government are reserved "to the states respectively, or to the people".

      In other words, the states explicitly can do some things the FedGov is prohibited from doing.

    36. Re:This guy should have been arrested by auld_wyrm · · Score: 1

      2 out of 3 and all that rot ...

    37. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Read the other responses. The 14th ammendment applies 1-9 to the states, and the constitution itself only really grants power to the government. The government hasn't got the power to regulate speech or gun ownership, therefore it's illegal.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    38. Re:This guy should have been arrested by FraterNLST · · Score: 1

      I don't know that it's really fair to keep using the word 'infiltrated' like this. Believe me, i'm not a sympathiser of the Xenu-followers, I think it may well be a cult and certainly should be looked at a lot closer, however saying that they have infiltrated government is at best naive, and at worst pure propaganda. It's no more fair to say the irs was infiltrated by scientology than it is to say that the presedential office was infiltrate by fundamentalist christians. I would be surprised if there were more scientologists in positions of power than their were christians of one denomination or another.

      What seperates scientology from other religions in this case is how their adherants act when in those positions, and, more importantly, how the church would ask - or command - them to act. The implication here is that the church of scientology itself, meaning high-up officials with some degree of control, asks these people to abuse their power. Thats what makes the difference between a corrupt organisation and a set of people acting on their own, which, if they seriously didn't encourage it, would be no fault of the church itself.

      Another question needs to be asked - is what the church does to protect itself, ie attacking detractors, any difference from the Catholic church protecting paedophiles in order to protect their image? Is it any less horrific?

      It's frightening when an organisation seems to have as much power as the Church of Scientology does, but if we give in to the hysterics and forget that there are plenty of other organisations that have as much potential power, and just as bad past histories, then we are in danger of becoming just as bad and just as blind.

      --
      Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
    39. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quoted person is exactly right. It applies now because the constitution was amended in order for it to.

      The reason it did not apply was because the States ALREADY EXISTED before the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution was to define the powers of the Federal Government... not the States. Lkmitations on the States were only provided as a way of emphasizing what powers they were giving up... the idea was anything that was not being granted to the Federal government stayed with the States, or with the People.

    40. Re:This guy should have been arrested by jordandeamattson · · Score: 1

      Actually, you are the one who is off base here.

      The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the US Constitution) was put in place to make explicit those things which the Federal Government could not do.

      Originally, Madison and other framers argued that this was not necessary, because the US Constitution stated only those things the Federal Government was allowed to do. The other rights (privileges and immunities), which had not been delegated to the Federal Government, were reserved to the States or the People. They finally decided that there were certain rights which were critically inalienable, that they must be enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

      Remember that the States in the United States were sovereign countries coming together into a Union. The States were extremely careful about which rights they were willing to delegate to the Federal Government and that is why the US Constitution enumerates a list of things the Federal Government can do. The presumption is that anything else is off limits.

      Up until the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. If you read pre-civil war cases, you will find that just because you had a right under the Bill of Rights, it didn't mean that you had it in your State of residence. With the 14 and 15th Amendments, we see the emergence of a legal doctrine called "incorporation" under which the Bill of Rights is brought to bear on the States. In fact, up until the late 19th Century a number of the States still supported a specific Church (for example the Congregational Church in Mass.) using tax payer monies.

      The idea that the Federal Government is delegated a specific enumerated list of powers has gradually been lost with the most significant damage occurring from the New Deal court forward (around 1936 or so). This erosion has rendered the 9th and 10th Amendments essentially meaningless and impotent. This was accomplished with a - in my opinion - misreading and application of the Commerce Clause, the 14th and 15th Amendments, and a misunderstanding of "Necessary and Proper".

      This state of affairs has shifted us from a presumption of liberty on the part of individuals and States who have delegated and/or transferred certain specific and enumerated rights to the Federal Governments and where the Federal Government has a limited and enumerated list of things it can do, to one where the Federal Government can do anything which it isn't forbidden to do by the Bill of Rights.

      For more on this topic, I highly recommend:

      America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar

      The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction by Akhil Reed Amar

      Restoring the Lost Constitution by Randy E. Barnett

      Yours,

      Jordan

    41. Re:This guy should have been arrested by modecx · · Score: 1

      Wow. That's fucked up. And I believe every iota of what you've said, having not known the story previously, due to some prior personal dealings.

      I think we all need to get behind Germany on this one, for once.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    42. Re:This guy should have been arrested by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      You realize everything you said can be applied to Christians, too?

      Much as I'd like it, I can hardly claim persecution for being pulled over on the basis that I'm atheist and have written and spoken in halfway-noteworthy functions on the subject, and most cops, judges, and DAs in America are Christians. Is this a Christian conspiracy?

      For what it's worth I do agree that the guy is being persecuted for total BS; I just think you're arguing it from a really weak angle.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    43. Re:This guy should have been arrested by edward2020 · · Score: 1

      The government most certainly has the power to regulate speech and gun ownership. For example, you can be charged with a crime if you yell "fire" in a crowded theater when in fact there is no fire, threats against the president, etc. Gun ownership too is regulated, for example felons are prohibited from owning guns. Of course, the government cannot regulate "free speech," but not all speech is free (see the above, and I'm sure you can come up with your own examples). In the same vein, the "right to bear arms" does not translate into total freedom for us citizens to carry anything we want (for example, I'm prohibited from owning an RPG). So, no matter what we may wish, the reality is that the government (both state and federal) can and does regulate these two things.

      Anyway, I was responding to your assertion that the bill of rights did originally apply to state laws. It did not. Any 1L can tell you that. Also, what's up with repeating what I said about the 14th amendment and the bill of rights (and really minus 9 and 10 which the courts don't seem to like to deal with)? I don't suppose I know what you're getting at there, unless it is "co-oping" what I was saying.

      --
      Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
    44. Re:This guy should have been arrested by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No bail and you can die in jail.

    45. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Yelling fire isn't illegal because of the content of the speech, but because of the intent of the yelling (causing a riot). Strictly interpreted, while disallowing violent felons from owning a gun is a good idea, it may not be legal. The fact that the government is doing things like regulating the ownership of automatics differently from hunting rifles is no evidence of its legitimacy. They just happen to have more money and guns than any of us.

      The bill of rights is irrelevant to what states may do about those rights specified. They are natural rights and it therefore follows that the states have no more right to impede them than does the fed. I view the 14th ammendment as a clarification. My point here is that the constitution doesn't so much say what you're allowed to do as tell the government what it may do. For instance, everyone has a right to buy a car or a turtle or whatever. The fact that it isn't in the Bill of Rights is not really relevant.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    46. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Nope, infiltration is exactly the right word.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    47. Re:This guy should have been arrested by tsdw · · Score: 1

      because he thinks the scientologists are out to get him: "I couldn't be employed while I was trying to hide out from them. They have agents inside the IRS, so when you use your social security number, they just pull it and come and get you." I mean, come on, this guy is a complete nut job...give me a break. yeah .. do some research before you condemn him

    48. Re:This guy should have been arrested by Zombywuf · · Score: 1

      It does apply to christians yes. Only in this case there tends to be an extra step of the law being written by a christian. Take a quick look at the history of Europe with special regard to the Catholic church to see how this works. In fact the Catholic Church and the Church of Scientology have a lot in common...

      --
      If you can read this you've gone too far.
    49. Re:This guy should have been arrested by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      Germany? Can you elaborate on this? I've read a little bit about CoS but I wasn't aware that Germany was doing anything in particular. I'm curious now.

    50. Re:This guy should have been arrested by modecx · · Score: 1

      Well, Germany at least holds the position that CoS isn't a church, and has primarily monetary interests, doesn't grant them tax exempt status, etc. CoS claims that Germany is discriminating against their members by not giving them government job and the like, but in truth I don't know specifics of what has happened... And the EU commission (or whatever it's called) was asking why Germany is keeping CoS members and buildings under surveillance. The CoS has filed a buttload of suits against the government for about the last 15 years, and AFAIK they haven't won any. It's not a lot, but I think they're the only first world county that isn't eagerly kowtowing to these wackos.

      The CoS even put out all kinds of propaganda ads in the US some time back, about how they were the new Jews in the German's newest war on religions, or something like. As far as Germany doing anything truly proactive against them, I don't think that is the case, but like I said, at least they're doing some things.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  49. It may have been worse. by gilgsn · · Score: 1

    He could have been accused of terrorism.. These days, pretty much anything can fall in that category. See: http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/sb0700.d ir/sb0742.intro.html
    Note that merely conspiring about "disrupting commerce," or even the "free and orderly assembly of inhabitants" could get you a life sentence, if some people get their way. So, I am surprised the mention of "missiles" doesn't qualify...

    --
    PGP public key at: http://keskydee.com/gil.asc
  50. Online arrest vs Offline? by delire · · Score: 1

    Surprise Arrest For Online Scientology Critic
    I'd be bloody surprised too if my browser read me my rights and cuffed me. Poor bastard, would've been a hell of a scare.
    1. Re:Online arrest vs Offline? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I'd be bloody surprised too if my browser read me my rights and cuffed me.

      And some folks would pay good money for that.

      I guess that's Web 3.0

  51. Name one other religion... by asphaltjesus · · Score: 1

    You should examine the history of the Catholic Church sometime. They had lots of interesting ways to raise money that equated their holiness with the amount of money donated.

    --
    Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
    1. Re:Name one other religion... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The key words here being history and had. Back in the day, that might have been the done thing for the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean we should accept the same from Scientology now.

  52. nothing was censored so far by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the post page has simply hung (it's a lot of text)

    so i'll try to submit in pieces

    but here are the sources:

    post it EVERYWHERE

    find more and POST THAT

    BOMB POST, BOMB POST, BOMB POST

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154684&cid=129 71502

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/4/111118/2521

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  53. Old news by h2g2bob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Scientology just follows in a long tradition:
    * Believe us or we'll set the spanish inquisition on you - Christianity
    * Believe us or when you die you'll be in perpetual torment - Islam
    * Believe us or we'll sue you to hell - Scientology

    1. Re:Old news by Dan+Farina · · Score: 1
      I thought Christianity (of certain brands) really had the same downside as:

      Believe us or when you die you'll be in perpetual torment - Islam


      So would the guy with the sign seem to suggest, or the Phelps clan.
    2. Re:Old news by Wiseman1024 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FYI, the inquisition was an European-wide phenomena, not just Spanish. Most assassinations were committed in Germany, by a ratio of 100 to 1 compared to Spain.

      Anyways, Scientology just does things the American way: lawyers and lawware.

      --
      I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
    3. Re:Old news by Szaman2 · · Score: 1

      Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

    4. Re:Old news by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't just the mode of religions. Governing regimes practice it, too.

      As to Scientology being a religion, I think that's a very broad definition of Religion - it's a pyramid scheme and cult rolled up into one.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Old news by iminplaya · · Score: 2

      Believe us or we'll sue you to hell - Scientology

      So what happens if you ignore them? Scientology is simply a powerful Hollywood employment agency that has religious credentials to evade taxes. It would be interesting to see them sue people for just turning their backs. Leave the boys with their toys. Like the GPL, they derive their power from copyright law. That is their all powerful god, and they can prove its existence in the constitution, and it wields a more powerful hammer than Thor ever had. Can't blame them for exploiting it. I blame us for allowing it to remain on the books.

      --
      What?
    6. Re:Old news by eneville · · Score: 1

      * Believe us or we'll sue you to hell - Scientology
      I think what Tom Cruise Missile says in SP09e12 is "I'm going to sue you in England". Scientology is worse than most religions because it's based on utter crap and the members have to pay to eat that shit.
    7. Re:Old news by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...the members have to pay to eat that shit.

      The end is near! Renounce!

      --
      What?
    8. Re:Old news by npsimons · · Score: 1

      As to Scientology being a religion, I think that's a very broad definition of Religion - it's a pyramid scheme and cult rolled up into one.

      And other religions aren't pyramid schemes and cults?


    9. Re:Old news by johnsonjii · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Believe us or we'll set the spanish inquisition on you - Christianity The Spanish Inquisition was a very small part of Christian history where politically motivated people did what they wanted and called it Christianity. The fact is: the teachings of Christianity expressly forbid the actions of the Inquisition. All throughout history people have hijacked popular causes for their own ends.
    10. Re:Old news by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And other religions aren't pyramid schemes and cults?

      I have no lost love for organized religion but name me another one that charges you money to learn the church doctrine. And I'm not talking about a collection plate. Name another religion that was started by a guy that came out and said "Starting my own religion would be a good way to make money".

      If the Catholic Church operated like Scientology they would have a copyrighted version of the bible and charge you money to read it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:Old news by Kismet · · Score: 1, Troll

      Don't forget:

      * Believe us or we'll crush you with our tanks -Communism
      * We'll throw you into concentration camps whether you believe us or not -Nazism
      * If you don't believe us, you're probably violating our constitutional rights (so prepare to be considered dangerous and stupid and possibly even the target of new legislation and scrutiny by the ACLU) -Militant Atheism

      Coercion isn't limited to theistic religion. Anyone who feels strongly enough about something has a "holy cause" and marches about trying to change the world to better suit him.

    12. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "broad definition" -- in what way?

      Or, more directly, what religions are you talking about that couldn't be classified to a disinterested outsider as "a pyramid scheme and cult rolled up into one"?

      I think you'd have to construct your definitions of "cult" and "pyramid scheme" pretty carefully to EXCLUDE most organized religion from your description, while still INCLUDING Scientology ...

    13. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should allow people to violate my constitutional rights without a fight (with or without the ACLU)? As a militant atheist, I consider you dangerous and stupid and I have contacted the ACLU so they legislate against you.

    14. Re:Old news by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some atheists are kinda militant, but if it keeps that "intelligent design" bullshit out of science classrooms, I'm all for it. We've progressed past religion dictating education (they called it the Dark Ages for a reason, kids). Discuss it in theology, discuss it in other classes, but it has no place in a science book or classroom, because it's not science. But the ten commandments in a city park? Meh. No big deal, as long as the taxpayers didn't pay for it, and aren't paying for the upkeep, and I could theoretically fund a statue of Baron d'Holbach with a plaque saying "There is no God" in the same way. What is that, I can't? Guess there's still disparity then.

    15. Re:Old news by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, the Spanish Inquisition is given its own name because it differed from the inquisition in general. For one thing, it had more direct support from the political powers (the Crown, who established it in 1480). For another, it was more organized and institutionalized than the inquisition in general. It also lasted much longer than the the inquisition lasted elsewhere -- until 1834!

      Another note about the Spanish Inquisition is that it was especially known for the use of torture and other cruelties, moreso than the inquisition elsewhere.

      As for executions in German states being 100 times greater than those under the Spanish Inquisition -- do you have a source for this? The S.I. is estimated to have killed between 3000 and 5000 people (plus hundreds of thousands displaced); are you seriously suggesting that the inquisition in German states was responsible for the deaths of 300,000 people via inquisition?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    16. Re:Old news by Kismet · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your job isn't done yet. You have some preaching to do until your vision of equality and justice has been achieved.

    17. Re:Old news by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      FYI, the inquisition was an European-wide phenomena, not just Spanish.

      FYI, there were multiple "Inquisitions". The Spanish one is the best known, and was intended to ferret out Muslims and Jews who had converted (as was required by law at that time and place) to Christianity but were still secretly practicing their original religion.

      Note that this was done for political reasons, not religious. The Spanish Inquisition was under the control of the Spanish Crown, not the Pope.

      It's downfall was not so much that it was persecuting Muslims and Jews, but that it paid a reward to informants based on the value of the Inquisitee's property. Which made it all too tempting to accuse a competitor or rival, or just someone who's house you wanted....

      The other Inquisitions goals were completely unrelated. Which is not necessarily the same as different. The Italian Inquisition could pursue "secret Jews" without any relation to the Spanish Inquisition, and for unrelated reasons.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    18. Re:Old news by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      If the Catholic Church operated like Scientology they would have a copyrighted version of the bible and charge you money to read it.

      I hate to make digs at the Roman Catholic Church, but once upon a time, it was against Church rules for laymen to read the Bible. Only the Priests could do so.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:Old news by JRIsidore · · Score: 1

      Well, there are church taxes for one.

      --
      :w!q
    20. Re:Old news by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      We've progressed past religion dictating education (they called it the Dark Ages for a reason, kids).

      Yes, they called it the Dark Ages for a reason. Of course, the reason had nothing whatsoever to do with religion dictating education.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    21. Re:Old news by gmack · · Score: 1

      And other religions aren't pyramid schemes and cults?

      Plenty of them. Any member of the church I attend is entitled to an audited yearly finicial report stating how every last cent is spent(pastor's salary, building expenses etc). It is also followed up with an explanation and a Q&A session. I also get to vote for the board who in turn votes for the pastor.

      Any church that won't offer me that is one I won't set foot in.

    22. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ohh nice. Then copyright would be extended to authors death + 2100 years.

    23. Re:Old news by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate to make digs at the Roman Catholic Church, but once upon a time, it was against Church rules for laymen to read the Bible. Only the Priests could do so.

      Fair enough, but as I said in another post of mine, I don't think that past excesses or abuses by modern religions justify the practices of Scientology. We should oppose their actions regardless of what other religions have done in the past.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:Old news by HardCase · · Score: 1

      I have no lost love for organized religion but name me another one that charges you money to learn the church doctrine. And I'm not talking about a collection plate. Name another religion that was started by a guy that came out and said "Starting my own religion would be a good way to make money".

      Not an exact fit, but how about the Mormons? They have some interesting ideas when it comes to church access and money.

    25. Re:Old news by RSquaredW · · Score: 1

      Is there a rule on copyright for those raised from the dead? What is the IP law on Lazarus?

      From a non-mythical standpoint, one could create an IP, be legally declared "dead" and then appear (say, after disappearing in a plane crash...washing up on a desert island and befriending a beach ball) alive - when does that copyright expire? Author's legal death+75 or author's actual death+75?

      --
      In accordance with E.O. 12958, this post is marked Unclassified.
    26. Re:Old news by Schemat1c · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Plenty of them. Any member of the church I attend is entitled to an audited yearly finicial report stating how every last cent is spent(pastor's salary, building expenses etc). It is also followed up with an explanation and a Q&A session. I also get to vote for the board who in turn votes for the pastor.

      Any church that won't offer me that is one I won't set foot in. Or you could take responsibility for your own spirituality and quit looking for an organization that will be responsible for you. I have no interest in a god that needs paid mediators in order for me to have access.
      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    27. Re:Old news by Khaed · · Score: 1

      What are their ideas?

      I have no idea how the Mormon church system works, and am actually curious now.

      Do they sell tickets like a movie theater?

    28. Re:Old news by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Later historians expanded the term to include not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of contemporary written history and material cultural achievements in general..
      Crusades? Mass burnings of "pagan" written knowledge? Torture of brilliant minds like Galileo Galilei for his heretical heliocentric teachings and beliefs?

      It was originally called the Dark Ages because of the supposed character of Latin literature, but it I'm using the historian's definition of it, which happened because the church controlled education and information so much. Anything contrary to the Bible was heretical.

    29. Re:Old news by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative
      Crusades? Mass burnings of "pagan" written knowledge? Torture of brilliant minds like Galileo Galilei for his heretical heliocentric [wikipedia.org] teachings and beliefs?

      Crusades, check. Had nothing to do with why it was called the Dark Ages, as the Dark Ages had been proceeding nicely for 500 years (about as long as from Columbus to the present, for perspective) when the Crusades got going.

      Mass burnings of "pagan" written knowledge? Missed that part. The European "pagans" were generally an illiterate bunch, so not sure where this comes in. Or did you mean that stuff done during the Renaissance?

      Torture of brilliant minds like Galileo Galilei for his heretical heliocentric teachings and beliefs? Well, if he'd been tortured, that might mean something. Being restricted to his palatial estate doesn't even qualify as torture today. Never mind that he was tried for calling the Pope (who was a personal friend of his, once upon a time) a simpleton in his books, rather than for heliocentric beliefs. Never mind that he was so "brilliant" that he thought comets were optical illusions. Never mind that he didn't do any "teaching", just wrote the one book on the subject (where he called the Pope a simpleton, repeatedly). And mostly, never mind that Galileo was well AFTER the Dark Ages.

      You've described many things attributable to the Renaissance as part of the Dark Ages. Why not remember some of what the Dark Ages REALLY had going for it? Like Three-Field Rotation? Invented in the Monasteries. Like double-entry bookkeeping? Likewise, invented by a bunch of Catholic monks.

      But if you must remember the Renaissance as the Dark Ages, remember this - Copernicus was both a Catholic Priest and a scientist. Oh, wait, that punctures your world-view that the Church was opposed to science, doesn't it? Never mind, then. Just forget what you just read.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    30. Re:Old news by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I have no lost love for organized religion but name me another one that charges you money to learn the church doctrine.
      A lot of Christian churches in the US, including some megachurches, the Mormon church, and some "home churches" actually DEMAND you pay the church leaders 10% of your income. If you don't pay, they don't let you come to church to learn their doctrine.

