Belgium May Prosecute the Church of Scientology

sheean.nl writes "A Belgian prosecutor recommended after a 10-year investigation that the government prosecute the church of Scientology. The church is accused of being a criminal organization involved in extortion, fraud, unfair trading, violation of privacy laws, and unlawfully practicing medicine. Both the Belgian and the European branches of the church should be brought to court, according to the authorities. The investigation was started in 1997 after former Scientologists complained about intimidation and extortion by the church. Other European countries such as Germany have problems with Scientology, but in the US it is officially recognized as a religion. Scientology has 10 million members including high-profile followers such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta." Scientology has long used heavy-handed legal and other tactics to suppress opposition on the Net.

Comments

Go On Post, Say all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

We're Watching.

Re:Go On Post, Say all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching the chasers, that is: Free gullibility test

Re:Go On Post, Say all you want

[Arcturax]

I need someone to join Scientology with me. This isn't a joke. P.O. Box 66666666666666666666666 Oakview, CA 93022. You'll get your credit cards returned when we get back. Must bring your own e-meter. I have only done this once before. Safety not guaranteed.

Re:Go On Post, Say all you want

[rossifer]

One thing I find frustrating is that the number of members "as claimed by the Church of Scientology" is presented as fact, when it is nowhere close to reality. Do Catholic or Baptist churches claim as members those who attended years and years ago but have long since gone elsewhere? The Church of Scientology does.

In reality, the number of active members of the Church of Scientology is much lower. As in 100k-500k or 1-5% of the official number of ten million. So that number is 95-99% fabrication.

Re:Go On Post, Say all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

As a result of this posting, Slashdot will be ordered shut down in about 30 days.

Re:Go On Post, Say all you want

[fredclown]

You better not be, cause you're not even supposed to use the internet if you're in Scientology.

Re:Go On Post, Say all you want

[microbito]

fdsf

Re:Go On Post, Say all you want

[laejoh]

Pffff, anyone can just sa.#!^éé"""""sjs NO CARRIER

Who is next?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not defending the scientologists, but.... You could state many of these things for numerous religons.

Sue the Pope? Good luck with that.

Re:Who is next?

[Gorm the DBA]

The Pope? hard to Sue...

The Catholic Church, on the other hand... No so very hard at all

Re:Who is next?

[Daar]

European Community trade commisionar Ms. Neelie Smit is currently looking doing just that. She'll be looking at the state support the Roman Catholics have been getting in Italy.

Re:Who is next?

[ajs]

I am not defending the scientologists, but.... You could state many of these things for numerous religons.

Sue the Pope? Good luck with that. You can't sue the Pope. As the Bush administration rightly pointed out (and you have no idea how rare it is for me to agree with that administration), in the U.S. the Pope is considered a foreign head-of-state, with all of the legal protections that that entails. We could invade the Vatican and bomb the Pope, but we could not sue him in a U.S. court of law any more than we could the Prime Minister of the U.K.

That said, Scientology's accused of: "extortion, fraud, unfair trading, violation of privacy laws, and unlawfully practicing medicine." I'm not sure that you can accuse Roman Catholicism (as a whole, discounting fringe groups that aren't practicing core doctrine) of most of those.

Re:Who is next?

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest difference is how different religions react to critique.

Most mainstream churches in the judeo-christian family tend to bitch and moan about being misrepresented but usually leave it at that.

We'll ignore the Spanish Inquisition because that was centuries ago.

Islam will try to have you killed.

We'll also ignore how much more personable Islam was compared to the crusaders because that was also centuries ago.

Scientology will try to kill you without actually pulling a trigger by bombarding you with lawsuits and dirty tricks.

Re:Who is next?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't sue the Pope. As the Bush administration rightly pointed out (and you have no idea how rare it is for me to agree with that administration), in the U.S. the Pope is considered a foreign head-of-state, with all of the legal protections that that entails. We could invade the Vatican and bomb the Pope, but we could not sue him in a U.S. court of law any more than we could the Prime Minister of the U.K.

Tell that to Manuel Noriega

Re:Who is next?

[Foobar of Borg]

That said, Scientology's accused of: "extortion, fraud, unfair trading, violation of privacy laws, and unlawfully practicing medicine." I'm not sure that you can accuse Roman Catholicism (as a whole, discounting fringe groups that aren't practicing core doctrine) of most of those.

This is really the crux of the matter. No matter how bizarre or wacky you find a particular religious group (or philosophical group for that matter), you should only be able to sue for particular acts that the group, or individuals within the group, perform. I have no particular liking for Scientology, but one should focus on the bad and illegal things they have done, not the parts of their religion that are deemed absurd. I mean, American Atheists has claimed that the human race would have gone to the moon by the 3rd century (yes, the 3rd century C.E.) if it hadn't been for those "evil Christians" (this is in "Atheists: The Last Minority"). This is patently absurd, but I don't think anyone should sue them for it. However, if the head of American Atheists commits wire fraud (just for example, I'm not saying he/she has ever done anything unethical or illegal), then drop the legal hammer on the bastard.

Re:Who is next?

[MightyMartian]

The Pope and his representatives don't try to stifle critics with nuisance lawsuits. They don't threaten or harass opponents of Catholic theology.

While I'm willing to grant the status of "religionist" to the membership of the Church of Scientology, the organization itself is a money-making scam that uses the courts to intimidate anyone who dares speak up against it. I'm content to let the average moron who buys in Hubbard's pile of shit go his own way, but the actual organization needs to be taken down a few notches.

Re:Who is next?

[Qbertino]

Sue the Pope? Good luck with that.

Curiously, in Germany the Katholic curch would get into the very same trouble Scientology has gotten if the would fall back to the same methods. It's rather hard to seriously p*ss off German authorities and agencies, especially the ones normally reserved for Neo-Nazis, Right-Wing/Left-Wing Terrorists and ultra-extremist Islamic fundamentalists. But if you try hard enough you'll have Verfassungsschutz around the clock watching your every move. And for good reasons too. Scientology is a potentially dangerous cult which has officially stated multiple times that one of it's mid-to-long-term goals is to effectively topple the constitution of Germany and other democratic nations *including* that of the US. On top of that there are manyfold instances where there is federal court lawsuit tested proof in various countries that Scientology has repeatedly and proactively done the crimes stated in the summary. And that these methods are applicable as standard means of procedure through out the organisation if someone high enough in the food-chain should decive to resort to them.
Europe (including Germany) is generally notably tolerant towards Religion and personal confessional preference, but just as humorless when it comes to defending that tolerance and freedom. Belgian officials making this move toward the Scientology Organisation comes as no suprise to me.

Re:Who is next?

[jcr]

IIRC, Noriega wasn't hauled into a US court until he'd been deposed in Panama.

-jcr

Re:Who is next?

[MightyMartian]

I mean, American Atheists has claimed that the human race would have gone to the moon by the 3rd century (yes, the 3rd century C.E.) if it hadn't been for those "evil Christians" (this is in "Atheists: The Last Minority")

Atheists are not a singular group with a common theological stance. In fact, our common world view amounts to "We don't accept the existence of gods". Beyond that, atheists can diverge pretty heavily.

This is unlike Scientologists, Catholics, Muslims and the like. So just because you can find a few daft atheists hardly makes all atheists, or even the majority, daft. It's not a religion.

Re:Who is next?

[faloi]

Tell that to Manuel Noriega

To be fair, he wasn't sued in court. He was extradited for trial on some drug charges after a little war. A state of war, originally declared by Panama, existed between the countries. I will certainly grant you that the timing was WAY too convenient, but it wasn't a suit brought against a foreign head of state.

Re:Who is next?

[be-fan]

I see what you're trying to get at, but I think you have to remember one thing. "Islam" is not an entity, like say the Church of Scientology or the Catholic Church. Like "Protestantism", Islam is decentralized religion with many sects. There are certain entities within the Islamic world that will try to have you killed for what you say, but at the same time, there are lots of non-radical groups of Muslims (encompassing hundreds of millions of people in several countries around the world), in which this sort of thing doesn't happen. This is especially true in Muslim countries where the legal system is not based on Islamic law.

Re:Who is next?

[ajs]

You can't sue the Pope. As the Bush administration rightly pointed out (and you have no idea how rare it is for me to agree with that administration), in the U.S. the Pope is considered a foreign head-of-state, with all of the legal protections that that entails. We could invade the Vatican and bomb the Pope, but we could not sue him in a U.S. court of law any more than we could the Prime Minister of the U.K.

Tell that to Manuel Noriega Manuel Noriega was not sued in a U.S. court of law. He was deposed by military action. His trial occurred after his deposition.

If you're suggesting that we use military force to depose the Pope and then bring him back to the U.S. to stand trail... well, what you're suggesting is an act of war, just be aware of that.

When it comes to Scientology, however, there's no nation to deal with. They're just a modern, fringe religion. Thus, they have no immunity in a U.S. (nor, I imagine, Belgian) court.

Re:Who is next?

[Urkki]

Europe (including Germany) is generally notably tolerant towards Religion and personal confessional preference, but just as humorless when it comes to defending that tolerance and freedom. Belgian officials making this move toward the Scientology Organisation comes as no suprise to me. Make that modern/current Europe... Let's not forget the history *cough*inquisition*cough*holocaust*cough*, so we might avoid repeating it...

(And before the 'mericans get too comfortable, remember that inquisition is part of their history as well...)

Re:Who is next?

[ajs]

I mean, American Atheists has claimed that the human race would have gone to the moon by the 3rd century (yes, the 3rd century C.E.) if it hadn't been for those "evil Christians" (this is in "Atheists: The Last Minority")

Atheists are not a singular group with a common theological stance. But American Atheists are (not to be confused with Americans who happen to be atheists).

To quote:

The organization was founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the noted Atheist activist [and has] Published over 120 books about Atheism, criticism of religion, and state/church separation. Titles offered include "The Bible Handbook" and Madalyn O'Hair's "Why I am an Atheist."

Re:Who is next?

[kuruptacus]

"not very hard at all"?
try rubbing it.

Re:Who is next?

[stoolpigeon]

Atheists are not a singular group with a common theological stance. In fact, our common world view amounts to "We don't accept the existence of gods". Beyond that, atheists can diverge pretty heavily. his is unlike Scientologists, Catholics, Muslims and the like.
 
It is unlike them in the content of what is agreed upon - not the divergence. How many different sects of Christianity and Islam are there? Some of them are extremely different from one another and many of them have some really brilliant people in their midst. Just because you can find a few daft theists hardly makes all theists, or even the majority, daft.
 
Your reaction to the criticism in the gp is a great opportunity to learn how this argument looks from both sides.

Re:Who is next?

[CryBaby]

When it comes to Scientology, however, there's no nation to deal with. They're just a modern, fringe cult.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Who is next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Progress occurs in odd ways. If we were to "magically" eliminate various dark ages and mini-dark ages not worthy of historic note, and refocus some key efforts starting prior to losing the library of Alexandria, then it is not out of the question that this could have been done. A benevelent dictator (or time-traveling influencer of the same - like a consult to Alexander the Great) might refocus efforts away from war and mysticism into science and progress. This influencer need not have any specific scientific or mathematical knowledge himself. A more influential Aristotle could have fit the profile. Some type of technological historian would have to determine if this were reasonable. Without giving it to much though, my answer is that most of what we have learned since 400 BC might be compressable into 600 years (as the 3rd century ended after 299 CE). It is fantasy and historic/science fiction regardless. That said, do you have a reference to back your claim that a serious organization is promoting this belief - and not just a wayward member?

Re:Who is next?

[myowntrueself]

Europe (including Germany) is generally notably tolerant towards Religion and personal confessional preference, but just as humorless when it comes to defending that tolerance and freedom.

Germany humorless? No, really?? :-\

Re:Who is next?

[LordZardoz]

Well, how many tanks does the pope have anyway?

END COMMUNICATION

Re:Who is next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except all islam follows the koran ...
including "all non-muslims are lower than filthy beasts" (8:55)

islam = racism

Re:Who is next?

[ajs]

When it comes to Scientology, however, there's no nation to deal with. They're just a modern, fringe cult.

There, fixed that for you. Please don't quote people and modify the quotation.

I did not, in fact, mean to use the word "cult", as that word is rarely used by any two people to mean the same thing. It can refer to any small religion (which is arguably the correct usage in the modern sense). It can refer to any body of religious practices (this is an archaic usage). It can refer to organizations that use religion purely as cover to perform illegal or immoral acts (Jonestown comes to mind) or otherwise separate membership from the rest of society (e.g. the Unification Church). It can refer to religions which are not considered "acceptable alternatives" by the mainstream (e.g. Christians in the U.S. referring to Paganism). It can refer to any religion that is not the speaker's (I've heard many U.S. Baptists refer to Roman Catholicism this way). It's just not a useful word.

Re:Who is next?

[MightyMartian]

Just about every Muslim out there is going to find common ground on some points, the chief differences often being rather historical and esoteric. As to Christians, that is a much more diverse group, but if you exclude really weird deviations like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians (all of which, can be argued, IMO, not to be Christian) have certain core beliefs. In all cases, they have considerably more core beliefs in common than you will find among many atheists.

Re:Who is next?

[kraut]

You could sue the Vatican - i.e. the state. You could sue the Pope, although you'd probably have to do it in the courts of the Vatican.

Re:Who is next?

[ajs]

Well, how many tanks does the pope have anyway? The Pope has a military, called the Pontifical Swiss Guard. Tanks would be next to worthless in the Vatican City, as it's just over 100 acres. I suspect that the Pope could remain comfortably ensconced within the basements of the Vatican for quite some time, but the real concern would be the countries that would defend the Vatican. Italy would retaliate without question (given that it would also imply an attack on Italian soil). Most of the E.U. would almost certainly render assistance. Russia might help to defend the Vatican. Worse, most of South and Central America would almost certainly drop all of their petty disputes and attack the United States within hours after such an assault on the Vatican.

Overall, the only thing that the U.S. could do that would be arguably stupider would be to bomb Beijing or Jerusalem.

Re:Who is next?

[HiThere]

OK...though it was before the migration. (The Salem trials are notorious because they were unusual...not because they were very excessive.)
N.B.: This is true of the British, also. They (and we) reserved their (our) venom for other christians. See Bloody Mary, et al. In the U.S. it was usually political. (See the alien and sedition acts.)

OTOH, if McCarthy hadn't been so foolish as to challenge the Army...we might have seen a close modern day repetition. (Note the close ties between McCarthy -> Nixon -> Reagan. I'm not quite sure how the Bushes fit into this scenario. They are probably linked, but I don't have solid information.)

Also don't forget the KKK, etc. Not particularly anti-other-religions only because they had easier targets, but they were explicitly anti-Jew and anti-Catholic. Some places they may well have effectively had local mini-inquisitions being run that just didn't get a lot of publicity.

Re:Who is next?

[stoolpigeon]

Well sure. When one decides that something doesn't exist, that's really the end of it. There's not much more to agree on. But my point is that this comparison is false because it just chooses a scope that fits what is posited. Sure - you can find some areas of agreement in regards to certain things. And then huge variations on many other things.
 
My primary assertion is that humans tend to fall into this trap of thinking every other group is full of idiots but their group is somehow different. I'm not knocking atheists - I'm trying to say that every group that fits under what ever label you want to slap on it has some good folks and some idiots. And I think that the original exchange illustrated my point very well.

Re:Who is next?

[Bob Gelumph]

Have you heard of the anti-defamation league?

Re:Who is next?

[spyfrog]

First, the possibility that US would attack Vatican is so remote that it is almost impossible to discuss it.

However, don't count on the northern part of EU to come to the popes help. We are still pissed about the 30 years war in the 17th century. Northern Europe is protestant and don't care for the pope. Actually, the present pope have said some things about protestant that haven't really made the relationship between Vatican and northern Europe better.

Btw, Russia is orthodox and don't care about the pope either.

Re:Who is next?

[2.7182]

Please don't quote people and modify the quotation, dumbass.

Uh....could you be a little more adult about this ? Chill out.

Re:Who is next?

[Tango42]

I'm not sure the Swiss Guard are really intended to defend against foreign invasion. I think Italy has an agreement with the Vatican to defend the Vatican if it's attacked. If the US attacked anywhere in Europe, I expect much of the world would attack them - many of them would attack now if only they could win, they just need enough allies, and the US attacking Europe would give them plenty of allies.

Would it surprise anyone if it turns out there's a nuke hidden at the top of St. Peter's Basilica? That could make any invasion a little more interesting...

Re:Who is next?

[Walt Dismal]

He doesn't need tanks. He has Holy Hand Grenades.

Re:Who is next?

[MartianKillerBarbies]

Oh gods... PLEASE don't give them any ideas. :/

Re:Who is next?

[The One and Only]

Are you kidding? We had to sit around for years waiting for the Church to finally fess up because politicians are too weak to take a hard line. They shouldn't have waited on the Church, they should have started arresting priests for molestation and bishops for obstruction of justice.

Re:Who is next?

[The One and Only]

We could invade the Vatican and bomb the Pope, but we could not sue him in a U.S. court of law any more than we could the Prime Minister of the U.K.

You mean the Queen. The Prime Minister is the head of government, not the chief of state. While he has considerable power, he is by law simply a British subject appointed by the Queen under the advice of the House of Commons.

Re:Who is next?

[Anonymous Coward]

They going after the UK for supporting the Anglicans next?

Re:Who is next?

[Cassius Corodes]

I always wondered how that verse got started given that at the time of its "recital" there would have been about 5 Muslims.

Re:Who is next?

[Dun Malg]

I always wondered how that verse got started given that at the time of its "recital" there would have been about 5 Muslims. Islam allows conversion, and convincing people that they are filthy beasts unless they convert and conform to God's will is traditionally how religion works.

Re:Who is next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm

Ireland and Israel come before Italy in an alphabetical list,

However Vatican City State does come before Venezuela...

(Iran also comes before Iraq, so maybe they are going in reverse alphabetical order._

Re:Who is next?

[dbIII]

No matter how bizarre or wacky you find a particular religious group (or philosophical group for that matter)

You spelt "gang" or "group of confidence tricksters" incorrectly here.

Re:Who is next?

[Cassius Corodes]

Yes but I was more questioning the mentality that allows you to classify former friends and family (as the first Muslims would have had plenty of contact with non-Muslims especially in their close circle) as filthy beasts. Plus looking down on people is not as effective at conversion as it sounds :).

Re:Who is next?

[Anonymous Coward]

What?

The Vatican has weapons of mass destructions?

LET's INVADE!!!

Att.

Dick Cheney

Re:Who is next?

[Anonymous Coward]

the poop isn't hard to sue, HE IS GAY

Re:Who is next?

[mcrbids]

I did not, in fact, mean to use the word "cult", as that word is rarely used by any two people to mean the same thing. It can refer to any small religion (which is arguably the correct usage in the modern sense). It can refer to any body of religious practices (this is an archaic usage). It can refer to organizations that use religion purely as cover to perform illegal or immoral acts (Jonestown comes to mind) or otherwise separate membership from the rest of society (e.g. the Unification Church). It can refer to religions which are not considered "acceptable alternatives" by the mainstream (e.g. Christians in the U.S. referring to Paganism). It can refer to any religion that is not the speaker's (I've heard many U.S. Baptists refer to Roman Catholicism this way). It's just not a useful word. Yes, it can mean all these things. However, it's also very inflammatory, making it a very useful word, depending on your intentions.

Re:Who is next?

[geobeck]

The Pope has a military...

The GP was referring to a quote attributed to Josef Stalin. I can't believe no one picked up on it.

Re:Who is next?

[geobeck]

Hmm...

If atheists form organized groups, publish books about atheism, and fight (at least verbally) religious groups, does that make them a religion? If they strongly believe there is no god, that is a theological position--a religious belief.

Maybe AA (no, not the other one) should apply for tax breaks as an official religion.

Well, why not? They're no more whacky than certain other groups who have been granted official religious status.

Re:Who is next?

[be-fan]

That's not the quote. The quote is more along the lines of "the lowest animals in god's sight are unbelievers" (ie: those that do not believe in God). Not much different than, say,

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" (2 Th.1:8)

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible has a pretty nice laundry list of all the horrible things in the Bible (and the Quran and the book of Mormon too, by the way). The bottom line is that these books were all written by a bunch of angry people living in the desert (christ, if I lived in the Middle East I'd be pissed too), and people should pick and choose the bits of them that don't suck.

The real problem is that the Muslims actually believe all the crap in the Quran, while most Christians these days only pay lip service to the crap in the Bible.

Re:Who is next?

[be-fan]

The quote is incorrect. It refers to unbelievers (those that do not believe in God), not to non-Muslims. At the time when Islam was spreading, it largely had contact with Christianity and Judaism, and it is not particularly antagonistic to these religions. Yes, Muslims believe that Christians will burn in hell and be tortured for eternity, but then again, the opposite is true as well.

Re:Who is next?

[heper]

In Belgium i believe they technically could sue the pope, or the prime minister of the UK

or even g.w.b if they would want to.

As i recall in 1993 they've passed the 'genocide' law

This controversial law makes it possible to prosecute dictators and other offenders of human rights.

Imho every religion is not respecting the human rights, some more extreme then others ...

Re:Who is next?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Belgium, the "Staatsveiligheid" (national security) has a file on every bishop & high church official in the country. They do this by routine, just as they have a file on military officers or politicians.

Re:Who is next?

[ajs]

Maybe AA (no, not the other one) should apply for tax breaks as an official religion.

I think that's been done in the past, perhaps not by this particular organization.

Certainly, there's the UU church which counts many atheists among their membership.

Re:Who is next?

[Haeleth]

They going after the UK for supporting the Anglicans next?

Let's hope so. It's about time we had some disestablishment round here.

Re:Who is next?

[Dark Kenshin]

My primary assertion is that humans tend to fall into this trap of thinking every other group is full of idiots but their group is somehow different.

It is true that faulting any group in it's entirety base on a few people, or and basis of them not being part of "your" group is bad platform to stand on. I do however think you miss the underline basis that the parent is doting. Which is that atheism is not a group in the same sense that religions are. For starters, religions are usually based on what they believe, not what they don't believe. Try defining Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, by describing what they don't believe in. You almost inevitably will not come to an accurate description of any group without describing what that group does believe in. Atheism is IMO a poorly misused term for simply stating they don't believe in the "something" known as god. There is no set of beliefs that can be attached to atheist that can make it a standard group. No more so then saying all people who "don't believe corvettes are fast" are a group similar to a religion.

For example, saying "Republicans are stupid party", is dissimilar to saying "people who don't believe apples are the best fruit are stupid". Obviously one should be more constructive in their dislikes and not going around hating "republicans" or "apple haters"; but the grouping is very different and should not be assumed to be the same.

More elaboration could be told, but in short (heh), comments directed at "atheists" is non-descriptive of similar people, like comments directed at religions. I will reiterate that I am not condoning generalizing insults on a particular group, just stating that you correlation to his statement was a bit off.

Re:Who is next?

[CryBaby]

Given my comment, I think the modification of your quote and my intent in doing it was obvious, so I'll politely disregard your request.

Furthermore, the word "cult" has a widely agreed upon, and therefore quite useful, meaning when applied to a group like Scientology. Here is the definition that applies in this context:

cult
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister: a network of Satan-worshiping cults.

Contrary to your claim, most any two people do, in fact, mean the same thing when using the word "cult". They may disagree on the group(s) to which it applies, but they intend to label the target of that word with the same or very similar negative connotations. By definition, it does not simply refer to a "small religion", and I vehemently object to the term "religion" being used to describe scientology as there is a clear, observable distinction between groups commonly accepted as religions and scientology. The most obvious differentiator being the requirement by scientology of payment for access to their "secret knowledge".

The word "cult" may eventually become so overloaded that it will indeed lose its usefulness, but I don't believe we've reached that point yet.

Re:Who is next?

[The Wicked Priest]

I've heard from an imam that the Muslim conception of "Hell" is not eternal -- it more resembles the Christian idea of "Purgatory" (for those Christians that believe in Purgatory). But I don't know whether this is orthodoxy.

Re:Who is next?

[giles hogben]

Who are you kidding? How did the Catholic Church become so rich - selling "pardons" in the middle ages wasn't it?

Also - Jesus might have died poor, but he wasn't a christian. The first real christian was Constantine, who was his sugar-daddy, who created the whole church thing, was the head of the Roman Empire (and killed his son and his wife, by the way)

Religions are cultural viruses. Just like you have good and bad viruses, there are also benign and malign religions, but what links them all is self-propogation through culture.

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

LOL

[Captain Splendid]

If it's Tuesday, it must be Belgium!

Back OT: About. Fucking. Time.

Slashdot hates science

[Anonymous Coward]

Why else would it be against the Church of Scientology?

Re:Slashdot hates science

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause Slashdot hates religion and all it's zealous sheep^H^H^H^H^H (Whoops) I mean followers.

Beware the intertubes

[drewzhrodague]

Scientology has long used heavy-handed legal and other tactics to suppress opposition on the Net.

Hi. Welcome to the Internet. The neat thing about the Internet, is that we can communicate together, join forces, and accomplish any goal. At least we can, once we're done reading Slashdot, and posting LOLcats pictures.

Re:Beware the intertubes

[rabidMacBigot()]

ORLY?

Re:Beware the intertubes

[Cheapy]

There was a comment posted Slashdot once that contained some "sacred text" of Scientologists. Copyrighted sacred text. Scientologists forced Slashdot to delete the comment, and so far that is the only comment ever to have been deleted from Slashdot. That's also the reason why "Comments are owned by the Poster." is part of the text at the bottom of the screen.

I can only imagine that that statement was referring to that episode. I'd hope so because I laughed out loud when I read that.

Re:Beware the intertubes

[socz]

There was a comment posted Slashdot once that contained some "sacred text" of Scientologists. Copyrighted sacred text. Scientologists forced Slashdot to delete the comment, and so far that is the only comment ever to have been deleted from Slashdot. That's also the reason why "Comments are owned by the Poster." is part of the text at the bottom of the screen.

I can only imagine that that statement was referring to that episode. I'd hope so because I laughed out loud when I read that.