      And if you think reading the Bible is enough to learn church doctrine, for ANY Christian church, you have been misinformed.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    31. Re:Old news by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Name another religion that was started by a guy that came out and said "Starting my own religion would be a good way to make money"

      Actually I don't think that Hubbard set up Scientology to make money; I heard that it was a bet (with Frank Herbert, IIRC) as to which one of them could found a world religion first. Frank didn't take it seriously but Hubbard did.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    32. Re:Old news by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Actually I don't think that Hubbard set up Scientology to make money; I heard that it was a bet (with Frank Herbert, IIRC) as to which one of them could found a world religion first. Frank didn't take it seriously but Hubbard did.

      Well, that's a lot better ;) I can respect them now ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    33. Re:Old news by rgbscan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually there is a relevant quote on this from the May 1980 reader's digest... Hubbard - "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

    34. Re:Old news by h2g2bob · · Score: 1

      On the subject of Bible copyright, here in the UK, the KJV Bible is copyrighted to the Crown forever. However, that is the exception: your point is well made.

    35. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, Scientology expects its followers to ostracize family members who've left the cult. Most lapsed Catholics I know are still allowed to talk to their mothers.

    36. Re:Old news by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that quote has never been verified, to the best of my knowledge. Authors like Harlan Ellison, who was a young and active fan when L. Ron was in his pulp writing prime and met him at various parties, have said it sounds like it's something L. Ron would say but they didn't hear him say it. There's so much other fraud from the guy, there's no need to use unverified or unverifiable quotes to make a sound bite for yourself.

    37. Re:Old news by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I heard that it was a bet (with Frank Herbert, IIRC)

      I think that was a bet with Robert Heinlein. And his response was Stranger in a Strange Land.

      Interesting that in his later book Friday Heinlein defended the Scientologists, but then, in Stranger he expressed the view that if the suckers want to give their money away then that is their problem.

      Sometimes I wonder about whether Heinlein and Hubbard were different people.

    38. Re:Old news by modecx · · Score: 1

      I hate to make digs at the Roman Catholic Church, but once upon a time, it was against Church rules for laymen to read the Bible. Only the Priests could do so.

      And that's a totally understandable position, in many ways: back in days when bibles were copied by monks, by hand, each text was as precious as gold. It was not unusual for smaller churches to not even have a bible, as I understand. Furthermore, if you could read, you were likely either somehow involved with the church, or were a member of the aristocracy. Plus, what did the common folk understand about preserving documents? I mean, up until the point in time where Bible was becoming mass produced, there are a ton of practical reasons for not letting people except the priests handle them. The same can hardly be said of COS materials, in this day and age.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    39. Re:Old news by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if every single thing written in a science book and taught in a classroom was as closely examined and hotly contested. But I guess it requires religious differences to force an examination of the curriculum.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    40. Re:Old news by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      And if you think reading the Bible is enough to learn church doctrine, for ANY Christian church, you have been misinformed.


      yeah, you need church officials to tell you which bits of it are the literal word of god, and which bits of it you should just silently ignore because they're inconvenient or embarassing. you also need them to tell you other things which are also the literal word of god even though they're not actually in the bible, or are contradicted by the bible. and you also need them to explain how they're not just making shit up to serve their own interests as you might naively suspect if you didn't have the benefit of their wisdom to show you the truth.

      otherwise, for example, you might make the mistake of thinking that lending money for interest is a sin just because the bible says it is. when clearly that is an archaic and old-fashioned way of thinking.

    41. Re:Old news by Jonti · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that most of the actions taken to keep religion out of public schools are undertaken by [i]other religionists[/i] and not by atheists. ID is a religious concept, and not all religions buy into it. So plenty of religious folk don't want to see it promulgated in their local schools.

    42. Re:Old news by Kailassa · · Score: 1

      johnsonjii : "The fact is: the teachings of Christianity expressly forbid the actions of the Inquisition." In the old testament we are told to kill all witches. In the new testament Jesus says he has not come to change any of the law. So how do you come to the conclusion that Christianity expressly forbids the actions of the inquisition? There is not even any direct injunction against torture in that over-revered tome. Any thorough reading of the bible can lead a person to decide that belief in the bible is incompatible with morality.

    43. Re:Old news by cmarkn · · Score: 1

      Name another religion that was started by a guy that came out and said "Starting my own religion would be a good way to make money".
      Not exactly a good way to make money, but if you are the prophet of a new religion, you can declare polygamy to be church doctrine and take all the cute young girls for yourself. I know of two times this has happened, but I’ll leave out the names because you know who I’m talking about.

      Then there is another well-known religion begun and still operated to empower and protect male homosexuals. Their amassed fortune, in land, buildings and art, is just a side effect.

      --
      People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
    44. Re:Old news by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Name another religion that was started by a guy that came out and said "Starting my own religion would be a good way to make money".

      Anton LeVey's Church of Satan? I think that church is actually officially for-profit too....
      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    45. Re:Old news by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Some atheists are kinda militant, but if it keeps that "intelligent design" bullshit out of science classrooms, I'm all for it. We've progressed past religion dictating education (they called it the Dark Ages for a reason, kids). Discuss it in theology, discuss it in other classes, but it has no place in a science book or classroom, because it's not science. Agreed with one exception. The Dark Ages were not terribly religion-centered. I think you have those confused with the Middle Ages.

      The Dark Ages were dominated by the Germanic (mostly Gothic, but also Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Vandelm etc) invasions of most of Continental Europe and the collapse of the Roman Empire. These invasions actually lead to scientific (particularly metalurgical) improvements in the areas of iron and steelworking, vehicle design, and more. They are usually called the "Dark Ages" because Modernist scholars think that it was a step backward from the Roman Empire and that only moving to the fully Christian Europe (supporting once again the authority of Rome) could advances be made.

      I personally think they were very wrong.

      But the ten commandments in a city park? Meh. No big deal, as long as the taxpayers didn't pay for it, and aren't paying for the upkeep, and I could theoretically fund a statue of Baron d'Holbach with a plaque saying "There is no God" in the same way. What is that, I can't? Guess there's still disparity then. One runs into all manner of problems with religious symbolism in the public square and the place to draw the line is not so simple. My feeling is simple: the government should not be endorsing any religious idea above another. But I think it should be necessary to show endorsement of an idea to get the monument removed. Otherwise great statues of pagan goddesses (like the big one in New York Harbour) might have to go. After all one could make a strong argument that they are *in violation of* the 10 Commandments and are thus teaching kids to abandon the religious teachings of their parents.

      I am willing to put up with the references to Bible quotes on our currency in part because our government buildings are so often built as temples to pagan goddesses and in part because any Christian should be objecting mightily to the practice of confusing God and Mammon. Indeed, banishing God from the public square might also require banishing Libertas, Justitia, obilisks (and pyramids) and other pagan symbolism, and changing the titles of those who sit on the Supreme Court so that we are not invoking a pagan goddess every time we address them.

      Oh, and we might have to change the names of the days of the weeks and months too. Just like the Quakers used to for their own purposes.

      The Supreme Court, in my view (IANAL) suggests that the ideological context is important, and uses the Lemon test to make such decisions. At some point freedom of speech by individuals in the public square runs into the Establishment clause, however...
      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    46. Re:Old news by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to jump in on the rest of the commentary about the Dark Ages because I can't expend the time at the moment to do the necessary research, but you're doing exactly what you're decrying in the parent post to yours.

      > Copernicus was both a Catholic Priest and a scientist. Oh, wait, that punctures your world-view that the Church was opposed to science, doesn't it?

      I'm left thinking, "that's one." If you think that the existence of Copernicus means that the Roman Catholic Church didn't oppose most scientific thought at the time then you're a fool. The very example of Galileo, who was only "restricted to his palatial estate" because he actually recanted (he was threatened with death if he didn't, in case that detail was lost on you) negates your statement. The RCC vehemently opposed any science that didn't mesh easily with their dogma, through the Dark Ages and the Renaissance.

      > Never mind that he was so "brilliant" that he thought comets were optical illusions.

      Even the greatest minds make some mistakes. Taken against the full body of his work you can't seriously expect anyone to take you seriously in saying that this means he wasn't brilliant.

      Virg

    47. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity and Islam let you learn their lessons, or flat out go out of their way to teach you, for no financial cost to yourself, their mission is to spread their ideals, monetary contributions are voluntary.

      Scientology from what little I know, is pretty much entirely based round the idea you don't get to learn anything unless you pay up, if you don't pay up you're 'ignorant' and if you do you probably have to sign some exceedingly restrictive NDA's.

      If that's the case it's not really a religion, it's a self perpetuating rich elitist club.

  54. Anyone with photoshop/GIMP talent? by Marcion · · Score: 1

    How the hell, indeed, it is really sad that in 2007 a cult can put someone in prison. I personally cannot do much about it, but I can link to his site ( http://www.operatingthetan.com/ ), so I made a button:

    http://commandline.org.uk/images/icons/freekeithhe nson.png

    Pretty rubbish I know, is there anyone out there with photoshop/gimp skills that can do better?

  55. Ok its decided - you americans ARE living in hell by unity100 · · Score: 4, Funny

    RIAA, MPAA, NSA, CIA, FBI, IRS, Lawyers, Rich Scientologist perverts, corrupt, sold out congressmen/senators, AT&T, Verizon and countless more.

    just reading slashdot is enough to chill one from head to toe.

  56. Martin Luther by number6x · · Score: 1

    Martin Luther and thousands of others for criticizing the 'one true church' a few hundred years ago in Europe.

    I was raised as a member of that 'one true church', and must shoulder the sins of my predecessors with shame. In the long run heavy handed tacticts won't work for religions, but it might do the job for Scientology.

    I am starting to believe the Apocolypse will take place when the Scientologists and the Objectivists try to wipe each other out.

    1. Re:Martin Luther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was hoping the Fred Phelps family and Scientology would get into some kind of weird legal death spiral.

  57. RE: No one is going to kill you for by jimwelch · · Score: 1

    No one is going to kill you for not going to church? or leaving the church?
    I will start a list of examples:
    • Galileo Galilei?
    • Spanish Inquisitions?
    • Ireland: Catholics vs Protestants?
    • Sunni/Shia Islam?
    • Presbyterian Church (U.S.A)?
    --
    Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
  58. He did show up in court and plead his case ..... by taniwha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and the judge didn't allow him to introduce the bulk of his evidence ... he fled and claimed political asylum in Canada before sentencing ....I suspect you're wrong about the amount of the judge's brain tied behind his back. Keith may be a bid odd, but he's not crazy - he realized he'd been railroaded by political pressure on the local DA - it's a small town in the desert dominated by a Scientology compound - the locals hate them and if Keith had been allowed to put the fact that it was Scientology he was picketing (rather than making it sound like a real church) the jury would have acquitted him

  59. How do you "threaten" a religion? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Threatening involves, at least according to our law books, the ability to actually realize what you suggest to do, usually to the disadvantage of another. When I threaten to kill you, I suggest that I will put what's in my power behind bringing you from life to death, which is, usually, within my powers.

    How do you "threaten" an idea? How do you "kill" an idea? That's impossible.

    I can see, though, that people who try to wage a war against ideas (like terrorism, or like drugs) do actually believe they can kill an idea. But a religion?

    To kill a religion, you'd either have to kill every single person whose faith is in this religion, or you have to convince everyone who believes that his religion is wrong. Now, the former is by its very definition impossible. Ya know, there was a nation about 60 years ago whose plan was exactly that. It costed millions of lives, but it did certainly not destroy the religion.

    And for the latter, it would require your faithful followers to shrug off their faith. And if you're threatend by THAT ... Well, then how much faith do you have in your own religion?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:How do you "threaten" a religion? by kinglink · · Score: 1

      It's more about threating to attack a place or person because of religious beliefs or significance, the same way someone would attack a place because of racial features or significant.

      I don't think the law talks about threating a religion itself, it's more about the people who believe the religion or the place they worship.

      IANAL but I'm sure this is one of the many "hate crime" laws they passed in rapid succession.

    2. Re:How do you "threaten" a religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yo Scientology... you, me outside after school... I'm going to KICK YOUR ASS!"

    3. Re:How do you "threaten" a religion? by turing_m · · Score: 1

      "To kill a religion, you'd either have to kill every single person whose faith is in this religion, or you have to convince everyone who believes that his religion is wrong. Now, the former is by its very definition impossible. Ya know, there was a nation about 60 years ago whose plan was exactly that. It costed millions of lives, but it did certainly not destroy the religion."

      It depends. Ever heard of the Nag Hammadi Library?
      http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

      The Catholic church at the height of its powers (3rd-4th century) did a pretty good of destroying all the followers of competing sects or "convincing" them that they were wrong. But they were just Christians.

      Jews? No way. Guaranteed the ethno-religion of 54% of the world's chess champions since 1886 is smart enough to have a contingency plan for everything including mass nuclear warfare. It would literally take an act of god to wipe them out. (e.g. Moon sized asteroid hitting the earth, sun going supernova, God accidentally hitting the Red Button). And if they had any forewarning at all, their efforts in conquering space would make the Manhattan project look like a science fair project.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  60. what is the right way by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    to fight censorship in the name of religious fundamentalism when the religious fundamentalist's lawyers weild the legal system against guys who make stupid jokes on a newsgroup?

    what is the right way to fight corporate greed when the legal system is weilded against you in the name of censoring a stupid number?

    this is the right way

    it's called giving attention to a cause, and destroying the rationale of the religious fundamentalists/ greedy corporations in the first place by making their efforts pointless

    thet are resisting the diseemination of information

    and they will intimidate, with the legal system, anyone who who tries to disseminate information they don't want disseminated

    well, when the legal system is on the wrong side of morality, then morality does what it can. i'm not proposing violence or jihad. i'm just proposing the posting of words! it's just words, right? well, to the enemies of free speech, it apparently isn't

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  61. Re:Way too much OCD going on here by Alien54 · · Score: 0

    incompetent or bought/blackmailed off?? since her life, apparently, has been miserable since then, having resigned in disgrace, probably not bought. And if she was a dedicated critic, she would have made headlines out of any blackmail attempt. So it looks like incompetent.

    and Scientology gets brownie points for wanting all of the evidence looked at, not just a slice favorable to them.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  62. PART 1 by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Informative

    OT III
    [Operating Thetan Level 3]
    BODY THETANS

    by L. Ron Hubbard

    The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet - 178 billion on average) by mass implanting..

    He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken - in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged".

    His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc was placed in the unplants. When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert.

    The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development. One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time.

    In December 1967 1 know someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but only that given here is needful.

    One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body.

    One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I. It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing.

    You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small.

    Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error.

    Good luck.

    * * *

    For the purpose of clarity, by BODY THETAN is meant a thetan who is stuck to another thetan or body but is not in control.

    A THETAN is, of course, a Scientology word using the Greek theta which was the Greek symbol for thought or life. An individual being such as a man is a thetan, he is not a body and he does not think because he has a brain.

    A CLUSTER is a group of body thetans crushed or hold together by some mutual bad experience.

    ----------

    Character of Body Thetans

    Body Thetans are just Thetans. When you get rid of one he goes off and possibly squares around, picks up a body or admires daisies. He is in fact a sort of cleared Being. He cannot fail to eventually, if not at once, regain many abilities. Many have been asleep for the last 75,000,000 years. A body Thetan responds to any process any Thetan responds to.

    Some body Thetans are suppressive. A suppressive is out of valence in R6. He is in valence in Incident I almost always.

    One can't run a human being on these two incidents since human beings are composites and would not be able to run the lot. Aside from that, non-clears are way below awareness required to even find these Incidents.

    Huge amounts of charge have already been removed from the case and the body thetans by Clearing and OT I and OT II to say nothing of engrams and lower grades.

    Awareness is proportional to the charge removed from the case.

    Although a human is a composite being there is only one I (that is you) who runs things.

    Body thetans just hold one back.

    You will continue to be you. You, inside, can of course separate out body thetans and so solo auditing is the answer. How good do you have to be to run body thetans off? Well, if you didn't skip your grades, Clearing and OT II particularly, you. should be able to'command body thetans easily.

    * * *

    Incident II is over 36 days long. Capture on other planets was weeks or months before the implant. Tho

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:PART 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps we should post your Social Security Number, mother's maiden name and date of birth.

      Only fair.

    2. Re:PART 1 by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Do not argue with the guy, he is famous for his trolling on kuro5hin.org

    3. Re:PART 1 by Choad+Namath · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, there are actually people who would pay to read that shit?

    4. Re:PART 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me, or does this read like an author's notes to himself for an upcoming science fiction novel?

  63. You're confusing political power with nature. by khasim · · Score: 1

    In this world there is only what you can take and hold, and that which you cannot.

    No. That is force. That is the basis of political power. The government is the police / military.

    What about families? What about the loyalty there? Their force extends beyond the individual. Yet there is nothing forcing them to act so.

    The same with religion. The priest has influence beyond his personal use of force.

    And there is also economic power. Paying people to perform actions for you.

    Rights exist as concepts. The same with Love and Hate.
    1. Re:You're confusing political power with nature. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No. That is force. That is the basis of political power. The government is the police / military.

      Force is the only means to guarantee your so-called rights. Period, the end. Right to live? Not if I fucking kill you.

      What about families? What about the loyalty there? Their force extends beyond the individual. Yet there is nothing forcing them to act so.

      It's called conditioning.

      The same with religion. The priest has influence beyond his personal use of force.

      Religion uses the carrot and the stick, it is a threat of violence in some religions - going to hell to burn in eternal flame.

      And there is also economic power. Paying people to perform actions for you.

      Without more force than the "bad guys", someone just comes and steals your money, or the results of spending it.

      It all comes back to force - and, it is to be hoped, judiciously applied force.

      But the simple fact is that you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE. You could experience cardiac arrest and keel over any time.

      If you consider that simple truth (if I have a right to life, I demand that the government resurrect me when I die!) then you will see how ridiculous claims of innate rights are, aside from one - the right to attempt anything you like. But there are consequences...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:You're confusing political power with nature. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the simple fact is that you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE. You could experience cardiac arrest and keel over any time.
      Dude, you have no understanding of what a right is. Go study some political and philosophical theory before you bother making malformed arguments based on a semantics issue of which you are on the erring side. You simply don't understand what the definition of a right is -- and this leads you to a false claim that they don't exist.
    3. Re:You're confusing political power with nature. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Go study some political and philosophical theory before you bother making malformed arguments based on a semantics issue of which you are on the erring side.

      Why complicate the issue when you can just look it up in the dictionary?

      I don't consider some half-baked theories someone pulled out of their ass to justify the existence of governments and their right to do whatever they want to be a valid description of the universe. Sorry.

      The meaning of "right" that you want is "in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct". But where do those standards and principles come from? They come from men. No such principles are observed by animals other than humans. And I would resist any claim that humans are somehow more correct than other animals.

      Nature puts forth only physics. There is no right or wrong. There are only those laws upon which we have agreed to guide us. And sometimes someone doesn't agree, and breaks the laws, and then we punish them (or we don't.) But there is no natural principle that guarantees you freedom of speech, or any such ephemeral concept.

      The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will realize that the entire concept of innate rights is simply mental masturbation, and if you want to have rights, you have to fight for them. That's how it works. Most people don't fight for them (I don't do much but educate, personally, but at least I do that much) and as a result we're losing them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:You're confusing political power with nature. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ah yes, heaven forbid people use a term to describe something, then use that term to discuss the merits of it. That's the whole point of abstraction, and if you can't handle abstraction, then you have no business discussing philosophical statements.

      The meaning of "right" that you want is "in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct".
      No. Not at all, which is why your argument is completely off base. You conflate right as in correct with right as in an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature. Just because the words have the same spelling doesn't mean that you should try to reduce one to the other, which is the basis of your argument above.

      You deny the applicability of philosophy to the question at hand -- which is fine, since that's a valid argument. However, that does not mean that the term in question (rights) does not have a definition in philosophical use that differs from the usage you want to reduce it to.

      Your last post can be equated to someone denying the existence of God[1], and therefore logically denying that the word deity has any meaning. All that I am removing in this comparison is an alternative meaning of the word in question (the alternative meaning of the word "right" is what has you confused).

      [1] I use this allegory because it was the first to pop into my head, not because of my particular feelings (or rather, non-feelings) about God.
  64. PART 2 by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Informative

    OT III Errors

    Amongst OT III errors are "a BT run on Incident I fails to blow". There are three reasons:

    1. Auditor is trying to run a cluster with an Incident I. The right thing to do is date and get the character of the incident that made it a cluster and then run Incident Its on those left when it breaks up. Or get Dianetic auditing.
    2. There is an earlier Incident I on the same BT. Find it and run it. The BT has a chain of them all by himself.
    3. Another BT is copying the Incident I just run so it looks like it didn't blow. Failure to ever run Incident I can also cause a bog. Routine Dianetic auditing by a Dianetic HDC who is also on or above OT III using triple flows and LDN OT III also handles bogged OT III pre- OT's.

    ----------

    Cluster Formation - Cumulative

    In doing a cluster one is likely to find it is made up of other earlier clusters. This looks like this. 1898 impact horse accident. When engram 1898 run on R3R, that part blows. No F/N occurs, TA remains up. Remainder will grind after the blow. Earlier portion dates as 93,000,000 years ago, electric shock. When run on R3R, that part blows, no FIN. TA remains up, will grind if run further. Earliest portion dares as 72 trillion implant. When run on R3R, all blow, FIN.

    A cluster or engram which is a cluster can repeatedly FIN as BT's blow. Dates as 778 million explosion. After run once or twice an FIN occurs as one BT blows. Run again to second FIN as two more BT's blow. Remainder blow with a wider FIN. The cluster has gone. This happens (repeating FIN) when picture persists and noter check reveals it is not a copy. It will be more BT's in same cluster. So above repeating FIN occurs when pre-OT is moved through it. Clusters are found by meter dating, listing for type of incident and run as an engram. Clusters can occur at Incident .II and Incident I. They can also occur at 1 quadrillion, which is the Clearing course materials. They also occur at random dates for different reasons.

    * * *

    I have lately been C/Sing a number of failed OT cases and have found them all running well on solo now. The errors are made as follows:

    1. The solo auditor cannot audit, needs more training.
    2. Cases are not well prepared with Dianetics.

    The remedy for all of these is to:

    1. Run the PC for at least a score or two of Dianetic items by R3R, done of course by a good HDC,
    2. then do a GF 40.

    And then repeat it until necessary auditing is complete. These two actions take care of the majority of difficult cases on OT

    The real End Phenomena of OT III and OT IV is exterior with full perception. You can and should accomplish full stable exteriorization on doing the materials of III.

    ----------

    Further III remedies:

    3. High TA. This comes from not completing the Incidents I and II on body thetans.
    4. The solo auditor puts too wide an intention on the BT and runs two or three when he is intending to run only one.
    5. A cluster just won't break up. The remedy is a Dianetic session listing for impacts or incidents that would cause a cluster and doing R3R. The principle of earlier similar holds good. When this is completed, the solo auditor is sent back to solo to clean up the BT's shaken loose and to continue with OT III.
    6. Rudiments go out on BT's. The remedy of course is to locate BT's who have out-ruds, put in the ruds and run Incident 1, at which the ST should leave.
    7. A theta-bopping meter sometimes puzzles a solo auditor -on OT Ill. This means a BT is trying to exteriorize and can't. The remedy is to complete the partially run Incident 11 or Incident I or in extreme cages put the ruds in on the hung up BT.
    8. One-hand electrode giving wrong TA read baffling the solo auditor with floating needles with a high TA. The remedy is to have two-hand electrodes handy and trim the trim knob so the one-hand electrode reads the same as two-hand electrodes.
    9. A suppressive body thetan sometimes isn't auditable. The remedy is to run Grades IV

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:PART 2 by jfreaksho · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this. I've always wanted to read this stuff, just to understand it.

      However, it's pretty intolerable writing. At least King James had Shakespeare help with the Bible. This is just crap.
      J.

  65. Re:Way too much OCD going on here by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Or someone said,s crew this up or we kill a loved one.

    Funny, her testomony reads like testmonies of people testifing against the mob.

    I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is another explaination.

    Considering the type of death, Scientology could spin a coroners report.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  66. Interesting by FinnMcGee · · Score: 2, Informative

    I find it quite strange that the continued stories on 10zenmonkeys....etc can not be viewed anymore.
    I was just reading the first article and went to go to the second hyperlink and now neither of them work.
    Gah! the men in black suits just pulled up *runs too the hills*

  67. Hard to say by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My last two pastors were both stockbrokers who quit their jobs to preach full-time. They are both making far less money now than they did (One is even below the poverty line now). It's clear to me that they believe in what they are doing (which doesn't mean they are correct, it just means they think they are).

    Of course, it's obvious that some people are using Christianity as a tool to help themselves. Ted Haggard is a loser and a hypocrite, but he pales in comparison to some 'Christian' pastors who embezzeled, molested children, or ran lynch mobs. But there are people who can latch on to any cause (good or bad) and abuse that power for their own ends. Whether it's embezzeling money from the United Way or trolling on slashdot, some people are just bastards, and the larger the group you're looking at is the more of them you will find.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
    1. Re:Hard to say by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Nope, just you.

    2. Re:Hard to say by syousef · · Score: 1

      My last two pastors were both stockbrokers who quit their jobs to preach full-time. They are both making far less money now than they did (One is even below the poverty line now). It's clear to me that they believe in what they are doing (which doesn't mean they are correct, it just means they think they are).

      It just proves that stock brokers are prone to nervous breakdowns.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  68. They need a Don, oh wait..... by axia777 · · Score: 1

    Scientology = "Religious" Mafia Nuff said.....

  69. I'm a Frisbiterian by phrostie · · Score: 4, Funny

    we believe when you die your soul gets thrown up on the roof and can't get down.

    it's the space aliens that do it.

  70. Proof Hubbard is God by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    "Surprise arrest warrant"? That's sciency for "miracle". Hubbard really is god!

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  71. Being offensive is what free speach is for by vrimj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Flag Burning, "Fuck the Draft", First admendment law is not based off of inoffensive actions.

    Speech that is not "thretening" generally needs no protection.

    This is an idenfifyable group, but it not a small one so I doubt the exception for threating speech would apply.

    The thing is, unconstitional laws happen, that is what courts are for, to make them go away.

    This is not how I would choose to do battle with an orgnization I opposed, but it is not illegamitate.

    Saying "be nice" undermines the key issue, that sometimes it will be nessacry to not be nice. That is why we protect people who aren't. It is hard to tell, contempriously, who is right.

    1. Re:Being offensive is what free speach is for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nine sentences (including the subject) and only one without a spelling mistake: "That is why we protect people who aren't"

      Holy crap man, get a spelling checker.

  72. Keith Henson *did not* even made the joke... by MrHill · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Church of Scientology and its followers want you to believe that Keith Henson stated he would "have them bombed and the buildings exploded": This is utter fabrication, Keith Henson never expressed such threat, jokingly or not. He merely corrected someone who answered to a post in which someone else was joking about a "Tom Cruise Missile."

    Here is his post in Google archives: http://tinyurl.com/3dgn4y

    Keith Henson was picketing and trying to bring awareness to what he calls "depraved indifference" in the death of two young women in and around the Scientology compound. He was trying to bring awareness because he cared. This is directly from the doctrine of the Church of Scientology: "[People critical of Scientology] may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed," from L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. This is the precise doctrine they followed to try and silence Keith Henson.

    Meanwhile, the leaders of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige included, have been promoting the murdering of other human beings. This is beyond irony that it is now Keith Henson in jail, just because he cared enough, while David Miscavige is free to go despite his graphical depictions of deadly violence against psychiatrists -- with thundering applauses from followers... (ref.: Evening Standard (London, Oct. 2006): "Tom's aliens target City's 'planetary rulers'" by David Cohen, Michael Leonard Tilse: "False Purpose Rundown") (http://tinyurl.com/24xfta)

  73. Canadian Conoviction for Scientology ... by kwandar · · Score: 4, Informative
    Yes, I still remember Scientologists being convicted in Canada

    From an article by Glen McGregor, The Ottawa Citizen Published: Wednesday, October 26, 2005

    "Scientology is also the only religious group ever to be criminally convicted in Canada. It was found guilty on two counts of breach of the public trust related to a 1982 conspiracy to break into government offices. The criminal charges lead to a precedent-setting defamation case, known as Hill vs. Church of Scientology of Toronto, brought by a Crown prosecutor whom the church's lawyer had accused of criminal contempt. The Supreme Court in 1995 upheld the finding against the church, which became the largest libel award in Canadian history."

  74. Scientology lawyers by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DMCA take down? So is this a religion or a business?

    If its a religion i say they forfit their IP rights. If they are a business, they need to forfit any benefits they get claiming as such.

    Shouldnt be able to have it both ways, regardless of how silly they are ultimately, this 'dual protection' really should stop.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Scientology lawyers by Brickwall · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! I always knew there was something vaguely illegal about Scientology, but nurb432 hit it on the head.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
  75. What her ass meant, and the First Amendment by phunctor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I have to say that there is also the Freedom of Religion in the US. People have the right to worship as they choose without being harassed."

    Somebody peacefully expressing ideas you disagree with is not "harrassment", although you may "feel harrassed". Get over it.

    Do you really want to have the feelings of group X given the force of law and enforced against you, someday soon? (If you're conservative, let X === liberals, and vice-versa...)

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    The right not to have Congress pass laws establishing or prohibititing religion has got nothing to do with how you feel about picketers outside your church. The first amendment constrains *Congress*, not the people.

    Further, it seems to me that if I have the right to picket BoomBoomGenocide Corp, I have the right to picket even the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, let alone Scientology. Wouldn't ruling otherwise constitute an "establishment" of religion?

    IANAL, and if that matters, let's get us some torches and pitchforks...

    --
    phunctor
    Have *you* been touched by His Noodly Appendage?

  76. fuck them by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    come for me fuckers

    i'd rather go out broke or jailed under false premises knowing i fought for something right than old rich comfortable and utterly pointless

    there are more important things in life than money, namely principles

    so bring it on you fucking fascist lawyer whores. bring it the fuck on you assholes

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:fuck them by axia777 · · Score: 1

      Right on man, I with you, fuck em with a brick!!!

    2. Re:fuck them by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Warning. CTS is a loon.

      He would have your beleagured Stephen Hawking dead. He is a 9/11 apologist. He hates different religions because they ARE different (And muslim, but thats aside the point).

      And he's making a dumb movie. hurrah.

      The Most Amazing Idiot.

      --
  77. Symbolic Throwing of The Chair by multipartmixed · · Score: 1
    Followed by recitation of scripture:

    "Fucking L. Ron Hubbard is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Scientology!"
    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  78. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cardinal Fang, bring in the comfy chair!

  79. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    beware the missile tom cruise

  80. Lessons from the Church of All Worlds by MS-06FZ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, most religions don't require you to pay to learn the religious texts. Donations and the like are "heavily encouraged" but not required. Well, the marks won't pay attention if it's free...
    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  81. Buddhists are screwed! by gosand · · Score: 1

    Boy, Buddhists are really screwed then. "If you see the Buddha along the road, do not look him in the eye and start dialing your lawyer" just doesn't have the same impact.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  82. Threatening a religion by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the US is trying to be far too "multiculrtural" and liberally-minded. The thinking goes that if Scientology can be criticised openly and insulted, then the Muslims can be as well. So can the Moonies and every other fringe group that considers itself a religion. Wicca, for example.

    Well, we have seen how amazingly tolerant the Muslim faith is towards any sort of criticism. They respond with riots and killings, not court actions. So you can consider it a small price to pay that for this law to be on the books that people are sent to jail for criticising a religion. Think of the alternative!

    Freedom of speach doesn't include the rights to criticise, inflame, insult or anything else that someone else finds personally offensive, especially in the US where the idea of "hate crimes" has latched on fully.

    1. Re:Threatening a religion by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice troll, there. Seriously nice. Well crafted, insidiously linking Islam to something else entirely, the whole deal. Fantastic stuff.

      Scientology pushed for charges to be made against Keith. This isn't about Islam, or multiculturalism (as much as that word clearly hurts you), but about Scientology's doctrine of using the law to harass critics, even without a conviction, to silence or discredit them. If what you said was true - that multiculturalism is to blame - then the multicultural places around the world would be having the exact same problems as are being discussed here. As they're not, your trollish behaviour is nicely outed for us all to see.

      9/10 for the post, though. Seriously good.

    2. Re:Threatening a religion by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Frankly,freedom of speech does mean we are free to criticize,praise or ignore religion,government,or the moron down the street.I'll say this once to end all confusion on the subject.
      "You have no right to 'not be offended'"!
      Let that soak in.....Now heres another tidbit.
      "Bad laws can be challenged,this is some of what court & appeals is about.Show a law to be injust,inept or just plain unconstitutional a few times and watch the legislation evaporate.
      Challenging this moronic political correctness is a patriotic thing to do.
      I take my hat off to those who point out organized religion is a joke as well as the morons who participate.
      I take my hat off to those who point out Muslims by order of their prophet are to kill non muslims.(in spite of those who candy coat it to mean something else far fetched.)
      I take my hat off and throw it way up in the air for those who point out L.Ron Hubbard was just a poor sci-fi author who figured out how to lead those willing to give up common sense and many dollars.
      I take off all my clothes and spread them around the place for those willing to debunk Democrat and Republican agendas as the lies and half truthes we endure while they chip away at the constitution.
      Yay for truth tellers who bravely face paid off judges and corporate law drones!
      Lets all be grateful for freedom of speech and contemptuous of the liars and socialists that would eliminate it for their own ends.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    3. Re:Threatening a religion by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      You need to learn a bit more before you rant about such things. It's not hard. Try reading a variety of things,
      or maybe watching PBS. In fact, there was an excellent (misnamed) series "America at a Crossroads" about Islam
      recently. It addressed a variety of issues around modern funamentalist Islam including "close mindedness"
      (which ain't so dissimilar from what you are advocating in your bashing of multi-culturalism and tolerance).

      http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/ especially http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/about/show_fait h_without_fear.html

      "Freedom of speach doesn't include the rights to criticise, inflame, insult or anything else..."
      Like fun it doesn't. There are very few things it does not cover, and the exclusions are fairly basic such as
      inciting to riot, "Kill the president!"...

      Now just to get the point across: Fuck Jehovah, Fuck Allah, Fuck Buddah, Fuck Moses and Fuck Xenu too.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    4. Re:Threatening a religion by Jonti · · Score: 1

      "Freedom of speach doesn't include the rights to criticise, inflame, insult or anything else that someone else finds personally offensive" That would mean freedom of speech doesn't include the right to make offensively stupid posts. I'm not sure you've thought this thru (y'daft muppet).

    5. Re:Threatening a religion by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Nice patronising comment there. Seriously, well done. Give yourself a bit pat on the back.

      Personally I think he had a valid point - if people were allowed to criticise Scientology, then they would be allowed to criticise all religions, which by their very nature, cannot stand up to criticism.

      Seems to be the American Way - if you can't compete, make it illegal for your competition to operate.

  83. you think you get weird looks? by sponga · · Score: 1

    well at least they get to watch movies

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154684&cid=129 71502
    "These are followed by 36 days worth of motion pictures - God, Devil, space opera, trains, cars, helicopters, crashes, stage etc. This R6 is 75,000,000 years ago and this planet and Confederation."

  84. Depends on the Atheist by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Atheists range from the "Everyone who believes something different than me is an idiot" crowd to the "People who believe something different are probably wrong, but most of them are nice people I respect" crowd. Unsurprisingly, the same came be said of Christians...

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
    1. Re:Depends on the Atheist by FireFury03 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Atheists range from the "Everyone who believes something different than me is an idiot" crowd to the "People who believe something different are probably wrong, but most of them are nice people I respect" crowd. Unsurprisingly, the same came be said of Christians...

      I'd go so far as to say Atheism should be considered a religion in it's own right. Atheists believe there is no God despite the fact that there is no direct evidence to support this belief, just as Christians (and various other religions) believe there is a God even though there is no direct evidence to support the belief.

      As a scientist, with no evidence either way I can accept that there may or may not be a God - I don't hold a strong belief one way or the other. Remember the basic scientific principles - a lack of evidence cannot disprove a theory.

      In any case, the problems caused by religion are usually not caused by the religion itself, but by the closed minds of the religion's followers. As far as I'm concerned, people can believe whatever they want to believe so long as they don't feel the need to impose their beliefs on other people.

    2. Re:Depends on the Atheist by bky1701 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd go so far as to say Atheism should be considered a religion in it's own right. Atheists believe there is no God despite the fact that there is no direct evidence to support this belief, just as Christians (and various other religions) believe there is a God even though there is no direct evidence to support the belief.
      Umm, no. Lack of something is the default. If you cannot prove god, then it's most reasonable to say there is no god. No "believe in lack of god". If you don't apply this reasoning, things get really, really strange. Can you prove the Borg aren't out there getting ready to attack us? Then I guess we need to start building up weapons... see?

      As a scientist, with no evidence either way I can accept that there may or may not be a God - I don't hold a strong belief one way or the other. Remember the basic scientific principles - a lack of evidence cannot disprove a theory.
      Nether does it prove one, and the default state is "not true".

      In any case, the problems caused by religion are usually not caused by the religion itself, but by the closed minds of the religion's followers. As far as I'm concerned, people can believe whatever they want to believe so long as they don't feel the need to impose their beliefs on other people.
      The problem is religion tends to bring in the weak-minded whom need it, and will then assume YOU need it as well, or that you are working with Satan.

      I am against religion like I am against adults talking to imaginary friends; they are about the same thing, anyway.
    3. Re:Depends on the Atheist by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns?

      If not, clearly you are a member of the Disbelievers In Invisible Pink Unicorns religion. You are probably also a member of the My Car is Not Going To Be Hit By A Diamond-Encrusted Meteorite On The Way To Work Tomorrow religion.

      Trust me, we're sick to the back teeth of the "Atheism is a religion too" argument.

      All religions I've come across have (in my estimation) such a low probability of being true that the only logical response is to live my life on the assumption they are false. Therefore I am an Atheist.

      (P.S. I'm also a scientist.)

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    4. Re:Depends on the Atheist by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Can you prove the Borg aren't out there getting ready to attack us? Then I guess we need to start building up weapons... see?

      False dichotomy. The possibility of an imminent Borg attack could be non-zero but very, very small. In that case, we wouldn't be able to prove anything and we wouldn't be justified in building weapons.

      It's the same with religions: nobody's scientifically proven the non-existence of god[s], but observations lead us to suspect that the chance of existence is small. Properly classified, this "belief" (or rather, lack thereof) is called "agnosticism," not "atheism."

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Depends on the Atheist by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      If we're going to get technical about the terms, 'agnosticism' is the belief that the existence/non-existence of god is inherently unknowable.

      The position that the probability* that (a/some) god exists is non-zero but very low is generally included in 'atheism'. (Especially by self-described atheists, as it is the position that most of us hold.) (You inclusion of this position in 'agnosticism' is, however, also fairly common.)

      Similarly, the position that P(god) is non-negligably different from both zero and one is commonly considered 'agnosticism', although this is not the original meaning of the word.

      The possibility of an imminent Borg attack could be non-zero but very, very small. In that case, we wouldn't be able to prove anything and we wouldn't be justified in building weapons.

      I.e. the probability of Borg attack is negligable (i.e. may be neglected). I would define atheism as the position/belief that P(god) is negligable.

      * For the mathematical philosophers among you, I'm using the Baysian concept of probability here.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    6. Re:Depends on the Atheist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd go so far as to say Atheism should be considered a religion in it's own right. Atheists believe there is no God despite the fact that there is no direct evidence to support this belief, just as Christians (and various other religions) believe there is a God even though there is no direct evidence to support the belief.

      Annoying codswallop. The only difference between me and a Christian is that I don't plead a Special Case for one particular god. Neither of us believe in Vishnu, Ahura-Mazda, Zeus, Ba'al, Marduk, Tane, Babd or Xenu. I'm just more consistent in my disbelief when I get to Jesus.

      Also there is plenty of direct evidence to prove any given god does not exist. Religions make direct claims about their gods, in some cases we can test these claims.

      Look on top of Mount Olympus. Any Zeus? Hera? No? They do not exist.

      Anyone driven over Bifrost recently? Pruned Yggdrasil? Poked Odin in the eye?

      The Christian bible claims that true believers are able to perform miracles. Any miracles recently? The Apostles could do them, why not current believers? The Bible also claims that when Jesus died the sky darkened, the earth quaked and the dead rose en-masse and wandered about Jerusalem. No corroborating evidence for these events can be found. Mary, a virgin, became pregnant with a boy. While parthenogenesis is possible where did Jesus get his 'Y' chromosome from? Is any of this believable?

      Christians are only 99% atheist. I am 100% atheist.

      My contention is that any posited god that is defined to have a direct and identifiable effect on the material world then becomes a potentially falsifiable theory. For all god definitions of this type that I have encountered I have either seen satisfactory evidence *against* their existence or zero good evidence *for* their existence.

      At this point most soft-deists start proposing some sort of nebulous cosmic trainspotter sort of god. At this point I do stop being an atheist, I become an apatheist. If the god you propose is 'pointless' then I don't care if it exists or not.

    7. Re:Depends on the Atheist by Ian+Alanai · · Score: 1

      I'd go so far as to say Atheism should be considered a religion in it's own right. Atheists believe there is no God despite the fact that there is no direct evidence to support this belief, just as Christians (and various other religions) believe there is a God even though there is no direct evidence to support the belief.