Why can't the inet just do with that text what they did with the hd-dvd and blu-ray encryption algorithms? Sure, you can tell a site to remove content, but you can't tell the inet to do so!

Re:Beware the intertubes

[Cheapy]

Because the Church of Scientology isn't Sony. Sure, intertubers can get riled up by the Church of Scientology, but man...the Church of Scientology is no Sony.

Re:Beware the intertubes

[Mr. Slippery]

Why can't the inet just do with that text what they did with the hd-dvd and blu-ray encryption algorithms?

Well, the text involved is a little too long to put in a .sig file or on a t-shirt. But it's still available on the net. Google OT III.

ElRon must be so upset...

[Gorm the DBA]

Oooooh....L. Ron Hubbard must be spinning in his grave....well...his thetans must be enturbulated around their next body host at least...

Re:ElRon must be so upset...

[Prof.Phreak]

Oooooh....L. Ron Hubbard must be spinning in his grave....

They should strap magnets to him, and wrap a coil around the casket. Free electricity! ...see what science can accomplish?

Re:ElRon must be so upset...

[Opportunist]

Yeah, the tech works!

Re:ElRon must be so upset...

[fm6]

Why? Hubbard was widely accused of similar stuff when he was alive. The whole Scientology/Dianetics thing has attracted the attention of The Law from day one. The only difference is that Hubbard would claim that he was being persecuted by the mental health community (who hated him for "curing" mental illness, depriving them of their livelihood), whereas Scientology is a "church" and thus can claim religious persecution.

Re:ElRon must be so upset...

[IgLou]

Funny for a dead guy he's still writing lot's of crap. That and don't his lawyers claim that he moved on to a higher plan or something or other?

Good luck with that...

[mark-t]

[NT]

Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand many people don't like Scientology, but I fail to see how this relates to slashdot or news for nerds in general. There's not really any Online Rights issues or politics of relevance, nor is there any tech connection.

So why is this on slashdot? Because of kdawson's own biases and prejudices against it? Maybe he should post this on his own blog, and focus slashdot on tech issues instead.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[Gorm the DBA]

Probably because the Church of Scientology managed to royally piss off a good chunk of the USENET community (remember USENET? Cool, wasn't it?) back in the day by abusing the cancellation system, spamming, and generally making a set of newsgroups more or less unusable.

Geeks have long memories.

Plus, add in the "Scientology uses Technology" angle (debatable, at best...outright laughable more realizstically), and yeah, there's some geek.interest.to.be.had.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

but I fail to see how this relates to slashdot or news for nerds in general.

Scientology is the only religion invented by a SciFi writer. Nerds read SciFi. Ergo, news for nerds.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[VJ42]

It might be something to do with this. Scientologists issued a DCMA takedown notice against /. after part of OT III was posted on here by a random user.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear there is some geek interest in spell checker, too. Maybe they need to post an article like that for gimps like you?

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[newgalactic]

Seriously, I'm a Christian (and fan of everything scientific and technological), and I'm asking myself that same question. Why is this on Slashdot? I'm not asking this because I want the story removed or anything, I'm actually indifferent. But I find it funny that this site has more debates on religion then I see anywhere else on the web. What's the deal, why all the interest in all things religious? On a side note, why would a religion restrict the distribution of their "gospel"? Christianity does not stop people from reproducing pieces of the Bible. Just as long as you are accurate, and properly reference the citation with book, verse, and version (ex. John 3:16 NIV).

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, your intellect is truly dizzying.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[VJ42]

Seriously, I'm a Christian (and fan of everything scientific and technological), and I'm asking myself that same question. Why is this on Slashdot? I'm not asking this because I want the story removed or anything, I'm actually indifferent. But I find it funny that this site has more debates on religion then I see anywhere else on the web. What's the deal, why all the interest in all things religious? Actually, it's not religious discussion on/. but discussion about Christianity, and usually the very specific anti-science American right wing Christianity at that (I'm British hindu, I've never seen a debate about my religion here). And that is why there is so much debate here; we're a scientifically minded site, and when the anti-science version of religion tries to influence the world's most powerful government, there's cause for debate.

On a side note, why would a religion restrict the distribution of their "gospel"? Christianity does not stop people from reproducing pieces of the Bible. Just as long as you are accurate, and properly reference the citation with book, verse, and version (ex. John 3:16 NIV). Because IMO Scientology is not a religion, it's closer to a pyramid scheme than anything else. Why do I think this? Because as you say, they charge for access to their religious texts. To me, this isn't a very religious thing to do. Indeed, some Scientologists have realised this, and set up an unofficial version.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[newgalactic]

"(I'm British hindu, I've never seen a debate about my religion here)" - VJ42 VJ, I tried to mod you up for good karma ;) (not sure I succeeded though) Thanks for the insight.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[Alioth]

OT, but I see quite a lot of people make this mistake - it's the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) not the DCMA. DCMA would be Digital Copyright Millennium Act, which doesn't really make an awful lot of sense.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[Antique Geekmeister]

Hop over to www.xenu.net for more details on this. They're the worst Usenet spammers in history, 3000 messages a night in one newsgroup for many months, using throwaway accounts at ISP's bought with cash and connected with long-distance dialup lines. They also destroyed the old anon.penet.fi anonymous posting service.

That's a corporation, cult, or whatever actively trying to prevent discussion and doing it in a criminal fashion.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's been posted again... in an earlier comment.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[BPtheSP]

..And post #20469253 has just put the same material up again. Good.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[cloakable]

Well, perhaps it should be called the DCMA, then. Then that stupid bit of text can make even less sense.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, nobody is holding a grudge over USENET. It has more to do with recent, obscene lawsuits over commentary posted on the internet.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[abb3w]

DCMA would be Digital Copyright Millennium Act, which doesn't really make an awful lot of sense.

Well, it does if you understand what Mary Bono was pushing for with her copyright reforms ("forever, less a day"). Of course, those didn't make a lot of sense either — just a lot of dollars.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[budgenator]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Scientology isn't a religion, at least not by any reasonable definition I've ever seen. Most religions either have a supernatural being/s or have one or more 30-40 yr old males who've become enlightened while alone and almost dead from thirst and starvation or both.

Will this cause

[kaufmanmoore]

Tom Cruise to come out of the closet?

Re:Will this cause

[VENONA]

Please specify closet. I've been hearing rumors of an intimate cross-species relationship with Xenu.

Xenu's Blazing Saddle

[Anonymous Coward]

Xenu Lamarr: Qualifications?
Elron Blubbard: Fraud, barratry, extortion, and fraud.
Xenu Lamarr: You said fraud twice.
Elron Blubbard: I like fraud.

Required. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new Thetan overloards.

Censorship vs. Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I hate censorship and think anyone has the right to invent any kooky religion they choose, this is true karma.

What goes around comes around.

Re:Censorship vs. Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because a person is free to take an action (ie: create a kooky religion, sue people like crazy, etc...) does not mean that they are in any way free from the consequences of that action.

Re:Censorship vs. Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

The potential prosecution has nothing to do with censorship. The scientologists are accused of using illegal means to control (ex-)members of their organization.

So unless you're an Anarchist or something, there's no way this could be considered censorship.

Re:Censorship vs. Karma

[Jesrad]

The fight against Scientology is not about censoring kooks. It's about judging people for kidnappings, wrongful deaths and murders, racketeering and what amounts to slavery.

Scientology not a Cult?

[Esteban]

Here's an article in which it's argued that Scientology is not a cult: http://www.slate.com/id/2171416/

It doesn't so much make Scientology look better, as make other religions look bad...

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Anonymous Coward]

All religions are basically cults with a large number of followers. While Scientology is indeed ridiculous, it's hard to argue that any of the other major religions are any less ridiculous.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Porchroof]

The author at that link knows neither Scientology nor Christianity.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[norite]

Cult (n) A small, unpopular religion.

Religion (n) A large, popular cult...

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[VENONA]

Excellent link. There I was, thinking Scientology was even weirder than most other belief systems based upon the supernatural or pseudoscience (astrology, etc.). It put things into a more reasonable perspective for me. A quick read, and well worth the time.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Just Some Guy]

All religions are basically cults with a large number of followers.

Oh really? If you want to learn what Baptists believe, go into a Baptist church and ask. They'll give you a Bible and as much denomination-specific literature as you care to leave with. You won't have to give your name, although they might ask for it. You won't have to join. You won't have to pay them anything. You won't have to sign a non-disclosure statement. And should you decide that you like it and wish to join that particular church, you're free to leave at any time. In fact, church membership isn't a requirement of their belief system at all (although it's recommended so that you can continue to learn about it and hang out with like-minded people). No one will tell you where to work or where to live or which doctor to go to or who you can be friends with.

And that, to me, is the difference between a religion and a cult. You may completely disagree with what Baptists believe, but they'll tell you the entire story in advance and let you decide for yourself. The same goes for pretty much every other mainstream religion. On the other hand, if a group requires a donation or commitment before they'll even tell you what you're joining, run screaming. There are enough Open Source religions around that there's not much point in joining a proprietary sect.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[DavidTC]

It doesn't matter whether it's a 'cult' or not.

It matters that they use extortion to silence critics. Repeatedly. They accuse them of child porn, they have them arrested on bogus charges, they break into their houses and harass them at work. They've even kidnapped 'errant members' before, and at least such one person has actually disappeared while in their custody.

It has nothing to do with the rather surreal beliefs of their religion.

Incidentally, whether not something is a cult also has nothing to with the beliefs. It is simply a list of things like 'requires members to cut off contact with family' and 'uses sleep/food deprivation as a form of mind control' and stuff like. Scientology uses some of the cult tricks, and not others, so whether or not it actually is a cult is debatable, but that is not why they run into legal trouble, they run into legal trouble because parts of their organization operate illegally in attacking critics.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[p0tat03]

While I agree with the gist of what you're saying...

No one will tell you where to work or where to live or which doctor to go to or who you can be friends with.

This simply isn't true for many churches. While the church won't send out their legal hounds, I have personally seen many pastors and religious leaders who DO tell their followers such things. Some jobs are against God's will, some friends should be sidelined, since they do not believe. Heck, aren't Jehovah's Witnesses aren't allowed blood transfusions? That's a pretty big "can't see that doctor" to me.

So yes, the difference between cult and religion is that the former wants compensation for belief, while the latter does not. But both can cause believers to do terrible things.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[MutantEnemy]

No one will tell you where to work

They might tell you not to work in an abortion clinic or a brothel. But yes, your point is generally well made. :-)

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[RealGrouchy]

You may completely disagree with what Baptists believe, but they'll tell you the entire story in advance and let you decide for yourself. Unless you are a child and they are raising you.

(I have no objections to the rest of your post.)

- RG>

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[zakezuke]

No one will tell you where to work or where to live or which doctor to go to or who you can be friends with. This is not always true... many "Christian" groups are very restrictive. This seems to be common in the mid west of America where churches would seem to have stronger power over the people. Kids raised into a religion are often taught to avoid other sects because of fundamental differences. Schools in some states are not taught Darwinian theory because it is felt it's in direct conflict with the bible. I'm sure the Catholic church still maintains a list of banned books.

But... things on the religion front are getting better. For example a typical Catholic can marry a Protestent without causing much grief, and it's no longer unusual for them to be buried in the same cemetery. This is a huge change over a short period of time.

A good way to judge a religion or social group is how they react to those who don't follow the exact same set of beliefs. Ostracizing friends and family for this reason is not something I find to be acceptable. Also, an open door policy is something I enjoy in any religious group. Outside oversight helps to prevent abuses of power.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[khallow]

Nonsense, I see nothing wrong with the "mystery" aspect of scientology. This was often a feature of religions from ancient times. See "mystery religions" for an example.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[GPL Apostate]

You somehow switched over from a mainstream branch of Christianity to examples from some creepy cultist sects.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[dbIII]

The "other religions" bit is where they have conned you. It is a scam that after several years declared itself a religion for tax purposes. When that didn't initially work they did a break and enter on the IRS!

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[ceoyoyo]

Hm. It certainly used to be highly frowned upon to let parts of the bible get out. The Catholic church wasn't exactly overjoyed when Gutenburg decided to start printing bibles.

My grandmother was excommunicated from the Catholic church for marrying a protestant. I had a girlfriend whose father forbade her to marry me (not that it was going to happen anyway) because I wasn't a member of their (mainstream) church.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[schon]

aren't Jehovah's Witnesses aren't allowed blood transfusions? That's a pretty big "can't see that doctor" to me. Sorry - what ?!?!?

How - in any way, shape or form - are the statements "you are not allowed to have a blood transfusion from any doctor" and "you are not allowed to see Dr. XXXX" similar?

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[schon]

I had a girlfriend whose father forbade her to marry me (not that it was going to happen anyway) because I wasn't a member of their (mainstream) church. Wow - your girlfriend's father was the head of a mainstream religion?

(After all - this discussion is about the *religion itself* banning who someone can contact - not which criteria someone's parents use to forbid them marrying.)

So, which mainstream religion was he the head of?

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[ceoyoyo]

If the majority of members of a religion enforce a particular policy than that policy is as good as that of the "official" religion. The attitude comes from somewhere. Most religions aren't dictatorships either.

I note you neglected to comment on the very much official excommunication anecdote. Or anything else, for that matter.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Jehovah's Witnesses ARE a cult.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[_KiTA_]

Here's an article in which it's argued that Scientology is not a cult: http://www.slate.com/id/2171416/

It doesn't so much make Scientology look better, as make other religions look bad...


Of course Scientology isn't a cult. It's a Pyramid Scheme. L. Ron Hubbard just decided to add some excerpts from his shitty books to make it sound all SCI-MYSTICAL. Wooooo~.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on Slashdot will I hear the term "open source religion" and everyone immediately comprehends the meaning. :P

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Draek]

well, I've met some people who forbid their sons and daughters from marrying people from the opposite political spectrum, and then there's the whole stuff with socio-economical status so it's hardly a problem exclusive to religions, rather it's just good ol' "us vs them" mentality that takes hold of stupid people.

Give it a few decades and who knows, we may even have rock-listening parents forbidding their son to marry a girl who prefers jazz, or perhaps closed-source vs open-source software users =D

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[TheLink]

"I have personally seen many pastors and religious leaders who DO tell their followers such things"

Be careful then - they may be a cult (or might be in the process of turning into one).

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[TheLink]

'This is not always true... many "Christian" groups are very restrictive.'

Sad to say, many "Christian" groups ARE cults.

Here's how Christians tell a Christian group from a "Christian" group. One follows Jesus (or tries anyway, nobody's perfect ;) ), and the other follows the Pastor (or whatever the human chooses to call him/herself).

IMO, Darwinian Theory is not in direct conflict with Christianity, and you can be a Christian even if you think that evolution was the likely way humans came about.

Most people are ignorant, and no surprise most Christians are ignorant about their own religion, but the difference is Bible is there for EVERYONE to read (or even made fun of - often by bigots).

Seems that's not true for Scientology.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Roxton]

That's not correct. Typical hard-line Baptist churches will discourage close friendships with non-believers.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Weedlekin]

"If the majority of members of a religion enforce a particular policy than that policy is as good as that of the "official" religion."

One anecdote doesn't say anything about what the majority of people in a religion do. I come from a line of what Catholics term "mixed marriages" that goes back to my great grandmother (Irish Catholic married English Protestant) in the 19th century; my parents were a mixed marriage; and my wife is a Catholic, while I was baptised Anglican, but have been an agnostic since my early teen years. None of these people were _ever_ threatened with excommunication, and none of their parents forbade the marriages, but these family experiences are precisely that, and are not indicative of any general tendencies, so YMMV.

NB: the Catholic faith prohibits mixed marriages (mixed religions, not mixed races), but by far the most common penalty for having one is a refusal to recognise the marriage, although they've usually been willing to give it a limited form of recognition in return for a written promise to baptise any children that issue from the union as Catholics. This is precisely the same status as that of divorced Catholics who marry without having their prior marriages annulled (which can be a long and difficult process, so the vast majority of Catholics who remarry fall into this category).

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[robot_love]

So yes, the difference between cult and religion is that the former wants compensation for belief, while the latter does not anymore. But both can cause believers to do terrible things.

There, fixed that for you. The Roman Catholic church used to offer to allow your loved ones to leave hell if you contributed towards the construction of a cathedral. Same shit. Different century.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Just Some Guy]

My grandmother was excommunicated from the Catholic church for marrying a protestant.

I think that says much more about that parish in particular than it does about Catholicism, let alone Christianity as a whole. Returning to my Southern Baptist example, the absolute harshest "punishment" that can be given to a church member is to tell them not to come back to that church (and I've never personally heard of that happening). Whether they join another church is between them and the new congregation. There's no equivalent to excommunication.

The reason I bring this up is that the Catholic church seems to have the highest media profile. If a TV show or movie requires a religious presence, it's typically a priest. Because of this, I think, a lot of people equate the Catholic church with Christianity. However, while they're certainly a part of the larger group, their actions have little bearing on how the rest of Christianity works.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[mdarksbane]

I find it most interesting reading about the beginnings of Christianity or Islam just how similar to a cult they were.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[TechMouse]

And should you decide that you like it and wish to join that particular church, you're free to leave at any time.

Pretty sure that at least one of the abrahamic faiths has some choice words to say on the subject of becoming apostate. Agree with the spirit of your post, but there are factions in all faiths who show the same lunatic streak as the Scientology muppets and they're not always far from the mainstream.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[dajak]

Americans who believe mainstream christian churches are equally laidback everywhere should read about pillarisation (I am Dutch), our local, rustic form of religious terrorism. It may shed some light on why only half the population claims a christian denomination in some European countries.

The US is a bit typical (from my point of view) in having a sort of crypto-protestant pseudo-state-religion that is inclusive of everyone who sort of believes there is something out there, and that makes it OK for elected state officials to mention god and god's blessing and stuff like that, to organize state marriages in churches, even to organize religious ceremonies (the 911 funeral), etc. All of those things are unthinkable here, even under a christian-democrat government. In parliament you can talk about god if you like; When you become a minister you represent the Crown which "speaks with one mouth".

I suppose the path of least resistance in the US for people who don't actually go to church is to feel sort-of christian if they believe there is something out there. In some other countries people are less forgiving to the christian god when they leave church.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfff - the difference between an religion, a cult and a lunatic is simply the number of people involved.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Just Some Guy]

Pfff - the difference between an religion, a cult and a lunatic is simply the number of people involved.

Yes, it's much easier just to assign an arbitrarily label to something than to try to understand the nuances. Ignorant, but easier.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may have meant this as a joke, but in my "Intro to Religion" class in college, that was the exact definition given for Religion by the professor.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[zakezuke]

'This is not always true... many "Christian" groups are very restrictive.'

Sad to say, many "Christian" groups ARE cults. You could say that, it could be true. It's rather why I said religious or social groups. It doesn't change the fact that with in the past 50 years it was not uncommon for Catholics to be told not to attend Protestent weddings. My priest was a tad on the liberal side making jokes like "Oh, this door? Oh, that's where all the Catholics go who think they are the only ones who get into heaven". Heck, to this day officially the Catholic church has strong stand against birth control, even in developing countries where the population is on overload.

Here's how Christians tell a Christian group from a "Christian" group. One follows Jesus (or tries anyway, nobody's perfect ;) ), and the other follows the Pastor (or whatever the human chooses to call him/herself). Good enough system. I'm not going to spend my time assigning labels, but generally speaking I take issue more with the followers than the institution, unless it's the institution it self that's directly affecting the quality of life of others or them selves.

IMO, Darwinian Theory is not in direct conflict with Christianity, and you can be a Christian even if you think that evolution was the likely way humans came about. My view is any church should not have direct say over what is taught in schools, but there are states where Darwinian theory is simply not taught.

Most people are ignorant, and no surprise most Christians are ignorant about their own religion, but the difference is Bible is there for EVERYONE to read (or even made fun of - often by bigots).

Seems that's not true for Scientology. I would very much agree that open doors help to address certain issues, as well as public disclosure. Also, to enjoy the benefit of tax free status, I feel one can't enjoy the benefits of copyright protection.

I judge religious and social groups based on a few factors
1) Family Values
2) Treatment of non-followers
3) Benefit to the world, community, and individual.

For example, I'm to a big fan of one aspect of the Amish where when children are adults, they have to make a choice whether to stay in a community or leave. But aside from that from what I've seen they treat others with respect, trade good quality farm and produce, and in exchange for being self sufficient they just want to be left alone.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[ceoyoyo]

Exactly. It's nothing to base the definition of the world cult on, unless of course you want to call any group of people a cult.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[ceoyoyo]

If you're a catholic and your church, which you believe is more than a social organization, refuses to recognize your marriage that means you don't have a marriage. Which means you're living in sin, which means you're going to hell, whether or not they actually excommunicate you.

I still don't see anything significantly different between Scientology and mainstream religions, particularly when you look at when those religions were young, as Scientology is today.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[ceoyoyo]

The Salem witch trials were run by Puritans... most definitely not Catholics. They weren't big fans of associating with outsiders either. The ancient Egyptians punished sorcerers by drowning, Jewish rabbis and kings sentenced witches to death or exile.

The catholic church actually outlawed belief in witches, so they burned them as heretics instead. McCarthy went after communists.

Shunning or outright persecution of people who are different isn't limited to Catholics, or even to what we ordinarily think of religioins. Calling Scientology a cult to distinguish it from more established religions is pretty disingenuous.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Weedlekin]

"If you're a catholic and your church, which you believe is more than a social organization, refuses to recognize your marriage that means you don't have a marriage. Which means you're living in sin, which means you're going to hell, whether or not they actually excommunicate you."

I'm not a Catholic, but being married to one means I know that they believe the only baptised people who go to hell are those who don't repent their sins. The whole point of confession and penance is due to their belief that even the most devout people sin, hence the fact that all those who are part of the church itself are also expected to confess regularly. Repenting will also result in the sacraments being granted to those who have been excommunicated (i.e. they cease to be excommunicated).

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[ceoyoyo]

So all you have to do is denounce your "wife" and ill-begotten family, at some point in your life?

That still sounds an awful lot like a version of telling people who they should and should not associate with.

If you believe it, that is. Fortunately over time (like two thousand years) religions seem to get established and people pick out the good bits to believe in and sweep the bad bits under the rug. Give Scientology a couple of millennia and a bunch of people believing in flying saucers and ancient ghosts might seem harmlessly quaint. Or they might be a cornerstone of society in much of the world.

Here and now, those who have committed crimes deserve to be punished, but pretending they're something special is just head in the sand denial.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Weedlekin]

"So all you have to do is denounce your "wife" and ill-begotten family, at some point in your life?"

The Catholic definition of repenting means apologising for what you do, not denouncing others.

"That still sounds an awful lot like a version of telling people who they should and should not associate with."

It actually sounds an awful lot like the Catholic Church telling people what it defines as marriage, i.e. a permanent union between a male Catholic and a female Catholic who swear to be bound by certain rules during a public ceremony. For this to count as them telling people who they can associate with, every association would have to be defined as a permanent union where people swear to be bound by certain rules during an elaborate public ceremony.

"Fortunately over time (like two thousand years) religions seem to get established and people pick out the good bits to believe in and sweep the bad bits under the rug."

Anybody who has studied the history of the currently established religions knows that this process has been happening since they started. The thing that separates cults like scientology from the more established religions is the fact that the entire cult has a single official doctrine which everybody is expected to follow, whereas the major religions started life as a set of distinct groups, each of which had their own interpretations of what the religion was, who it was aimed at, which of a large number of texts were significant, and what ceremonies and practices should be observed by members. Over time, some groups grow, others disappear, new ones form, and old ones change, and while all of these share a core set of beliefs, the way they interpret them can vary so widely that outsiders could be forgiven for thinking that they were different religions (e.g. Islam's Whirling Dervishes and Wahabi).

"Give Scientology a couple of millennia and a bunch of people believing in flying saucers and ancient ghosts might seem harmlessly quaint. Or they might be a cornerstone of society in much of the world."

History indicates that religions which expect everyone to believe exactly the same things and follow exactly the same practices don't ever become mainstream, because there is no room for the personal interpretation that is necessary for the religion _as a whole_ to grow and evolve. And for personal interpretation to be possible, there must be ambiguity in both the nature of what is being worshipped, and any texts that describe it, otherwise it's impossible for new prophets to reinterpret things, and new groups to reinterpret those prophets' reinterpretations in different ways, thereby permitting those with many, many different shades and variations of a basic belief structure to find something somewhere that suits them. Scientology defines too much, and casts too much of what it defines in stone for this sort of ambiguity-based reinterpretation to take place, so it cannot develop into something that offers a variety of options to people with different cultural, social, and religious backgrounds.

All churches are guilty of that

[flyingfsck]

I happen to think that talking unsubstantiated nonsence and practising extortion and fraud is a hallmark of all religion...

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Captain Splendid]

I happen to think that talking unsubstantiated nonsence and practising extortion and fraud is a hallmark of all religion...

Agreed, but in all fairness to the 'regular' religions, they at least welcome you in and then extort you, whereas Scientology extorts the money up front, over a long period of time, before you're allowed full access to the church's teachings.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Selfbain]

I was raised in an extremely Christian environment and when I grew up I stopped going to church and rejected their belief system. However, I never once received death threats from the church and for the most part, I believe their intentions were good however misguided I believe them to be. To put it simply, the church I was forced to attend in my childhood never scared me. These people do.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Captain Splendid]

Exactly. I'm not a fan of any organized religion, but to compare Scientology to any of the major Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist sects is just ridiculous. Which is why I posted the above comment of 'about fucking time'. I'm all for Scientology getting the mainstream recognition they want, they just need to realize it comes at a price.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

I'm a Christian and wasn't aware that I was being extorted, what do you base your assertion on?

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Captain Splendid]

Depends on your sect, really. As a general rule, sex before marriage is totally OK, no matter what any preacher or good book says. Oh, and there won't be any rapture. It was a metaphor, you see?

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[arivanov]

And where does the Catolic church not allowing its followers to read the Bible fit in? It was taken off the list of reading that is not recommnded to the casual parishioner as recent as the mid-20th century. This is just one example of the top of my head. While the prevailing forms of Christianity, Islam and Buddism are nowdays more or less liberal regarding the availability of religious texts to the casual believer that was not always the case. In fact, for many fringe sects it is still not the case.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Prof.Phreak]

I happen to think that talking unsubstantiated nonsence and practising extortion and fraud is a hallmark of all religion...

Which is why other religions are pissed... scientology seems to be more efficient at that.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[garcia]

Exactly. I'm not a fan of any organized religion, but to compare Scientology to any of the major Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist sects is just ridiculous. Which is why I posted the above comment of 'about fucking time'. I'm all for Scientology getting the mainstream recognition they want, they just need to realize it comes at a price.

I grew up a Catholic. I went to church, was an alter server, watched as my mother placed their hard earned money into the collection basket every week. I watched as the Diocese of Scranton told a priest at our church that they would make him a Monsignor if he collected enough money from our congregation to build a new church out in Boo Fuck Egypt (coincidentally his name was Msgr. Bendik and the church to be built was named Church of St. Benedict which was entirely too close).

So, with this plan in place, he set about ensuring that the new church would be built so that he would be escalated (years earlier than most) to the level of Monsignor. Every week in the bulletin were notices of how much the previous week's collection was and how much it was off (or above) the goal. His sermons were centered around money and giving to the church. He was a pimp for the Diocese and we were all his whores.

That fucking church was built and he got his title all while extorting everyone in the parish (which to this day continues to support that horrible monstrosity which apparently needs a new roof much earlier than expected) and fucking everyone over. If anything, while the church might not coerce you to pay them untold amounts of unnecessary money until you are in, at least the Church of Scientology is up front about it (although that's where my sympathy for this comparison ends).

All churches are fucking crazy -- a superhuman living in some mystical place pre-planning all the events on Earth and guiding His people with a glorified children's book is just as bad as having rocket propelled modern airplanes bring everyone to defrost in volcanoes while watching videos of the future. Sounds like stuff only a sci-fi writer could come up with...

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

In your previous post, you wrote that religions in general

welcome you in and then extort you.

As a general rule, sex before marriage is totally OK, no matter what any preacher or good book says What is the extortion in my case is my question.

there won't be any rapture What does some rapture have to do with this?

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[jimicus]

Scientology extorts the money up front, over a long period of time, before you're allowed full access to the church's teachings.

Another point to note is that (more or less uniquely among religions) scientology actively discourages members discussing the church's teachings amongst themselves.

Combine that nugget of information with the funny looks John Sweeney was getting when he interviewed celebrities about scientology (in the BBC panorama documentary) and asked them about Xenu, they honestly seemed to have no clue what he was on about. Yet several of them were at relatively advanced levels.

The conclusion I draw from that is that there are actually several versions of scientology, and the version you get fed depends entirely on how wealthy/high profile/gullible you are judged to be. That's my opinion, take it or leave it.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Captain Splendid]

And where does the Catolic church not allowing its followers to read the Bible fit in?,

Man, that's just weird. Where'd you hear about it?

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

Does that include Christianity based on the teaching of Jesus?

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[myowntrueself]

Oh, and there won't be any rapture. It was a metaphor, you see?

Oh crap, I was really hoping there would be a rapture and that Jesus would save the world from all the bloody Christians...

I was even going so far as to hope that Jesus would be so kind as to extend the rapture to the Jews and Muslims too... that would be very nice of Him.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[pablodiazgutierrez]

My personal favorite way to describe the dude is "levitating Jew zombie".

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[mfrank]

He's probably talking about all the masses being in Latin until about 50 years ago. You have to go back a few centuries to get to where the church would kill you if you had a non-Latin Bible (or, more likely, if you weren't a priest and had *any* bible).

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Opportunist]

No, it's rather that they don't tell you the "whole truth" right away. I mean, if you heard that your anti-god came to this planet and that there was some kind of spaceships that look like planes right out of the 1960s which dropped and H-Bomb and then imprisoned that devil somewhere in a mountain in some kind of electronic prison, and that there are "souls" of aliens clinging to you and you have to sorta-kinda exorcise them by confronting and asking them (that's the really advanced mumbo-jumbo, mind you)... I mean, wouldn't you start to backpedal slowly and go "ooookay... whatever you say... very nice... don't call, I'll call you..."?

Instead, you get teaspoon sized information snippets every now and then, together with a condescending smile and a "it will all make sense very soon", until you threw enough money at them that you WANT to believe it.

I mean, would you like to admit to yourself that you blew a few 10k for a not really too stellar sci-fi story? You WANT to believe that's true. It HAS to be. After all, you're no fool that throws thousands of quid away, are you?

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[IWannaBeAnAC]

There is a lot of psychology that goes into the design of a church service. First, they start by telling you how fantastic that Jesus guy was, how he was, like, the son of God and everything. Then, they explain how YOU (personally, if not literally) fucked the guy over and nailed him to a tree. After piling on the guilt over that, only then do they bring out the money jar, with the implication that you can redeem yourself by donating to the church.

Psychological extortion?

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

I've seen this written many times, your intention may be to provide:

1. An expression to mock Christians without any real argumentative (i.e. based on reason) value
2. A cynical way to describe reality

In the former case, not much can be said, as children occasionally do that and try to provoke others in any way possible. In the latter case, your expression doesn't depict reality, as Jesus Christ wasn't levitating (He was walking like an ordinary human, He once demonstrated His power to thwart gravity to His students) and wasn't a zombie, since zombies don't have will, soul and are stupid. Could you please provide the source of this "joke"?

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs to send death threats to a heathen that's going to burn in Hell for all of eternity?

Just because you aren't receiving death threats doesn't mean you aren't going to be 'punished' for leaving the church at some point; Scientologists, Mormons, and other cults with laws to punish former members are more blatant about it, using economic and social pressure like crude weapons, but at least you know where you stand.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

I understand that lots of priests, bishops and popes have done things that Christians aren't allowed to do, however that doesn't mean much for the substance of their faith (the teaching of Jesus specifically). The problem with the teaching of Jesus is that it's true. I can prove that the airplanes you say don't exist, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrelevant and most likely fiction (it has every possible quality that justifies it being a human-made contraption), that fairies don't exist etc. yet I cannot say that what Jesus said is a lie or fiction.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

First, they start by telling you how fantastic that Jesus guy was, how he was, like, the son of God and everything. Then, they explain how YOU (personally, if not literally) fucked the guy over and nailed him to a tree. If any Christian is doing exactly as you described, that's against the teaching of Jesus. He said that a person should decide himself whether he wants to follow Him or not. If you don't trust that they're telling the truth, then don't follow them. In any case, what you say is far from my experience.

After piling on the guilt over that, only then do they bring out the money jar, with the implication that you can redeem yourself by donating to the church. No one has ever told me such a thing. If they had, I would have objected to that strongly. I mainly feel guilt for what I have done to myself and others, so the money jar is meant to help others, not relieve my guilt (I feel guilt because I did something I shouldn't, helping someone doesn't undo what I did). Christians relieve their conscience by confession and firm decision to do as God wants, people that tell you to help the poor to make yourself feel better don't know much about Christianity. You should try to help people, because that's what God wants and God's will is shown to people through their conscience, not because someone else tells you so.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[pablodiazgutierrez]

I just remember reading that somewhere else here in Slashdot, but can't pinpoint it. About my intentions, I guess it could be a mix of both. I find it funny that people believe in supernatural powers. And many other people do; That's why the joke lives on.

As for the accuracy, it could be argued that walking over (liquid) water is a form of levitation. About the zombie part (and leaving aside whether a proper definition of zombie can be reached), you might be right regarding stupidity, but the existence of souls is yet to be proven. In any case, nobody asks comedians to substantiate their claims. They're just jokes. Jokes about religion should not be different.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[arth1]

Agreed, but in all fairness to the 'regular' religions, they at least welcome you in and then extort you, whereas Scientology extorts the money up front, over a long period of time, before you're allowed full access to the church's teachings.

Whereas in, say, a mormon church, you just have to pay tithe for quite a few years before you're allowed access to the temple and secrets like who Mrs God really is and how to put on magic underwear.

Can't we just dispense with all the fairy tales and superstition once and for all? Pass a law against religion that will remain in effect until a deity, without the aid of humans, asks for it to be lifted?
In my opinion, Lenin had the right idea, it was just Stalin's and Mao's executions that were awful.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[GPL Apostate]

Your anecdote had some value and added to the discussion. You described an abuse by one priest at one church. Your message was going somewhere. But you blew it in your fourth paragraph:

All churches are fucking crazy --

That doesn't follow smoothly from the previous three paragraphs. You'll need to provide more supporting evidence.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[dazzz67]

Talking unsubstantiated nonsense and practising extortion are also hallmarks of: Politics Education Commerce Entertainment Religion is not unique by any means in seeing the most effective way to get money and believers.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[GPL Apostate]

That's funny, because I have memories of reading about all kinds of Catholic kids being required to learn to read, write, and speak Latin. Was the plan that they were all going to be forced to become priests, to 'keep the secret' from the regular Catholics?

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Anonymous Coward]

All churches are fucking crazy --

That doesn't follow smoothly from the previous three paragraphs. You'll need to provide more supporting evidence.

s/churches/religions -- my bad. That, along with the sentence following, needs no more explanation.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Nephilium]

The big difference is that a death threat, being sued, and other intimidation techniques are happening now, and can be proven to have been done...

Can you prove to me that anyone has gone to Hell?

Nephilium... raised Roman Catholic... now an Agnostic Apostate...

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Ajehals]

Using the following defenition for extortion,

"the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property"

and using the following defenition for extort

to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

also : to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument

You could argue that an organised religion like Christianity carries out extortion, its tenuous as hell, but here we go:-

Members of an organised religion are often asked as part of their membership to give time (in the way of voluntary work) and money (in the way of donations) to the organisation. This is coupled with the fact that members are often told that failure to continue their membership will lead to some fairly adverse consequences (eternal damnation etc..). As such it could be said that failure to participate and continue your membership, and provide work or funds as appropriate will lead to negative consequences from the head of that organisation ($deity).

As I said its tenuous but not entirely baseless, it largely depends on the way any given organisation is run. Some of the Televangelists that I have seen (I found some insane Church TV channels when trying to find decent Internet TV - hey I'm in the UK you don't see much stuff like that over here) should be guilty of something (probably not extortion though), but local churches that pass around a collection tray should certainly not be.

Whilst looking at that you should also note that people who are subject to extortion are also often subject to fraud at the same time, (think schemes where you buy in with a little amount and then more and more is demanded...), it is also fairly likely that the person in question is not aware of the fraud or the extortion, that is especially true with cults and could be true in the context of religion.

Anyway, that said, I don't think that normal mainstream religion can be compared to Scientology in this regard (or any other), nor would I agree that there is much in the way of extortion or fraud going on inside organised religion in general.

I should say I am not religious, as such I see quite a large proportion of religious beliefs as something of a fraud (in fairly lose terms), albeit one perpetuated in good faith by generally good people, who believe in what they are doing. There is nothing inherently wrong with that as long as it doesn't cause harm to others, something most world religions seem to espouse now, but have been poor at in the past.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[jedidiah]

I find this entire extortion claim rather fascinating since the one key differing point between Catholoicsm and Protestant branches of Xianity is the fact that the requirement for "good works" or even "good behavior" is pretty much completely eliminated in favor of faith. There might be some peer pressure shenanigans going on but outright extortion probably isn't even dupported by local dogma in most if not all of these other denominations.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Sj0]

Sir, I thoroughly doubt your idea that Chuck Norris is the cause of natural selection and evolution! Please point me to the relevant peer-reviewed journal showing this to be the case!!

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[TheLink]

From my reading of Revelations, I suspect there will be a lot of bloody Christians (especially from people killing Christians and unfortunately probably Christians killing other people too - though they shouldn't).

I don't think it's going to be as convenient for everyone.

Go read Revelations.

Here's some stuff to think about:
1) Revelations predicts the Antichrist aka False Messiah.
2) The Jews and Muslims are still waiting for the Messiah, so who knows maybe a Muslim Jew might fit the bill...
3) A fair number of Christians are unlikely to believe that one as the 2nd Coming...
4) Israel is already back where it's supposed to be (and causing problems just like in the old days[1]).
5) The world is already being set up for a Global Government - Laws, Courts etc, just add a nice enough throne for Mr 666.

So, yeah there will be a lot of bloody Christians.

Think I'm wrong?

[1] Israel means "Wrestles/Struggles with God" go figure ;).

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[arivanov]

Correct.

While the Bible never made it onto the prohibited books list it was a reading which was only recommended to priests roughly till the same time the Church abolished Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Second Vatican Congress AFAIK). Eastern Orthodox church was not any different to that respect. The fact that the official and acceptable Bible for either religion was in a dead language (latin and church slavic respectively) helped to enforce the restriction.

Hint - try to find the Bible in any published curicullum of a school in a Catolic country from the days when Latin was a mandatory subject in whatever the equivalent of a grammar school was at the time. You will not find it.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[master_p]

Well, after 2000 years of Christianity, things have come around and now it is a non-violent religion.

Imagine yourself in western continental Europe though, as a peasant, around 1500 AD. If you denounced Christianity openly, you would be burned as a witch.

It's only a matter of time...

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Weedlekin]

"If you denounced Christianity openly, you would be burned as a witch."

Denouncing Christianity was heresy, not witchcraft. The definition of "witch" at that period was a person who was directly in league with the devil, from whom any magical powers that they were supposed to have were derived (it was believed that all supernatural phenomena came from either God or The Devil). Things were very different prior to the late 13th. century, when the Devil in the later (and indeed current) sense hadn't been invented, so "sorcery" was only punishable by a period of penance.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Weedlekin]

"Can't we just dispense with all the fairy tales and superstition once and for all? Pass a law against religion that will remain in effect until a deity, without the aid of humans, asks for it to be lifted?"

Totalitarians everywhere would agree that the ideal way to run a society is by making it illegal for people to say what they think, illegal for them to gather without permission, illegal for them to own certain types of literature, and exercise completely control all media to ensure that illegal material can't be disseminated.

"In my opinion, Lenin had the right idea, it was just Stalin's and Mao's executions that were awful."

Stalin's and Mao's executions were the inevitable result of the sort of laws you're advocating, because the easiest way to "protect" the public from "disruptive influences" is by removing those influences, and a bullet, noose, or gas chamber is the quickest and cheapest way of doing this (slave labour / re-education camps can a also be used, because a piece of bread and a cup of water is a small price to pay for making all those dissidents do an honest 18 hour day of back-breaking work).

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, but in all fairness to the 'regular' religions, they at least welcome you in and then extort you, whereas Scientology extorts the money up front, over a long period of time, before you're allowed full access to the church's entertainment library. Fixed that for you.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[mink]

You mean Mr. 616
Sorry about linking to Wikipedia, but I can't find my link to the original news item about the way they imaged the text off the damaged material.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, would you like to admit to yourself that you blew a few 10k for an absolutely fucking retarded sci-fi story? Fixed that for you.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Darby]

The problem with the teaching of Jesus is that it's true.

Sure it is. Remember things are true or false based solely on what you wish was true. No sanity, evidence or even common sense required.

I can prove that the airplanes you say don't exist,

I'd like to see you try. It's much easier for you to just lie though. Saves time on thinking.

that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrelevant and most likely fiction (it has every possible quality that justifies it being a human-made contraption),

Yet the unassailable fact is that there is as much *or more* evidence for the FSM than there is for Jesus the man, let alone the loony fairy tales.

yet I cannot say that what Jesus said is a lie or fiction.

However, you can say with complete accuracy that there is no evidence whatsoever that there ever was a Jesus or that he said anything, let alone the various old fairy tales edited together by scum with a vicious agenda which constitutes the bible.

You see, that's why a lot of people hate Christians. So many of you guys lie all the fucking time about really obvious stuff.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[arth1]

Totalitarians everywhere would agree that the ideal way to run a society is by making it illegal for people to say what they think, illegal for them to gather without permission, illegal for them to own certain types of literature, and exercise completely control all media to ensure that illegal material can't be disseminated.

Totalitarians (including most religious people) wants to forbid things because it's challenging them. Forbidding something patently false and nonsensical to be presented as truth is more than a wee bit different.
    We already do this for other things -- I can't sell a black box that I say can cure any illness, but I can sell a faith where I say a god can cure any illness. That's inconsistent and illogical.

Stalin's and Mao's executions were the inevitable result of the sort of laws you're advocating, because the easiest way to "protect" the public from "disruptive influences" is by removing those influences, and a bullet, noose, or gas chamber is the quickest and cheapest way of doing this (slave labour / re-education camps can a also be used, because a piece of bread and a cup of water is a small price to pay for making all those dissidents do an honest 18 hour day of back-breaking work).

I'm sorry to see that you have the same narrow mind that Stalin and Mao had. Religious fraud should, of course, be subject to the same laws as any other fraud, with the same penalties. No special treatment, because there's nothing special about it.

Fraud is fraud, whether the person who hawks it believes in it or not. Ignorance is no excuse in face of the law.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Darby]

Well, after 2000 years of Christianity, things have come around and now it is a non-violent religion.

No, that's not true at all. Christianity is what it's always been. It's just that there are pretty much zero Christians left. They've pretty much all rejected their faith and just taken a new one but still call it the same thing.

Rest assured, a true Christian would murder you with big fucking rocks for a variety of trivial offenses. The Bible is absolutely clear on that point.
If they're not willing to do that, then they are not Christians, plain and simple. Just ask Jesus.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Darby]

If any Christian is doing exactly as you described, that's against the teaching of Jesus. He said that a person should decide himself whether he wants to follow Him or not.

So there are very few to no Christians in the world then?
You do know that since they stopped spreading their faith by torture and murder that it's all about getting the little kids when they're too young to be able to decide about that, and then brainwash them, right?

The way Christians will totally contradict themselves and then just doublethink it away is a truly frightening example of the depth of delusion.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[myowntrueself]

I don't know what you are talking about... I was just hoping that one day Jesus would swoop down from heaven and remove all the christians, jews and muslims from the world. Maybe he could take the mormons, jehovas witnesses, 7th day adventist and oh I don't know maybe the scientologists too?

Make the world a better place...

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Weedlekin]

"Totalitarians (including most religious people) wants to forbid things because it's challenging them."

Which is precisely what you're doing: you claim that your views are the only correct ones, so anything that doesn't agree with them is by definition wrong, and should therefore be banned. Those who don't feel threatened and challenged by what others choose to believe don't advocate using force to make everyone else to conform with their views.

"We already do this for other things -- I can't sell a black box that I say can cure any illness, but I can sell a faith where I say a god can cure any illness. That's inconsistent and illogical."

You can sell items that make all sorts of ludicrous claims, and ask people to invest in companies which are based around what amounts to snake oil. Here are a few examples (there are thousands of others):

http://www.healingcrystals.com/
http://www.magnecare.co.uk/
http://www.lutec.com.au/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/04/steorns-orbo-fr ee-energy-machine-demonstrated-tomorrow/
http://www.doctorajadams.com/DetoxFootSpa.html

Many companies sell so-called "Long Range Locators" that can supposedly detect anything and everything remotely valuable from tens to hundreds of miles away. All of them are widely known in treasure hunting circles to be scams, because despite having lots of digital dials, expensive flight cases, and impressive looking instruction manuals, they're actually based on dowsing, and none of the the ones that have been independently tested have been able to detect anything. This web page has more information:

http://geotech.thunting.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/i ndex.pl?page=lrl&file=reward.dat

"That's inconsistent and illogical."

It would indeed be logical and inconsistent if your claims were true instead of being nothing more than easily debunked attempt pretend that there's a justification for forcing everyone to conform with your views that doesn't boil down to "any views that are different from nine should be illegal".

"I'm sorry to see that you have the same narrow mind that Stalin and Mao had"

LOL!

"Religious fraud should, of course, be subject to the same laws as any other fraud, with the same penalties. No special treatment, because there's nothing special about it."

It is treated in exactly the same way as the frauds in the links above, and all the many other bits of balderdash that are bought by people every day.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Alsee]

[religious nonsense story] I mean, wouldn't you start to backpedal slowly and go "ooookay... whatever you say... very nice... don't call, I'll call you..."?

Well yeah, but as people have been saying Scientology is really only different because it is a young religion. Scientology only has to keep the story secret and parcel it out piece by piece like that because it is a young religion... because it is forced to convert adults to get members.

If someone told you a freaky story about talking plants and talking snakes, I mean, wouldn't you start to backpedal slowly and go "ooookay... whatever you say... very nice... don't call, I'll call you..."? Of course you would. Any rational person with a fully formed fully functioning brain would.

But Christians / Jews / Muslims *DO* get away with telling silly stories about talking plants and talking snakes because they dump these insane stories on their children from infancy. The only reason Christians / Jews / Muslims get away with these wacky stories is because they start indoctrinating people into them when they do not have fully formed fully functioning brains and they are captive prisoners who *cannot* backpedal slowly and go "ooookay... whatever you say... very nice... don't call, I'll call you...".

These religions don't much need to convert adults, they almost exclusively obtain all of their members by converting their children.

Yep, a snake told me to eat that apple, and then this burning bush started talking to me. Ooops... I think I forgot to take my anti-psychotic medication again.

Compared to the wacky stuff in the Bible and Torah and Quran, Scientology stories about spaceships are downright sane. Scientology has some nasty issues with criminal and other problematic behavior, but that's because it hasn't had 2000 years to file off all the rough edges yet.

Doubtless many out there consider me insane and malevolent and stupid and obnoxious and on and on and on with far worse.... and I gladly invite them to reply and tell me so... on the condition that their first paragraph tell my why stories of talking plants and talking snakes are any less NUTTY than spaceship stories!

-

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[pablodiazgutierrez]

You're risking it, man. You're risking it...

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Opportunist]

If I'm not mistaken they're not the only religion that converts adults. Judging by my faithful wake up callers every Saturday, yes, the Jehova bunch, I'm appearantly still quite popular despite being past my teen years.

And they do come with that funky story of talking snakes, apples and some guy who builds really big ships and another guy that parts oceans (and doesn't even build bridges while he got the water out of the way).

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, because I actually DID receive threats from a Southern Baptist church in central Texas, for "diminishing" a friend's "faith in Christ." Of course, they never followed up on any of them, but that just proves the Southern Baptists are really a bunch of wusses.

Of course, they're right; I WAS trying to diminish his faith. His faith imbued him with a deep-seated fear of most of his peers, forced him to shun everyone but his church friends, warped his sexuality to the point where he could only have anonymous unprotected sex (no condoms, no "real sex" before marriage but certain things didn't count), and eventually caused him to flunk out of school. Here's a hint for all you parents out there: if you teach your kid to expect to pass on piety, it is NOT the school's fault if he just doesn't do his work, no matter how much you cry "secularism!"

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[TheLink]

Thanks for the link! Interesting.

Anyway, I suppose the actions should be good enough to identify Mr 6?6. "If the shoe fits" and all that.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

and using the following defenition for extort also : to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument I highly doubt such a definition is correct or appears in a standard dictionary. By your definition, you right now are extorting me! Where did you get that definition from?

Members of an organised religion are often asked as part of their membership to give time (in the way of voluntary work) and money (in the way of donations) to the organisation. This is coupled with the fact that members are often told that failure to continue their membership will lead to some fairly adverse consequences (eternal damnation etc..). As such it could be said that failure to participate and continue your membership, and provide work or funds as appropriate will lead to negative consequences from the head of that organisation ($deity). I don't know what you think Christianity is, I've never heard of such things before. Are you sure you're referring to Christians?

Some of the Televangelists that I have seen (I found some insane Church TV channels when trying to find decent Internet TV - hey I'm in the UK you don't see much stuff like that over here) should be guilty of something (probably not extortion though) I cannot answer this one, you may be right.

it is also fairly likely that the person in question is not aware of the fraud or the extortion, that is especially true with cults and could be true in the context of religion. The post I replied to was referring to the "fact" that religions in general extort people. Not only that, it was modded up to +5, so people think he was right. I simply asked what that assertion was based on, no answer has been given yet. Now you're trying to say that I may be extorted without my knowledge when I try to help other people, without offering any evidence at all! In the same fashion I can claim lots of things about you being extorted by some organization for buying things etc. This doesn't make sense. Also, you propose this as a possibility, while the person I replied to was absolutely certain. Where this certainty comes from is anybody's guess.

Anyway, that said, I don't think that normal mainstream religion can be compared to Scientology in this regard (or any other), nor would I agree that there is much in the way of extortion or fraud going on inside organised religion in general. I agree, that was my point.

I should say I am not religious, as such I see quite a large proportion of religious beliefs as something of a fraud (in fairly lose terms), albeit one perpetuated in good faith by generally good people, who believe in what they are doing. There is nothing inherently wrong with that as long as it doesn't cause harm to others, something most world religions seem to espouse now, but have been poor at in the past. I agree wholeheartedly as well. Just don't forget the distinction between the one who follows the teaching of Jesus (a Christian) and someone who says so. This way it's easy to conclude that many priests, bishops and popes aren't Christians (in the narrow sense, the only one that is reasonable in my opinion) and things begin to make sense.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

Sure it is. Remember things are true or false based solely on what you wish was true. No sanity, evidence or even common sense required. Darby, you seem to think that you're the only rational or sane person on earth. You're wrong.

I'd like to see you try. It's much easier for you to just lie though. Saves time on thinking. Here we go again. Unless you specify exactly where my lie is, I will refrain from answering to your provocative and insulting "arguments". Your ability to think rationally isn't demonstrated by these arguments anyway.

Yet the unassailable fact is that there is as much *or more* evidence for the FSM than there is for Jesus the man, let alone the loony fairy tales. Your ignorance seems to be inversely proportional to your intelligence (this is a conclusion, not like what you tried to prove last time). Before you engage in lying again, check what wikipedia has to say on the matter. By the way, could you possibly think of any reason that an excerpt of an article on the matter by Berkeley professor of history Alice Whealey disappeared from the page a month ago? The specific excerpt states that the general consensus among scholars is that Josephus did in fact mention Jesus in his writings. Scholars, in a few words, say you're wrong, something that doesn't surprise me much. One more thing: what's the evidence that supports that the FSM, whose existence you claim is supported by more evidence than Jesus', exists?