      Annoying codswallop. The only difference between me and a Christian is that I don't plead a Special Case for one particular god. Neither of us believe in Vishnu, Ahura-Mazda, Zeus, Ba'al, Marduk, Tane, Babd or Xenu. I'm just more consistent in my disbelief when I get to Jesus.

      Also there is plenty of direct evidence to prove any given god does not exist. Religions make direct claims about their gods, in some cases we can test these claims.

      Look on top of Mount Olympus. Any Zeus? Hera? No? They do not exist.

      Anyone driven over Bifrost recently? Pruned Yggdrasil? Poked Odin in the eye?

      The Christian bible claims that true believers are able to perform miracles. Any decent miracles today? The Apostles could do them, why not current believers? The Bible also claims that when Jesus died the sky darkened, the earth quaked and the dead rose en-masse and wandered about Jerusalem. No corroborating evidence for these events can be found. Mary, a virgin, became pregnant with a boy. While parthenogenesis is possible where did Jesus get his 'Y' chromosome from? Is any of this believable?

      Christians are only 99% atheist. I am 100% atheist.

      My contention is that any posited god that is defined to have a direct and identifiable effect on the material world then becomes a potentially falsifiable theory. For all god definitions of this type that I have encountered I have either seen satisfactory evidence *against* their existence or zero good evidence *for* their existence.

      At this point most soft-deists start proposing some sort of nebulous cosmic trainspotter sort of god. At this point I do stop being an atheist, I become an apatheist. If the god you propose is 'pointless' then I don't care if it exists or not.

      I took too long to write this post last time, and got ACed somehow. Sorry about the repeat

      --
      Whichever way you look at it, it's true. I'm not.
    8. Re:Depends on the Atheist by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Whatever the amount of unlikeliness, it's still unlikely enough. The chance the Borg exist is the chance god exists- the weapons are religion. The same reason you don't build weapons is the same reason religion is illogical. Theres also the fact the god you pray to is MOST LIKELY not the one that exists, same as the good chance the Borg will be unphased by our mass driver guns...

    9. Re:Depends on the Atheist by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      If you cannot prove god, then it's most reasonable to say there is no god.

      And if at a later date some proof is found then you would have been proved wrong. In a similar way that not that long ago there was no proof that the earth was round, that the solarsystem wasn't geocentric, that quantum effects were real, etc - if you forever believe that a lack of evidence proves the nonexistance of something then you will constantly be proved wrong as new evidence is uncovered. I prefer to believe that without evidence you cannot know one way or the other - you can only say (with very vague certainty) that one way is a bit more likely to be correct.

      Can you prove the Borg aren't out there getting ready to attack us?

      No, I can't prove that at all. However, many reputable scientists believe that there may well be life elsewhere in the universe even though there is no evidence to support this belief.

      The problem is religion tends to bring in the weak-minded whom need it, and will then assume YOU need it as well ...
      I am against religion like I am against adults talking to imaginary friends; they are about the same thing, anyway.


      I'm not sure how you being against religion is any different to someone religious being against Atheism - both of you are simply showing a lack of respect for the other person's beliefs and _that_ is what leads to wars.

    10. Re:Depends on the Atheist by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Do you believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns?

      I have no reason either to beleive or not to believe in them, but since the existance of invisible pink unicorns doesn't affect me in the slightest then it falls into the "things I don't care about" category. If you want to believe or disbelieve in them then that's up to you - just don't force your beliefs on anyone else.

      All religions I've come across have (in my estimation) such a low probability of being true that the only logical response is to live my life on the assumption they are false. Therefore I am an Atheist.

      But you are basing your estimation on a complete absence of evidence. If you ask someone very religious to estimate the probability of their religion being true they would probably tell you it's very high - again, this is an estimation based on exactly the same complete absence of evidence. I really see no difference - you have faith that there is no God, a Christian has faith that there is a God - there's no evidence one way or the other so how can you possibly state that one of a religion and the other one is not?

    11. Re:Depends on the Atheist by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      You've missed the point; every hypothesis has an H(0), the I am not true hypothesis.

      Without evidence to support H(1): GOd exists, the default is H(0) - and at this point you have not proved the H(0) is correct, but simply you could not disprove it. THey are two entirely different concepts, which you dont appear to understand.

      That is the inherent superiority of a scientific approach - once enough proof is found, you flip to H(1) and you can carry on. With religion there is not that approach - it is H(1) always, no matter the lack of evidence, because "I say so" is used.

  85. For UK readers, Mondays Panorama about Scientology by MythMoth · · Score: 4, Informative

    (For non-UK readers, Panorama is the BBC's flagship investigative journalism programme)

    Panorama
    Monday 14 May
    8:30pm - 9:00pm
    BBC1
    Scientology and Me

    --
    --- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
  86. Let's all do the Xenu by nickspoon · · Score: 1

    Where has the common sense we once cherished for survival in the wilderness disappeared to? Is it some kind of evolutionary feature? Was stolen by aliens to make cakes out of?

    Has anybody ever considered reductio ad absurdum? Step back, look at it. Xenu, ruler of the galaxy, blows up aliens, then brainwashes their souls, which enter humans, so you have to pay lots of money to get rid of them. Strip away the layers of 'making you a better person', and that's what you're left with. Of course, you can say "It's a religion if people believe in it", but never has anyone gone to jail for saying that murdering each other would be a really bad thing to do, even if people do believe that might somehow benefit society, or for saying that no, the sky is actually blue, not tartan. It's this obsession with not offending anyone even if it means allowing them to be driven insane or manipulated that allows the Church of Scientology to do what it does, under the banner of religion, at the discredit of real religions which teach real values.

    1. Re:Let's all do the Xenu by Darby · · Score: 1

      It's this obsession with not offending anyone even if it means allowing them to be driven insane or manipulated that allows the Church of Scientology to do what it does, under the banner of religion, at the discredit of real religions which teach real values.

      If you actually look at what most religions say versus what they do, you'll realize that pretty much the only "value" taught by them is hypocrisy.

  87. *sigh* by khasim · · Score: 1

    Force is the only means to guarantee your so-called rights. Period, the end. Right to live? Not if I fucking kill you.

    Yes, I feel so threatened. You cannot even afford a gun. Not to mention the transportation to my island where my family and I live in our fortress surrounded by my paid body guards.

    Your entire premise is based upon your belief that no other sources of power exist. That we are all equal and that you'd have some chance to stand toe-to-toe with me.

    Excuse me. I'm writing a check to have someone beat you up.

    It's called conditioning.

    It's called "family" and human beings usually form bonds to it. It's part of the herd mentality. Family members will work to protect other family members.

    Just because it contradicts your position does not mean that it does not exist.

    Religion uses the carrot and the stick, it is a threat of violence in some religions - going to hell to burn in eternal flame.

    While in others there is not. And in neither case is the force ever applied. No one has ever been sent to Hell for a week because they didn't obey the priest. No one gets Heaven for a week when they do really good.

    Without more force than the "bad guys", someone just comes and steals your money, or the results of spending it.

    Did you miss the point? It seems that you did.

    Economic power means that I can reach beyond my physical reach. I can PAY someone to beat you up. All you can do is try to reach me yourself. I can pay 10 people to beat up 10 other people AT THE SAME TIME.

    But my 10 victims would have no problem beating you up with 10 to 1 odds.

    I have more POWER than you do. Because ECONOMICAL POWER does exist (despite your claims otherwise).

    It all comes back to force - and, it is to be hoped, judiciously applied force.

    No. It does not. Go ahead and show me how you (an outsider) can beat the family loyalty out of someone in my family.

    A quick example, you show up at my door with 4 people who don't like you. You start hitting someone in my family (5 people total).

    5 people from my family will start beating on you.

    None of the 4 people who don't like you will start beating on us.

    Family is a source of power. Whether you want to accept it or not.

    But the simple fact is that you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE. You could experience cardiac arrest and keel over any time.

    So your position is that I don't have a Right to life .... because I'm not immortal.

    Yeah, you might want to work on that a bit.

    If you consider that simple truth (if I have a right to life, I demand that the government resurrect me when I die!) then you will see how ridiculous claims of innate rights are, aside from one - the right to attempt anything you like. But there are consequences...

    Ummmm, Rights are NOT provided by the government.

    Your Right to life means that no one has the Right to take your life. Not that the government makes you immortal.
    1. Re:*sigh* by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Your entire premise is based upon your belief that no other sources of power exist. That we are all equal and that you'd have some chance to stand toe-to-toe with me.

      So you admit that there is no right, only what you can enforce?

      It's called "family" and human beings usually form bonds to it. It's part of the herd mentality. Family members will work to protect other family members. Just because it contradicts your position does not mean that it does not exist.

      There are two factors in this magical force which you refer to as "family". One is a pheromonal influence with which we recognize our mother. The other is that we are conditioned to behave in a family unit.

      It is not built in. I do not get a warm fuzzy feeling when I think about my family. But then, I lack the conditioning, because my father was an absent alcoholic during most of my childhood and an asshole when he was around, and my mother was manic-depressive and I couldn't stand to be around her. I have two half-brothers (same father) who are assholes and ex-cons.

      "Family" is not some inviolable principle.

      Economic power means that I can reach beyond my physical reach. I can PAY someone to beat you up. All you can do is try to reach me yourself. I can pay 10 people to beat up 10 other people AT THE SAME TIME.

      There are kinds of power other than economic. Your simple read on this is spectacularly naive.

      So your position is that I don't have a Right to life .... because I'm not immortal. Yeah, you might want to work on that a bit.

      A right is inviolable. You will one day die or be killed. Therefore you do not have a right to life. If you did, then someone would be obligated to come along and resurrect you if you died. It's not going to happen, therefore you do not have a right to life, QED and all that.

      Your Right to life means that no one has the Right to take your life. Not that the government makes you immortal.

      Rights are either inviolable or they aren't. Not only will you die someday, but the government can not and will not prevent someone from taking your life. They can only punish people for doing bad things, and even that doesn't always happen. Also, the government will actually take your life in certain circumstances, which makes the whole "right to life" thing the biggest piece of hypocrisy ever.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:*sigh* by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Rights are either inviolable or they aren't.
      Correct. They are not inviolable. A right is inalienable, which is far different. It's a simple mistake, really, but it taints your entire discussion since it puts your argument on a false track.

      You do not understand what a right is, please stop discussing rights until you understand the meaning that everyone else uses.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  88. This is the consequence of 'Hate Crime' laws by Banner · · Score: 1

    And why hate crime laws are wrong. You get people arrested solely for saying things others think are wrong. It's called thought control and religions like scientology are all for that! It's how they make their money.

  89. Southpark - trapped in the closet by MrKaos · · Score: 1
    I was in tears laughing at the end of the "Trapped in the Closet" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapped_in_the_Closet _(South_Park) episode. I noted with amusment at the end of the southpark episode that the whole thing was written by Jon and Jan Smith. But now I guess they were probably less worried about a litigous Tom Cruise than Scientology getting stuck into them.

    It's galling that they have been an effective impediment to raising awareness about a Space Elevator's benefit to mankind, and potentially delaying investment from the European community, but maybe that was their plan all along. Maybe they are too scared to go back into space after what happened to our ethereal souls the last time we were there in alien form.

    Frankly they give me the creeps. I can understand, for example, that Islamic doctrine finds images of mohhammed offensive, but quasi-religious attacks on free speech are equally offensive, and no sense of humour means double plus extra creepy.

    Scientology, as a religion, demonstrates it is not credible enough to stand up to ridicule, if it could, it would have some credibilty.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  90. Better value for your ridiculous dollar. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    is this any less plausible than talking serpents, men walking on water, water turning to wine, immaculate conception, talking bushfires, resurrection or giants that live 800 years but leave no bones?

    Yeah, but the Christers aren't out to charge you a cool $1.5M or whatever to hear their ridiculous story. In fact, they'll pretty much tell it to anyone who'll listen, for free. They also tend not to sue people for reprinting their texts (which, again, they will send you, for free).

    Doesn't make it any less ridiculous, but it's a lot cheaper.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Better value for your ridiculous dollar. by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Informative

      [pendantic mode]
      Actually, while may Christian based churches today operate in that manner, if you study the history of the Roman Catholic church, especially the Reformation period, you'd see they acted just about exactly as the Scientologist do today.

      The Church punished people who attempted to bring the Bible to the masses, because that cut into the Church's lucrative business of being the middle-man between God and the rest of us. Prior to the illegal publications of bibles translated into English, only a select few who knew Latin had the access to the biblical texts we take for granted today.

      As far as Scientology goes, it's about as corrupt as any religion. The lay person seems about as sincere as any, and the leadership seems just as willing to compromise principles for power. I don't see anything different there than I do for the other main stream religions.[/pendantic mode]

    2. Re:Better value for your ridiculous dollar. by bentcd · · Score: 1

      The Church punished people who attempted to bring the Bible to the masses, because that cut into the Church's lucrative business of being the middle-man between God and the rest of us.
      While there is certainly strong financial and political motivation for acting as you describe, it also needs to be pointed out that there is a strong philosophical argument for this mode of behaviour. In short, Christian philosophy has held (since Thomas Aquinas I think, if not earlier) that you need a high level of education and enlightenment in order to make proper sense of what God is. If a layman without this understanding were to be confronted with the more esoteric knowledge to soon, it would only confuse him and he would reach very wrong conclusions. For this reason, the layman needs to have a more knowledgable person (i.e. a priest) help him navigate the religion and shouldn't be allowed to study it on his own as some sort of hobby. While this is certainly an arrogant attitude, it's still based upon a noble intention (that is, not to confuse the common people with overly complicated theories).
      For this reason, you would find discussions among learned clergy that would have been considered heresy if discussed among laypersons. After all, highly educated clergy would not be led astray by false ideas the way a layman might. (I have seen suggestions that the main reason Gallileo was persecuted by the church was that he tried to bring the astronomical debate out among the common people before the case had been settled by the academics - that particular debate had been done openly up to then, but confined to academic circles.)
      Of course, the Scientologists could claim the same approach: the only reason the whole Xenu tyranny story seems ridiculous to most of us is that we lack the necessary knowledge to actually understand it. Others would say that it's because most of us aren't sufficiently brain-washed to buy it hook line and sinker :-)

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
  91. Funny that you mention Heinlein... by symbolset · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since Scientology and the Universal Life Church are actually what happened when Hubbard and Heinlein got into a competition to see who could invent the more popular religion. Hubbard won, but only because RAH's peaked first and he got freaked out by hippies making pilgrimages to his home.

    Personally I prefer Heinlein's, but to each his own. Grok?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Funny that you mention Heinlein... by senor_burt · · Score: 1
      Not to nitpick... but Heinlein wasn't involved with the Universal Life Church. It was Reverend Kirby J. Hensley who founded that church.

      Robert Heinlein was mistakenly associated with the Church of All Worlds, inspired by Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.

      I'm ordained by the ULC, and it's nothing like either the CAW or Scientology. It's quite benign, and allows people to bring their own individualism and belief system, is antithetical to doctrine or orthodoxy, and has the central tenet of doing right. They take donations, but don't charge for tiered education in the same way Scientology does. They offer 'degrees' for donations, which you can take with the same grain of sand with which you can take an ordaination.

      The Church of All Worlds... they sound a bit kooky, but what can you expect from those whose religion comes (albeit unintentionally) from a science fiction writer? I tend to lump the folk who put their religion down as "Jedi" into the same category.

      As long as the followers are harmless, and leave non-believers well enough alone, I've got no problem with those of faith. As to the other sort of faithful, well...

  92. Scientology is fucked up by ZoomZoomZoombot · · Score: 1

    Thought these would be good to add http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elw9e9LJIwQ - Scientology's Military http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW8ZqGSkXjI - Scientology and Children's RPF http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZjNFZFxU6c - Ex-Scientologist talks about criminal methods http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvfW2RpGtaI - About Xenu and finances http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkpnYR_Sz9Y - Formation of Sea Org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZHZIdwY3nk - Recruitment and Blackmail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou82SuPR03o - Scientology and cameras http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocw90W44Boc - "What are your crimes?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYS7SpFTEI- Scientology harrassing a German critic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOsg7D7HyCQ - Investigation into Scientology's Narconon, Fox 13 part b http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVviXHJTr_Q - Investigation into Scientology's Narconon, Fox 13 part b http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27tOJJ1S8ZI - Expose into Scientology's ties to Narconon part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOu-Yg-Wtww - Expose into Scientology's ties to Narconon part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27tOJJ1S8ZI - Expose into Scientology's ties to Narconon part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEDwq7EC4HQ- Undercover audio from Scientology's Volunteer Ministers bragging about keeping psychiatrists away Yep, Scientology is fucked up

    1. Re:Scientology is fucked up by ZoomZoomZoombot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thought these would be good to add the the thread, now with more organization this time

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elw9e9LJIwQ - Scientology's Military
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW8ZqGSkXjI - Scientology and Children's RPF
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZjNFZFxU6c - Ex-Scientologist talks about criminal methods
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvfW2RpGtaI - About Xenu and finances
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkpnYR_Sz9Y - Formation of Sea Org
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZHZIdwY3nk - Recruitment and Blackmail
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou82SuPR03o - Scientology and cameras
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocw90W44Boc - "What are your crimes?"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYS7SpFTEI- Scientology harrassing a German critic

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOsg7D7HyCQ - Investigation into Scientology's Narconon, Fox 13 part b
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVviXHJTr_Q - Investigation into Scientology's Narconon, Fox 13 part b

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27tOJJ1S8ZI - Expose into Scientology's ties to Narconon part 1
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOu-Yg-Wtww - Expose into Scientology's ties to Narconon part 2
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27tOJJ1S8ZI - Expose into Scientology's ties to Narconon part 3

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEDwq7EC4HQ- Undercover audio from Scientology's Volunteer Ministers bragging about keeping psychiatrists away

      Yep, Scientology is fucked up

  93. Heads up liberals and moralists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when well meaning, feel good measures meant to protect groups from hate speech (not to mention various isms and tions) meet the real world. They just become yet another instrument the powers that be can use to persecute individuals. Yes, that means YOU, and me. Just remember this next time you think there ought to be a law to protect class X: if a system can be gamed, it will be gamed. By groups you probably dislike. And we have yet to find omniscient lawyers capable of writing laws impervious to gaming. I doubt we ever will.

    Giving the government more power is dangerous because that power almost always serves the monied and entrenched interests. These people are not your friends. They only serve your interests as long as it serves them. As soon as it doesn't, watch out. The very power you championed will be turned against you. Restricting government coercion is the better way to go, because it gives you room to end discrimination, racism, bigotry and various "thought crimes" through direct, private action. </EndRant>

  94. Who cares about plausible... by deesine · · Score: 1

    at least Christianity is free, as in you can point out all its silliness and implausibility without fear of being sued, sent to jail, or forced to take info off your website.

    --
    damaged by dogma
    1. Re:Who cares about plausible... by Lovesquid · · Score: 1

      Today, yes. In the past, not so much. Ever hear of the Holy Roman Empire? The inquisition? Witch hunts? Galileo? Martin Luther? Hundreds of years of history tell another story entirely.

  95. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by l4m3z0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if Keith had been allowed to put the fact that it was Scientology he was picketing (rather than making it sound like a real church) the jury would have acquitted him

    This implies that its acceptable to picket Scientogoly(a fake church) while it is wrong to picket a "real" church, ie real as in christian? Just what kind of bigoted ridiculousness is this, no matter what church it is, it is acceptable(ie constitutionaly protected) to picket and protest its presence.

  96. Darth Xenu? Ha! by MS-06FZ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Darth Xenu (Warrior Princess) has got nothin' on good ol' Archangel Foster. Fosterites don't need no stinkin' California Law to protect them - the "Spirit In Action League" is ready to come to town and bust some heads...

    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  97. Re:For UK readers, Mondays Panorama about Scientol by Hartley · · Score: 2, Informative

    For non-UK readers, Panorama programmes are available online at the BBC website for a long while after transmission.

    "John Sweeney investigates the Church of Scientology, endorsed by some major Hollywood celebrities, but which continues to face the criticism that it is less of a religion and more of a cult. Some former members claim the Church uses a mind control technique to put opponents at a psychological disadvantage. During the course of his investigation, Sweeney is shouted at, spied on, visited in his hotel at midnight and chased around the streets of LA by strangers in hire cars."

    but not presumably by Tom Cruise.

  98. BEST WAY TO FIGHT SCIENTOLOGY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best way to fight scientology is a war of resources.

    Scientology will inundate you with junk mail if you simply express any modicum of interest. So, sign up at every Scientology church in your state or area for more information. Do so under several names, And then... do nothing.

    Each magazine you get costs them several dollars.

    If enough people do this, Scientology will implode under its own promotional expense. Yes, I'm posting anonymously - Scientology scares the bajeezus out of me. But I enjoy throwing away several pounds of their junk mail every week!