However, you can say with complete accuracy that there is no evidence whatsoever that there ever was a Jesus or that he said anything, let alone the various old fairy tales edited together by scum with a vicious agenda which constitutes the bible. Anyone who asserts that this quote is true has no relation whatsoever to reason, science and, in the end, reality. Even ardent atheists admit that Jesus is a historic person. You're wrong again, the propaganda you adhere to leads to a dead-end.

You see, that's why a lot of people hate Christians. So many of you guys lie all the fucking time about really obvious stuff. Now for the moment of truth. Can I interpret this as you hating the Christians? It reasonably follows from all I have heard from you. You apparently hate them for "lying", as you put it, that they observe and learn things about their life that you're unable to. What seems obvious to you has numerous times proven completely false, illogical or merely fantasy. Base your assumptions, conclusions and line of thought on a solid basis, not your emotional urges, and you'll learn how the things that you regard as "fairy tales" and equivalent to logical exercises, like the FSM, are much more important than that. I am sorry that so-called Christians are probably the ones to blame for some of your valid conclusions in the previous conversation, yet your judgement of Christianity shouldn't depend on their behaviour alone, but also on how compatible it is with your personal beliefs. Also, critically examining the propaganda regarding Christianity that you're exposed to would help a lot to this end, which is the truth, not my wishes or beliefs or anything regarding anyone else.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

So there are very few to no Christians in the world then? Christians are the minority in world's population. There are very few persons actively willing to follow Jesus' teaching in my experience, most of the so-called Christians are such only by name. What I was referring to is that telling someone to do good deeds for fear that he would end up in hell shouldn't be anticipated to have any result, as the person already knows that when he commits sin. A person that doesn't know this simple fact doesn't know much about Christianity.

You do know that since they stopped spreading their faith by torture and murder That's an outright lie. You should know better since the last time we discussed this. Stop consuming this propaganda!

it's all about getting the little kids when they're too young to be able to decide about that, and then brainwash them, right? You are partially correct in this, the problem is that any alternative is far worse. Of course, any person can dismiss Christianity without any consequence that he cares about, so this still isn't much of a problem.
Now on for the masterpiece!

The way Christians will totally contradict themselves and then just doublethink it away is a truly frightening example of the depth of delusion. Darby, you amaze me. You continuously try to prove that pigs can fly and every other claim that makes no sense, as it is based on absolutely nothing but your own convictions and wishes. I have demonstrated this fact repeatedly, yet you still insist. I don't know what can make you think reasonably and you give me no help. Your hatred against Christians is misguided; many of them are to blame for some of the things you say, yet none of them in general is responsible for your problems regarding reality. If you have anything constructive and reasonable to say, feel free, otherwise I have no time to waste, I'm sorry.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

Please point me to the relevant peer-reviewed journal showing this to be the case!! Do you need peer confirmation that the sun rose this morning?
If you believe that Chuck Norris is responsible for what you say, I cannot convince you for the opposite, yet I can argue that it makes more sense.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

In any case, nobody asks comedians to substantiate their claims. They're just jokes. Jokes about religion should not be different. As I said above, if that's how you feel, not much can be said. I doubt, though, that anything reasonable can be said about anything at all in this fashion.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Darby]

Darby, you seem to think that you're the only rational or sane person on earth. You're wrong.

Not in any way shape or form. Your post was factually incorrect and obviously so at that. It demonstrated a complete lack of rationality. Just because you're wrong and I called you on it doesn't mean that everyone else in the world is as well. Stand up for yourself and your own statements without making up nonsense like that.

Here we go again. Unless you specify exactly where my lie is, I will refrain from answering to your provocative and insulting "arguments".

I did specifically demonstrate a few lies. Perhaps reading comprehension is another of your flaws?

By the way, could you possibly think of any reason that an excerpt of an article on the matter by Berkeley professor of history Alice Whealey disappeared from the page a month ago? The specific excerpt states that the general consensus among scholars is that Josephus did in fact mention Jesus in his writings.

Well, if that happened and that is what it said, then I'd imagine that it was removed because it isn't true.
The single offhand mention of Jesus in Josephus writings is generally considered to have been added in long after the fact. Probably a marginal note that was added to the main text later. So, no, that doesn't constitute evidence of anything. Given that fact that there were earthquakes, mass murder of male babies, censuses and the like mentioned in the bible as well as various other major events which according to *every* historical record never happened, it seems pretty desperate for you to cling to a discredited offhand mention with no magical connotations.

Here's a well researched article which demonstrates the desperation of your silly belief.

One more thing: what's the evidence that supports that the FSM, whose existence you claim is supported by more evidence than Jesus', exists?

The chart, baby. Number of pirates versus average global temperatures. That is far more solid evidence than exists for your Jesus.

Anyone who asserts that this quote is true has no relation whatsoever to reason, science and, in the end, reality.

Just because the voices in your head told you so, or do you actually have anything to back up your delusions? Save yourself the trouble, I know you don't. If anyone had any they would have brought it up by now.

Even ardent atheists admit that Jesus is a historic person.

Even Newton believed in numerology and astrology. You really should take a basic logic class. It wouldn't be so trivial to debunk your fallacious arguments then.

You're wrong again, the propaganda you adhere to leads to a dead-end.

Right, the voices in your head told you I'm wrong ;-)
You might actually want to look up what propaganda is and pay attention to why you're the one fooled by it and repeating it.

Can I interpret this as you hating the Christians?

They declared war on liberty in America, so when attacked, I generally dislike the ones who attack me and my way of life. It's called common sense.

You apparently hate them for "lying", as you put it, that they observe and learn things about their life that you're unable to.

Buying into a silly fairy tale does not constitute "learning" in any way shape or form.

What seems obvious to you has numerous times proven completely false, illogical or merely fantasy.

When would that have been?

Base your assumptions, conclusions and line of thought on a solid basis, not your emotional urges, and you'll learn how the things that you regard as "fairy tales" and equivalent to logical exercises, like the FSM, are much more important than that.

That's so laughable coming from a person who's defending believing in idiotic fairy tales without one single scrap of evidence. You're the only one working from emotio

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Darby]

That's an outright lie. You should know better since the last time we discussed this. Stop consuming this propaganda!

So you're saying that they never stopped spreading their faith by torture and murder? I'm sure there are isolated incidents of that still, but as entities, the Christian churches don't use torture and murder to spread the faith any longer. The Catholic Church officially banned the practice in the 1920s. So, I'm really not sure what the heck you're trying to say here.

You are partially correct in this, the problem is that any alternative is far worse.

You mean free thinking people not controlled by fears of fairy tale monsters torturing them for eternity? Yes, I can see why you'd consider that a bad thing. It's disgusting that you do, but I understand.

You continuously try to prove that pigs can fly and every other claim that makes no sense, as it is based on absolutely nothing but your own convictions and wishes.I have demonstrated this fact repeatedly, yet you still insist.

You have yet to demonstrate anything except that you're desperate to have an invisible magical friend.

I don't know what can make you think reasonably and you give me no help.

That's because I am being reasonable. You desperately need to believe in something so you assume it must be the truth merely because you want it to be and so reasonable arguments run off you like water off a duck.

Your hatred against Christians is misguided; many of them are to blame for some of the things you say, yet none of them in general is responsible for your problems regarding reality.

Given their current assault on the constitution and the fundamental basis of this country, you could not be more wrong if you tried.

I really have no hope for you though. You've bought into propaganda spread by evil men in order to control you and you're just kissing your chains. I pity you, but I feel much more for the decent people in the world who have to deal with the consequences of your unwillingness or inability to think clearly.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

Darby, I'm sorry, I mistook you for a sane person, I regret ever addressing to you. No rational person in the world would refer to obvious and inconclusive propaganda sites as the one you mention, and give it more credit than the writings of several scholars, among which is the Berkeley professor I mentioned previously. About the historical validity of the Bible, everything mentioned in it has been historically verified, except for the miracles, some would say, and some events like the mass murder of children etc., according to scholar reviews (The Biblical Archaelology Review among others). That they haven't been verified doesn't mean they didn't happen! You're being irrational from the beginning, get a grip on yourself!

I won't discuss how you claimed (you did claim this!) that a Flying Spaghetti Monster has more evidence in support of its existence, as such conversation enters the realm of the surreal; what I reasonably suggest is that you cannot, by any rational means, prove that God doesn't exist, you cannot claim that Christianity is the root of all evil on this planet, that faith is nothing to be afraid of, if it's exercised critically, and finally,now that I have answered all these questions to you, you no longer have the right to claim that you don't know these things. After you made it evident that pure hatred is the root of all of your conviction...

may God have mercy upon all of us.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[auxsvr]

I'm sorry, Darby, I'm afraid I mistook you for someone else.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Darby]

No rational person in the world would refer to obvious and inconclusive propaganda sites as the one you mention, and give it more credit than the writings of several scholars, among which is the Berkeley professor I mentioned previously

In the first place, the site I referenced is by a scholar. In the second place, your entire argument appears to be an example of the logical fallacy known as Appeal to authority.
It's funny that you refer to well documented research as propaganda though. You really should actually go look up that word and try thinking in future.

About the historical validity of the Bible, everything mentioned in it has been historically verified, except for the miracles, some would say, and some events like the mass murder of children etc., according to scholar reviews (The Biblical Archaelology Review among others). That they haven't been verified doesn't mean they didn't happen!

You're such an idiotic liar.
Everything huh?

The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for that slaughter *or anything else in the bible related to Jesus* certainly indicates that believing in it is silly. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it does put it in the same class as the tooth fairy and the invisible pink unicorn. You obviously are so desperate to keep your delusions that no amount of reason could get through to you. One can't be reasoned out of a position reason didn't get you in to, and there is no way for your sort of faith to be reached by reason, so talking to you is pointless.
You're really just a pretty poor troll.

You're being irrational from the beginning, get a grip on yourself!

You're the one starting from the assumption that your imaginary invisible friend is real. You aren't capable of making that sort of judgement about others until you clean up that deep flaw in your character.

what I reasonably suggest is that you cannot, by any rational means, prove that God doesn't exist,

That's true. Now as soon as anybody can provide any sane evidence for his existence it would then become reasonable to even entertain the idea. Until then it isn't. Again, you're starting from what you want to demonstrate. That's known as "begging the question" which is another logical fallacy.
Seriously, Sparky, just deal with the fact that you're deluded. If that makes you happy, then good for you. But as long as you keep spouting ridiculous lies I'll call you on them.

that faith is nothing to be afraid of, if it's exercised critically, ,/i>

That's a contradiction. You either have faith in something or you think critically about it. That's what faith is. The belief in the absence of any rational reason.
Faith is always used to manipulate the weak (who are the ones who need it) to work against their own interests and to hurt others. It's a simple case of looking at history. Religion has *always* been used for evil. Any rare isolated examples to the contrary you come up with are just that rare and isolated.

and finally,now that I have answered all these questions to you, you no longer have the right to claim that you don't know these things.,/i>

In the first place you didn't answer any questions. In the second place, just because you tell idiotic lies doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to believe you.

After you made it evident that pure hatred is the root of all of your conviction...

Laughable. Love, honor and integrity are the root of my convictions. It's why I'm so opposed to religion because it is the antithesis of all that. No organization in the history of the world has done more evil than Christianity and I defy you to try and come up with one. Good luck with that. You have 2000 years of torture, murder, and misery. What do you have to put against that?

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Alsee]

If I'm not mistaken they're not the only religion that converts adults... the Jehova bunch... And they do come with that funky story of talking snakes

That is true one sense, but not really true in relation to what I said before. They aren't actually converting people to their snake story, as Scientology needs to do with their wacky stories. Jevova's can only get away with the snake stories is by leveraging the fact that thier prospective converts were already subjected to the *same* wacky stories as defenseless children.

I don't specifically know what and how much is different in the Jehova's Witness shpiel, but for the must part they just take the same Christian Bible Carnival House and merely change the wallpaper and rearrange the furniture. Same talking plants, same talking snakes. Jehovas are merely the mint-chocolate-chip of Christian icecream flavors. Mormons would be the Rocky Road of Christians :). Heck, even converting between Christian and Muslim sticks with the same talking plants and talking snakes. Probably the biggest difference between Christian and Muslim would just be the human actor cast in starring role with the scriptline: "you should do what I say because God is sending me textmessages on my Holy iPhone". There really isn't any wacky difference between accepting one guy's textmessage from God vs another.

Jews Christians and Muslims have the same wacky root fed to virtually all Americans in childhood. I'm sure Hindus trying to go door-to-door around here would have about much luck as a Scientologist advertising their alien-mindcontrol-parasites.

-

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Opportunist]

Hinduism isn't evangelizing, afaik. Neither is Buddhism. Funny enough, I know a few people who became Buddhists. I mean, the idea that there is no need for a god, but you can get spiritually ahead by doing the right thing does sound kinda sane.

The point is that people are willing to accept different religions to their own if they make "sense". I'm pretty sure that even Hinduism or Taoism and even Shinto does have its appeal to some people, the stories and teachings are basically sound and make sense in their own context.

And that's where Scientology lacks. They attempt to mix real science into their fiction and that's where it cracks. Spirits, gods, reincarnation, that's stuff you can believe in or not. You cannot put it to test, you cannot prove or disprove it. On the other hand, the teachings of Scientology try to be "scientific", and thus can easily be disproved as bunk.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Opportunist]

...does have its appeal to some people who didn't grow up with it.

Just clarifying. Don't want to say that those religions don't make sense compared to the Christian/Jewish/Mulsim teachings. Just that people who grew up in a different religious culture can understand and accept the teachings.

Great !!!

[unity100]

It was about time for the shit to hit the fan. Let the scientology perverts face eu machine.

spoiler : eu machine will win.

Re:Great !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so sure... Few years ago in France a trial against scientology ended abruptly when the room containing instruction files and "evidence" catched fire. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust...

Re:Great !!!

[RobotRunAmok]

It was about time for the shit to hit the fan. Let the scientology perverts face eu machine.

You Betcha! Today the Scientologists, tomorrow the Environmentalists. It's always been these religions with the science-y sounding names that have been the most insidious (and seem to have the wealthiest followers, come to think of it...)

Well...

[martinelli]

I have absolutely no problem with these guys believing what they want, or even doing as they please within the confines of the law. However, once they start over stepping the bounds of their local laws, individuals should be prosecuted. I stress individuals.

Re:Well...

[kwandar]

here in Canada we went after the "Church" itself and they were held to be criminally responsible. As I recall, the "church" had an office within it that was set up to spy on government organizations, but the link above explains.

Re:Well...

[Vellmont]

I stress individuals.

Why? The allegation here is that this is an action of the church, not just a few misguided individuals. If this is the case, punishing a few individuals won't solve anything.

Re:Well...

[Opportunist]

I stress the collective.

Or do you think they'll have a hard time finding a scapegoat who'll take the blame and continue? Do you think that pre-clear Joe Average will pipe up against his auditor if he gets told he should put some psychological pressure on some dissenter? What do you think Joe Average fears more, the authorities or his church?

Hint: Authorities usually relent when they got you behind bars. They care about imprisoning your body, not your mind.

Seems stupid

[rm999]

A religion doesn't become legitimate until the people are persecuted for a little while (see the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc)

Why don't we all just ignore the cult and let it die on it's own? Apparently the 10 million figure is highly exaggerated, which makes people think they are more of a threat than they really are. High up, Scientology WANTS to be persecuted so they can energize their followers and gain the sympathy of others.

Re:Seems stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I take a dim view of outfits that charge their membership for salvation, and then send them to work at soybean plantations or as staff on the leadership's private yacht (cruise ship, whatever) when they wind up in debt.

Re:Seems stupid

[pstrong]

The point is not what Scientology may or may not want to do in order to energize (or whatever) their followers, but rather if that organization is breaking the law.
The former is next to irrelevant. The interesting part is if the law can be successfully applied in this case, assuming that sufficient evidence of breaking the law exists.

Re:Seems stupid

[toleraen]

Persecution for your beliefs as an individual and persecution as a whole for allegedly breaking the federal laws in several countries are two completely different things. The general public won't see CoS followers being stoned in the street, sent to camps, etc. They'll see "CoS accused of extortion" in the newspaper. I don't see that situation bringing much sympathy to their cause.

Re:Seems stupid

[new_breed]

So the only thing the mafia has to do to escape persecution, is to 'rebrand' themselves as a religion? Maybe my example is a bit extreme, but if a religion/cult happens to do a lot of criminal stuff, then I'd rather do something about it then ignore it and hope it goes away by itself.

Re:Seems stupid

[Opportunist]

There's a difference between prosecution because of being a "false" religion, and prosecution for criminal activities. If an organisation engages in the latter, religious or not, they should be prosecuted. Not ignored.

Re:Seems stupid

[fm6]

Why don't we all just ignore the cult and let it die on it's own?

Many reasons. First, pseudo-scientific "medicine" tends to harm or kill people, and Scientology's "Dianetic" treatments are no exception. Second, they have a history of ripping off their followers. Then there's their nasty habit of abusing the court systems to intimidate people they don't like — responding in kind is the only way to get them to back off.

But the biggest, nastiest reason for erasing Scientology from the face of the earth: I'd like to visit my local mall without having to repeatedly tell some obnoxious zombie "NO I DO NOT WANT A FREE PERSONALITY TEST."

Re:Seems stupid

[Filiks]

We have laws to protect people from being taken advantage of. Without enforcement of those laws the number of scammers will explode. Scientology's tactics get lots of money out of people, enough to own considerable amounts of expensive real estate. If scientology is left alone, it will continue its expansion.

Re:Seems stupid

[jandersen]

Nonsense. Yes, there is little doubt that the bosses of CoS wouldn't mind that the lower ranks were persecuted, because maybe it could be useful. But the idea that persecution alone will somehow legitimate them as a religion is bullshit. It only works that way if people in general think they are basically good people that are unjustly persecuted.

This is why nobody feels sorry for the Mafia when they are persecuted all over the world.

Re:Seems stupid

[dave420]

Because in its death throws it will STILL be targetting the weak and needy, offering them false hope, and financially ruining them and their families. This isn't a fluffy organisation where you change your name to Fred and gain enlightenment, it costs you thousands and thousands of dollars (hundreds of thousands, even), and all you end up with is them having a folder of incriminating information on you, and a tattered mental state.

Scientology is not benign. It's insidious, dangerous, and relentless.

Re:Seems stupid

[apt142]

Too right. The closest real world comparison of what this would do to public relations is the Catholic Church Priest scandal. While the Priest were being prosecuted, it was clearly illegal behaviors for which they were being prosecuted for. The Catholic Church lost a lot of face with it.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on their success, the Scientology lawyers and the "Church" itself will likely go to bat for those charged with various crimes. I'd be surprised if they didn't spin it to be religious persecution veiled as legal prosecution. In much the same manner OJ's lawyers did for the racial persecution to legal prosecution. And who knows how that'll work with the public?

Also Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

and seize ALL the assets of the American Taliban.

Thanks for your PatRIOTism.

Re:Also Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a PRIOT?

Thank Xenu!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its about time. Scientologists are about as creepy as islamic fundamentalists, complete with the 747 fetish.

Re:Thank Xenu!

[AndroidCat]

And there's this guy: Armenian immigrant and 5 others convicted of military-weapons charges in FBI sting, plotting to sell anti-aircraft missiles and in the United States on a religious worker visa for the Church of Scientology. What's up with that?

Re:Thank Xenu!

[Samah]

Are they Tom Cruise Missiles?

Xenu Smack Your Ass !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Xenu Smack Your Ass !!

Re:Xenu Smack Your Ass !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey don't make fun of my scientology god you insensitive clod !

Not officially recognized as a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government does not officially recognize any organization as a religion. There is the definition of church under section 501(c)(3) of the US tax code as a simplified tax exempt body. But religious organizations themselves are not regarded as tax exempt, just the complicated definition of church as a non profit body. But there are no officially recognized religions in the US.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Mattintosh]

Not quite true.

Many municipalities require "religious" buildings to be zoned residential and have a steeple of some sort (it can be inconspicuous, but there's a minimum height requirement). If these conditions aren't met, then the local government won't give it tax-exempt status. Sure, you can get out of federal taxes as a non-profit, but there's property taxes, sales taxes, and all the other local stuff.

Then there's the states. Some states require each church location to register (similar to the property-tax-exemption requirements of some municipalities) in order to get state tax exemption.

So, yes, the US federal government does not require anything more than a non-profit shell corporation and various associated tax-dancing that goes with them in order for a group to be a "religion", but the states have their own rules, and counties and cities have even more. And they use the term "religion" in the laws.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Abcd1234]

Well, unless you count the phrase "In God We Trust" on the US dollar bill. Or the fact that, throughout government, people take oaths on the Christian bible. Or the fact that the phrase "On Nation, Under God" exists in the Pledge of Allegiance (though, thankfully, for the most part, people are no longer being *forced* to recite it). Or...

But yeah, you're right, there's no officially recognized religion(s) in the US. None at all.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Nimey]

Point that out to a fundie, and you'll get all sorts of mental gymnastics to "prove" that those aren't related to Christianity.

I've even had one or two who did that and claimed the US is a Christian nation.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Opportunist]

Erh... and what if my religion forbids steeples because they're a phallic symbol and thus dirty, unholy and a few things more?

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Speare]

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/funeral_informa tion/authorized_emblems.html

And to add salt to this discussion of bizarre legal machinations on the part of a "religion," note the bizarre "NOT SHOWN BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT" on the government's website (who can choose to ignore copyright, even if this wasn't clearly fair use, which it is). Church of Christian Scientists, and the Muslim five-pointed star.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[glwtta]

There's a difference between having a dominant religion and having a list of "officially recognized" ones.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Trogre]

A bit like how the US hasn't gone to "war" since 1942.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Jim_Callahan]

Actually, they swear the oath of office on a religious text associated with their known religious affiliation.

If you're Muslim, the standard is the Qu'ran. I'm unsure what the standard choice is for others, but I know that court-rooms, at least, keep a stock of a variety of religious texts (depending on the demographic makeup of the district and how well funded the court is), and will generally request that you supply your own text or item for swearing if you're of a faith they've not accounted for. I imagine the process for elected officials is similar.

No, I don't know what the procedure is for atheists, but I've seen courts dispense with the religious item requirement entirely (in a couple of civil cases, not sure wether that's because they weren't criminal trials or if it's just judge's discretion).

The state recognizes religion in general officially, and accounts for it as normal human behavior. Specific religions, that's up to the states and the various local governments, and even there the limitations are fairly stringent. There's some crossover in policy because a lot of secular ethics were developed by philosophers for religious applications or adopted in parallel by the churches, which are always on the lookout for new ideas of justice and behavior management. But that doesn't necessarily equate to religious dominance.

"In god we trust" is primarily on there as part of the bazillion symbols we put on our money to make it harder to copy. Hell, there're freemason symbols on there, too, and no one (sane) complains about freemason dominance of the government. "Under god" in the pledge of allegiance was added early last century and upheld by a supreme court which was at least the spiritual kin of the one that thought ruling on wether a tomato was a fruit or a vegetable was an appropriate thing for them to arbitrate... so I can't really argue that that one's stupid. At least the god picked is the one identified with by the vast majority of americans who follow the religions of Abraham, though. So it's democratic, if not sensible.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Mattintosh]

You build it at the minimum height requirement and wider than it is tall. Seriously, most of the time, a mechanical vent space on a cupola on the roof will pass for a steeple. This is how Jehovah's Witnesses build their buildings in areas with these laws without having a real phallic-symbol steeple on their Kingdom Halls. Look at a recently-built one in an uptight suburb of just about any American city and you'll probably notice this feature. But only if you look for it.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Jerry Beasters]

Good job having no idea what you're talking about. I truly believe that those such as myself, who actually have degrees in the field of religious studies, should be the only ones allowed to comment when anything religious is brought up, because otherwise no one knows what they're talking about at all. Stupidity rages. Anyone, back on the main subject, the problem is not that Scientology is a "cult." It's not even that in the sense of having a leader who may be deluded enough to believe what he spouts. It's a criminal organization (members of which were convicted of infiltrating the government and planning to expand the infiltration, including Hubbard's wife) under the cloak of a religion. That's it. It's very simple and factual when you look at Hubbard's own writings, interviews with his son (who defected and called his father a psychopath, which he clearly was) as well as if you talk to any other former high level Scientologists who defected. Anyone defending Scientology here, unless they are Scientology shills, are only doing so because they really know zero about the subject and are talking from pure ignorance.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Opportunist]

But our rooftops have to be flat! It's the will of the Lord, and it should symbolize that for him everyone, represented by the building, is equally close to him! There must not be anything poking up from anywhere on the building!

(yes, it's a made up religion. But religions tend to have some rather odd requests from their deities, I wouldn't deem it impossible that one of them might actually require that very specifically. The question this should raise is: How does a requirement like that fit into the separation of church and government? In fact, it does require a religion to conform to some arbitrary rule that does neither serve some safety requirement nor any other "real life" issue, except prefering religions that do require steeples on their churches)

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Abcd1234]

Good job having no idea what you're talking about.

Good job posing a coherent counterargument. Apparently your degree in "religious studies" didn't include a course in debating techniques.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Jerry Beasters]

Who debates over slashdot? That's a losing proposition. I have no need to prove anything, the fact is that he has no idea what he's talking about. I have very little interest in teaching people who will spout off things without any sort of knowledge in the subject.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[petermgreen]

the one that thought ruling on wether a tomato was a fruit or a vegetable was an appropriate thing for them to arbitrate
out of interest which way did they rule?

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Darby]

Well, unless you count the phrase "In God We Trust" on the US dollar bill. Or the fact that, throughout government, people take oaths on the Christian bible. Or the fact that the phrase "On Nation, Under God" exists in the Pledge of Allegiance (though, thankfully, for the most part, people are no longer being *forced* to recite it). Or...


You do know that that crap was added to our money and the pledge of allegiance by radical extremist nutjobs in right about the last 50 years, right?
It's only that recently that we've been dragged so far from our founding principles by those hate mongering extremists.

Re: Not officially recognized as a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

• Scientology specifically asserts the IRS has determined 'scientology' to be a bona fide religion.

You may be technically correct that there are no officially recognized religions in the US, sir. However, the public perception of the meaning of tax exemption is manipulated by official scientology spin, and the IRS allows this propaganda to continue unopposed. Your attempt to set the record straight is a mere spit into the windstorm of scientology hot air on exemption.

• Scientology promotes religious recognition on it's official website

http://www.scientology.org/goodman/bona.htm

The Bona Fides of the Scientology Religion

Scientology is recognized around the world as a bona fide religion. As the religion moves into its fifth decade, it continues to enjoy substantial growth with thousands of churches and missions and related organizations and millions of members on six continents in more than 100 countries.

The religion's bona fides have been unequivocally and unambiguously recognized in a host of judicial and administrative decisions throughout the world. Hundreds upon hundreds of such decisions have been rendered over the past 40 years and a few of these have been highlighted on the following pages.

Tax Exemption

Wherever the issue of tax exemption has been examined closely, the conclusion has routinely been that Scientology is a bona fide religion, that its activities are exclusively charitable and that its churches are exempt from taxes.

On October 1, 1993, the United States Internal Revenue Service recognized the Mother Church of Scientology, the Church of Scientology International, and all of its subordinate churches and related charitable and educational institutions located in the United States as tax-exempt organizations.

The IRS determined that:

The religion of Scientology is a bona fide religion;

These churches of Scientology and their related organizations are operated exclusively for recognized religious purposes;

These churches and their related institutions benefit the public, not private interests.

No part of the net earnings of these churches inures for the benefit of any individual or noncharitable entity.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Alsee]

But religions tend to have some rather odd requests from their deities

I wonder if any of those local regulations require exactly ONE steeple?
My god prohibits having a phallic symbol sticking up at him from our roof... he insists on a pair of titties.

How does a requirement like that fit into the separation of church and government?

On a more serious note, you would have a 100% chance of getting such an ordnance invalidated if you bothered to fight it in court... though you might have to appeal it up to the Federal level if the local judge is a serious fundie and/or total moron. When a law with a legitimate rational non-religious purpose incidentally impacts some religion, the Supreme Court will sometimes bend the law to accommodate the religion. (Peyote vision quests anyone?) However when legislation with absolutely no rational basis or function specifically targets and dictates to religion, the Supreme Court gets seriously pissy and issues a grade-A smackdown. Religious buildings generally need to conform with generic building safety codes and the like, but there's no way an arbitrary and specifically religious dictate like steeples would fly in court.

-

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Alsee]

Actually, they swear the oath of office on a religious text associated with their known religious affiliation... I don't know what the procedure is for atheists

The Supreme Court ruling is that courtroom swearing in and elected office swearing in *must* be under the terms "oath or affirmation". The use of a Bible or other religious item is entirely optional and is at the discretion of the individual involved.

"In god we trust" is primarily on there as part of the bazillion symbols we put on our money to make it harder to copy.

Chuckle. And I guess if some random guy at the National Mint put kiddyporn on a new coin design, then the kiddyporn "is primarily on there as part of the bazillion symbols we put on our money to make it harder to copy" and that resolves any thought on the subject? Hehe. No, I think it should be clear that the focus of your comment slightly misses the point. The correct focus is upon the act of making a particular choice of symbol.

According to previous Supreme Court ruling, the way you would adjudicate that issue would be based upon (1) why the government made that particular selection, and (2) the effect of that particular selection.

I have little doubt that Supreme Court Judges would split on that issue, some explaining that the purpose and/or effect of the particular choice of "In God We Trust" was indeed religious and unconstitutional, and other Judges either explaining that it passed both tests or more likely explaining that previously established Constitutional test was in error and must be abandoned. I would very much like to read a ruling on it.

"Under god" in the pledge of allegiance was added early last century and upheld by a supreme court

No, it wasn't upheld. The particular case was dismissed for lack of standing. The issue is still in legal limbo.

I'm still waiting for someone else to drag the issue through the courts and see the Supreme Court actually issue a ruling. I was extremely disappointed not getting to read a ruling (and to read the inevitable dissent).

-

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Alsee]

Having a most common religion of the public is also entirely different than force and acts of government officially establishing items of religion.

The constitution guarantees the right of religious freedom... prohibits the government from infringing upon that individual right.
You do *NOT* get to vote upon religion. Just because "Democratic majority vote" 51% of the people who move into your two are Muslim does *NOT* make it constitutionally permissible for the Muslim principal in your child's school to establish a 5-times-a-day Muslim prayer schedule and impose it on your children to promote or favor Islam... and may not do so even as a period of silence for voluntary prayer or meditation to promote or favor prayer on an Islamic schedule. Students have a right to pray in school, but school officials are prohibited from using their governmental powers to promote or suppress such prayer.

It is the same reason the Supreme Court ruled that all court swearing in and elected office swearing in *must* be under the terms "oath or affirmation", and any use of the Bible or other religious text is and must be voluntary and at the sole discretion of the person involved.

It is the same reason it was unconstitutional null and void when a majority in Congress voted some years ago to alter our Traditional Pledge Of Allegiance to *add* "under God". The Constitution does not permit "majority votes" by the government for the purpose of officially establishing, promoting, favoring, or suppressing any religion or anything religious.

The constitutional right of individual religious freedom.
Your right and protection against the force power and official endorsement of government being applied in religion. A restraint against the government in religion. Just because 51% vote against you.... or even 90% vote against you... does not change that.

-

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Opportunist]

That it has to be safe for people to use is a given. A religion that requires you to build a cathedral akin to Notre Dame out of toothpicks is nuts, and should be recognized as such. But aside of that, if there is no possible harm to your body, the soul is none of their biz.

I do like your religion, though.

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Alsee]

> ruling on wether a tomato was a fruit or a vegetable
out of interest which way did they rule?

Duh! What a silly question!
A tomato is actually a fruit, so obviously the Supreme Court ruled it legally a vegetable.
Come on, did you seriously imagine otherwise?

-

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Alsee]

Actually you should scratch that part about swearing on the Bible. The Supreme Court ruled it must be "oath or affirmation", and use of the Bible or other text is merely permitted at the discretion of the individual.

But you're right about the other two being unresolved Constitutional violations.

-

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Alsee]

I do like your religion, though.

Ooooooo..... Don't encourage me. Seriously.
I'm already too damn tempted to pull a Hubbard.

In fact I woke up this morning from dreaming playing the preacher game and the wacky-but-Biblically-valid preaching I could use. For example the earlier Fundie nutjob post on here defining anything other than The King James Version of the Bible was a cult... a surprisingly common school of Fundyism that also produced the following Gem on translation and original source Biblical Scripture:
If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right.

Dreaming a whole routine on how that isn't following the KJV Bible and isn't learning and following the Word Of God... and specifically failing to learn from the story of Babble... presuming oneself EXEMPT from God's judgment at Babble. Jesus's Arabic was no more the Language Of God than Shakespeare's English was the Language Of God. And on and on. Even as an atheist, the temptation of slipping into the role and playing at their own game.

I feel dirty. And afraid. Very very afraid. Such an easy and dangerous and evil game they play. Far too easy for any smart psychopath to take up the game and go on TV and pretty much close the show with "send me your money.... oh and by the way God hates fags! Kill a fag for Jesus!".

-

Re:Not officially recognized as a religion

[Opportunist]

I have no moral problem making money from the gullible and ignorant. IMO, if you prefer ignorance, pay your dues.

Maybe we gotta find some of those King James fundies and try to milk them. They seem to be kinda resistant to logic and reason, and thus prime candidates to be milked and bled dry. I mean, even if I believe the Bible to be some kinda truth, isn't it more likely that the original is "more true" than any kind of copy?

To highlight this, a little joke.

In an abby, a historian came to read the old scriptures. He went to the abbot and asked whether those papers he got were the originals. No, the abbot said, they're copies, but true copies to the original. After some coaxing the historian finally convinced the abbot to go down to the most holy library to dig up some of the originals.

The abbot went and was gone for hours. Finally he reemerged from the library, completely out of himself, crying, weeping, hysterical. Asked what happened, his only reply between sobs was "In the original of our creed, it reads 'celebrate'!"

Mod Parent Informative

[asphaltjesus]

This story and the one before it are not why I check /.

If I want garbage like this, I'll check Yahoo.

Re:Mod Parent Informative

[monoqlith]

Ok, there's a simply way of getting rid of these articles. Go to Preferences, go to Homepage, exclude all stories from Your Rights Online or just include the headline.

  Just because the site is "News for Nerds" doesn't mean that's all it is.

  Slashdot has the editorial discretion to put articles on its site that aren't geared directly at you.

Re:Mod Parent Informative

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

If I want garbage like this, I'll check Yahoo.

And yet you read this far and replied to a nested post... Slow day at work?

European headquarters here too.

[bmcage]

What is interesting in this is that the European headquarters are also in Belgium, Brussels to be exact. So some very high ranking scientologists can be sued.

In 1998 or so they where already being cataloged as a sect, not a church, which is important here (state money and benefits I suppose). It is estimated that Belgium has 8000 Scientologists, which is pretty lousy on 10 million, but still, with the headquarters, it could be painful for them.

Re:European headquarters here too.

[DrXym]

I doubt scientology could legitimately claim 1 million followers EVER let alone ten times that amount. And even that figure would probably have to include all the people who recovered their senses and left the cult.

I don't know where the 10 million claim came from, but I would not be surprised if scientology themselves make the claim. After all they lie about everything else, so why not the number of members?

Re:European headquarters here too.

[namednick]

Ermm ... i think you need to read the comment you were replying to again. Scientology never claimed 10 million members, Belgium has a population of 10 million.

Re:European headquarters here too.

[DrXym]

The article says "The Los Angeles-based Church of Scientology, which is seeking to expand in Europe and be recognized as a legitimate religion, teaches that technology can expand the mind and help solve problems. The church, founded in 1954, counts actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta among its 10 million members.". That is what I am commenting about.

The CoS wikipedia article says the cult has claimed anywhere from 8-15 million members worldwide. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if the claim did originate from them even though they are pathological liars just like their dead leader and therefore prone to making outrageous falsehoods if it furthers their cause.

Submitter Obviously Poor

[CheeseburgerBrown]

If the submitter weren't poor they would have no excuse not to make themselves Clear, and once they were Clear they would unquestionably see the wisdom in spending the money to become Clear. Q.E.D. Praise Tom!

Xenu knows when you are sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been bad or good, so audit yourself thoroughly for Elron's sake.

(NB: The contents of this comment are sardonic. I am not a Scientologist, and I have never played one on TV. Defenders and apologists of this rubbish do so only because they lack the jewels to take on its elder siblings like Jesusism, Dirrka-dirrkaism, and Americanism. All poppycock equal, I say.)

What this means for Scientology:

[Enlarged to Show Tex]

Status as a terrorist organization once they declare war on the Belgian government

Re:What this means for Scientology:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not very likely because there are currently no government in Belgium :-p

But they haven't actually massacred anyone yet?

[Colin Smith]

So... Seems to me like they have some catching up to do. Most other religions have a big long list of depraved acts to their names.

Re:But they haven't actually massacred anyone yet?

[faloi]

They've got a good start though. A special branch that keeps up with people that are likely to defect (err, go away from the church), and at least one death on their record.

Re:But they haven't actually massacred anyone yet?

[CaffeineAddict2001]

Oh yeah? Why do you think there is no life on mars? THINK ABOUT IT.

Re:But they haven't actually massacred anyone yet?

[Porchroof]

Most other religions have a big long list of depraved acts to their names.

What you mean is that followers of other religions have a big long list of depraved acts to their names.

Simpletons frequently confuse the messenger with the message, but that doesn't excuse you of muddy thinking, Colin.

Re:But they haven't actually massacred anyone yet?

[Colin Smith]

What you mean is that followers Actually, no. I meant representatives.

Re:But they haven't actually massacred anyone yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Massacres are not in their best interest...corpses don't bleed money.

- T

Re:But they haven't actually massacred anyone yet?

[swordgeek]

How many do you need?

Lisa McPherson was murdered by the Cult.

The group has been illegally stalking its opponents. To quote Wikipedia (not the definitive resource I realise, but accurate and verifiable in this case):

• In 1978, a number of Scientologists including L. Ron Hubbard's wife Mary Sue Hubbard (who was second in command in the organization at the time) were convicted of perpetrating the largest incident of domestic espionage in the history of the United States. Called "Operation Snow White" within the Church, this involved infiltrating, wiretapping, and stealing documents from the offices of Federal attorneys and the Internal Revenue Service.

...and...

• The FBI raid on the Church's headquarters revealed documentation that detailed Scientology actions against various critics of the organization. Among these documents was a plan to frame Gabe Cazares, the mayor of the city of Clearwater, Florida, with a staged hit-and-run accident; plans to discredit the skeptical organization CSICOP by spreading rumors that it was a front for the CIA; and a project called "Operation Freakout", aimed at ruining the life of author Paulette Cooper, author of an early book critical of the movement, The Scandal of Scientology.[25]

Not bad for their first half-century.

Re:But they haven't actually massacred anyone yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's how we know they're just a cult, not a real religion :)

a few more followers

[SethJohnson]

Scientology has 10 million members including high-profile followers such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

Don't forget

Beck

Jenna Elfman

Leah Remini (King of Queens, Old School)

Jason Lee

Juliette Lewis

and a bunch of others...

Seth

Re:a few more followers

[Jafafa Hots]

Beck? Shit. And I liked "Sea Change." Oh well. Who says delusional dumbasses can't have talent.

Re:a few more followers

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two groups that run Hollywood. Can you name them?

Re:a few more followers

[Anonymous Coward]

Stonecutters is one. Not sure about the second, Nazi Alien Republicans?

Re:a few more followers

[DocSavage64109]

Is that any different than the millions of decent people who believe in god? Maybe they're just showing their disdain for one ridiculous religion by joining another *even more obviously* ridiculous religion.

Re:a few more followers

[Nimey]

The paparazzi and Homintern?

Re:a few more followers

[dreamer-of-rules]

Jenna Elfman being on this list makes me cry. (Just a little.)

Re:a few more followers

[VENONA]

Think of it as evolution in action. There is no correlation between 'media personality' and 'intelligent', despite what tabloid readers seem to believe. One more reason for me to wonder why we have various concerts, etc., which are purported to support one thing or another.

Perhaps we're getting beyond this, as a couple of events this year have fallen pretty flat. Personally, I don't feel the need to hear about the latest lunacy of slut du jour, musicians deploying the Single Name PR Strategy (Sting, Madonna, Bono), or even OSS folk (media stars in a small world) who deploy the initials or login strategy (RS, ESR).

Even in the rare case of people of this ilk actually having something meaningful to say, they tend to not be people that I'd want to be trapped in an elevator with. I'm a Linux and BSD guy, so it's somewhat hard to admit that last. But truthfully, I'd sooner be trapped in an elevator with Bill Gates than Richard Stallman or Eric Raymond. I already get the advantages of the approaches preached by the last two, but Gates could at least tell me things I definitely don't know about the threat of malaria as an endemic disease. http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/featur e1/

Re:a few more followers

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a talent does not make you any more intelligent, or less gullible, than anyone else, sadly. 'Dharma and Greg' grew on me, and it's still one of the *very* few US-made[1] comedies that can make me laugh (i.e. it wasn't made for the brain-dead). Jason Lee being on that list was also saddening due to his involvement in 'My Name is Earl', another great comedy.

[1] Yes, we Brits have made our fair share of utter stinkers too, again mostly in recent years ('My Hero' et al), but as all the people mentioned are from the USA I felt duty-bound to slate their nation's efforts. Still, there's next to buggerall we've made in the past 20 years that is worth the film it's printed on.

Re:a few more followers

[sxltrex]

It was Catherine Bell for me. What a waste. :-(

Re:a few more followers

[Anonymous Coward]

The Masons and the Gay Mafia?

Re:a few more followers

[Jafafa Hots]

Well, I kinda figured that the difference is that to be a Christian or Muslim or whatever, you might have just never critically examined the bullshit you were brought up with, and can be just saying you are that religion just because you haven't thought too far past the indoctrination... whereas, to become a Scientologist you have to have actively sought OUT stupid shit.

But then I found via Wikipedia (if it can be trusted) that Beck's dad has been a Scientologist for 35 years... so beck WAS brought up with loony shit... and he says about Scientology: "What it actually is is just sort of, uh, you know, I think it's about philosophy and sort of, uh, all these kinds of, you know, ideals that are common to a lot of religions."

Which sounds distinctly like he just HASNT thought much about the crap his parents fed him, and may be just like other people - giving lip service to religion for his parent's approval. Or whatever.

Re:a few more followers

[wiredlogic]

I thought Beck was raised in the Co$ but had distanced himself from them as an adult. Still, you can't entirely blame him for any ongoing association like the other celebs who were never indoctrinated as children.

Re:a few more followers

[Anonymous Coward]

Et tu, Jason Lee?

Re:a few more followers

[Jerry Beasters]

Yes, it's very different, and if you can't see the many clear differences I feel sorry for you.

Re:a few more followers

[clickety6]

So you're basically saying that actors and musicians are a weird and kooky bunch... whod' have thunk it? ;-)

Re:a few more followers

[chochos]

He's probablly into that shit just to get inspiration for those bizarre lyrics he writes... mix scientology with all the chicano culture in LA and you can write some pretty weird stuff to sing about.

Re:a few more followers

[mink]

I enjoyed My Hero. Sure it was not perfect, but it was a fun diversion. I wish we would make bad shows half as good as that over here (USA) instead of the bad shows we do make.

Re:a few more followers

[mcvos]

Is that any different than the millions of decent people who believe in god?

I have no problem with people believing something different than I do. I even don't have a problem with people believing outright crazy nonsense. I do have a problem with people supporting and defending a criminal organisation that threatens and oppresses people.

I don't care much for most of the listed celebs, but I'm a bit disappointed in Beck and Juliette Lewis. I really liked them.

So what, America will still take it up the ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, just walk around any mall in the Tampa bay area, and you'll see these creeps trying to sucker idiots into their cult. But hey, it's a "religion" (i.e. utter bullshit), and they get tax breaks and have all but killed Clearwater city now it's the scientology city. Mmmm mmm, split my American wussy ring-piece!

Re:So what, America will still take it up the ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Homophobe.

Re:So what, America will still take it up the ass

[zxsqkty]

Xenuphobe?

arguments

[thatskinnyguy]

There are certain arguments that no one ever wins. Examples of such arguments are: Religion, Politics, Sexuality and the Infallibility of Cowboy Neal.

If you have a religious zealot who thinks what he is doing is "God's work", I doubt anyone would be successful convincing him otherwise.

Apply that same logic to the Church of Scientology. Here we have nutjobs who believe that space aliens are the cause of all the problems in the world today. If people are believing such nonsense, what else are they capable of believing?

This coming down on Scientology thing for doing business as usual won't stop their practices. It will just drive it underground in Belgium or spur international outrage over those "poor Belgian Scientologists".

Re:arguments

[ardor]

If people are believing such nonsense, what else are they capable of believing?

Sir, this statement made my day. Absolutely brilliant.

Re:arguments

[AndroidCat]

This isn't about space-alien nutjobs. Scientology just uses that as one of their many outer layers of protection. This is about criminal activities.

Re:arguments

[thatskinnyguy]

Yes but do they know it's criminal or are they ignoring that because they're doing "the good work"?

Re:arguments

[AndroidCat]

You mean the Scientologists? It's tricky. The real believers are trained and conditioned to double-think without the cognitive dissonance bothering them at all. The part of their thought that believes that Scientology "just makes sense" and they are on a mission to save the planet and that their specific actions are ethical on a higher dynamic than "garden variety humanoid" laws just doesn't connect with the part of thought that knows that certain types of actions are criminal. For them, it's exactly like trying to see your own blind spot.

That said, I don't find most Scientologists better or worse than other people--except when it involves their conditioning. (There are some real manipulators and abusers who take advantage of others.) Once they're out and recovered (which can take years), it's interesting to listen to them try to explain their thought process at the time.

Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

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 implants.

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 I knew 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.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[VENONA]

Scientology is so bizarre that I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Brian Gordon]

He's not. That's scientology. (saw it on YTMND :P)

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[David Hume]

Scientology is so bizarre that I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

He's not. See:

Xenu - Wikipedia
OT III Scholarship Page
Fishman Affidavit - OT3, summary and comments
DMCA complaint

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hes' not. That's part of OT III, the OT's are the official scriptures of the Church (/spit) of Scientology. They became public in the US as part of the Fishman affidavits. The files have been closed in the US, Scientology is a sue-happy bunch, but they're completely legal in the Netherlands, our highest court has allready ruled on the matter.

And they've starred in more than one legal case, here's to it starring in another one :)

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[HiThere]

What part of that is Scientology and what part is Dianetics?

People do tend to have a fallacious idea that their personality is unitary. Unity is something that one can aspire to (possibly unwisely), but it's not something that is normally present. This is usually masked by "state specific memories", in which each sub-component of the self finds it easier to remember the things that it has experienced than those experienced by other states of mind (i.e., mini-personalities). An extreme example of this is intoxication. It can be difficult to remember what you did once you become sober, but easier if you again become intoxicated. The same effect happens with emotional states. When you are angry it's easier to remember the experiences of other times when you were angry. Etc.

All this is very standard. As such, much of what you have said (ignoring the SF component) seems to be orthodox psychology stated in unfamiliar terms. (N.B.: Untestable hypotheses are assumed to have null truth value. E.g., the existence of Xenu is untestable as stated. etc. Also, any hypothesis which when shown to be false is patched with an untestable hypothesis is presumed to have null truth value. This would presumably include the atomic bombs on the volcanoes, etc. If something has null truth value it is considered neither true nor false, but probably meaningless.)

The reprehensible part of Scientology is not the stories that it tells, but the illegal methods that it uses. (I do not consider e-meters to be reprehensible, even though the US at one time ruled them illegal. I consider that unconstitutional governmental intrusion into private affairs. I'm talking about threats, extortion, barratry, etc.)

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Colin Smith]

Doesn't sound any more bizarre than Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Jorgandar]

Awesome.. i needed a good scenario for the sci-fi game i'm writing. This seems perfect. Where did you come up with such great work?

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory "South Park explains Scientology" clip:

http://www.cartoonfeed.com/videos/South_Park/South _Park_-_Scientology

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[VENONA]

OK. I visited your links. Now I have to wonder if he's a fifth-columnist, in which case I'd have to say, "Nicely done!"

But see posts later in the discussion, regarding a Slate post that CoS isn't any weirder than others, just newer.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171416/

At some level, religion of any stripe disturbs me, as I see it all as both irrational and irrelevant. That said, at least some religions seem able to at least maintain a bit of dignity in their celebrations, and not *completely* insult the intelligence of their followers. I thought lost tribes of Israel present in central America (contrary to genetic evidence, but then we're not speaking of people who would believe in genetics), and wearing underwear that seems to serve the function of a wearable Post It note was a bit odd.

Now I'm trying to quantify the limits of weird, thinking of how reincarnation would rate, etc. At some point, my head will explode. Have you seen Tim Burton's _Mars Attacks_? Yeah, like that.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[fm6]

That's the one thing I like about Scientologists: their mythology is so entertaining.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[VENONA]

"It can be difficult to remember what you did once you become sober, but easier if you again become intoxicated."

Recommend you have several beers. Just to gain a bit of experience, and perhaps avoid some Thetan brain-rays, or whatever is the current source of what seems to be a serious cerebral malfunction.

Wow. I always knew that there would be some circumstance where beer would be medicinal. It took entirely too long, but was worth the wait.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[fm6]

You think that's bizarre. There's this weird cult that claims that God and Satan collaborated to persecute people just to settle a bet. Then there's this mind-bending account of the end of the world, obviously written by somebody who ate one too many magic mushrooms.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Doesn't sound any more bizarre than Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't charge $360,000 for it, nor do they sue people who hand out copies of their scriptures.

It's not the doctrines, it's the ensuing lawsuits, that mark the difference between a religion and a racketeering operation. Why does God need a starship? Same reason he needs a team of copyright lawyers: he doesn't, and anyone claiming he does is a fraud.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[kayditty]

The Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't charge $360,000 for it, nor do they sue people who hand out copies of their scriptures.

So? Their religions are still just as ridiculous. Nice try.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Original Replica]

The reprehensible part of Scientology is not the stories that it tells, but the illegal methods that it uses. (I do not consider e-meters to be reprehensible, even though the US at one time ruled them illegal. I consider that unconstitutional governmental intrusion into private affairs. I'm talking about threats, extortion, barratry, etc.)

And when any organization, whether they claim to be a religion or not, uses those tactics they should be prosecuted and dismantled and banned like any other criminal organization. I'm not anti-religion, I'm a Christian, but if a "claimed" Christian group uses those tactics I will be the first to call for their arrest. I wonder if the Islamic world can step-up and do the same when it comes to dealing with their militant offshoots?

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[VENONA]

Well, at least needing to settle a bet makes some frapping *sense*. The second link, I can't make heads nor tails of. Which is an indictment. It seems to me that an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural figure who wants to be recognized as the One True Bad-Ass, might realize that his references eventually lose meaning in a changing world. Maybe even revisit the problem, and just generally *clear things up*.

"...isle that is called Patmos" doesn't really impart a lot of *meaning*, considering that I'm supposed to correctly choose the One True Bad-Ass, on pain of eternal suffering. OTOH, if you were interested in building some *infrastructure*, and covering personnel and other expenses as, say, a *corporation* might do, this would be a sweet approach.

Execution (no pun intended) might be tricky. You'd need to deploy some serious Politics of Fear. Fear of death! Yeah, that's the ticket! That will *always* work.