  99. My latest journal entry deals with that question by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    Now, there *is* something to be said about venue restriction not covered in that entry.

    My own feeling however, is that even though I am descended from Jews and likely lost family members in the Holocaust, I would be inclined to defend the right of such a person to speak, even outside a synogogue.

    The proper response is not to arrest the person but rather to act in such a way as to demonstrate to the world what sort of individual is saying such crap. Killing the messanger is easy, but killing the message is a bit harder.

    Note this is not a hypothetical question for me. I belong to a spiritual organization which is interested in Old Norse/Germanic/Indo-European pagan ideas. We do not recognize race issues as an organization but due to the subject matter occasionally neonazis an Aryan Nation types show up (I usually point out that the only "Aryan Nation" is India, though perhaps Iran and Pakistan qualify, and suggest they emigrate).

    Rather than work to get such individuals expelled (which is my right due to the position I hold), I take a softer position: I start restrict and challenge such individuals on objective facts so as to expose their ignorance. Over time I am confident that I can either convince them of their errors or make them sufficiently uncomfortable as to leave. One who seeks truth should fear not falsehood.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  100. Silly Scientologists, hubburd was a mediocre scifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    author. He created scientology based on a bet that if he created a relegion that people will follow!
    All based on a bet!

  101. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Buran · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't get it either. We are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to protest has long been protected. No individual or organization has the right to not be offended. Shouldn't his action have been protected under the First Amendment? I would personally have looked into having my accuser prosecuted for violation of my civil rights.

  102. Islamists and Oprah Winfrey by linx4prs · · Score: 1

    Uh, they're gonna round up all the Islamists on this charge?? Then again, Oprah Winfrey was sued for $35 million by Texas ranchers for "defaming food" on her TV show when she hosted a vegetarian advocate :-)

  103. laughing all the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep spewing your pseudo-intellectualisms, it's quite entertaining...

    "Why complicate the issue when you can just look it up in the dictionary?"

    Ah, yes, the halmark of any good thesis.
    Boy, this is sounding more and more like a 3rd grade report on dinosaurs.

    "No such principles are observed by animals other than humans."

    Rights reflect the truth of how society operates (or wants to).
    Pack animals have a concept of what is beneficial to the pack, disruptive members are dealt with accordingly. That is the truth.

    "Nature puts forth only physics. There is no right or wrong."
    a) Then how do you have a concept of right or wrong in the first place? If not by nature, then how?
    b) Then your position can neither be right nor wrong, so what are you wasting your breath for?

    "There are only those laws upon which we have agreed to guide us."

    Based upon what? Why have we agreed to them?

    "But there is no natural principle that guarantees you freedom of speech"

    The natural principle that states you as a human have a mouth and the ability to speak?

    "And I would resist any claim that humans are somehow more correct than other animals."

    Then your opinion is worth nothing more than my dog's on this matter.

    "The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will realize that the entire concept of innate rights is simply mental masturbation, and if you want to have rights, you have to fight for them. That's how it works. Most people don't fight for them (I don't do much but educate, personally, but at least I do that much) and as a result we're losing them."

    And what do you care if we don't have "rights" in the first place?
    Can't have it both ways, you're contradicting yourself.

    In fact, some would say your entire chain of posts is pure "mental masturbation", and honestly, you are quite poor at it.

    1. Re:laughing all the way by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Pack animals have a concept of what is beneficial to the pack, disruptive members are dealt with accordingly. That is the truth.

      This is based not on arbitrary concepts of right and wrong, but of what is pragmatic. Packs don't work with multiple top dogs.

      "Nature puts forth only physics. There is no right or wrong."
      a) Then how do you have a concept of right or wrong in the first place? If not by nature, then how?

      There are basically two ways; the concept of providing freedom, and the concept of restricting it.

      Religions have given us restriction in the forms of systems of control designed to remake the world in the image of the religion's creator[s]. Governments have done the same thing and for the same reasons, but also for pragmatic ones (if people are running around tearing down the system, it won't last, and you can't tax people, control them, etc etc.) Philosophy has given us the concept of providing freedom, of certain rights which if we actually had them (and protected them, and guaranteed them) would make life theoretically better for everyone. But of course, since we can't, they're simple thought exercises and people have made far too much of them.

      b) Then your position can neither be right nor wrong, so what are you wasting your breath for?

      First of all, I'm not using voice recognition.

      Second, there's two kinds of "right". There's "rights" which are supposedly inalienable. This is a bunch of bullshit, of course. Every constitutional right (for example) can and will be broached by the government. And has already. First amendment? Sure, most of the time. But not all of the time, so that's not a right. Second amendment? The "stockpile" of weapons was the excuse used to park a torch on the escape hatch from the underground shelter in the Waco compound and set the buildings on fire, asphyxiating the men, women, and children inside. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

      The other kind of "right" is an appeal to morality, which usually gets mixed up with religion, and again is all bullshit. What makes sense is laws which regulate certain types of public behavior to avoid complications with "civilization", a word that basically means "the art of living in cities". This is basically a process of compromise; you compromise freedom for the benefits of living amongst many others.

      "There are only those laws upon which we have agreed to guide us."
      Based upon what? Why have we agreed to them?

      Because they are convenient and/or necessary for us to have certain things we want; see above.

      Of course there is another possibility; often they have been foisted off on a population through a system of religious control.

      And of course there are numerous other examples of fascism and brainwashing.

      "But there is no natural principle that guarantees you freedom of speech"
      The natural principle that states you as a human have a mouth and the ability to speak?

      I have a hand that I can make into a fist, and I can use it to hit you in the mouth. Does that mean that I have the right to do so?

      In fact, some would say your entire chain of posts is pure "mental masturbation", and honestly, you are quite poor at it.

      Well, it's true, I'll probably never convince most of you poor deluded bastards that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. But if you looked those two words up in the dictionary, and applied simple logic, you would know that it is true. Asserting that it is not is a simple denial of the meanings of the words and of certain simple realities of existence.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:laughing all the way by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Every constitutional right (for example) can and will be broached by the government. And has already.
      And though those rights have been trespassed upon, they exist; else it would be impossible for them to be broached.

      QED.

      Your argument is that rights are meaningless when you can't exercise them. Fine. But don't equate meaninglessness with nonexistence, since discussion of those rights is necessary to enforce the freedom for man to exercise them.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  104. Religion vs Church by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

    You have to seperate the belief from the organization. From the religion point of view, they are exactly the same. Bibles and the gospel weren't always free.

  105. Actually... that sounds like a specific religion by J_Omega · · Score: 1

    * Believe us or we'll set the spanish inquisition on you - Roman Catholicism
    * Believe us or when you die you'll be in perpetual torment - Roman Catholicism
    * Believe us or we'll sue you to hell - Roman Catholicism

    Born and raised a R.C., so I AM allowed this critique even if I don't currently follow.

    The Inquisition was instituded through the Holy See (the papacy.)
    Perpetual Torment? Yeah, R.C. has that in abundance. The guilt alone is hell.
    Sue you? Less evidence for me to present... however, the Inquisitors had law education. That's who came up with Canon Law!

  106. Signature? [OT] by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

    I googled and googled, but I couldn't find what your signature is related to--and that HAS to be some kind of great story.

    1. Re:Signature? [OT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's supposed to do that. You think "heh... that must have been a great story", even though there's no actual story behind it. It's called a one-liner.

    2. Re:Signature? [OT] by rworne · · Score: 1

      Actually it's a quote from a post of someone on a different forum.

      It seems he once got a car from a dealer that had some serious issues and the dealer would not cooperate despite numerous attempts to get a resolution to the problem.

      He responded by getting a demonstration permit, renting a chicken suit and parked the car on the street in front of the dealer with a banner stating "So-and-So sold me a lemon" and picketed the location while wearing a chicken suit carrying a sign that said the same.

      The dealer quickly came to a resolution of the problem afterwards.

      The last line of the post became my sig 'cause it was so damn funny. Maybe you had to be there.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  107. Re:Way too much OCD going on here by Alien54 · · Score: 1

    considering the news coverage if she the coroner went public with the threat, it would have been dangerous to make that ploy. given the quality of the news coverage, it is not likely that she would have had problems getting people to believe her.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  108. L. Ron Hubbard by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    L. Ron Hubbard was mostly likely insane, I'm not a psychologist, but I have spent much time helping mentally ill people recover, I think he was Schitzophrenic. Paranoid delusions, delusions of power, fear of psych meds... Why would he hate Psychatry so very much, unless he had contact with them? One disturbing thing I've seen is that Scientology activly recruits from mental hospitals!

      Schitzophrenia has two sides, sometimes you feel terrible, like the entire world hates you; sometimes you feel like a god, immortal and wonderful. and when you are in each state, you can't even conceive the other one. I've seen people off their meds go from laughing giddy, to believing that they have never been happy in the space of 15 seconds.

      If you take your meds, you lose the Highs, but also the Lows. because you lose the Highs, and are having paranoid delusions, it's common to think that the medications are bad, and the doctors are trying to poison you. (a belief of L. Ron's) Because of the auditory hallucinations, you may think your body is occupied by multiple entities (a belief of L. Ron's), and come up with a bizzarre world-view that attempts to explain the world that you are perceiving (Scientology or TimeCube)

      One possible trait of Schitzophrenia is a difficulty producing 'normal' emotional responses, aka 'Flat Affect'. people with this symptom may appear emotionless, and disinterested (like the VT shooter, as he was decribed before the shootings). My personal thought is that someone with this symptom, if they are very smart, may be forced to 'fake' emotions in order to interact with others. this self-training from a young age could make someone a VERY good actor, as they have essentially acted their entire life. I suspect that Tom Cruise and possibly John Travola may be in this situation. Unfortunetly as they aged they may have started showing other signs of Schizophreneia, were urged to take medication, rebelled, and then joined a cult that supported their decision... Think about Tom on Oprah and a 'giddy high'. I think Tom Cruise is intelligent, and a great actor, but without meds he may get progressivly less sane.

      No matter how smart you are, with a mental disorder warping your perceptions and emotions, eventually something bad may occur by doing something that seems entirely appropriate at the time. If your 'Angel' is telling you that someone is trying to kill you, and your angel is never wrong, shouldn't you attack them in self defense first? If your uncle has lung cancer, and you can 'see' where it is, shouldn't you take a kitchen knife and cut it out? A good friend of mine came to these conclusions, fortunetly nothing seriously wrong happened, and he's now on medications instead of prison for attempted murder, or worse. (like the VT shootings, where my conclusion is the guy went insane, and detached from society... without support of others he rereated into paranoid delusions that ended in a pre-emptive attack, which in his mind was fully justified)

      Unfortunetly, it's difficult to seperate 'Mental Illness', from 'Religion'. So some mentally ill states have gained some protections under the law; I've read that in the Soviet Union, when they were being critisized for imprisioning to many people for disagreeing with the Party, they redefined mental illness so that disagreeing with the Party could result in your being declared mentally ill, and being locked up in a hospital; because any 'sane' person agrees with the Party. As much as the idea amuses me, I don't think voting republican should be grounds for be declared legally insane.

      Scientology, However, is not just using the law as a Shield, they are using it as a Weapon, and abusing the process. This is entirely wrong, and needs to be stopped. Like false rape accusations damage the chances of real justice for real victims; if Scientology keeps abusing their position as a 'religion' it will harm other genuine religions.

    1. Re:L. Ron Hubbard by turing_m · · Score: 1

      "Because of the auditory hallucinations, you may think your body is occupied by multiple entities (a belief of L. Ron's), and come up with a bizzarre world-view that attempts to explain the world that you are perceiving (Scientology or TimeCube)"

      Or perhaps you just want to come up with one of the first MLM schemes ever, use religion as a way to avoid taxes, and admit it to one of your fellow writer friends.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    2. Re:L. Ron Hubbard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You almost had up until the point you suggested that Tom Cruise and John Travolta were VERY good actors.

  109. how is that fair? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    would you support it if the Catholic Church censored parts of the Bible from you? did you support it when fundamentalist radicals called for death because of cartoons of Muhammad?

    that's comparable to this scientology imbroglio with keith henson

    meanwhile, comparing the secret documents of a religion (now there's an oxymoron), or the secret documents of a cult (now that makes sense: command and control requires secrets), with the priavte documents of an individual does not hold water logically

    or rather

    individual != organization

    understand?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  110. Personnaly ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny
    Personally, I welcome our Thetan overlords.

    And their various legal minions and lackeys.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Personnaly ... by Artoo45 · · Score: 1

      IF you welcome us, then get me and my monkey a beer . . . STUPID HUMAN, bwa ha ha ha ha ha! Love, Terl.

  111. NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION .,.. by wsanders · · Score: 1

    Our chief weapon is surprise! And Tom Cruise Missiles!

    Our TWO chief weapons ....

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  112. Haha you tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love watching your little reflexes get triggered.

    By the way, I'm on a mission from God. Give me a dollar. Look, I have a fancy building and a cool outfit!

  113. More proof that something is very wrong here by ZoomZoomZoombot · · Score: 1

    This guy gets the book thrown at him by the paramilitary mafia cult of Scientology for picketing outside of their compound, but Reverend Phelps is untouched for what he does.

  114. Not a problem by Concern · · Score: 3, Informative

    It doesn't really matter - it turns out that if you don't like what the IRS decides, you can get your way. All you have to do is mount a campaign of terror against the IRS until they give in.

    They just kept at it, year after year. 26 years, actually. They identified and targeted individual civil servants. They sued and blackmailed and swarmed them with PIs. They harassed their friends, families and associates. They spent uncounted millions. They ruined countless lives. Eventually, in '93, it worked. Read more here.

    I'm no fan of tax free religion period, but nothing should make you sicker about it than watching these wackadoos sponging off of hard working Americans.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  115. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The cult has a long, long history of illegally harassing critics, to the point of planting fake bomb threats (Operation Snow White), and using the confessional records of its members to blackmail them into silence (documented at www.xenu.net and the books by former members). They also succeeded in suing Cult Awareness Network into bankruptcy with approximately 1500 distinct lawsuits: these are *not* safe people to fight.

  116. answered zero of the questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of those responses and not one of them begins to scratch the surface of the questions asked.
    You are still hung up by your own bias and not able to look at the fundamental questions.

    "Then how do you have a concept of right or wrong in the first place? If not by nature, then how?"
    "There are basically two ways; the concept of providing freedom, and the concept of restricting it."

    Still no answer. Dig deeper. How do you have a concept of right and wrong (irregardless of the implementation)? Is the concept of right and wrong innate or not? Prove to me it isn't. You haven't done so because what you use is a cyclical argument.

    "But of course, since we can't, they're simple thought exercises and people have made far too much of them."

    What a joke! Just because someone cannot add, that does not deny the fact that 2+2=4. Just because someone cannot visually see the earth is round from the ground does not mean it is not a sphere.
    Implementation does not drive truth or deny existence, assuming so is faulty logic.

    "I have a hand that I can make into a fist, and I can use it to hit you in the mouth. Does that mean that I have the right to do so?"

    You say there are no rights, so the question is moot.

    "But if you looked those two words up in the dictionary, and applied simple logic, you would know that it is true."

    Life and complex topics never boil down to looking up words in the dictionary.
    Assuming so boils your argument down to a 3rd grade level.
    Also, where do those definitions come from? *Gasp*, vague human interpretation, not truth.
    Language is a construct designed to represent interpretation of truth (not truth itself), being a human construct it is not perfect.
    Relying on such makes an even bigger joke of your line of reasoning.

    1. Re:answered zero of the questions by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have a hand that I can make into a fist, and I can use it to hit you in the mouth. Does that mean that I have the right to do so?
      You say there are no rights, so the question is moot.

      This is why I hate ACs. This is a weasel answer constructed to avoid answering the question.

      Why can't you just answer the question? The person standing behind you telling you what to say was stumped?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:answered zero of the questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I hate ACs. This is a weasel answer constructed to avoid answering the question.
      You are referencing your own post, right?
  117. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by jsebrech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This implies that its acceptable to picket Scientogoly(a fake church) while it is wrong to picket a "real" church, ie real as in christian? Just what kind of bigoted ridiculousness is this, no matter what church it is, it is acceptable(ie constitutionaly protected) to picket and protest its presence.

    Just because you call something a religion doesn't mean it is. Scientology is a money-making scam, nothing more. That is not to say that there aren't any believers, but every scam has its believers.

    But, yes, fake religions, real religions, real presidents, it doesn't matter, you should be allowed to protest it unless you are being a danger to the public safety (which this guy wasn't). For a nation that protects freedom of faith to such a degree the US is pretty poor at protecting freedom of protesting/speech.

  118. IPO by TrashGUY · · Score: 0

    So when is this church making their offer. I'd invest

  119. Free Keith! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I talked to Keith on IRC, shortly after he'd fled to Canada. His wit and diverse expertise are incredible. You rarely find someone that well studied (and traveled) in the obscure byways of aerospace and military technology with his honesty and candor. Not to mention humor.

    He's one of the unsung geek heroes, and should be thought of as a national treasure. I suspect the warrants were issued for a number of political reasons, of which the Scientology movite is but one.

    When you see warrants that are spurious prima facie being vigorously pursued, it's a good indication that something else is going on. T.A.N.J.

  120. L Ron Hubbard Quotes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quotes from L. Ron Hubbard

    "The South African native is probably the one impossible person to train in the entire world-- he is probably impossible by any human standard." - Professional Auditor's Bulletin #119 9/1/1957

    "have you ever noticed how a Negro, in particular down south, where they're pretty close to the soil, personifies MEST? Anything around there -- a hat. They talk to them, you know. ``What'sa mattuh wi' you hat?'' They imbue them with personality." - "Route to Infinity" 5/21/1952

    "Unlike yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. [. . .] Thus the
    yellow and brown races are not very progressive, but, by and large, saner." - SCIENTOLOGY: THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THOUGHT

    "There's India. Wonderful place -- except for its people." - "The Control of Hysteria" lecture, 4/15/1957

    "Japanese is a baby talk" - NEW SLANT ON LIFE

    "You can put these things into the hands of some Chinese and send him to Hong Kong & we'll have cleared chinks." - "Secrets of the MEST Universe" lecture #1

    "Have you ever slept with a member of a race of another color?" - HCOPL 5/21/1961, 'The Only Valid Security
    Check'

    "The trouble with China is, there are too many chinks" - Excerpted from Hubbard's journal ...

    HCO PL 4 Jan 1966, "LRH Relationships to Orgs" - "Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not."

    "Science of Survival" - "The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such ['1.1, or covertly hostile, low-toned'] persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, or processing such person until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value. In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints."

    "There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow." ...

    "The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line - a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred - or simply quarantining them from the society.

    A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country."

  121. Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, Atheists are just those people who don't believe the nonsense.

    There are actual groups of Christian-haters; many in fact, from various backgrounds.

    As a Christian, you're a hell of a lot safer in an Atheist's house than in most of the rest of the world. Even in the houses of other Christians with a slightly different pedigree than oneself. Let alone crusading religions like some conservative Muslim sects, etc.

  122. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by trianglman · · Score: 1

    Um, Scientology, by US law, is a "real" church. Not only that, but any law that says you can't protest something conflicts with your first amendment rights. The fact that this guy ran away to plead asylum rather than face the courts and fight for his Constitutional rights makes him worse than just a fugitive (IMO). Running away as he did just gave the courts valid reasons to imprison him as well as the trumped up bs that Scientology is trying to push on him. It also weakens any appeal or counter suit that he might try to file against Scientology.

    Right or not about the pervasive power of Scientology, he only makes himself sound like a tin foil hatter.

    --
    Clones are people two.
  123. theres goes my karma by cWolfe · · Score: 1

    I hate all religions, especially those nutty ass scientologists. They have too much pull. We need more atheists in this country!

  124. Re:What I want to know... [FIXED] by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
    Sorry, screwed up the blockquotes there...

    Oppositional speech does not interfere with a person's right to worship freely.
    I wasn't talking about dissenting views, I was talking about direct threats, there is a big difference -- sorry if I didn't make it clear.

    This is where the Scientologist use of the CA law is abuse of that law.

    Are you familiar with the CA law and the climate under which it was passed?

    As an example, there are many people whom I allow to speak without trying to injure or confine them, but that doesn't constitute some kind of "implicit approval" of their opinions on my part.
    When the state knowingly allows people to threaten others with physical harm for their religious views, then the state is condoning that action, thus tacitly approving the action, thus tacitly denying the freedom of religion guaranteed by the CA Constitution.

    Just a note wrt CA law in general -- it tends to be progressive, meaning that the state acts in order to promote well-being, rather than just react to things that harm well-being. The validity of this is outside of the context of this discussion, but it influences the existence of the law in question.
    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  125. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Merely having to watch sacrilege is torture, but having it in all the media AND being taxed for sacrilege is art?

    Lovely.

    Even so, I still don't want to arrest the person who made that, though I wish they'd repent of it. I'm also not going to claim to be "tortured" by that act. And FWIW, in Gitmo, there have been _plenty_ of things that do qualify as torture, just not that.

    As for Bible Fight, given that it's made by CN, I'll have to go with "juvenile" although I can't play it right now (broken internet at home, filters at work). They've had good shows, but now they're replacing all of those with "hey look, I can draw gross things!" and puerile fart jokes as their best attempt at humor. They can't possibly be amusing unless you're stoned while watching them (and I note, although no connection was drawn, that one large pot smuggling ring that was recently busted was called the "Cartoon Network" ... I'm not entirely convinced that was coincidental). Of course, I should've seen this coming. The only worthwhile shows they ever had were imports, their original series are absolute dreck, and they recently announced that they won't be importing anything, only putting out something like four new series, not even one of which sounds the tiniest bit promising.

    Fridays will be ours, they say? Not on my TV. You made me download everything I actually wanted to watch, so I sure as hell won't be tuning in again any time soon. Wake me when you get some decent programming that doesn't involve monkeys, landfills, or live action. It's almost as painful to look at as the Power Rangers.

  126. Re:The end times by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

    Anonymous Cowards are usually trolls. Trolls are an unnatural abomination. Any unnatural abomination must be the work of Satan. Therefore anyone who posts as an Anonymous Coward on the subject of religion is really working for Satan.

    Go ahead, prove me wrong...

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  127. I don't know about the other stuff... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ...but as to some great flood, it's the one thing almost all ancient cultures recorded as happening. I find that just a bit beyond normal coincidence. Some details vary culture to culture obviously, but not the raw basic idea. Some time in the past there was a shedload more water in a fast time period, and flooded most everything important to humans out, especially all the folks who lived near coasts and river mouths-where the effects would have been much greater, and where a lot of ancient civilization was created and flourished. Even today, some huge part of humanity lives within short distances -say 200 miles or less- of an ocean or large river system, and a lot of very important large cities are on coasts and large rivers. What could have caused such a flood, I don't know, massive underwater vulcanism or quakes leading to huge tsunamis then some altered weather as so much more water vapor got dumped into the sky causing serious long term heavy rains-maybe something like that, but these flood stories are in our collective human records. Just recently they came up with evidence showing that the north sea used to be dry plains and was inhabited by humans, now it is all underwater. So who knows. All these cultures went to a lot of trouble to try and make sure that story got preserved, it must have made a pretty large impact on the survivors.

  128. Not quite right... by Garwulf · · Score: 1

    "As a human, you have rights. The constitution was created to guarantee your rights are not trampled on. The constitution does not grant anything, it protects right you alredy had from being violated by a government."

    Well, that's close, but not quite right. It would be more accurate to say this:

    As a human being, you are born with freedoms. These freedoms can be protected by the state, or taken away, or ignored. When a freedom is protected, it becomes a right. When a freedom is taken away, it becomes a crime. So, for example, my freedom to speak my mind is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (I'm a Canadian), but my freedom to murder the people around me has been taken away by the state (hence the criminal code).

    So, the US Constitution protects certain freedoms you already had by turning them into rights. And, that semantics lesson concluded, we now return you to your regularly scheduled Slashdot discussion.

    --
    Robert B. Marks
    Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
    1. Re:Not quite right... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      So, the US Constitution protects certain freedoms you already had by turning them into rights. And, that semantics lesson concluded, we now return you to your regularly scheduled Slashdot discussion
      Except, of course, that semantically your statement is incorrect. A right is not a freedom that has been protected by the state. Furthermore, freedom is a state of being, not an individual method of acting with freedom -- there is no such thing as "a freedom".

      Freedom is the state of not having restrictions placed upon exercise of your rights.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Not quite right... by Garwulf · · Score: 1

      "Except, of course, that semantically your statement is incorrect. A right is not a freedom that has been protected by the state. Furthermore, freedom is a state of being, not an individual method of acting with freedom -- there is no such thing as "a freedom".

      "Freedom is the state of not having restrictions placed upon exercise of your rights."

      Well, first of all, history bears out my definition of a right in relation to a freedom.

      However, your statement is also true - freedom (the state of being free) is indeed being free to exercise your rights, which are protected freedoms (the object of being free to do X).

      There are times that I think the English language needs more words to describe these concepts...

      --
      Robert B. Marks
      Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
    3. Re:Not quite right... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Well, first of all, history bears out my definition of a right in relation to a freedom.
      I'm curious, do you have an example? My readings of modern philosophy, while not recent, recall to me that the natural state of man is free, and that the right to such freedom is natural law as a corollary; this is different from having a collection of freedoms which are then granted as rights by the state.
      Even the Declaration of Independence bears this out:

      That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...
      Rights are intrinsic; governments are formed to protect these rights, not to establish them. Of course, this is only the Lockeian philosophy, but the modern philosophy of freedom is largely based upon Lockeian philosophy.

      Rousseau also refers to the natural rights of man; however, his theory of social contract includes the concept that man will forego natural rights in exchange for protection of freedom as a whole. This is more in line with the Hobbesian view, which is that man surrenders rights for safety.

      In all of these cases, natural rights exist regardless of freedom to exercise them, not vice versa. It is the natural rights of man which are modified to determine the freedoms of man.

      I think Hegel is more in line with your view. He states that freedom IS will, and as such exists simply as part of humanity; however, he said that each concept of freedom/will is accompanied by the corresponding right. As such, rights are not established by the state, but instead fundamental to freedom. Imoplicitly, then, they are acknowledged by the state, which leaves us still debating which came first, the right or the freedom (that is, if we differentiate between them). Even if theoretically we derive right from free will, or instead freedom as an exercise of natural rights with external resistance, I think in essence we're left with each arising simultaneously without the action of the state.

      All that said, I think you're correct about shortcomings in the vocabulary. I'm also not sure if when you refer to history, you're referring to philosophical history, or to the actions of historical states. If the latter, how does that fit into modern philosphy of freedom and rights? Does one say that feudal states simply didn't recognize the rights of man, or does one say that revolutionary governments granted those rights to man? Do we view them through the lens of contemporary philosophy (that the rights of man were nonexistant, in the Hobbesian view, only but granted at the will of the rights of the divine), or through the lens of modern philosophy?
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Not quite right... by Garwulf · · Score: 1

      Wow - this is quite a day - two discussions of this intellectual level on Slashdot - I wish it was like this more often.

      I think the keystone here is this question:

      "I'm also not sure if when you refer to history, you're referring to philosophical history, or to the actions of historical states. If the latter, how does that fit into modern philosphy of freedom and rights? Does one say that feudal states simply didn't recognize the rights of man, or does one say that revolutionary governments granted those rights to man? Do we view them through the lens of contemporary philosophy (that the rights of man were nonexistant, in the Hobbesian view, only but granted at the will of the rights of the divine), or through the lens of modern philosophy?"

      I get the feeling that you are approaching this as a philosopher, while I am approaching it as a historian - in short, I am referring to the actions of historical states, rather than the philosophical model of interpreting those actions. One of the most fascinating things I learned during my studies is that the idea of the individual right is actually a fairly recent one, and that is why I place freedoms first, and define a right as a freedom protected under law.

      Early societies tended to view the place of a human being in the world as defined by obligation, rather than individual rights. To use ancient Athens as an example (mainly because I'm co-writing a book about ancient Greek humour, and this is foremost in my mind right now), every individual functioned as a cog in society. If you violated the societal mores in a minor way, such as eating by yourself, you would be laughed at, shaming you, and forcing you to correct your actions. Those who had greater privileges didn't so much have the right to make use of them, but more the obligation to - there were people in Athens whose job was to wander around the marketplace with a rope covered in wet red paint, and stain the robes of any citizen caught outside when they should be voting - and the consequences for not being present during a vote could be severe.

      Now, if you go forward a few centuries to the 6th century AD/CE/whatever you want to call it, you see the Barbarian kingdoms, which are something different (my actual specialty, if I can be said to have one at this point, is Old English and Old Norse, so this is something I know a fair bit about). These kingdoms are only just developing a sense of society - under the law, they are a collection of individuals, each of whom has a monetary value (we know this because we have many of their law codes). So, if I was to go to person X and kill them, I have not committed a crime against society (as we have it), but committed a crime against that person. Their family can then demand settlement from me, or pursue a blood feud. Now, this is a "society" that has a code of laws, but a very lax sense of society, and while there are a number of freedoms in that culture, those laws really don't convey a sense that they had a concept of rights. If you did something to somebody, you had an obligation towards them or their family, and that's where it ended. So, plenty of freedom, but there really isn't any place (at least that I could find) in the law codes that demonstrate the concept of the individual right - just obligations that somebody has to meet.

      (Now, Tacitus earlier paints a slightly different picture, and in some cases they line up, but in some they don't - Tacitus does paint them as having a king who gets a share of any blood payment, which is not matched in codes like the Salic Laws - but, at the same time, he is interpreting this through Roman eyes, and when looking at primary sources, I prefer to go with the actual laws themselves rather than a second-hand interpretation.)

      In Europe (I specify because ancient Persia had the first human rights code, but we're not talking about a culture descended from them), the idea of individual rights protected by society begin to emerge around the 12th century, and it's quite nascent. My i

      --
      Robert B. Marks
      Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
    5. Re:Not quite right... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      One can think whatever one wants, but that doesn't make it true
      Some of this has to do with navel-gazing, I suppose -- but some would say that the revolutionary change in the philosophy of society (in the 18th-19th centuries) represents a complete shift that invalidates prior philosophies...

      But for thousands of years before that, those concepts of the rights of human beings were not reality, and for most of that time they weren't even thoughts.
      Exactly -- but at what point can we consider what is to invalidate what was? As Hegel wrote, "The History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom..." Progess here implies that new understanding supercedes old understanding, and that this is what we take from history. Can the Pandora's Box of natural personal rights be closed? If not, then surely in this case, we can't view modern society through the lessons learned in ancient society.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:Not quite right... by Garwulf · · Score: 1

      "but some would say that the revolutionary change in the philosophy of society (in the 18th-19th centuries) represents a complete shift that invalidates prior philosophies..."

      I would argue that while there is a shift, it doesn't necessarily invalidate what came before. Indeed, the thought of the 21st century is very different than the thought of the 12th, but to forget the thought of the 12th is a mistake, even if the world has changed. After all, there is an old saying: "those who forget history are condemned to repeat it." Knowing where you came from is as important as knowing where you are.

      "Exactly -- but at what point can we consider what is to invalidate what was? As Hegel wrote, "The History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom..." Progess here implies that new understanding supercedes old understanding, and that this is what we take from history. Can the Pandora's Box of natural personal rights be closed? If not, then surely in this case, we can't view modern society through the lessons learned in ancient society."

      This is hard for me to write, because this is one of those issues where you are absolutely right, and yet may be wrong on a different level - or perhaps we're both wrong, as will be proven 500 years from now by some philosopher who will change the world. Certainly, we are living in the 21st century, and our laws, mores, and philosophies must meet the needs of the present, regardless of what was in the past.

      But, we must also be keenly aware of the past. I rather like to look at it in terms of a story about Samuel Johnson, who when asked to refute Bishop Berkeley's statement that the world was an illusion, went and kicked a large rock, declaring "I refute it thus!" There's a lot of wisdom there - logic and reason must ultimately answer to reality itself. When we look back at the past, it's important to recognize that the inalienable civil rights that we find to be obvious have not always been so, and are not so even now in many parts of the world - and therefore the injustices that occurred in the past and the present should be fought against. People seem to think that when I say that there are "no such things as natural rights," I am declaring that these rights are worthless. In fact, it is far from it - the fact that they are so easily taken away, and so rare in the world even today makes them more precious to me than any right that might be granted in nature.

      As you can guess, I still have severe problems with obvious civil rights being labeled as "natural," precisely because "natural" suggests that they are from nature, and since nature has always been there, these rights must have always been there. But, as I showed in a previous post, they haven't been. The historical legacy that "natural" suggests simply isn't present. To take the Johnson story to the ridiculous, if somebody with "natural" rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness steps into a lion cage with a hungry lion, they'll very quickly discover that the very natural lion very quickly disregards those rights and eats him.

      --
      Robert B. Marks
      Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
    7. Re:Not quite right... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      The historical legacy that "natural" suggests simply isn't present. To take the Johnson story to the ridiculous, if somebody with "natural" rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness steps into a lion cage with a hungry lion, they'll very quickly discover that the very natural lion very quickly disregards those rights and eats him.
      Well, that type of example of the violability of rights is oft cited, and it doesn't quite apply. Rights are not inviolable; they are inalienable, which is very different. Removing from someone the freedom to exercise a right doesn't remove the right, which is where I think we're having a basic semantics problem. The right is fundamental, and exists whether or not it is exercised, permitted, or prohibited. One cannot remove a right from a person any more than one can remove the quality of being a goat from a goat. It's intrinsic. (Does that make any sense?)

      The freedom to exercise a right can be denied, which is true of the examples you point out, and continues to be the state of things in much of the world today. However, it is my contention that those rights still exist -- it is the rights that are inseparable from humanity, and the freedom to exercise them that can be denied or granted by the state.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:Not quite right... by Garwulf · · Score: 1

      "Well, that type of example of the violability of rights is oft cited, and it doesn't quite apply. Rights are not inviolable; they are inalienable, which is very different. Removing from someone the freedom to exercise a right doesn't remove the right, which is where I think we're having a basic semantics problem. The right is fundamental, and exists whether or not it is exercised, permitted, or prohibited. One cannot remove a right from a person any more than one can remove the quality of being a goat from a goat. It's intrinsic. (Does that make any sense?)"

      The way you've explained it makes perfect sense. I don't agree with it, but that's the historian in me, I guess.

      "The freedom to exercise a right can be denied, which is true of the examples you point out, and continues to be the state of things in much of the world today. However, it is my contention that those rights still exist -- it is the rights that are inseparable from humanity, and the freedom to exercise them that can be denied or granted by the state."

      I have a feeling there's not much more we can do with this discussion before it starts running in circles. What you call a "right" here, I call a "freedom." The concepts are similar but slightly different, and based on different views of philosophy as far as I can tell, but regardless of how we got there, both of us, I think, would defend the rights we have now as best as we are able.

      --
      Robert B. Marks
      Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
    9. Re:Not quite right... by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

      I could agree with this.

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
  129. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Our constitutional protections don't help much when the court is subverted by a criminal organization with a lot of money to spend on subverting the process. Read about the case, and brace yourself for what you'll find out about how a court can be corrupted in a small town.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  130. Occams Razor by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

    Learn it.

    1. Re:Occams Razor by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Learn it.

      Seems you need to learn it. From Wikipedia: "This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities."

      Notice that it says "simplest solution _tends_ to be the best one - it doesn't say it *is* the best one. Secondly, why would you consider all the complexities of evolution, quantum mechanics, etc to be "simpler" than the idea that there is just some omnipotent being making things happen?

  131. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by radish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because you call something a religion doesn't mean it is

    OK, so what does make something a religon? What's the definition? I'm not disagreeing with you that Scientology is at best rather absurd, but I don't see any clear way of distinguishing it from other more conventional religions other than by number of belivers or age - neither of which seem fair ways to judge legitimacy to me.

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  132. Re:Ok its decided - you americans ARE living in he by abb3w · · Score: 1

    RIAA, MPAA, NSA, CIA, FBI, IRS, Lawyers, Rich Scientologist perverts, corrupt, sold out congressmen/senators, AT&T, Verizon and countless more. just reading slashdot is enough to chill one from head to toe.

    On the bright side, the EFF and ACLU haven't given up yet. For that matter, the NRA is still pretty healthy if it gets that far.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  133. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by durin · · Score: 0, Troll

    Scientology is a money-making scam, nothing more

    In that case, what do you call christianity (you do know they still collect taxes, don't you).

    --
    Why, yes! I AM new here.
  134. A little clarification needed here... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    1. "Masses in the ...latin...of its time?"

          Of it's time? Huh? The reason I left the RC Church when I was 8 years old (our parents decided we could have some choice about religion at that age) was because the latin of it's time in Midwest USA was PIG LATIN- not even close to what that dude in the robes and funny hat was rattling off. I don't remember exactly when mass was performed in English (sometime in the 70's maybe?) but in the late 60's it was stiil done in a 'foreign' language that the biggest majority of USA population did not understand.

    2. "Not letting the illiterate peasants paw through a hand copied book, probably the only one that priest would ever get to make or have made?"

    a. I'll agree that this started this way, but even after Gutenberg's printing press was developed in 1450, that should have ended that. But instead, the theme seems to be 'keep the peasants ignorant so we can keep them under control'. The nobility and especially the crowns of that time were also part of the church hierarchy. (hint: this is one of the main reasons for seperation of Church and State in the USA)

    b. Keeping the 'unwashed masses' ignorant of just what was in the bible enabled the Church/State to 'fine tune' and 'tweak' the messages to further their powerbase and financial base.

    3. "Church leaders chosen by the church from its educated and learned?"

    Church leaders chosen by the Church/State from it's educated supporters? Tere, fixed that for you.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:A little clarification needed here... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      1. Yes and they have been screaming for it back ever since. So now what is mass in Latin or English? And let us not forget that if you wanted a not Latin religious service you could get one as far back as the 16th Century How exactly do you thing they converted the Germanic and other tribes?

      2. a. And for the most part their was, the press in a lot of ways broke the Church's back not by making the bible more wide spread, but by making it easier to get knowledge without going into a monastery. It brought about the Renaissance very quickly. But the assumption that you have made was that it was the Church keeping "The People" down. I ask you though, was it that, or the lack of a way to get knowledge out ala the press? I think the Internet is a similar revolution in politics. Were 17th Century Americans oppressed, or did they lack an easy means to get knowledge?

      2. b.Puh-lease. If you honestly thing the Royalty of the time gave much more than lip service to the Holy See pick up a book about The Holy Roman Empire Here is a clue: It Wasn't. Wasn't Holy, Roman, or an Empire. If you were royal the best way to make sure your kingdom (duchy, whatever) didn't split - even in your lifetime - was to pack up the other sons to a place that made them be poor for life. Was their cooperation? Yes at times their was, but not on the scale that you think their was.

      3. Fixed what? Find me a republican that gets put on the DNC, or a Google employee free to go work for Microsoft's Search division, or a Cardinal asked to sit in with the druids. Did they pull from their supporters? Sure, but find me a group that doesn't.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  135. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

    Just because you call something a religion doesn't mean it is. Scientology is a money-making scam, nothing more. That is not to say that there aren't any believers, but every scam has its believers.

    It's a religion - no mistaking it. A cult too is considered religion. I like this discussion of what a religion is.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  136. And also in Germany by BamZyth · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you want to work as a civil servant, you must sign a declaration stating that you are NOT a scientologist.

  137. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

    OK, so what does make something a religon? What's the definition? I'm not disagreeing with you that Scientology is at best rather absurd, but I don't see any clear way of distinguishing it from other more conventional religions other than by number of belivers or age - neither of which seem fair ways to judge legitimacy to me. Well apparently numbers isn't good enough, or Jedi would be a recognised religion by now...
  138. Re:Ok its decided - you americans ARE living in he by Toon+Moene · · Score: 1

    > RIAA, MPAA, NSA, CIA, FBI, IRS, Lawyers, Rich Scientologist perverts, corrupt, sold out
    > congressmen/senators, AT&T, Verizon and countless more.

    That's only part of the problem. The *real* problem is why South Koreans (and too many others) *still* think that country is a great place to raise their children ...

  139. But there is some evidence! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Informative

    In Herod's case there is at least a tomb so we can be reasonably sure that he existed and was alive around the time of Jesus' birth (~5BC). Also many of the "background" events in the bible are known to be historically accurate e.g. the Romans really did require everyone to return to the town of their birth to be taxed around 5 B.C. So while there is certainly not proof of all the events in the Bible the historical setting at least has evidence to support it.

    Where are the remains of the interplanetary craft? Where are the isotopes left over from the H bombs? The Hawaiian volcanoes were not even around 75 million years ago: the are only 11 million years old. If you don't even get the verifiable facts correct then what hope is there for the ones you cannot verify?

    1. Re:But there is some evidence! by Jonti · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "the Romans really did require everyone to return to the town of their birth to be taxed around 5 B.C." Nah. There's no evidence the Romans were that stupid, none at all. Or perhaps you can provide a link for this nugget of religiously believed disinformation? What would be the point of counting people where they were born rather than where they are now? And how would you know people went to the right place anyway? Why does only *one* of the four gospels mention it? It would have caused massive disruption for no good reason. And such a bizarre and irrational act would have left loads of traces in the Roman civil records and other literature. There are none.

    2. Re:But there is some evidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen what they pulled out of "herod's tomb"?

      There's nothing identifiable there. The claims are ridiculous given the evidence.

      The Roman taxation event in 5 B.C.E. is also of questionable accuracy. It appears that there may have been a taxation census around 6 C.E., but again the timeframe is off from the claimed existence of "jesus".