The sad bit is that on balance, connecting as directly as possible to the brainstem usually *does* work. Organized religions do it, governments do it, and corporations do it. That last idea can be particularly entertaining to research. Google around for psychological color responses, and you'll soon see why fast-food restaurants, Denny's, etc., always use red, yellow, orange, and white (warm colors) in logos, signage, etc. No blues and greens allowed--that's for IT firms that want to project a soothing, 'we can fix all your problems' vibe.[1]

At some level, we are all subject to a bit of social engineering. I'm a security guy. You might be surprised at how many times I'm specifically not allowed to perform social engineering attacks. The reason, quite simply, is that they work. Corporations generally want to establish the fact that they are secure, not that I can call employees and trust the brainstem to provide me with the keys to the kingdom in an afternoon's work.

[1] Red Hat is an exception, but that goes back to corporate history, and can't be easily changed.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[arth1]

The Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't charge $360,000 for it, nor do they sue people who hand out copies of their scriptures.

Oh, yeah? Tell that to The Lockman Foundation, please.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[ccguy]

The Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't charge $360,000 for it, nor do they sue people who hand out copies of their scriptures.

Like they don't regret having published them before Mickey Mouse :-)

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget one important factor: one of those you mentioned teaches what is actually true, no matter what you believe. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which one it is.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[hxnwix]

People do tend to have a fallacious idea that their personality is unitary... each sub-component of the self finds it easier to remember the things that it has experienced than those experienced by other states of mind... this is very standard. As such, much of what you have said (ignoring the SF component) seems to be orthodox psychology stated in unfamiliar terms. Sorry, but you would be wrong to conclude that Scientology represents mainstream psychology couched in different terminology. Perhaps both explain the "you have to be drunk to do well on a test if you were drunk when you studied" meme. I suppose that yes, we have feelings, and when we feel certain ways we are more apt to recall emotionally similar experiences. Scientology supposes that our personalities comprise the disparate wills of ageless spirits glued to our life essence by an alien overlord (or some such drivel). This drivel, taken as a metaphor, can indeed be seen as representing the more orthodox view. However, the metaphor seems to break down quickly as you bring more of El Ron's writings into the picture. For example, El Ron wrote that, before implantation, the Thetans were transported aboard jumbo jets... in space. How do we fit this into our orthodox understanding of perception? Why are we only including convenient excerpts in our metaphor? Was El Ron's intention really to lay out an orthodox perspective carefully disguised as junk sci-fi?

Unless you can come back with a solid argument, I'm going to have to conclude that any resemblance between Scientology and mainstream psychology is either coincidental or contrived for the purpose of borrowing credibility from a real science. Also, considering that "Dianetics is the secular predecessor of Hubbard's 'applied religious philosophy,' Scientology, and [is] still employed and disseminated by the Church of Scientology,"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianeti cs) I have to wonder if we do ourselves a disservice by distinguishing between the two.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[jcr]

Careful there, Thor's going to smite you with a blow from Mjolnir for pushing those newfangled southern superstitions.

-jcr

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[jcr]

I consider it lame in the extreme. If you want entertaining mythology, try the Ramayana.

-jcr

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Alsee]

Awesome.. i needed a good scenario for the sci-fi game i'm writing. This seems perfect. Where did you come up with such great work?

That text was genuine court certified Scientology Scripture. The founder of Scientology was L. Ron Hubbard .... who just so happened to be a famous science fiction author.

There also happen to be multiple witnesses and even a court affidavit that Hubbard had a penchant for commenting to the effect that 'the best way to make a million dollars would be to start a religion'.

-

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Ajehals]

Mainstream religions tend to decry the actions of their most radical or divergent factions, that is why there is not a single unified Christian or Islamic faith (not sure about Judaism). As such, just as you would call for the arrest of and disassociate yourself with a Christian criminal/terror organisation so would (and have) the catholic church and the church of England etc.. in the same way Islamic groups have disassociated themselves from and called for the disbandment and arrest of Islamic criminal/terror organisations.

The problem here is as always the definition of criminal group or terror group. It would be relatively easy to justify the actions and existence of some of Islamic groups that operate in the middle east, in the same way it would have been easy to justify the actions of catholic and protestant terror groups in the UK or Europe.

Somehow even given all that I cannot see any justification or explanation that makes sense when I am looking at the actions, activities or scriptures of the church of Scientology as described in this forum and others.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Dun Malg]

That's the one thing I like about Scientologists: their mythology is so entertaining. Ja, but it's not really entertaining.... just amusing. Really, it's typical third-rate juvenile science fiction, much like you would find in 50's back issues of Amazing Stories. If you actual sit down and try to read any of L.Ron Hubbard's work (e.g. Battlefield Earth), you are struck with the sheer talentlessness of the man. No wonder he ended up using his only true skill (salesmanship) to make his fortune. He certainly was no writer.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Porktastic]

Sure, they don't charge for it. But, society pays for it since these religious groups generally don't pay taxes for a lot of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organizati on
"...however religious non-profit entities like churches are subject to less rigorous federal filing and reporting requirements than many other tax-exempt organizations. Depending on the state in which they are located, they may also be exempt from some of the inspections or regulations governing non-religious groups performing the same services..."

Sure, God may not need a starship or a team of lawyers, but shouldn't his followers be subject to equal taxation to at least to every other non-profit group? Don't get me wrong, I think Scientologists are a bunch of nutbags, but why do some "religions" get breaks because they happen to have more people that believe their story? Why shouldn't Flying Spaghetti Monster t-shirts be tax free?

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't follow a link with a spelling error in it... St John the Devine????

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

Disclaimer: I am Christian.

I think you have a point here that tax breaks should not be taken for granted. If an organisation is doing deeds that benefit society for alturistic reasons, and the government want to encourage this behaviour, tax breaks are one way of doing it.

I would have no problem with Pastafarians handing out warm pirate coats bearing an image of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to homeless people and receiving a tax break. (apologies to all offended Pastafarians for not understanding your beliefs.)

I would object to any organisation who uses this loophole to be more "profitable". Surely if you are receiving a tax break for being alturistic, the thing you should be doing is being more alturistic.

And yes, one mans charity is another mans insult. You are better off teaching a man to fish over handing them a freshly caught one.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shit.

Here we go again...

http://slashdot.org/yro/01/03/16/1256226.shtml

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[ceoyoyo]

Hm. The Catholic church is one of the richest and most powerful organizations in the world. They used to (and other churches still do) skim off a percentage of their members' wages. That tithe used to be law in many places.

I don't think the Catholic church was ever as sue happy as the Scientologists though. They just imprisoned or burned the people they didn't like.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[fm6]

Really, it's typical third-rate juvenile science fiction, much like you would find in 50's back issues of Amazing Stories.

Hey, some of us like that stuff. SF has a long history of hare-brained ideas, and I find it all the more entertaining for that. (One of my current favorites is S.M. Stirling, who fantasizes about slavery surviving into the 21st century. Absurd. But great fun to read.) Hubbard was just the the only one who turned his hare-brained ideas into a second career.

But forget about Battlefield Earth, for which Hubbard obviously supplied nothing but his name. I mean, the guy basically retired from writing SF after Dianetics got going. (Running a cult is less work and better paid than churning out pulp fiction.) Then, almost 30 years later, in his 70s, with no need for the extra income, rumored to be senile, or even dead, he starts churning out almost a thousand pages a year? (Much more if you count the stuff that came out after he died. In fact his "late work" by page count is maybe twice what he wrote during his pre-Dianetics days.) It seems more likely that Battlefield Earth and the ten novels that came after it were ghost written, probably by somebody who hoped to use popular fiction to spread Scientological ideas — or what passes for them.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are better off teaching a man to fish over handing them a freshly caught one.

That depends whether they are on the point of starvation and whether the fish are biting or not.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[schon]

I can't follow a link with a spelling error in it... St John the Devine??? How do you know that's a spelling error?

Perhaps he was a gardener.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[ToasterofDOOM]

Yes, actually, it does. When dealing with religion in terms of how ridiculous they are, it is impossible and illogical to be entirely objective in your analysis, and it just so happens that, at least by the standards of a great majority of people, scientology is far more outlandish than Abrahamic religions for many reasons.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent was obviously refering to the "christian" religions, not Roman Catholicism. Remember the Roman Catholicism is techincally a religion unto itself has a history of sanctioned non-christian behaviour.....such as persecution and murder of real christians and others deemed to be heretical.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[skeeto]

Why does God need a starship?

You just referenced an odd-numbered Star Trek movie ... be careful doing that around here.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Sj0]

Why do I get the feeling you really just learned this all through the South Park episode?

Ah, because you're saying "El Ron".

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientology is a cult invented by L. Ron Hubbard in the early 1960's. In the 1940's Hubbard is quoted as saying "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous! If you really want to get rich, you should either create your own form of psychology, or start your own religion". Hubbard did just that less than 20 years later, and died a very rich man. That he suckered so many into giving him so much money, says a lot about his abilities as a confidence man, and also about those who he has suckered. Its a pity he didn't include (more) space aliens in his writings. His fiction isn't even very good story, but so long as people (suckers) keep paying...

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[TheLink]

Christians can claim that those factions are divergent with backing from the Bible. If you are following Jesus, it is pretty clear you're not supposed to be going around killing other people. You'd have to stretch/twist things to claim that the Bible says it is OK for _Christians_ to kill others.

I'm not sure if Scientologists can do something similar.

As for Judaism and the Torah saying it's OK to kill others, you'd see that:
1) There are bits dealing the Israelites killing others were the Israelites taking the promised land from the Canaanites. There's no expansionist take over the world thing- Israel was God's judgement on the Canaanites.
2) The other bits are laws regulating behaviour and punishments (which include the death penalty) which Israel voluntarily _agreed_ to in their "contract" with God. Israel was to be set apart as special. Even today Israel "sticks out" in the world ;).
3) And then there's parts dealing with war in general. War sucks.

It would be good to know which bits of the Koran/Quran say that Muslims are not supposed to kill nonmuslims, might come in handy one day.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[rtb61]

Well actually the author is being facetious. Whilst the scientology executives did pathologically defend the little yarn with copyright and other legal and even illegal threats, it was never meant for public distribution, but only ever intended for the gullible, naive and those suffering from various psychological maladies,and only once they had achieved a specific level of mental suggestibility. So public distribution of it, is basically mocking it and a facetious use of it.

At least Belgium is looking to treat it for what it is a money making corporation and not a religion or even a cult. The cynicism of that corporation is beyond normal reason, they abhor psychiatrists and psychologists because apparently those professions directly threaten their main revenue source, by curing those individuals suffering from mental diseases, the preferred target of the scientology corporation.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[KDR_11k]

At least Belgium is looking to treat it for what it is a money making corporation and not a religion or even a cult.

I have no idea why the difference even matters, illegal acts should remain illegal acts whether you're a religion or not.

Also that story sounds so stupid it could have been a combination of an anime plotline and George Lucas.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch the South Park episode "Trapped in the closet": they criticized scientology and made fun of it pretty well. Obviously they didn't appreciate.

Link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VIv9SAr-Zrw

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[hxnwix]

Some of it came from the somethingawful forums and none from wikipedia. Good catch though, El Sj0.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[nospam007]

I don't think the Catholic church was ever as sue happy as the Scientologists though. They just imprisoned or burned the people they didn't like.
--
You omitted that between imprisoning and burning came the suing too.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[cortana]

George Carlin gets it so so right!

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[dave420]

E-meters are not reprehensible? They cost members of the church $4,000, were claimed to cure illnesses, and cost $180 to make. That sounds reprehensible to me.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

"The Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't charge $360,000 for it, nor do they sue people who hand out copies of their scriptures."

True, but only 500 years ago the Christians tended to kill or at least excommunicate anyone who translated the scriptures into something comprehensible for the 99,9% of the masses that did not understand Latin.

This was 500 years after the Romans killed anyone spreading the Christian scriptures in a language 99,9% of the masses did understand, Latin.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[riker1384]

For example, El Ron wrote that, before implantation, the Thetans were transported aboard jumbo jets... in space. How do we fit this into our orthodox understanding of perception? Why are we only including convenient excerpts in our metaphor? Was El Ron's intention really to lay out an orthodox perspective carefully disguised as junk sci-fi? I've heard described as, they believe that that "space opera" stuff really did happen literally, including space planes and all sorts of things from 20th century culture and fiction. It sounds ridiculous, but the idea is that we have ingrained memories of these old civilizations, and those memories ended up being expressed by writers who mistakenly think they're just writing fiction, and people who think they're inventing airplanes when they're really just re-creating old technology.

It's really sort of ingenieous, if that's indeed the way they explain it.

There was a Rolling Stone interview, though, where a representative acknowledged the Xenu thing. He claimed that it wasn't history, or a "story", it's an auditing level and it's impossible to explain to an outsider what that means.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Dragonslicer]

that is why there is not a single unified Christian or Islamic faith (not sure about Judaism). There are several sects of Judaism. Orthodox (the strict, traditional, take-everything-literally branch), Reform (the touchy-feely, big-book-of-nice-stories branch), and Conservative (thought the Reform movement went a bit too far in modernizing) are the three large sects. There isn't any real violence between branches of Judaism. Some of the more Orthodox people have been known to consider Conservative and Reform Jews to be "not really Jewish", but it doesn't go beyond harsh words and a mean glare.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Azghoul]

Funny, true, but it WOULD be a fuckload more entertaining than what we get to watch these days...

Larry Craig stands with a "wide stance"? ZAP! BOOOM! Lightning bolt on his perverted ass!

GW lies about why we're in Iraq? KABOOM! The Hammer falls!

Damn, you could write a sitcom with this stuff. :)

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Elektroschock]

Freedom to faschism? It is a dangerous powermongering cult with science fiction elements. I consider it dangerous. As dangerous as Jesuits. But was does the Gov do? Fight the Brethren of the Free Spirit. But we are fighting back!

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[gardyloo]

The Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't [...] sue people who hand out copies of their scriptures. Wish they would.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Scientologists are a bunch of nutbags, but why do some "religions" get breaks because they happen to have more people that believe their story? Why shouldn't Flying Spaghetti Monster t-shirts be tax free?

One thing that non-profit organizations cannot do in the US is exist to funnel money/wealth/property into the hands of its founders or directors. There is evidence that L. Ron Hubbard was personally paid a portion of all the proceeds.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[MartinB]

The Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't ... sue people who hand out copies of their scriptures.

Oh yeah?

(Tongue in cheek here - it's the only example I can think of, and it's apocryphal)

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Kabuthunk]

Bah, unless all of that was brought about by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly goodness, it's meaningless :P

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[mink]

If you think thats bad, wait until dateline goes after the Audio/Video snake oil industry.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[sustik]

When printing was discovered copies of the Bible were made and those who printed, distributed stocked these copies were prosecuted (for example burned, cooked in oil etc.). The sermon's at the time were in Latin only and the ruling elite (in the church) was not interested in changing that. They did not want people translate the Bible, interpret it etc. etc.

I do not believe so, but one may make the argument that the Scientology leaders want to avoid the misinterpretation of their teachings. I do not buy the argument though that you can only understand the text through them and their auditing or whatever. Since they refused to publish thir stuff others did.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[budgenator]

First watch Charleton Heston in "The Ten Commandments" then watch Trivolta in "Battlefield Earth" the two movies are roughly equivalent to each actor's personal beliefs; you'll laugh your ass off.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[mcvos]

When printing was discovered copies of the Bible were made and those who printed, distributed stocked these copies were prosecuted (for example burned, cooked in oil etc.). The sermon's at the time were in Latin only and the ruling elite (in the church) was not interested in changing that. They did not want people translate the Bible, interpret it etc. etc.

Probably because they didn't want the people to know what was really in the bible, as that would undermine their power. Let's face it, medieval christianity was as corrupt as scientology, but that doesn't mean modern christianity is, or that it started out that way. It got perverted and abused by medieval power mongers.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also that story sounds so stupid it could have been a combination of an anime plotline and George Lucas.

That's an insult to anime and George Lucas. L. Ron Hubbard stands alone; his stories are to science fiction what Uwe Boll's movies are to cinema.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Haeleth]

When printing was discovered copies of the Bible were made and those who printed, distributed stocked these copies were prosecuted (for example burned, cooked in oil etc.). The sermon's at the time were in Latin only and the ruling elite (in the church) was not interested in changing that. They did not want people translate the Bible, interpret it etc. etc.

Your enthusiasm is impressive, but you could usefully study your history in more depth. :)

When Gutenberg initiated the Western tradition of moveable-type printing, it was seized upon with delight by the Church, because at last it provided them with a cheap and reliable way of making exact copies of God's holy word. The Gutenberg Bible was produced with the full backing of the Church, and Gutenberg was given a pension by the local Archbishop and died a natural death.

You may be thinking of the unofficial biblical translation movements of people such as Wycliffe. Those, however, began considerably before the invention of printing; the Wycliffe bibles were all copied by hand. However, despite translating the Bible into English without official approval, Wycliffe was not even excommunicated, let alone "burned" or "cooked in oil"; he died of natural causes. (His bones were later exhumed and burned, but that was a political matter, and didn't involve killing anyone.)

You may also be thinking of later translations by people such as Luther, who did indeed have access to printing technology. However, this too was not particularly opposed, and Luther too died of natural causes; he was excommunicated, but not for translating the bible.

I can't speak with any authority on this particular period, but I also doubt that sermons were given in Latin. Readings from the Bible would have taken place in Latin, of course, but the whole point of the sermon was that the people could understand it - it gave the priests an opportunity to tell people what he wanted them to understand the Bible said, and they would have no easy means of checking this, so there would have been no advantage in preaching in Latin.

I know it's popular to present the so-called Middle Ages as a barbaric period where you could be tortured to death for thinking the wrong thoughts, but really, they weren't that bad at all.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Alsee]

El Ron wrote that, before implantation, the Thetans were transported aboard jumbo jets... in space. How do we fit this in

Well duh... Freudian psychology 101. The jumbo jet symbolizes a penis.

Which means Thetans = sperm. And from there it is pretty obvious the way everything else falls in place.

-

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[DerekLyons]

Hm. The Catholic church is one of the richest and most powerful organizations in the world. They used to (and other churches still do) skim off a percentage of their members' wages. That tithe used to be law in many places.

Who cares what they used to do. The fact of the matter is they don't it today - and they'd be quite roughly handled if they tried. So why should Scientology be given a free pass to behave as no other religion does today?

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[ceoyoyo]

I didn't suggest they should be given a free pass. I'm challenging the idea that Scientology is an evil cult. It's not. It's a young religion, acting just like pretty much every other religion ever has.

Although, now that you mention it, there's a certain priests molesting children scandal that the catholic church used it's significant influence to cover up for years. They weren't particularly roughly handled at any point. Sure, they finally decided on a payout, but in proportion to the crime it's more like a slap on the hand with a pillow.

Not to pick on the catholic church, the more old school mormons get up to some nasty tricks too. Like forcing barely teenage (sometimes younger) girls into polygamous marriages and abandoning superfluous teenage boys on city streets so they don't compete with older men for wives.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoting James Tiberius Kirk, Cool!

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[HiThere]

Well, it's certainly a very high profit margin. I never understood that they were sold...somehow I thought that they were church property.

OTOH, consider all the folk who were talked into giving ALL they wealth to some christian church or other to insure that they went to heaven. It's not an unusual thing for a church to engage in selling it's services are a strangely high price without any evidence of it doing any good.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[DerekLyons]

I didn't suggest they should be given a free pass. I'm challenging the idea that Scientology is an evil cult. It's not. It's a young religion, acting just like pretty much every other religion ever has.

That would be fine if this were the middle ages. It isn't.
 
 

Although, now that you mention it, there's a certain priests molesting children scandal that the catholic church used it's significant influence to cover up for years. They weren't particularly roughly handled at any point. Sure, they finally decided on a payout, but in proportion to the crime it's more like a slap on the hand with a pillow.

Tons and tons of bad PR and a couple of dioceses going nearly bankrupt (which hurts the parishoners badly) isn't roughly handled?
 
 

Not to pick on the catholic church, the more old school mormons get up to some nasty tricks too. Like forcing barely teenage (sometimes younger) girls into polygamous marriages and abandoning superfluous teenage boys on city streets so they don't compete with older men for wives.

Again, something not accepted today. In case you haven't noticed, the leader of that sect is up on trial for that (and other things).
 
In short, you are an (possibly inadverdant) apologist for the Scientologits because you haven't much of clue or have a great deal of bias.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[ceoyoyo]

What's this about the middle ages? You should be able to find plenty of badness in modern, established religions and other organizations if you open your eyes. I even pointed out a few for you. Cult is a word invented by religions in power to suppress those not in power. There really isn't a difference between the two. Christianity was a cult before it caught on.

A big organization shows a willingness to cover up sexual assault and you think some bad PR and a couple of small subunits going bankrupt is handled roughly? Where are the priests doing perp walks out of their churches and having to register as sex offenders? Where are the high officials indicted for the coverup? That's really a more serious crime than the sex offenses themselves -- the priests are sick, probably incurably so, but sick. The decision makers who decided to protect them and continue their crimes rather than turn them in are evil.

So the leader is on trial, is he? What about all the practitioners?

It's kind of ridiculous calling someone advocating harsh punishment, and more wide ranging punishment, an apologist. There are scientologists who need to be punished, just like there are members of most other groups who need to be punished. There are also scientologists who are innocent dupes, just like there are members of most other groups who are innocent dupes.

There's lots of rot in scientology, but to pretend it's a cult and somehow different from a religion is misleading and dangerous.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[dave420]

Technically, you make a donation to receive an e-meter. As for churches asking for all your money to get into heaven, you can still get into heaven without having to spend a dime. You do need an e-meter to become "clear" in Scientology, however. You can use them at the Org, but that in itself costs money. There is no route to the spiritual end goals of Scientology without spending a lot of money. At least with Christianity (and I'm no Christian, believe me), you can just accept Jesus, live a good life, and Bob's your uncle - a winged reception, accompanied by harps and all your old pets, when you die. For no money down.

So can we burn a few?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Can you buy them on eBay?

Re:So can we burn a few?

[Anonymous Coward]

An eBay search for thetan revealed this Problem is, there doesn't seem to be an image. So, you don't know what it looks like until you buy it. I guess that's fitting.

belgium and freedom of religion

[sdedeo]

I'm certaintly not a fan of the CoS (please don't kill me), but Belgium is known for its heavy-handed treatment of religious minorities. Opus Dei, a Catholic sect, for example, has had continuous run-ins with the "cult" classification. I don't have much of an opinion on Opus Dei (a friend of mine in Belgium roomed with an Opus Dei member though, and thought they were fine.) But this kind of religious censorship and persecution wouldn't fly in the United States, and I'm glad.

Of course one reason it wouldn't fly in the States is that Scalia is a member of Opus Dei! But that's another story...

Re:belgium and freedom of religion

[lbbros]

I'm a Catholic but I deeply dislike the Opus Dei. I happened to be in a school where most staff had unofficial connections with them, and it was hardly bearable, mostly due to their overzealous and fanatical views on religious and related matters.

Re:belgium and freedom of religion

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to Opus Dei, maybe they are a cult? At what point does a sect of a major organization become a distinct cult? I think it's a gray area.

Re:belgium and freedom of religion

[sdedeo]

Of course. I just think it's not the government's business to get into the classification industry. Government should remain entirely neutral on religious matters and make no judgements on whether the lawful activities of a group are, or are not, "cultish", "reasonable", "tolerable." I appear to be getting troll-rated because the slashdot community, usually super-cautious about the preservation of individual rights, doesn't care when governments crack down on religious groups. I assume that's because most /.ers are not religious, or if they are, are members of a very mainstream group they don't take very seriously anyway. I think /.ers need to realize that you have a right to all sorts of strange opinions, and a right to hang out with all sorts of strange people, and that in fact they themselves make use of this right all the time.

Re:belgium and freedom of religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Seton Hall?? I was there, and had similar feelings. Don't know how many actually were connected, but the one visible one was so highly connected to Opus Dei it put a little fright in me.

Re:belgium and freedom of religion

[wamatt]

I suppose organised crime should not be classified either? There are some interesting parallels between the way they operate. Fear of getting "whacked" or fear of being sued into oblivion and blackmailed respectively.

It's a fine line. Look at the Jim Jones cult. Hundreds of people were brainwashed and coerced into suicide which perhaps could have been prevented if the government had taken earlier measures.

I do agree though it's a tricky one as I loathe censorship even more. Perhaps would be best would be to treat it as a suspicious organisation and nail them on conspiracy to commit xyz crime.

Re:belgium and freedom of religion

[namednick]

Actually not all that much will happen to Opus Dei in Belgium. It is a public secret that the Belgian Royal family is a member of Opus Dei. Films have been made and books have been written about this "secret", all very interesting. To make a long story short; because of the strong historic links between the monarchy and the high ranked courts (aristocratic past etc.) the prosecution or whatever of such an organization would be highly unlikely. They'll put it on some kind of list, but they'll never touch the actual religious group. However this is not the case with the CoS. I hope they proceed with this thing, cause this is absolutely not a regular religious group.

Re:belgium and freedom of religion

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no censorship in Belgium preventing members of the Opus Dei over their religious beliefs. Nothing in the Belgian law allows to censor a cult on the sole basis of its religious beliefs. Several trial attempts made by individuals failed in the past precisely because they were based on the sole philosophical beliefs, which cannot be contested.

What is, for the Belgian Law, a sect ? It is:

"Any group with a philosophical or religious purpose, or presenting itself as such, that, n its organization or customs, does illegal damaging activities, is detrimental to individuals or the society, or reduces human dignity." (rough English translation)

So in short, the Belgian Law does nothing more than ensure that organizations do not use their morale influence to do anything illegal or dangerous (the well-known brainwash-spoil-eject cycle of many sects). And you are glad that such a legal protection doesn't exist in the US ? I'm not sure anybody would like to live in a country where waiving a "freedom of religion !" panel is sufficient to allow an organization to perform children rapture, private people from their freedom, rob them, or spoil them in a perfectly legal way.

nitpicking

[Yvanhoe]

Other European countries such as Germany have problems with Scientology, but in the US it is officially recognized as a religion. Germany has a special take on the question but in some European countries (well, at least in France but I doubt it is the only one). The state guarantees the religious freedom and does not maintain a list of official religion. And last time I checked, being a religion or a spiritual movement wasn't an excuse for not paying taxes on incomes.