      I'm of course not saying that scientology is any less ridiculous, but the "evidence" you're proposing as support for that religion is simply not there either.

    3. Re:But there is some evidence! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      You are partly right - I got the date wrong - but a census was conducted around that time: they WERE that stupid! Apparently it was ~6 A.D. when Quirinius became governor of Syria, although there are possible indications that there might have been something earlier see the discussion here.

      In addition there is evidence from Chinese records that the star of Bethlehem was a particularly spectacular comet that was visible in 5BC. While it seems very clear that the gospels do not seem to get things quite correct. For example there was a 10 year gap between Herod's death and Quirinius becoming governor which suggests that if Jesus' birth did take place during the census Herod could not have still been king - although he would have been king at the time of the star of Bethlehem. But this is not really the point. The gospels were written several hundred years after the events surrounding Jesus' life so, as historical documents, it is not surprising that there may be some inconsistencies between them: just look at the myths surrounding the American revolution.

      The point is that the background events mentioned in the Bible were real and did occur. Jesus is an historical figure: there is significant evidence that he did exist regardless of whether or not you believe he was the son of god. This is the same for most other religions e.g. you do not have to be a muslim to believe that Mohammed existed or a Jew to believe that Moses existed. However in the case of scientology their claims are completely contrary to known history i.e. the historical record can actually disprove them unlike other religions.

    4. Re:But there is some evidence! by Jonti · · Score: 1

      I guess it didn't occur to the Romans just to ask people where they were born? It's really amazing they built an Empire that lasted centuries, given they were that stupid, isn't it?

      That's the thing about religion. Once you allow yourself to believe (to quote another poster here) that ...

      "a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree"

      ... well after you swallow all that, you can make yourself believe *anything*.

  140. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Buran · · Score: 1

    I have some familiarity with it but even considering the "church" I'm surprised it's this bad. Still, I would think that if the case gets appealed high enough it'll wind up in a larger venue/jurisdiction, whatever the term is, at some point; and cases in which jail is a possible consequence do result in an attorney provided at no charge to the defendant, so it's not quite the same as a civil case in which one has to pay for one's own lawyer.

    This needs to get publicized far more than it is and whoever is behind this needs to be forced to back down via public shaming. Seems to me like some prosecutor thought he/she could make a reputation out of this. (And they're right, if "violating civil rights" is something they want on their record, which I doubt).

    Appeal, appeal, appeal.

  141. um... he did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yep, hubbard started out as a fiction writer ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

  142. Re:Ok its decided - you americans ARE living in he by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

    yet it is a hell people around the world are trying to join. Go figure.

    --
    My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  143. THE UNFUNNY TRUTH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  144. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    Just because you call something a religion doesn't mean it is.
    Who gets to decide which set of magical beliefs are religion and which are not? You?

    What criteria do you use, o wise one?
    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  145. Yeah, it's off-topic by Gryle · · Score: 1

    The film version of Battlefield Earth is a travesty. While not a great masterpiece, the original book is significantly better than its film counterpart. I recommend it. And no, I'm not a Scientologist.

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  146. Right... by absurdist · · Score: 1

    ...and posting it twice doesn't make your made-up definition any more valid, or you any less of an idiot. But thanks for playing.

  147. Re:What I want to know... [FIXED] by cartman · · Score: 1

    When the state knowingly allows people to threaten others with physical harm for their religious views, then the state is condoning that action, thus tacitly approving the action, thus tacitly denying the freedom of religion guaranteed by the CA Constitution.

    Even with regard to threats, there should be wide latitude (in my opinion) before the state intervenes. The Supreme Court has a well-established and reasonable (in my opinion) set of criteria that determines whether threatening speech isn't protected. In order for a threat to be banned, it must be a serious, clear, specific threat that is made in an environment in which it's likely to be carried out. For example, if you were a mafia boss and said "I order my henchmen to execute John Doe on October 13" then it wouldn't be protected speech, because it would have been a clear, imminent threat that was intended seriously and was made in an environment in which it would likely have been carried out.

    In this case, the defendant was arrested for making obviously humorous remarks about cruise missiles, which apparently was a pun on Tom Cruise's name. The threat was neither clear nor specific, and obviously would not be carried out. In other words, he was prosecuted for making a joke at the expense of Scientology, and for picketing. Although I agree that people who seriously threaten religious people are not engaging in protected speech, this case seems to be quite different from that.

  148. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0

    "these are *not* safe people to fight."

    Which is why anybody who takes them on by picketing is an idiot. Henson gets no sympathy from me because he should have known better, given their known history. If you want to fuck Scientology up, there are more effective ways than picketing. Illegal ways, maybe - but you either want results or you don't.

    As Magneto put it, "From here it doesn't look like they're playing by your rules. Maybe it's time to play by theirs." You don't play by the rules when the other side doesn't. There are no rules in SpecWar, as Dick Marcinko puts it.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  149. Scientology is dangerous: by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    Scientology is dangerous, a few links for you copied from my web site: here, here, here, here, here, and here.

  150. Would you PLEASE STFU already? by absurdist · · Score: 1

    You've posted your pulled from your ass, completely self-invented (and completely bogus) redfinition twice and linked to it twice. We get it already. You're a fucking idiot with an obsessive-compulsive need to be noticed. Enough.

  151. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "CmdrTaco was essentially forced"

    Nobody forced him to do shit, essentially or otherwise. He decided that rather than go to court and protect his rights, he'd cave like a bitch.

    If I sound harsh, it's because I have no respect for people who allow others to abuse their rights, and that's exactly what CmdrPushover did. Thanks for making it harder for the rest of us douche.

  152. Bingo! by absurdist · · Score: 1

    "I'm just trying to get a clear distinction between cults and religion. As far as I can tell there's not one."

    We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen.

  153. Re:What I want to know... [FIXED] by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

    I totally agree with you, which is why I believe the incident in question to be abuse of the law; the remark failed to meet the 'clear and present danger' qualification for suppression. However, I still think the law protecting against real threats is necessary.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  154. The law in question: CA Penal Code 422.6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Here's the law that he was found guilty of violating in 422.6. This is part of California's "hate crimes" laws.

    No person, whether or not acting under color of law,
    shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate,
    interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free
    exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her
    by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or
    laws of the United States because of the other person's race, color,
    religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual
    orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has
    one or more of those characteristics.

    As you can see, it's incredibly vague. The law was passed in the 1990s, when 'hate crime' laws were in vogue in the US. The lawmakers' intention was not to protect Scientology or any other religion. In fact, it was intended to prevent violence (and threats of violence) against gays. Nice idea, but that doesn't excuse a bad law!

    Opponents of the law claimed it would be abused to restrict legitimate freedom of speech. Supporters accused opponents of being homophobic or even being actively in favor of violence against gays.

    Well, the opponents were right. The concept of a "hate crime" i.e. threatening by force to abridge someone's civil rights, is incredibly vague and can easily be perverted to cover almost any strong criticism, as happened in this case. The intentions behind the law were good, but the law itself is awful and can easily be abused.
    1. Re:The law in question: CA Penal Code 422.6 by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I don't believe it can impact words that aren't (true) threats, can it? That would clearly be unconstitutional.

      Although opening "harassment" is a whole can of worms when "feeling really, really bad" about what someone says to you can be interpreted as authorizing overriding freedom of speech (as it is in the workplace.)

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  155. Re:No guy, your boy fled because he's a coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That has to be the most stupid post I ever seen in slashdot.
    Please go back to the wild wild west and leave civilization to the civilized.

  156. Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just envisioned myriad tax auditors, small-town lawyers and sundry cult members reading this, pulling their hair and saying "They're presenting it all wrong!!! Something must be done!"

  157. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by MisaDaBinksX4evah · · Score: 1

    Scientology is at best rather absurd, but I don't see any clear way of distinguishing it from other more conventional religions

    Two words: FOR PROFIT

    --
    Misa no botha with yousa.
  158. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > every scam has its believers...But, yes, fake religions, real religions

    "Real" religions?

    In the quite unlikely event that you were to discover any omissions or inaccuracies on this page, please follow the instructions at the link.

    Thank you and good day.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  159. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You may have noticed that Magneto eventually *lost* his campaign?

    The world needs heroes. Mr. Henson seems to be one of them. I admire his courage, and those of people who speak out and act against fraud, corruption, theft, abuse, or murder. I also admire, respect, and support those who do so gracefully and within the rule of law: such people make better neighbors and colleagues for the long term. Mr. Henson's arrest for peaceful protest is, frankly, the result of lawyers who spend too much time being paid too much money to game the system and wear other people out.

    The fight of Scientology on the Internet is particularly instructive: their attempts to censor traffic, and the spam with which they tried to flood traffic, have helped make ISP's think about how to avoid both censorship and denial of service attacks in ways that protect against other abusers. Like a really nasty case of chickenpox, the experience in the childhood of the net helped strengthen our defenses against a far more dangerous infection later.

  160. Pitiful defense so far! by zahl2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Can someone explain why he is in jail now? If the case were in 2001... And it's a misdemeanor?

    I called the Attorney General's office, they said there were ways to protest against judges and whatnot. I'm not sure what a really useful thing to tell them is, but presumably more public exposure would help.

    So far /. seems to be the biggest news outlet this has hit. So he's probably screwed.

    To contact the California Attorney General's office, there is
    http://ag.ca.gov/contact/index.php
    (916) 322-3360

    But what do you say? Are we already overtaken?

    1. Re:Pitiful defense so far! by xxxeeennnuuu · · Score: 1

      Henson never served the year he was sentenced to by the scientology-controlled kangaroo court in Riverside County, California. Scientology learned that Henson was now in Arizona, and it instructed the Riverside County county to seek extradition.

      Extradition requires two extradition warrants, one signed by the governor of the extraditing state, and the other signed by the governor of the state where the fugitive is located. Both warrants have been signed, so Henson is being held without bail until he exhausts the very limited appeals available to him. Then, in all likelihood, he will be transfered to a jail in California, where scientology is eagerly waiting for the opportunity to spread false rumors that Henson is a child molester.

      This law applies: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?in Doc=/ars/13/03841.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

      You can learn far more about Henson's case than you ever wanted to know at http://www.operatingthetan.com/ If you just want the executive summary, you might prefer http://www.lermanet.com/books/henson.htm

    2. Re:Pitiful defense so far! by zahl2 · · Score: 1

      So is there evidence the DA or judge was corrupt? What details do we give? It sounds like mass protest write-ins would be most useful at this point.

    3. Re:Pitiful defense so far! by xxxeeennnuuu · · Score: 1

      See, for example, the 29 Apr 2007 entry on http://www.operatingthetan.com/, which links to an arrest warrant ordered by a retired judge with no connection (at that time) to Henson's case. There is a copy of the warrant at http://www.operatingthetan.com/extradition-from-ar izona-docs/first-warrant-enh.gif.

      The warrant does not appear on the court docket, which can be viewed online (links at http://www.operatingthetan.com/).

      The warrant, dated Sept 15 2000, claims Henson violated (among others), California Penal Code section 1320(A), failure to appear. The docket shows Henson appeared in Riverside County court before Judge Albert J. Wojcik on Sept 15 2000, and was released on his Own Recognizance.

      Henson has claimed since several days PRIOR to the Sept 15 2000 hearing, that he was never properly noticed about it and only learned of it by accident. If he had not learned of the hearing, he would have been in another city attending a deposition ordered for another scientology-driven court matter, and he would indeed have failed to appear at the Riverside County hearing.

      SEVEN MONTH LATER, the Riverside County prosecution maneuvered to bring Henson's case before the same retired judge that ordered the bogus warrant. The judge's conduct throughout this trial was unbelievable, but too long a story for a single post.

      Henson only learned of this warrant a few weeks ago, when it was sent to Arizona authorities by the Riverside County authorities, who either didn't know its significance or never expected Henson to see it.

      That's just one example. It's a particularly good one because the proof exists in corrupt Riverside County court's own records.

  161. Re:No guy, your boy fled because he's a coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you ACs Scientologists by any chance...?

  162. Heaven full of virgins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes! It's just like my favourite example. I had to listen to a "moderate" Christian friend claiming how ridiculous it was that Islamic fundamentalists believed that a martyr would be rewarded in heaven by a thousand virgins. But on a scale of ridiculousness, I would rank "heaven exists" at about 1000000 units and "heaven exists and is full of virgins waiting for martyrs" at 1000001.

  163. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

    The IRS. The charitable organization certificate is known as a "501c3", and it's a big fiscal deal for a lot of charities and churches, because it eliminates taxes on a lot of your fiscal affairs. It also buys you a lot of First Amendment protection in US courts.

  164. Yes, but... by absurdist · · Score: 1

    theirs comes with a warranty! Eternal salvation or double your money back! Such a deal!

  165. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by radish · · Score: 1

    Two words for you "Oral Roberts".

    I think you'll find that the CoS is not officially for-profit (I may be wrong, but I'd be surprised if I was) - all the money they take as donations is "officially" used to fund the activities of the religon itself. Much like the millions televangelists all over the US take from their congregations. None of that's spent on their own cars or mansions, no sir.

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  166. Re:No guy, your boy fled because he's a coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He ran because he was a criminal. Fuck him for his cowardice. He deserves what he gets.
    That's absurd. You say he should have been prepared. Prepared to do what? Running away from a morally bankrupt crime syndicate because of the real possibility that they may kill you is not cowardice. What should he do, strap on his guns and pretend he's the star of an action movie where one man takes on the mafia and wins?
  167. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by taniwha · · Score: 1

    sorry - I didn't mean to make that distinction personally - more I was more trying to point out that the rural jury might make that distinction and that Keith was denied the ability to talk about Scientology and their dirty tricks (which was the bulk of his case)

  168. you just spoke of a certain individual above by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    which i do not resemble in my beliefs at all

    stephen hawking is a god among men

    there is absolutely nothing wrong with islam. there is something wrong with fundamentalist islam. there is also something wrong with fundamentalist christianity. in other words, there is something wrong with fundamentalism

    now that i have nuetralized your prejudice of me, i would like to inform you that going through life with a small set of simpleminded stereotypes about the people around you only makes you out to be the dumb one. life is not a cartoon, so try to treat the people you meet in it as not the cartoon stereotypes that exist only in your head

    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you just spoke of a certain individual above by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      the troll (me) says....

      FEED MEE!!!

      --
  169. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Shouldn't his action have been protected under the First Amendment?

    Eh? What's that? Sounds like some antiquated 19th Century notion. Now we have Hate Crimes laws, Campaign Finace laws, attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, etc. Congress shall make no law..... just a fairy story, was never really there ya know. Anybody who says otherwise is just a dirty doubleplus ungood traitor.

    Seriously, this crap is the end product of political correctness. Once we crossed the threshold into "Crime Think" it was only a matter of time before everybody could point to a situation where their ox was getting gored. Yea you might think it is just grand when you are wielding the sword to shut up somebody YOU don't want to listen to or some obnoxious protester who is really pissing you off, but sooner or later it gets wielded by somebody ya don't like and THEN you get all pissy. Sorry citizen, the time to have fought this war was when it was first getting started. Congress shall make NO law was a defensible line in the sand, Congress shall make no law that I don't like is a fight you will never win.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  170. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let's just be clear about one thing: Scientology (the "applied religious philosophy") is indeed a 100% valid religion. The question is whether or not the Church of Scientology (the transnational corporation) is a religious organisation or not.

    The main thing that distinguishes CoS from just about every other religious organisation that I can think of is that you have to pay them money to find out what they actually believe.

    The overwhelming majority of mainstream religions will be happy to tell you. You ask a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or a Buddhist what they believe, and (assuming they're not busy right at that moment) they'll be happy to fill you in or tell you who can. Or you can go to any bookstore and buy books describing their beliefs and practises in some detail.

    There also still exist, in the world, "mystery religions". Mystery religions have an arcanum, some body of secret wisdom that is only revealed to initiates. I'm a bit dubious about these, personally, but still, the main differentiating factor between traditional mystery religions and the CoS is that in the CoS, the revealing of the arcanum is directly tied to the handing over of money.

    The other thing that distinguishes the CoS is its aggressive behaviour in attacking critics and splinter groups. It clearly doesn't act as if it believes in freedom of religion. Therefore it's not a religious organisation.

  171. Copyrights on Reality. by emjoi_gently · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The idea of copyrighting their Secrets seems just bizarre.
    It's like some physicist copyrighting String Theory. If it's the way the Universe is constructed, then how can you claim ownership of the fact?

    Xenu exists, then he exists. He's not some some designed commercial property. (Which, of course, he is)

  172. And the sheriff runs the jail and ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    When a [...] sheriff showing up with a search warrant [is a] member[] of the cult. [...] When the warrant specifies "documents" but the sheriff leaves with computers including screens, printers and even phones.

    And when the sheriff runs the jail where you will cool your heels while waiting for your appeal to be heard...

    And when part of the reason you were picketing them in the first place is that you know they declare people "enemies" and attack them extra-legally, and that you have reason to believe they have killed a number of their declared "enemies"...

    In such a situation, with such evidence that you believed to be true, would YOU believe you might have a "fatal accident" if you allowed yourself to be taken into custody?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  173. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This implies that its acceptable to picket Scientogoly(a fake church) while it is wrong to picket a "real" church, ie real as in christian? Just what kind of bigoted ridiculousness is this, no matter what church it is, it is acceptable(ie constitutionaly protected) to picket and protest its presence.

    Duh! You'd be up in arms if someone picketed the local Catholic Church, but would you give a shit if people picketed my "Church of the Right Brain"? Probably not. You'd probably drink the free beer and smoke the free reefer, too.

    BTW, I throwing a bring your own sign picket of my church this weekend.
  174. You missed the point by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1
    Not sure why parent got rated insightful, it looks like he didn't really read the post before replying.

    From grandparent:

    But, yes, fake religions, real religions, real presidents, it doesn't matter
    Grandparent is not stating that Scientology is fake, thus you can protest it. It making two seperate statements, one being that Scientology is fake. The other is that you should be allowed to protest anything you like, no matter how fake or real it is. There is no conflict or any need to define a "religion".
    --
    I lost my sig.
  175. Why not tax them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't quite understand why religious organization shall get special treatment on tax. All these organized religions run like businesses, and they all use their money and power to influence politics then gain long term benefits from it.

    I wouldn't agree to ban all organized religions, not even to ban those anti-social or anti-government ones like China does. But at least tax them, tax them heavily like alcohol and tobacco. In the end they are all just opium of the people, aren't they?

  176. Regarding "hate speech" and "interfering with..." by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    As to whether that law restricts your free speech, the claim is that "hate speech" is not protected by the Constitution, particularly when it interferes with the right of others to worship freely. The logic is that allowing people to threaten religions is implicit State approval of those threats.

    "Hate speech" and "hate crimes" are attempts to do an end-run around the constitutional guarantees. I suspect that they will eventually be struck down wherever they're raised up.

    "Hate {foo}" is "{foo}" directed against some particular "suspect (of being discriminated against) category" - such as people of particular skin colors, religions, etc.

    By creating enhanced punishments for perpetrators who victimize them, compared to perpetrators who victimize ordinary people for more ordinary reasons, "hate %ltfoo%gt" legislation creates privileged classes of people who are more protected by legal sanctions on their attackers. This violates the equal protection clause.

    Why should it be a more-penalized crime to bash a black than to bash a white? To bash a gay than to bash a straight? (And please don't say "It's also a hate crime to bash a straight BECAUSE he's straight." because you KNOW it won't be enforced that way.) Why should it be a more-penalized crime to beat and rob an Oriental because he's Oriental than to beat and rob a landlord because he's a landlord? And so on.

    Further, by making "religion" one of these categories - especially by making "interfering with a religion" a specific crime - the legislators have violated the First Amendment's "Establishment" clause: They've made organizations that are religious more protected than organizations with similar characteristics that are not.

    Why should it be a more-penalized act to interfere with a Catholic group than to interfere with Bhddhists? With Agnostics? With Objectivists?

    Finally, "Hate {foo}" crimes are "thought crimes": The same act is punished more or less depending on the ideology of the actor. It's appropriate to punish more for executing a pre-planned attack than for attacking in a temporary burst of outrage, and still less for damage caused by accident due to negligence. But beyond that the motivation is immaterial. Why should killing or maming somebody because "I didn't like his looks." be punished more because the aspect of "his looks" is the color of his skin than it is the twist of his lips? Maiming is maiming. Killing is killing. Robbing is robbing. The courts' time need not be wasted trying to divine the internal state of the perpetrator - or the police departments' time trying to beat it out of him - just to punish some people who "think wrongly" more than others who do the same harm.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  177. I believe we are both right. by symbolset · · Score: 1

    I recall RAH referring to it as the universal life church, not to be confused with the one you mentioned, or any other with the same name. I'll agree also that CAW is a better reference. In his writing the church was renamed several times.

    Grrr.. Now some obsessed fan will be compelled to prove me wrong. Where's a good comic book guy quote when you need one?

    As for generalizing about members, doctrine or dogma, I try to avoid assessing that unless their plan involves my demise or forcible conversion. People can believe whatever they will because fsm has altered their perception with his noodly appendage.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  178. Scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting anon for this.

    Someone should infiltrate their society and bring them down from the inside. Play their own game. Shell out the money with faith that it'll be returned (plus more) when the operation is complete.

    Work their way up to the highest levels and sink the ship.

    They are scum.

  179. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Yes, I would say picketing a bunch of confidence tricksters is acceptable - but also picketing a real church is also acceptable and legal in a lot of places. Most of the branches of Christianity in the USA descend from someone doing exactly that and nailing leaflets to a door.

    Remember part of the confidence trick is getting people to give them the same leeway that is given to people that cut up infant girls or marry the thirteen year old sister of their current wife and use religeon as an excuse. We should never abandon the basic rights of people just because somebody declares their gang a religeon for tax purposes or even if it is a long established religeon.

  180. How can you help? by xxxeeennnuuu · · Score: 1

    If you want to help Henson, please consider his request made earlier today.

    Henson asks that people see if any of the reporters who have done stories on California prison overcrowding would be interested in doing a story about how -- despite the overcrowding and consequent release of felons -- the Governator has signed an extradition warrant to bring back a 64-year-old man whose meds the citizens of California will have to pay for.

    http://www.operatingthetan.com/extradition-from-ar izona-docs/from-arel-2007-05-09.txt

  181. Clambake, by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    "Gonna have a clambake!"

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  182. Scientologists by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    Except that the scientologists really DO infilitrate governments, and DO use their members in positions of power to persecute and torment their critics.

  183. Amendment 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The standard woo is that it was never actually ratified, but the claimed authority is constitutional, not some vaguely-worded statute.

  184. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by asninn · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with hate crime laws, though? Motives have been considered for the purpose of determining the severity of a crime pretty much forever - if you steal 50 bucks worth of food to feed your hungry children, that's not going to get you the same sentence as stealing a 50 bucks DVD player for your own amusement, for example. Or, as an example that may be more relevant, if you catch your best friend cheating on you with your wife, pull out your gun in rage and shoot him, you're (probably) going to get less than you would if you decided to kill him in cold blood so his wife and you can collect his life insurance. Right?

    That's what it's all about - motives. Or, in other words, *hate* is still not outlawed; it's the *crime* part that matters. "Hate crime" does not mean that hate is a crime, it means that existing crimes are worse when they're committed solely out of hatred for any particular group, such as blacks, jews, homosexuals, or whatever.

    --
    butter the donkey
  185. All of them are absurd by jlehtira · · Score: 1

    OK, so what does make something a religon? What's the definition? I'm not disagreeing with you that Scientology is at best rather absurd, but I don't see any clear way of distinguishing it from other more conventional religions other than by number of belivers or age - neither of which seem fair ways to judge legitimacy to me.

    All religions are rather absurd. No need to distinguish them from each other really. Many people inherit religion from their parents, some are drawn to one that pleases them. Religious ideas are not legitimate, the more conventional ones are simply more conventional. It's OK to ritually cannibalize Jesus because many people are accustomed to it - no other reason.

  186. iGnostic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    consider myself to be an Ignostic

    Aren't all those Mac zealots iGnostics?

  187. Lies by TofuTheGreat · · Score: 1

    I'm Mormon. Yeah let the ridicule begin. Whatever I've heard it before and it won't get me to leave the Church. The LDS Church does not "DEMAND" that you pay 10% or you can't attend. That's a plain lie right there. The 10% is called "tithe" and it's in the Bible (which most people, even "Christians" don't read anymore apparently). I went to Church in multiple wards in two states for over a decade without ever paying tithing or fast offering. I was never barred from participating in Church services, theology classes, activities, etc. It is true that you cannot attend the temple if you are not a full tithe payer. But that's not being denied learning doctrine or being denied attendance or membership in the Church.

    1. Re:Lies by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1
      What I know of Mormonism comes mostly from a PBS documentary or from South Park (dum-du-dum dum dum!) So, perhaps you can help me understand things better.

      The 10% is called "tithe" and it's in the Bible (which most people, even "Christians" don't read anymore apparently).
      You made your first mistake right there. Church services usually have a part where they read from the Bible. They just only read the happy parts, not the evil parts (where God commands the Israelites to commit genocide on a rival tribe, etc.). Do you read your bible? There are 613 commands from God in the Old Testament. Who are you to pick and chose which ones to follow? I've never seen a Mormon doing a fertility ritual.

      It is true that you cannot attend the temple if you are not a full tithe payer.
      What good is Temple to a church if it doesn't teach you doctrine? My understanding was that some of the church histories and other important documents are kept in a temple and not allowed to leave the temple walls...

      Seriously-what good is a "temple recommend" that it would be worth $10,000 per year to get it? Maybe you could count the time spent answering my question toward your mandatory annoy-everyone-into-becoming-mormon time?
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:Lies by TofuTheGreat · · Score: 1
      First let me say that I am in no way trying to "annoy-everyone-into-becoming-mormon". If you felt that way then that's your issue. I too can't stand people who force their beliefs on another person. However I respect the right people have to explain their beliefs and counter misinformation.

      What I know of Mormonism comes mostly from a PBS documentary or from South Park (dum-du-dum dum dum!) So, perhaps you can help me understand things better.

      That really did make me grin and snicker. I love South Park. I applaud your forthright and honest acknowledgment of what you base your knowledge on. Kudos. More people need to be like that. I'd be happy to help you understand better. Hopefully you don't think I'm trying to convert you by responding. :-)

      You made your first mistake right there. Church services usually have a part where they read from the Bible. They just only read the happy parts, not the evil parts (where God commands the Israelites to commit genocide on a rival tribe, etc.). Do you read your bible? There are 613 commands from God in the Old Testament. Who are you to pick and chose which ones to follow? I've never seen a Mormon doing a fertility ritual.

      I guess I wasn't clear and for that I apologize. I wasn't referring to Church worship services. I was referring to the actual people. I'd be willing to be that if you anonymously polled self-professed Christians about their personal reading of the bible most of them would admit that they don't actually read it on their own. Most I've met admit that they just go by what their priest/pastor/bishop/minister/reverend/etc. tell them. The LDS membership isn't excluded from this either. There is a big percentage of LDS members that likely don't read scripture either. And you are totally correct that people only read/quote what benefits them and their cause. No argument there from me at all. All religions do that. All of them.

      What good is Temple to a church if it doesn't teach you doctrine? My understanding was that some of the church histories and other important documents are kept in a temple and not allowed to leave the temple walls... Seriously-what good is a "temple recommend" that it would be worth $10,000 per year to get it? Maybe you could count the time spent answering my question toward your mandatory annoy-everyone-into-becoming-mormon time?

      First let me say that I only wish I made the $100,000 a year it would take to pay $10K in tithing. I know people whose full tithing for the year is less than I make in a month and yet they are fully qualified to go to the temple. Tithing is a voluntary practice in our Church. You are not audited against your income to make sure your are paying your share. You pay what you pay and if you're not honest about it then the only ones that would know are yourself and God. The rest of your point is trickier to answer to someone who hasn't been to the temple. Part of our temple beliefs is that what you do in the temple is a sacred covenant with God and a covenant not to reveal what the temple ordinances are. Basically "what's done in the temple stays in the temple". What I can tell you is that we are not presented with any church history and I do not know of any important documents that can't leave the temple. There is no ritualistic sacrifice, no sexual/fertility rituals, no chanting rituals, none of the crazy "out there" assumptions that I've seen and heard over the last 20 years. Also there are no sacred texts that aren't known to the rest of the world that I'm aware of. Really only three things occur in the temple. First is receiving your endowment. That's the part that is personal and not shared outside the temple. It's not perverted but it is special to each person who receives their endowment. Second is temple marriage & sealings. There's lots of info on that available if you really wanted to know about it. Third is the temple work for the dead. Again there is info that you can get on yo

    3. Re:Lies by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      So going back to the beginning: the mormon church requires money to fully take part, and you can't even know the full details of the religion without paying ("what happens there stays there"...must pay to get there).

      Thinking from a secular standpoint: that is similar in principle to scientology, but to a lesser degree.

      Thinking from a prodestant standpoint: Requiring money to fully take part in a religion is appalling. If an essential part of your funeral service (dressing your dead sister or whatever) can only take place in temple, and you can't enter temple without paying big bucks, most christians would view that as seriously cruel.

      As to histories and other documents: The PBS documentary said the church has an official library which is off limits to the public. It said the church historian was going through it a few years ago, and read things that challenged the "official" church history, so the church leaders closed off the library to EVERYONE, even the historian.

      As for making $100k: That is average pay for a programmer in the SF Bay area. I'm sure a large percentage of people on slashdot make that much or more.

      And, at the risk of sounding like a jerk: Any smart fellow in the mormon church could easily have learned enough to make that kind of cash if he had spent his church time on education and not religion. The mormons interviewed for the PBS show said "being mormon is like having two full-time jobs."

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:Lies by TofuTheGreat · · Score: 1
      Again I hope you don't think I'm trying to convert you by responding. I'm actually enjoying the discussion. If at any point you think I'm pushing my beliefs on you just say so and the discussion will end. Fair enough?

      So going back to the beginning: the mormon church requires money to fully take part, and you can't even know the full details of the religion without paying ("what happens there stays there"...must pay to get there).

      I can totally see how people would think that. I used to think that way too to be honest as I'm a convert to the Church after being raised without religion. But again this is belief-based topic we're discussing. Scriptural teaching says all things come from God and ultimately belong to Him. We (all Christians not just Mormons. Can't speak to Muslim/Jewish belief.) are asked to give 1/10th of our increase back to God (via the Church). In times when people raised livestock or farmed then that's what they gave. One sheep out of every ten, one bushel out of every ten, etc.. This is no longer applicable for most people and that's how it's become 10% of monetary income. If you believe in the teaching then it's a non-issue for you. But if you don't believe in the teaching then it is an issue for you. The key part is "issue for you". Simply put it's a matter of faith and not a requirement of worthiness to be a member of the Church. By all means you could attend Church and never pay a dime. This was the counter to the original message I replied to.

      Thinking from a secular standpoint: that is similar in principle to scientology, but to a lesser degree. Thinking from a prodestant standpoint: Requiring money to fully take part in a religion is appalling. If an essential part of your funeral service (dressing your dead sister or whatever) can only take place in temple, and you can't enter temple without paying big bucks, most christians would view that as seriously cruel.

      Again, just to clarify, dressing a dead relative and funeral services don't take place in the temple. Putting on the burial garment is for endowed members. But the loved one is not hidden from the non-endowed relatives and people are not excluded from a loved one. That would be cruel.

      As to histories and other documents: The PBS documentary said the church has an official library which is off limits to the public. It said the church historian was going through it a few years ago, and read things that challenged the "official" church history, so the church leaders closed off the library to EVERYONE, even the historian.

      Do you acknowledge the point that most documentaries about the Church are made by non-LDS people? And that some of these people have their own agendas? Have you seen the 60-minutes piece on the Church? Mike Wallace basically stated that he expected to encounter opposition and redirection when he asked to interview President Gordon B. Hinckley and critics of the Church (both internal and external). He then admits that it was just the opposite and that he was given access to whatever he wanted. Editorial and pre-conceived notions play into how things are portrayed. You can make anything look good and you can make anything look bad.

      As for making $100k: That is average pay for a programmer in the SF Bay area. I'm sure a large percentage of people on slashdot make that much or more.

      Man I gotta move to SF. :-D

      And, at the risk of sounding like a jerk: Any smart fellow in the mormon church could easily have learned enough to make that kind of cash if he had spent his church time on education and not religion. The mormons interviewed for the PBS show said "being mormon is like having two full-time jobs."

      And not to sound like an altruistic person: Salary is tied to location and market just as much as it is to education. It has nothing to do with religion. I gladly earn less to live in the mid-west. It's not a question of intelligence and education as

    5. Re:Lies by BKX · · Score: 1

      613 rules alright, but you can't do half of them anymore because the Temple of David has been destroyed. Just ask a Jew. (No, I'm not a Jew, but I was thinking of becoming one.)

  188. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do these comments get modded insightful? Does nobody read the actual articles? He was not being charged for picketing the church. He was being charged for making threats via the internet. The charge was still bogus, since he "threatened" the church with cruise missiles which he does not have access to, the fact remains though that he was not charged for picketing.

  189. Atheism is sometimes a religion by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 1

    A joker once said: "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". I've always felt that making fun of stamp collectors could be a hobby in its own right. Similarly, not all atheists are religious, but when you join an atheist club and try to actively convert the heathens, it's hard to distinguish them from a 'real' religion.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  190. Albert Einstein once said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If all the scientologists were to disappear from the face of the Earth tomorrow, humainity and civilisation would last no more than three months."

          Luckily, Run Hubbard (and Einstein) had never heard of Pinoqachole!

  191. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you steal 50 bucks worth of food to feed your hungry children, that's not going to get you the same sentence as stealing a 50 bucks DVD player for your own amusement, for example.
    True. If you're stealing to feed your hungry kids, you'll go to jail, while if you're stealing for your amusement, you'll get a slap on your wrist - because rich folks can afford good lawyers, while the poor get screwed.

    Or, as an example that may be more relevant, if you catch your best friend cheating on you with your wife, pull out your gun in rage and shoot him, you're (probably) going to get less than you would if you decided to kill him in cold blood so his wife and you can collect his life insurance. Right?
    Depends. A black guy who shoots his adulterous white friend is going to fry, while a white guy who kills his black friend in cold blood to collect his life insurance will probably only get life in jail. Assuming the police even bother to investigate the case, of course.

    Welcome to America, where we have the best justice system money can buy, and where everyone's equal (but whites are more equal than blacks).
  192. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with hate crime laws is that a crime should be a crime no matter who is the target. If someone gets beat up, or robbed, or murdered, or raped, whoever responsible should be punished just the same, no matter who is the target.

    Also, how is it *not* a hate crime when a white guy beats up another white guy or if it is two homosexuals or whatever?

    Hate crime laws don't make any sense because whatever action is taken should in that case be a crime, and punished as severely, anyway.

  193. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    I dunno. Seems like Tom Cruise "Missiles" makes enough wild comments to the media as to be just as destructive. I thought it was a pretty cool play on words actually.

    Now, if we could only hit Scientology with a few more Tom Cruise Missiles, maybe they would be fully discredited :-)

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  194. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    The main thing that distinguishes CoS from just about every other religious organisation that I can think of is that you have to pay them money to find out what they actually believe.

    ANd those of us involved in more fringe religions read CoS as the Church of Satan (run by Anton LeVey). Note that LeVey's CoS is a for-profit business and never has claimed to be otherwise. LeVey's books teach people how to scam money out of other people (I generally recommend reading them as a way of spotting scams), etc.

    Seems the main difference between the Churches of Satan and Scientology is that the Church of Satan is more honest about being about scams and showmanship.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  195. what's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That sounds just like a MMORPG.

  196. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by will_die · · Score: 1

    According to the law the theft of the type of item does not really matter. While you would likely get off with stealing the food it would be because the judge, the person stolen from or the jury decided to ignore the law and give some mercy. In the example with the killing yes you would get less time with the cheating because you did not plan before hand to commit the crime. With the insurance plan, that you were thinking to kill him for the money would probably be used as evidence it would not get you an extra time on the murder then if you were planning to kill the next person who knocked on your door, you still have the insurance scam to deal with. Yes there is some thought about it but you actually have to work into planning.
    With the thought crimes if you are guilty of the crime and then it is found out that 1 day ago you said "Kill all whites" then you get extra time. You cannot prove that it was the motive it is totally based on what the person what thinking or if you do have evidence then it only comes about because the person was using their 1st amendment rights.

  197. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Scientology, you don't pay money to access "beliefs", you pay money to cover the costs of the services involved in studying the religions materials.

    This is a very distinct difference. "Belief" has no place in Scientology - says so all over the place, you can get into trouble even saying you 'believe it' instead of actually using it like you're supposed to.. Scientologists don't "believe", they apply the material, and get the results. Either it works because you're using it as its supposed to be used, or you find out what it is you don't know about it thats preventing you from using it, as its supposed to be used. This takes supervision and it takes an organization dedicated to technical precision.

    Its really a fact. Scientology is not a belief system. Period. It is an Applied Religious Philosophy - that means it has a great deal of material of a philosophic nature, which is meant to be applied, and distinct results are expected to be attained. The Xenu material is just the tip of the iceberg, and is actually very definitely mis-quoted and presented by Scientology's detractors, out of context and without the details of all the other aspects of the religion itself, in order to position Scientology as a "UFO cult", which it most definitely is not. For sure, there is no question about it, anyone who calls themselves a former Scientologist and is now attacking the religion on the basis of the OT materials, was definitely not using the technology of Scientology for the purposes of personal enlightenment, and more than likely, had some other intention behind getting involved.

    In order to attain the degree of application expected in Scientology to get the stated results: freedom and ability - requires actual real-life demonstrable usage, real application, not panty-waiste 'belief' or worship. A great deal of actual work must be done by the student of Scientology, and by the supervisors of that students progress.

    It is the expenses of this application which are being covered by fees paid by the student.

    As a student of Scientology for, now, two lifetimes, I would pay 5x what the current student rates are, and even then some .. it truly is such valuable material to me, personally, and for thousands of others in my experience, directly, as well. Henson wouldn't want you all to know that there are actually happy, productive, sane and healthy Scientologists out there in the 'big world', and it is us that he is attacking with his frothy-mouthed vitriol. Why should we stand for it, when we are the ones who are using Scientology as its supposed to be used, and he is, in fact, attempting to destroy us?

  198. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, as a matter of curiosity, what do you think of the Free Zone?

  199. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

    as an example that may be more relevant, if you catch your best friend cheating on you with your wife, pull out your gun in rage and shoot him, you're (probably) going to get less than you would if you decided to kill him in cold blood so his wife and you can collect his life insurance. Right? Yes, but the main difference there is premeditation, not motive.
    --
    Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
  200. some seem not to understand ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    There are professional liars out there, people who can lie that good they got their vast group of followers; even in such a way they do believe in their own lies being casted out of their guts..

    To my opinion, such church or cult or whatever you call it, based on deception and lies of one single person; requires a quite troubled mind to believe in -such- crap. Those texts could make a great SciFi novel, but to believe in such is a little bit above my head literally;

    I guess not only respect and dignity is dissapearing from this world, but also logic(al thinking). Who poisoned the water supplies in making us all believe in shit which is unbelievable because of the lack of any given logic?

    I don't say belief needs to be logical; but still; for something to believe in I'd have to either see or feel things before I -can- believe in such; how the freak can so many people believe in a religion which is based on a one-man-written Sci-Fi story without any basis or facts? At least first verify a little bit which you believe in before believing in one-man-tales; because that one-man can be from the most honest man to the biggest liar on earth, this for the sake for them own wallets ...

    Of'course I could extend this statement also from one person to an entire group which can be as honest as heaven but lying as hell; since there are other organisations a/o cults out there doing the exact ludicrous same thing for the sake of their own organisation/cult.

    What do I believe in? human knowledge and human evolution; which we create we can use, which we can do best we help others with. I believe mostly that others can make that one change needed to get a better world. We've been in better times before (also in worse times) where most of these times have to do with religion, power and oppression. I do frankly also believe a lot in myself, because I know I can trust and rely on myself. Do not harm (others) and always respect even the worst enemy; which I even don't have because I don't believe in "pure hate"; only in "pure intentions" and "evil intentions" which are mostly based in the mind of an individual and not by one or another god.

    Does it require a deity? nope, does it require faith and goodwill? lots...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  201. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Xenu material is just the tip of the iceberg, and is actually very definitely mis-quoted
    The original scans of Hubbard's original Xenu notes (that you would have us pay tens of thousands to read) are on the net. Other public OT materials are also confirmed real by such means as submission in court and scientology trying to sue for copyright violations. "Mis-quoted"? I think not.

    out of context
    I would be intrigued as to what context you could present the evil alien overlord Xenu, harvesting souls and blowing them up in volcanoes with H-bombs, to make it anything other than the batshit insane ravings of a failed SF writer on drugs (including the psychiatric meds he supposedly hated so much.)

    As a student of Scientology for, now, two lifetimes,
    ... right. Scientology isn't a crazy UFO cult at all, no sir!

    A question : Have you ever seen any of the supposed powers (mind bullets etc) that this "tech" is supposed to achieve actually demonstrated? I'm guessing no.
  202. Re:He did show up in court and plead his case .... by charlieman · · Score: 1

    Of course Christianity is a money-making scam too, who said otherwise?

  203. Today's Scientology... by deesine · · Score: 1

    The New Christianity?

    --
    damaged by dogma
  204. MOD PARENT UP PLEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD PARENT UP

    I hate Scientology.