Re:nitpicking

[Anonymous Coward]

France, the country that does not allow Islamic women to wear head scarves to school, guarantees religious freedom?!? I think not...

Re:nitpicking

[Denial93]

Germany doesn't have an official religion, but it does offer various benefits for "Anerkannte Religionsgemeinschaften" (accepted religious movements). The most significant ones are that church tax will be collected from members by the state on the behalf of those groups, the state allows (but doesn't necessarily fund) religious education in state schools, and religious employers get various advantages that help them in running hsopitals etc. It is very, very difficult to become an "Anerkannte Religionsgemeinschaft", because you need to demonstrate a large organization built to last, and beneficial effect on both members and the populace. The big Christian churches and the Jews used to be the only ones to have that status, the Jehovah's Witnesses acquired it only recently (first announcement: they aren't going to use those benefits) and the Muslims and Buddhists are currently very busy trying. Scientology will receive those benefits the day hell freezes over - but much larger (and some would say more religious) groups like the Baha'i, Alevites, Mormons and Hindus do without them as well. And as far as the law is concerned, they're not being prosecuted, and neither are Satanists, Yezidis and other groups with sucky PR.

Germany has long been known for its harsh stance towards Scientology, and in many ways that is still true. The Scientologists have a hideous image in the press and in the public opinion. However, the "Verfassungsschutz" (secret service) does not have them under surveillance anymore as investigation did not find them that dangerous - they may still be fraudsters and charge outrageous amounts for outdated psychotherapy, but they're not seriously considered a danger to the state anymore.

Re:nitpicking

[Robb]

In Switzerland the leadership of the Church of Scientology in Geneva was convicted of several crimes such as fraud, blackmail and forgery (escroquerie, chantage, faux dans les titres). However, it is hard to prove anything about the Church itself beyond the fact that they have a lot of criminals and unscrupulous people for members.

more on Belgian religious intolerance

[sdedeo]

Here's a full list of religious groups considered "cults" by the Belgian government. It includes Quakers (I am one), the Amish, 7th Day Adventists, Hasidic Jews, and others. Before you cheer their attitude to the Scientologists, consider the collateral damage.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[Arcturax]

That is a $cientology front site you posted. They even use the same stupid font for their logo as all their other sites do.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[sdedeo]

I didn't know/see that, but are you disputing the article's claims? They seem pretty verifiable, I mean either the Belgian parliment did or did not do this.

And indeed, a quick google pulls up that that there is indeed a "Belgian Parliamentary Commission on Cults". Here's a story that's neither Scientology-published nor a simple reprint of their article: 21 Evangelical Denominations Labeled as Cults in Belgium. The article comes from Compass Direct, which seems to be a religious organization as well. I mean, you can refuse to care, but as they say "they came for the random relgious groups, and I did not object, because I was not a member of a random religious group.".

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[SeeSchloss]

I don't see a problem. They *are* cults, aren't they ? In France, being a "cultual organisation" (not sure that it's the right way to say it in English, it's the religious equivalent to a "cultural organisation", which promotes music, painting, whatever) just means you pay less taxes if you stay within some limits as to your activities (or else you have to become a cultural organisation, or create a parallel one). The Catholic Church is a cult and has cultual organisation. Same for the Unified Protestant Church, the Quakers (though I doubt these guys are registered in France), the Amish, or any other wackos who want some legal recognition.

By the way, does the compagny "Quaker" have anything to do with the religious group ? I didn't know it before moving to Canada, and I always try to avoid buying their thing because I don't know if they're involved in religious things which I certainly don't want to support.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[Anonymous Coward]

Well according to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cult
"1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific."

I'd say all of those organizations (Quakers included), plus all other religions are cults. It's just an order of magnitude.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[jjohnson]

According to the folks at Religious Tolerance, the grandparent is correct. AFAIK, they're a credible, independent source on these things.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[sdedeo]

I'm not sure if you're winding me up, but the problem is not the registration of religious groups (which makes sense, e.g., in the United States where there are tax reasons.) It's the fact that the Belgian government is now making distinctions between groups.

The Quaker Oats company, Quaker State, and a bunch of other companies have nothing to do with the Quakers, the religious group, whose technical name is "The Religious Society of Friends." You are boycotting the wrong people! Instead, you should boycott anything connected to Cornell University (that includes Basketball), John Hopkins, Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr, and Haverford. I suggest immediately determining if any of these organizations have been involved in the creation of technology or culture that you currently use, because they're all started by Quakers.

In addition, you might want to rethink your support (if you have any) for women's rights and civil rights in general, because Quakers have been involved in these movements far out of proportion to their demographics!

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[sdedeo]

It's been a long time since "cult" was not a pejorative term. I mean maybe in Ancient Greece? "Let's all join a cult!" I assume you're posting anon to avoid damaging your karma with a troll-rating, but in case you care, the essential problem is not the label "cult" but its uneven application.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[vidarh]

Quaker has nothing to do with the religious group, and since 2001 it's actually been part of Pepsico.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[vidarh]

However, if you read the article you quoted vs. the article on the CoS front site, you'll notice that the one you cited gives plenty space to how the commissions report caused a major uproar, and how it resulted in the government removing the list in question from the final report and not taking a stance on it. The CoS article tries to make it seem as if this result was left standing uncontested, while in fact it appears to have had no impact on policy.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[sdedeo]

The Belgian government has been involved in religious discrimination for a while. For example (from the same article):

A percentage of the Belgian income tax is used to finance the "full" enjoyment of rights of the six recognized religious denominations, but in particular of the majority Catholic Church. These rights include (partial list): (1) Legal protection of their ministers and liturgical objects against offenders; (2) Payment of the salaries and pensions of ministers by the state; (3) Access to state subsidies for the construction or renovation of buildings; (4) exemption from land tax on the properties used for the purpose of public worship; (5) access to the national radio and TV stations.

I'm not saying the Belgian government conducting (and then it seems retracting -- you're right) one witch-hunt against religious minorities is the only reason to treat them with suspicion.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[DavidTC]

So let me get this straight. Someone posts a link to religioustolerance.org asserting something. Someone else says 'That's a known Scientology front'. You dispute this by...posting exactly the same link. Interesting.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[DavidTC]

In addition to you boycotting the wrong people like the other post said, you should probably do a little bit of research to see if you actually disagree with anything the Quakers do or believe. They are an extremely 'liberal' denomination in that they don't really have any hard-and-fast rules about anything. (They were created as a backlash to fighting between Catholics and Anglicans in England.) Their basically theology appears to be 'Why can't we all just get along?'.

The only theological positions I know, in addition to being very strongly pro-sexual equality (Way before other churches or even society as a whole thought it was even a possible idea. They had women participating the same as men 300 years ago. ) they are very very very pacifistic and reject the idea of a 'Just War', IIRC. Belonging to the Quakers almost automatically gets you a conscientious objector status.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, The Belgian commission listed 189 groups which had been _accused_ of being cults. Among those accused were several rather well-regarded religious organizations. Google belgian parliamentary commission on cults, or just follow the official links on Wikipedia. Given the mentioned distortions of the report, I would suspect that some of the posters were being deceived by propaganda sites.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[jjohnson]

Whoops, my bad. Still, Religious Tolerance is a Co$ front site? Since when?

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Actually, the Quakers are one of the nicer sects of christianity. They are basically tolerant pacifists, they do quite a lot of good in the community. Although I actually don't know much about them, maybe that is just a front to disguise their hidden nerve gas laboratory ;-)

Actually, the Wikipedia article on Quakers is very interesting. It seems they have been moving away from christianity for quite some time. "Although Quakers throughout most of their history and in most parts of the world today consider Quakerism to be a Christian movement, some Friends (principally in some Meetings in the United States and the United Kingdom) now consider themselves universalist, agnostic, atheist, nonrealist, humanist, postchristian, or nontheist, or do not accept any religious label."

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[SeeSchloss]

Bah, I don't think of it as "boycott", I just tend to avoid anything which seems to have anything to do with any kind of religion when I have a choice. And what do women's right have to do with not buying a make of biscuits ? I am capable of some discernment, mind you.

As for basketball : well this sport isn't in my culture at all. The other names I have never heard of.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[Anonymous Coward]

Might want to be careful of your doctors, then. Johns Hopkins (note the s in the first word) has a major medical school.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[couchslug]

"Before you cheer their attitude to the Scientologists, consider the collateral damage

I'm an anti-theist. The collateral damage is a sacrifice I'm willing to accept.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[swordgeek]

"...since 2001 it's actually been part of Pepsico."

In fact, that is a FAR better reason to boycott it than being associated with a religion.
After all, Pepsi was a prime instigator in the invasion of Chile.

(There's tons of other stuff out there of course, but I wanted to stick to reliable and relatively neutral sources.)

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[swordgeek]

You're making a large number of errors in a well-intentioned post here.

First of all, the list you posted is a list of groups that a commission recommended be considered cults. The government of Belgium did not accept that recommendation, and did not make any judgements on the groups listed.
Secondly, the site you referred to is very biased in their own way: If it's religious, it's good. If it's religious and small, then it's even better. It is pathologically opposed to any recognition of cults (even when real cults exist).
Thirdly, this article is ENTIRELY unrelated to that article. This is a ten-year investigation into the CoS. Not the Quakers, not the two Buddhist sects, not the Amish mission--JUST the Scientologists.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[arth1]

Whoops, my bad. Still, Religious Tolerance is a Co$ front site? Since when?

If not a front, certainly an apologist site. Go to this site. Scroll down to "NORTH AMERICA" and "Canada" to find their public spokesperson:
Note:

Mr. Al Buttnor
Church of Scientology of Toronto
696 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M4Y 2A7

Then look at the articles on religioustolerance.org. Funny, but everything about Scientology seems to have been co-authored by the very same Mr. Al Buttnor.

Even worse, the religioustolerance.org web pages also appear to have been heavily censored numerous times, and anything that even faintly smells like a criticism or link to a criticism of Scientology appears to have been removed. This does not seem to be the case for other cults, sects and churches mentioned on the site.

See this site for more details about this, and other criticisms of religioustolerance.org, especially as it relates to Scientology.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[jjohnson]

That's quite a tongue-bath they give Elron.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[AndroidCat]

They were also completely blocking the Wayback archive for a while. If the spider bot was too much trouble, perhaps I could see excluding it, but why block the display of all the previously archived pages?

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[freezingweasel]

Perhaps the Guide was right to note Belgium as the most objectionable of words, galaxy-wide.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[Jerry Beasters]

Oh really? I'm a scholar of religion and I can tell you that in the circles of those who actually know what they're talking about "cult" is not by definition a negative term.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[santeri]

Before you cheer their attitude to the Scientologists, consider the collateral damage.

I'd say it's about time.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[philipdutre]

There is freedom of religion in Belgium. You can practice any religion you want, as long as the people or organisation running the cult or religion abides by the law. The case brought against Scientology is not because there are a cult, it's because they have violated various laws under Belgian and EU law.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[dave420]

I have no problem with that. As soon as humanity shakes off this ridiculous notion of supernatural rubbish we might actually get somewhere as a species. I admire the Quakers' take on community, but it's doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Using the word "intolerance" doesn't automatically make something wrong. Doctors are intolerant of disease, the police are intolerant of crime, and pilots are intolerant of airplane crashes - should they all stop being so intolerant?

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget Chocolate! Cadbury, Rowntree, etc.

Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance

[Alsee]

They even use the same stupid font for their logo as all their other sites do.

No, Narcanon uses a different font for their logo.

-

In LA, it's legal, and the sheriff is one

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is this "church" legal in the US, the sheriff of the largest county in the state is a Scientologist. Sheriff Baca is able to get county money diverted.

And he issues CCW permits to prominent gun-banning Scientologists such as Sylvester Stallone. Wonderful.

Scientology is NOT a religion!

[hoggoth]

Scientology is NOT a religion!

They believe that absurd fictional super-powered entities are controlling our lives.
They indoctrinate their believers to give up their common sense and rely on the group for 'truth'. They suck money out of their victims and they prosecute anyone who opposes their growth!
How dare they try to be considered a religion!

Umm.. wait a minute.. never mind...

Re:Scientology is NOT a religion!

[This_Is_My_Happening]

They believe that absurd fictional super-powered entities are controlling our lives. Oh-ho-ho. You just wait until Xenu escapes from his intergalactic prison and comes back to Teegeeack with a fleet of DC-8 spaceplanes. Then you'll be sorry, unbeliever!

Re:Scientology is NOT a religion!

[Prof.Phreak]

Eh, if only I had mod points...

Another thing you didn't know about Scientology

[xelph]

This is a closely guarded secret that I shall reveal to you now that ... NOOOOOOO!!! :::THUD::: Aaaaaaa... :::sound of dying Pac-Man:::

Scientology is so 20th century

[Arcturax]

No you want a REAL religion, you should be subscribing to Sciencolonogy.

It's the hottest new religion and all the big name Hollywood stars are taking part!

You see, 1,000,000 Jillion years ago, the evil alien overlord Xanus ruled the galaxy and a horrible plague of dysentery broke out among all of the populated planets. To eradicate the plague, he rounded up all sufferers of the plague and piled them into huge toilet bowl shaped vessels (see the Ori from Stargate, they stole the design from us and we will sue in internet court!!) and then dumped them into a huge septic tank he dug here on Earth. They died a horrible death in that pit and their souls came out and now cling to everyone elses souls on earth are all backed up leaving our spirits all gassy and bloated.

But have no fear... Sciencolonogy is here!

With our cutting edge soul plunging tech we can easily measure the brain to bowel flow of the bodies energies. By reading the life changing book Diarrhetics, written by our esteemed founder Elron Chubbard, you will learn how we can help you plunge your soul clear of these obstructive souls and allow your energies to flow freely. For a small fee of course. Your initiation will come with the first five pages of the book free and a free half roll of our patented toilet paper. If you run out, the free pages of the book should tide you over until you can get to one of our study centers to buy some more. Our study centers are fully stocked with everything you need, including newpapers, magazines and books, all for a nominal fee. Act now because we are having a special deal! You can get one hour in a stall with a door for the price of the ones that come without! Hurry, this offer won't last!

Re:Scientology is so 20th century

[Alsee]

I hope you realize that we will now be forced to put laxatives in your tap water.

  -- Tom Cruise

-

Uh, what?

[DysenteryInTheRanks]

How does the U.S. "officially recognize" Scientology as a religion when the First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."?

Just because the IRS chooses not to contest their tax return (after fighting them for decades) does NOT mean they are officially recognized. That's like saying I'm officially recognized as drug free just because the cops could never convict me of drug possession and gave up trying.

Re:Uh, what?

[RockDoctor]

"Establishment" in this context is the "establishment" in Dr Johnson's favourite word "antidisestablishmentarianistically" , which is the settling of a particular religion as being the particular religion of the state, in which religion all business of the state would be carried out (the recent founding of the Scottish Parliament was accompanied by upset over prayers being held before each session of the parliament, implying an "established" religion).
Other consequences of "establishment" are that the monarch is head of the church (and hence the furore over Edward VIII wanting to marry a divorcee, which marriage wouldn't have been legal under the laws of the "established" church at that time, so he abdicated ; hence also some of the Diana-Princess-of-Whales conspiracy theories) ; that people who aren't members of the "established" religion may not be officers or members of government. Daily prayers (in the form dictated by the "established" religion) in schools and official buildings and religious instruction as a compulsory schooling subject are other aspects of "establishment".
Around the time of Charlie-Prince-of-Whales-and-plant-talker-in-chief wanting to marry a divorcee, the question of disestablishment (the removal of a particular church from being established) arose again, and estimates of the requirement for parliamentary time to rescind the appropriate legislation and modify what couldn't/ shouldn't be rescinded was between one and two years with no time allowed for debate. Which is one of the major reasons for the continuing establishment of the church in the UK. It'd be quicker and easier to introduce a full-fledged constitution.

They're lunatics.

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, look at this crap:

1. Check for any BTs (E-meter, theta perceptics, intention, pressure areas, telepathy is HOW) on and in:

      1. Body surface (WHERE)
      2. Body inside
      3. In thetan's space (Approx. 40' X 60')
      4. On thetan

2. Run Incident 2, then Incident 1, until BT(s) have gone and are released. Then, check for additional Incidents 1's and 2's until dry (on the meter).

3. Return to Step 2, to find new ones to run. Use ruds while running if necessary. There is an effort to stop and hurry on Incident 1.

4. When complete, exact date and run both of the incidents on self.

5. If a bog, do Millazo Pack. Write down some 'mutual associations'. Re each one on this list, FIND THE INCIDENT THAT MADE THEM ONE, and run that. Then, run OT III, Incident 2 and 1 after that cluster is broken up. Occasionally, BTs will have an incident that made them one other then Incident 2, thus this action. ...
It just keeps going on like that. I hope they get sued for every penny they're worth.

Re:They're lunatics.

[Max Littlemore]

Wow. Looks as crazy as some of the shit in the bible.

Apologies to christians for that, but I'm trying to make a point here. I don't understand what your extract means, just as I don't understand lots of religious or other texts that depend on background information. I assume that you are calling it crap because you don't understand it. Prosecuting someone because they have written material for internal use which you don't understand is dangerous and just a bit stupid.

Re:They're lunatics.

[sqrrl101]

Last year, whilst wandering around Amsterdam, I popped into a Scientology "church" to have a see for myself what these people are like. I was quickly greeted by a young Dutch woman who offered to tell me more about this "great lifestyle", and sat me down at a table stacked with various Dianetics books. She spoke a little about the church being founded by a "genius scientist, author and philosopher" named L. Ron Hubbard. Had I heard of him before? I replied that I hadn't really heard much, and was just interested in seeing what the whole thing's about. I mentioned I was a Tom Cruise fan (thinking it best to disguise my real personality as best I could), which she seemed pleased about.

After she asked me a little about my life (I fabricated the answers, obviously), she prepared an E-meter and got me to grasp the electrodes. After confusing her for a few minutes by making the needle bounce around, she began with the questions. For an idea of the things their personality test consists of, just watch the South Park episode on Scientology. It's pretty much word-for-word. After completing the questions, it turned out (surprisingly) that I was a perfect candidate for a Dianetics course, and I should probably purchase many books straight away. Acting interested, I assured her that I'd order some online as soon as I got back from my holiday. Slightly freaked out by the wide-smiling staff and high-pressure sales, I left.

Was it childish to shout "All hail Xenu!" and run out? Definitely. Was it worth it? You betcha.

Church of Scientology reponds

[MECC]

By decreeing that no Belgium will ever be allowed to be 'cleared'. Belgiums win.

Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You might just want to know what all the noise is about.

Scientology is the 20th Century production of pseudo-religious scientificism in America - much as the LDS church was it's 19th century production. I expect Scientology to be at least as virulent - and ultimately compromised into the mainstream - as its Mormon predecessor. It will even gain them "martyrs" as LDS fallaciously claim for Joseph Smith - beaten to death by a mob he defrauded.

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[iminplaya]

You are so sued!

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[Jesus_666]

If the LDS are 19th century's pseudo-scientific pseudo-religion and Scientology is the 20th century equivalent... That means we can still establich the 21st century equivalent if we are quick!

j/k, of course. The 21st century equivalent is already there; it's known as Web 2.0...

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

By SCOontology?

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[teac77]

The most miserable people are those who bash other people's religion. It's very childish.

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[billtouch]

I knew L. Ron Hubbard in Clearwater, FL before he called what he had Scientology. He started as Dianetics and the goal was just "Going Clear" with the help of his e-meter. He claimed that he could actually make a religion and people would believe. Their headquarters in Clearwater was plagued with claims of fraud and coersion. This peaked when a woman died in their residence. A number of people fled the country in order to stop from testifying and making prosecution of the church impossible, so the muder charges against the church were dropped. There have been many charges of criminal activity leveled against them by former members. Hubbard decided to 'make' a religion from scratch for several reasons: one was to prove he could do it and people would beieve him and it was a great legal tax evasion scheme. When I knew him, we all considered him to be little more than a used car salesman in wolves' clothing. He was no ones friend unless you had something he could use.

I fail to see how that connects to the LDS church. Joseph Smith wasn't beaten to death. He was in the jail in Carthage and a mob stormed the jail and shot him. The people that shot him had no prior connection with him. He had never done business in Carthage. He had only preached there several times. What Joseph founded was a religion from the start. The established religions at the time had a hard time believing God would talk to a 14 year old boy instead of all their educated selves. Then he said God told him that he was not to join any of the established religions. I guess they all pretty much felt insulted at that point or why would they start a religious war against a 14 year old boy? Why didn't they just ignore him.

There isn't a shread of similarity between the two. Good ole L. Ron never was shot by a mob (or anyone else, surprisingly). He pretended what he had was a Godless religion. He only introduced the spiritual part when he had a hard time making the connection with what he had already written and his new proclaimation of religion.

I really don't intend this to be a religious war here, but uninformed statements need to be answered.

Bill

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[Don853]

Yeah, but Scientology is more of a pyramid scheme than a religion.

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are as ignorant as you are vague. CoS has nothing to do with Mormonism and Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was shot, not beaten, and it was by a mob of people he did not defraud, and didn't even know.

You want to know about fraud? How about religions founded on the ignorance of the people, who burned their members with Bibles around their necks because they wanted to read the gospel instead of hear it preached by corrupt ministers and priests? And what about any offshoot of those churches? Tell me how that is, at all, Christian.

Ignorant, moronic troll...next time at least TRY to make an absurd parallel with some arguments, instead of leaving a gaping hole between and Mormons.

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[alister]

You are as ignorant as you are vague. CoS has nothing to do with Mormonism and Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was shot, not beaten, and it was by a mob of people he did not defraud, and didn't even know.

Yeah, it saved them the time of getting to know him (and giving him the chance to defraud them) before they shot him.

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[teac77]

I'm not sure about Scientology, but it was tactless for Jeremiah Cornelius to bash the LDS church: http://www.mormon.org/.

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[GSwarthout]

> gain them "martyrs" as LDS fallaciously claim for Joseph Smith

Incorrect!

Should never have been born

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of those threads that makes me sigh and imagine how different the world would be if certain "people" had never been born. If only I had a time machine...sigh.

A short list...
          L. Ron Hubbard
          Joseph Smith
          Attila the Hun
          Hitler
          (Mentioning Christians here would just piss some people off so I won't)

Re:Should never have been born

[Nimey]

Um, GWB? It's too bad that his father didn't get his nuts crushed when he bailed out of that Avenger.

Re:Should never have been born

[Anonymous Coward]

Addendum to list:
          Christians

Note: I am a former Roman Catholic turned Atheist after self introspection and knowledge of the past revealed the crock that christianity is: it uses power control of the one prison guard that can see all inmates but the inmates cant see him to push their moral values (Though JC can be given credit as a exellent pre-televangelist.) So have sex, masturbate, do drugs if you want to. The only crime is one that violates the rights of another: rape (right to say no), murder (right to live includes abortion for the right to have a fucking chance give it up for adoption: exception if the life of the mother is threatened otherwise), free enterprise or that exploits anothers lack of knowledge(the right to know all details of a contract or a product). It's you're right to do drugs and the government has no right to make moral crusade laws against their use. Stop protecting everyone like a baby america they're adults. If someone dies from overdose that is their own fault the world is better off without them and if they kill someone innocent then they should be jailed for life. The death penalty is wrong because even though we have better technology we still jail innocents because a prosectutor has a hardon for getting this guy and because stats say he killed hi wife he did.

Spawn of a science fiction writer's imagination

[Porchroof]

Scientology is the creation of a science fiction writer's imagination. When he had a best seller with "Dianetics", he decided he could make some money (and keep the money) if he made a religion out of his dreams.

As a teenager in the late 1960s I investigated Scientology as I did many other things. They sent me literature which I read. It quickly became apparent to me (a teenager) that money was the real object of L. Ron's religion. And I (a teenager) wanted no part of it.

If a teenager can understand that Scientology is hogwash, bullshit and the work of Satan, what does that tell you about adults who believe it? I've lived a successful life without Scientology. And I got to keep my money (except for that portion that the government steals from me.)

Re:Spawn of a science fiction writer's imagination

[muuh-gnu]

> money was the real object of L. Ron's religion.
> what does that tell you about adults who believe it?

That they are in it for the money, and are successfull at making Hubbards ideas of disguising as a religion to get tax exemption a reality?

> It quickly became apparent to me

Obviously not.

There is no way anybody "believed" Hubbards Xenu stories at the time they got first published as cheap SF. Why should that instantly have changed when he started to call them a "religion"?

Re:Spawn of a science fiction writer's imagination

[MightyMartian]

History has shown that no matter outrageous, how clearly self-serving or obviously false, a cult can always find sufficiently devoid of reason and self-respect to join up. Let's face it, most of the monolithic religions of the last 2500 years were clearly the inventions of individuals or small groups of people, and really are quite different than the "aboriginal" (if I may use the term) religious systems that often predated them. These religions, in particular post-Temple Judaism, Christianity and Islam, had little difficulty ripping off elements from older religions and philosophies to a great enough degree that they could suction in a core group of fanatical followers.

The chief difference between a cult and a religion is that a religion has, to one extent or another, normalized itself in the greater civilization(s) in which it exists. Scientology still intentionally stands outside the greater society, and thus is considered to be a cult. Mormonism went through just such a period, but through bringing itself more in line with the social norms around it, has gained sufficient normalization that a Mormon would actually consider seeking the highest office in the land.

I figure the Scientologists will probably not make it in the long-run, but who knows, in a thousand years, we may have Scientologist ayatollahs in Tehran burning all evidence of Mohamed.

Re:Spawn of a science fiction writer's imagination

[Anonymous Coward]

You have completely misunderstood the "social conctract" between yourself and the greater society around you. We all voluntarily part with a portion of our income for the betterment of society, and in exchange the government takes care of us. Or else.

Hope this helps, and have a nice day.

Co$ abuses the legal system

[AnalogDiehard]

in the US it is officially recognized as a religion.

That is not true.

Co$ and IRS fought a battle for years over religious tax exemption. The IRS revoked the exemption with the justification that it was a profit earning business. Every court supported the view of the IRS.

The IRS submitted only after it was blanketed with thousands of petty Co$ lawsuits and it did not have the resources to defend all those lawsuits. The Co$ also infiltrated IRS staff at their offices. This is just one of thousands of examples how Co$ abuses the legal system through deception and half truths. Hubbard encouraged his members to abuse the legal system and to lie.

The agreement between IRS and Co$ remained confidential until it was brought to light via a FOI filing from the WSJ. When it was published there was a lot of outrage over the perks that the IRS granted to Co$ which are not available to other religions.

The Holy Bible is free to anyone who asks for one. Co$ is the only cult who charges their members for access to their "scriptures" which are split into multiple tiers and the charges increase exponentially as you advance through each tier. They pressure their brainwashed members to sell their homes, cash in their retirement accounts, deplete their children's inheritances, and go into crushing debt through credit cards to pay for their "scriptures".

One of the terms of the IRS agreement is that all Co$ course and scripture expenses could be deducted from income taxes. No other organization enjoys this perk and the IRS is forbidden to extend it to anyone else. That's just one of the terms that has raised a lot of outrage over the Co$.

The Co$ extorted the religious tax exemption from the IRS, plain and simple. Once that was in their hands, they waved that tax exemption at other countries hostile to their interests, but they were not easily fooled.

Hubbard filed for the exemption way back in the 50s to shield his quackery from government agencies like the FDA. Hubbard has been well established as a charlatan, a professional liar, and a barrater who has exploited the system at any opportunity.

The official definition of a cult is an organization that rejects Jesus Christ, uses their own "scriptures" as superior to the King James Bible, discourages their members from reading the Bible, and then poses as a religion. The Co$ fits that definition to the tee, and they are also a criminal organization in many peoples' eyes, despite the celebrity attachments. Good to see the Belgium is brave enough to prosecute Co$ as such.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to read your post, but upon noticing that you had to use "$" to stand for S, I decided against it.

Grow up, dude.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[durdur]

The official definition of a cult is an organization that rejects Jesus Christ, uses their own "scriptures" as superior to the King James Bible, discourages their members from reading the Bible, and then poses as a religion. Huh? Hopefully you are being ironic. I guess then a bunch of mainstream world religions, including Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are cults (no King James Bible there).

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[narcc]

An informative post, with the exception of this:

The official definition of a cult is an organization that rejects Jesus Christ, uses their own "scriptures" as superior to the King James Bible, discourages their members from reading the Bible, and then poses as a religion.

I don't know who made this particular definition "official" but I'd reject any such definition that classifies EVERY non-christian religion as a "cult". Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. ALL meet your #1 criteria; they reject Jesus Christ.

Why is "cult" in quotes? Only because you use it in the vulgar (common) sense. Follow this link for a better understanding.

For future reference: Double-check anything else your church/pastor tells you. SEE Matthew 24:11, 2 Peter 2:1, Isaiah 9:16, 1 John 4:1

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[DavidTC]

He's either ironic of very stupid, considering that no churches specify 'The King James Bible' as the best one. Most of them, in fact, recognize that it's written using a rather outdated vocabulary and is often unclear because of that, and additionally has a few things translated poorly, so if any religions did have an 'official' translation (And I'm not aware of any that do.), it certainly wouldn't be King James.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[gnarlyhotep]

"The IRS submitted only after it was blanketed with thousands of petty Co$ lawsuits and it did not have the resources to defend all those lawsuits."

Sorry to pick at a nit, but it wasn't the lack of resources that brought it about. It was more the hassle and feeling that the time was wasted. The IRS has nearly infinite resources from which to draw, else they wouldn't be a threat to actual tax-evaders, now would they?

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[durdur]

Right, but some fundamentalists, like maybe the parent poster, think you just read the Bible and that's your infallible guide to God, leaving aside that you're reading a translation and all, and maybe an out of date one at that.

But in any case, the main defining characteristic (I think) of a cult is not its belief system, Christian or not, but the fact that these are "total immersion" systems .. while most mainstream religions are fine if you go to church/temple/mosque once a week, cults want all your time, attention, and (in the case of Scientology, anyway) money. It's matter of degree, because religions tend to want you to be religious all the time, but most don't coerce or heavily pressure their members into an all or nothing commitment.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[DragonWriter]

The official definition of a cult is an organization that rejects Jesus Christ, uses their own "scriptures" as superior to the King James Bible, discourages their members from reading the Bible, and then poses as a religion.

There are lots of definitions of "cult". In what sense is that definition "official"?

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[pigphish]

I don't know who made this particular definition "official" but I'd reject any such definition that classifies EVERY non-christian religion as a "cult". Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. ALL meet your #1 criteria; they reject Jesus Christ.
ehhh you're only partially right....
Muslims (islam) do not reject Christ and in fact Muhammad acknowledges him as a divine profit in the Koran. Albeit he is not the major profit as in Christianity.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[Cow Jones]

Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. ALL meet your #1 criteria; they reject Jesus Christ.

Common misunderstanding - Muslims do not reject Jesus. On the contrary, they recognize him as an important prophet, even as the messiah. They do not believe that he is the son of Allah, or that he was crucified. See the article on the islamic view of Jesus on Wikipedia for details.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[AnalogDiehard]

The official definition of a cult is an organization that rejects Jesus Christ, uses their own "scriptures" as superior to the King James Bible, discourages their members from reading the Bible, and then poses as a religion.

I don't know who made this particular definition "official" but I'd reject any such definition that classifies EVERY non-christian religion as a "cult". Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. ALL meet your #1 criteria; they reject Jesus Christ.

The "official" definition comes from the highest authority: The Bible itself

Why is "cult" in quotes? Only because you use it in the vulgar (common) sense. Follow this link for a better understanding.

For future reference: Double-check anything else your church/pastor tells you. SEE Matthew 24:11, 2 Peter 2:1, Isaiah 9:16, 1 John 4:1

I love it when people rebuke christians using the Bible and then have no idea what they are talking about.

To quote Jesus: you sir, do err for you know not scripture. Plus you place wikipedia as superior to the Bible. That was weak birdshot, so go back and study the Bible better before you use it to rebuke a christian who has received the Holy Spirit. It is people like you who give christians a bad name.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[Reality Master 201]

Yeah, but the Bible's mostly just a bunch of self-contradictory bullshit anyway.

It's not perfect, it's not infallible, and it's not inerrant. It's been repeatedly translated and transcribed, and countless alterations and errors have crept in over the years. And then there's the councils that have been held to decide what gets included in cannon and what doesn't.

That's not the word of God, buddy, that's a document that's been warped and altered whenever politically necessary, over thousands of years.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[LordLucless]

divine profit

You sure you don't mean the church of capitalism?

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[Jerry Beasters]

I can't believe I have to say this again, but as a scholar of religion with a degree in the field who specifically studies Islam I can tell you that your claim that Muslims may accept Jesus as the messiah is ridiculously incorrect. Muslims in no cases (of course you can always find one or two of any group of course if you look hard enough) accept Jesus as the messiah. They accept him as a prophet, but don't go further than that.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[GreyWolf3000]

I'm pretty sure that the parent post you replied was an old-fashioned troll...I found myself agreeing with him right up until that last line. A good troll will always make sure that 95% of his post is totally reasonable. You mentioned other religions as being "cults" under his definition, but actually even the first century Christian church would be considered a cult by that definition as well.

I do see a lot of people claiming that Scientology is no "worse" than any of the other religions, and I think the troll did a good job of explaining why that is not the case.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[narcc]

The "official" definition comes from the highest authority: The Bible itself

I don't believe that the supplied link supports your point. It certainly doesn't give any biblical definition for a cult.

Taking a quick look back, to help you better understand my examination of it, we'll examine first the claim made in #2. I quote: "Biblically, a cult may be defined as those that have added to, changed, or eliminated those things that are considered the fundamentals of Bible doctrine." The author then lists things they consider essential doctrine. The passages listed lend nothing to the assertion.

Continuing to the linked #13: In #13.3, the original assertion is appended to "A biblical definition of a cult is also those that do not believe" After nothing more than reasserting the doctrine of the trinity. Again, the assertion is not supported Biblically. (Quite frustrating, as it's essential to the entire argument!).

In #13.11 quote: "any that teach that a person is saved by works or works and faith, certainly is a cult," is not supported -- that is, the "certainly is a cult" part. This wouldn't be a problem, if the original assertion (as seen in #2, #13.1, and #13.3) were supported by something other than nothing. They do the same thing again in #13.13.

What is especially strange, is all the warnings against deception; All the while the biblestudyonline.org article does everything but provide a biblical definition of cult.

I love it when people rebuke christians using the Bible and then have no idea what they are talking about.

Well, my goal wasn't to "rebuke" your or Christians in general; I'm a Christian myself. As for the verses I listed, if you've bothered to read them, they're all warnings about false teaching. As you're well aware, there are many many different Christian denominations each with their own, often very different, ideas. Questioning what you hear from your own group or from other groups is an invaluable tool in determining what is and is not truth, as far as anyone is able to know it.

To quote Jesus: you sir, do err for you know not scripture. Plus you place wikipedia as superior to the Bible.

I don't see how I claimed that wikipedia to be superior to the bible. Perhaps it's because it does not define "cult" in same manner as the curious one from biblestudyonline.org?

That was weak birdshot, so go back and study the Bible better before you use it to rebuke a christian who has received the Holy Spirit.

I wasn't on the offensive! It's clear that you feel as though you've been attacked -- I do not know why. You also appear to either feel superior to me or you're afraid of my post, both equally without foundation (as far as I can tell). Check out Proverbs 16:5 and 2 Corinthians 10:13, you may find them very helpful.

It is people like you who give christians a bad name.

Why do you express such hostility? I've done nothing to attack either you, Christianity, or Christians in general. I'd like to know how what I've posted gives "Christians a bad name".

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[Trillian_1138]

The official definition of a cult is an organization that rejects Jesus Christ, uses their own "scriptures" as superior to the King James Bible, discourages their members from reading the Bible, and then poses as a religion.

Doesn't your own link say "Biblically a cult may be defined as those that have changed, left out, or added to the fundamentals of Bible doctrine," (emphasis added) not the specific text of the Bible itself? That is, if a different word is used (for example, the King James version is not in the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/whatever) but the same "fundamental" meaning is present, wouldn't that still be OK by your (or biblestudyonline.org's) definition?

Please understand, I am not trying to have a semantic argument. I think I understand (although disagree) with your assertion that belief of Jesus as the savior is necisary for a "true" religion, but honestly don't understand why the King James version is the "superior" and/or "true" version. (I know those weren't your direct quotes, but I believe they're accurate to your sentiment. Apologies if they're not.)

-Trillian

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[kamatsu]

Uhh, buddy, does Christ God not also say that you should "be not like the hypocrites who pray loudly on street corners"? How DARE you assert that you judge yourself as someone who has received the Holy Spirit when ONLY GOD HIMSELF can truly say for certain if you have or if you haven't. Your hubris is a grievous sin against Jesus. All that link you passed on to me is hellfire quotes from Revelation of John.

The Bible does not, EVER, define cults. Nor does it define religions.

Your love of the particular King James edition of the bible is also alarming. If you are a fundamentalist (as you clearly are), then obviously the King James Bible shouldn't be good enough. It is the LEAST accurate edition of any editions to the original text. Perhaps you should be learning Hebrew, Latin and Greek and reading the oldest copies of each text of the Bible that we have instead. Surely you would then receive Christ's message more clearly, and be less of the fucking hubristic retard that you currently make yourself out to be.

Regarding your direct bible reference.. the full reference is this:

"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."

You clearly do not look at the scriptures contextually, and take them at rote - I accuse YOU then of not knowing the scriptures well enough to Judge.

No human truly knows the full power of God. The Ends of the Earth shall see it on the Final Day, but until then, God remains clouded and hidden from all humanity. You can only fail to err if you know both, and no human does, and therefore all humans err.

It is permissible to God for you to err, and he forgives you if you are contrite.

It is people like you who give Christians a bad name.

I hope you flame yourself in future so I won't have to.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[dave420]

"The official definition of a cult is an organization that rejects Jesus Christ, uses their own "scriptures" as superior to the King James Bible, discourages their members from reading the Bible, and then poses as a religion. The Co$ fits that definition to the tee, and they are also a criminal organization in many peoples' eyes, despite the celebrity attachments. Good to see the Belgium is brave enough to prosecute Co$ as such." Bullshit. That's not a definition of cult in ANY dictionary, legal or layman's. Grow up.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[pigphish]

I'm just stating facts, i was trying to be secular and non-judgmental. to say something is something other than it purports to be is making a judgement call.
I was merely stating the fact that islam does acknowledge christ not only as a person but also as someone inspired by a higher power ... i.e. divine.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[DigitalSorceress]

The official definition of a cult is ...

And here all along, I thought that the official definition of a cult was "a small, unpopular religion", and that a religion was "a large, popular cult". Ahh well, live and learn.

In all seriousness though, I looked into your posting history before commenting - you're no troll as some have suggested. It's obvious that you have rather strong religious beliefs, and that one of them is that your religion is right an all others are wrong. That's all well and good, but I gotta say that the kind of fanatical devotion (to whit your rather bizarre definition of a cult) that you display makes my teeth ache as badly as the fanatical, unreasoned devotion the adherents of Co$ have to their beliefs. In summary, you really are making a bad name for Christian types.

You have the right to believe what you want, but please allow others to believe what they want.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[LordLucless]

I was making a grammatical point, not a religious one. Profit != Prophet.

Good luck Belgium

[Synchis]

Speaking from personal accounts, those who take on the $ciclos must be greatly prepared. My good friend Keith Henson is still serving his sentence for "Interfering with a religion" in Riverside, CA. He's a good example of what the $ciclos can and *will* do to keep those who would oppose them in check.

I personally disagree with the fundamentals of scientology, I'm Wiccan.

Re:Good luck Belgium

[Anonymous Coward]

"...I'm Wiccan."

No you're not. You're a flakey new-agey feel-good make-it-up-as-you-go generic goddess-worshiping wannabe, desperate to find something real to hold on to and also impress your girlfriend.

Honestly, is your Goddess a real, honest, existing being; or is she the "expression of your love and devotion to the oneness of Pangea"?

Maybe one so-called Wiccan out of 10,000 actually has any religious views or belief. The rest are just hoping.

Re:Good luck Belgium

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

I'm sorry to feel it nescessary to say so, but wiccans aren't any better then scientologists or Christian or Hindus..... You all represent fantasy and escape - Now With More Ignorance Fear and Paranoia of Science!

You dont need fake answers to questions, you guys gotta learn to ask better questions. Questions like "why are we told we need diaphanous, tenous, infallible father/mother figures paraded in front of us to make us love shit that aint each other?"

You know, like mentally mature people do.

Re:Good luck Belgium

[Synchis]

It amazes me how you can make statements like that based on absolutely *NO* facts. You don't know me, you don't know what I believe in, you don't know anything about my life, and yet you appear to have a very deep, yet totally unfounded, opinion of me.

Do me a favor, and make sure you don't have your head up your ass the next time you type a comment... perhaps then you'll realize that just because *you* think a religion or belief system is wrong, doesn't mean it *is* wrong.

People are entitled to their opinions, and I respect that. But to bluntly make statements and tell people that what they think or feel or believe is wrong? Thats how wars start.

I do not tell you that you're wrong. I simply state that I disagree.

Re:Good luck Belgium

[Synchis]

Perhaps Wiccans aren't any better. I've never said that we are.

*BUT* the Wiccan faith does not represent fantasy and escape. Nor fear or paranoia of science.

Nobody told me to be Wiccan. I respect nature and every living thing.

I'm also a programmer at a well respected world-wide company.

Perhaps your an Athiest? Agnostic? Scientologist? Christian? Catholic? Hindu? Buddhist? Does it matter? The fact that you speak so poorly of religion in general speaks loads about your own mental maturity.

What do you love? Your family? Friends? Do you think that because I have faith in something, that I believe in something and can put it into words that that makes me love my family and friends any less? Those who believe in nothing can't possibly understand what its like to truly have faith. It's not about loving an infallible mother/father figure and prancing about in a forest. It's about having peace and understanding of the world around you, and being able to put into words a feeling that nobody but you feels.

But you wouldn't understand.

Re:Good luck Belgium

[Jerry Beasters]

And you probably really believe that Wicca is an ancient religion that has existed since antiquity instead of something invented very recently. Ha!

Re:Good luck Belgium

[Anonymous Coward]

It amazes me how you can make statements like that based on absolutely *NO* facts. You don't know me, you don't know what I believe in, you don't know anything about my life, and yet you appear to have a very deep, yet totally unfounded, opinion of me. He's still right though isn't he?

Re:Good luck Belgium

[Synchis]

See? You really don't understand.

True religion, true beliefs are not governed by what the status quo believes.

True religion, true beliefs are personal. They run to the very core of your being. It doesn't matter if the "Label" is recent, 100, 1000 or 10000 years old. Like any belief system, there are fundamentals, and whether the Modern view of that belief system has existed for a long time or not doesn't really matter. The fundamentals are the same. People have always loved, respected and worshiped nature, and gods, and inanimate objects that they feel hold some mystic power. Does it matter what label they put on it?

My beliefs are my beliefs. I call myself Wiccan because its the easiest way to convey to somebody the basics of what I believe. The same as somebody who calls themselves Catholic, but doesn't go to church every Sunday. Not everybody in a certain religion believes in every ideal or testament of a religion. Thats called individuality.

Too many people make assumptions about what other people believe. Too many people are far too stubborn to admit that each person can be different. And *far* too many people are unwilling to even try to understand.

Re:Good luck Belgium

[turgid]

I'm sorry to feel it nescessary to say so, but wiccans aren't any better then scientologists or Christian or Hindus..... You all represent fantasy and escape - Now With More Ignorance Fear and Paranoia of Science!

Yes, but Wicca is just a bit of harmless fun. It's not deadly serious like these other religions. It just involves dancing about naked in the great outdoors, eating, drinking and generally making merry. So I'm told. Harmless eccentricity. No limb amputations, stonings, making women dress up like Darth Vader, inability to eat pork, giving all your money away etc.

Scientology for the Layman

[micromuncher]

Its a book of the month club, where you get the first book, and its so bad with so many loose ends but slightly interesting enough that you want to get the next book. Course to achieve enlightenment you have to read the series, and each book costs twice as much as the last one.

Re:Will this cause-SouthPark:Trapped in the Closet

[Anonymous Coward]

South Park episode 912 (#137) ..... Best ... episode ... ever! Shame Chef did NOT think so, I wonder if Chef sung his little song for Tommy at his Super Adventure Club wedding for old times sakes?


Say everybody, have you seen my balls?
They're big and salty and brown.
If you ever need a quick pick-me-up
Just stick my balls in your mouth.
Oooh, suck on my chocolate, salty balls.
        (Put 'em in your mouth!)
Put 'em in your mouth and suck 'em and suck 'em..

Scientology is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

It's official; Netcraft now confirms: The Church of Scientology is dying

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 implants.

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 I knew 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.

In other happy news, Keith Henson is out of jail

[jcr]

Just saw a message on alt.religion.scientology, Keith reportedly posting from Arel's account:


Hi *****, this is Keith using Arel's email account. I am out, Amber
picked me up and Arel and I have not been followed by cult PIs.

More in a day or two.

Best wishes,
Keith


-jcr

and that's how Belgium became an offensive word ..

[KnightTristan]

... which proves scientologist will survive (though they will loose the case), spread out through the galaxy and are the basis of the most offensive word in the universe ... which is then returned back in time to finally end up in our copy of the hithhikers' guide to the galaxy.

ok, I need some rest.

[krunchyfrog]

All I saw of the title was "church" and "prostitute".

How rich is the catholic church?

[Colin Smith]

While I'm willing to grant the status of "religionist" to the membership of the Church of Scientology, the organization itself is a money-making scam So... How rich do you think the Catholic Church is?

Re:How rich is the catholic church?

[MightyMartian]

Plenty rich. However, the Church's wealth was accrued with somewhat more complexity than $cientologies, as anyone with even the vaguest understanding of the lengthy (and sometimes horrific) history of the Church would know.

The Church most certainly was not founded as a money-making scheme, but rather was the scion of some semi-legendary 1st Century holy man's ramblings. It's wealth was gained, by and large, not by forcing its members to pay big bucks (let's remember, for most of its history, the vast majority of Catholics did not possess anything approaching a disposable income), but rather because it became politically intertwined with the various European principalities, for which it (and the principalities) managed to accrue rather large fortunes in money, treasure and art (in some cases by pillaging other people, notably those poor Eastern Orthodox bastards).

A paragraph too far

[huckamania]

Must be something in the air today. Agreed with your post all the way until that last paragraph. I think most people, including most christians, would not agree with your definition of a cult. Unless, that is, you are talking about a christian cult.

See, I don't reject JC, I respect JC. I just don't think he was the son of God. If you read your KJB, you'll find that he never claims to be the son of God. There is at least one mention of the son of God in the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), however it's not in reference to JC. The closest JC ever came to claiming to be the son of God is saying something like 'our Father'. I think his response when asked is very telling.

Paul aka Saul, aka 'not a disciple, who never met JC', was probably more responsible for the Romanization of the early church and subsequent deification of JC, then anyone.

Anywhile, to quote the mahatma, "I would have been a christian, if it wasn't for the christians".

In Sovjet Russia....

[tommeke100]

In Sovjet Russia, scientology pays you!

Why Oh Why...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Why oh why do these investigations take TEN YEARS to happen! To my mind, it takes ten minutes to realize what Scientology is doing, and why it's to wrong!

Re:Why Oh Why...

[aadvancedGIR]

Let's take Al Capone as an example: policemen and procecutors knew very well he was a violent and very powerful criminal, but the only solid proofs they could provide to a court were about tax fraud.
In that case, it was likely the same, everyone knows they extort lots of money and intimate people, but from that, investigators need to find real cases and document them with facts and witnesses, infiltrate the sect, follow the money, sometimes even fight against scientology insiders in their own hierarchy...
Like it or not, it's slow but that's the way it works democratic countries.

Not Official

[fm6]

...in the US it is officially recognized as a religion...

Not it's not. There are no officially recognized religions in the U.S. The First Amendment forbids it. What Scientology does have is the right to call itself a religion — a right it shares both with denominations that have been around for thousands of years and with that crazy guy on the corner who says he's Jesus.

Re:Not Official

[Anonymous Coward]

...in the US it is officially recognized as a religion...

Not it's not. There are no officially recognized religions in the U.S. The First Amendment forbids it. What Scientology does have is the right to call itself a religion — a right it shares both with denominations that have been around for thousands of years and with that crazy guy on the corner who says he's Jesus.
Yes, that and neither of them pay taxes.

Clarification on Unitarians

[benhocking]

Unlike Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, many Unitarians do not claim to be Christian. As I understand the church, you can be Christian and a Unitarian, you can be Pagan and a Unitarian, etc. Last year there was some complaining about the Unitarian Church putting fliers in kid's backpacks regarding a Yule time Pagan celebration. The beauty of it was that Falwell's efforts the previous spring (to force the school to allow religious literature so that they could advertise vacation Bible school) made it all possible.

Reductio ad absurdum

[rumblin'rabbit]

That's the thing isn't it? Scientology is bizarre and ridiculous, and yet how can one criticize it without casting doubt on all religions? How can one say that stories about volcanoes, space ships, and H bombs are silly, but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not?

Scientology serves as the "Reductio ad absurdum" for all religion. This may explain why so many feel so uncomfortable about it.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[arth1]

How can one say that stories about volcanoes, space ships, and H bombs are silly, but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not?

Jonah could probably speak whale.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Dun Malg]

That's the thing isn't it? Scientology is bizarre and ridiculous, and yet how can one criticize it without casting doubt on all religions? How can one say that stories about volcanoes, space ships, and H bombs are silly, but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not? The way I see it, absurd mythology invented by bronze age children surviving into the present day due to the inertia of tradition is religion. Absurd mythology invented 50-odd years ago by a greedy asshole third-rate science fiction writer and compulsive liar with delusions of grandeur in order to enrich himself and elevate him to the position of "prophet", well, in my eyes that's fraud. Most examples of the former were created with the best of intentions. Scientology was not.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[JacquesDemien]

Obligatory Seinfeld reference: George: From where I was standing, I could see directly into the eye of the great fish. Jerry: Mammal.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[rumblin'rabbit]

Most examples of the former were created with the best of intentions.

I accept your point about scientology, but how do you know that traditional religions were created with the best of intentions? How do you know that Christ or Mohammad were not con men of the first caliber, the Hubbards of their age?

And at any rate, what does it matter? If one accepts that knowing the truth is a good thing, belief in an absurd mythology is bad no matter where it came from.

I'm going to hell for these postings, aren't I?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Brickwall]

Well, here are my "smell tests":

Does the "religion" make you pay to find their beliefs? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes

If you only pay a little bit, are you told a different truth than if you pay a lot? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes

Does the religion take you to court if you reveal their beliefs? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes

And, for pity's sake, the Jonah/Noah/parting of the sea myths are all thousands of years old, and part of an oral culture that embellishes stories to make them interesting. I seriously doubt that every part of the Iliad (let alone the Odyessy) is factual, but it's still an important part of ancient Greek culture.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[neuromancer23]

Yeah. It's sort of like Discordianism, except that Scientologists actually believe.

Quite frankly, I'm glad someone has finally stood up to their mafia tactics. Now if only we had those kinds of balls in the United States:

http://video.google.com/url?docid=-411915229731406 6133

Of course, Scientology hasn't committed nearly as many acts of rape, murder, and extortion as the bigger religions, but give them some time.

Who knows? With a high enough body count, L. Ron Hubbard and Tom Cruise could be as respected as the pope someday.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[rumblin'rabbit]

If the tale of Jonah isn't literally true, what else in the Bible isn't true? Perhaps someone could go through with a yellow highlighter and mark off those parts I should believe, and those parts I can dismiss as mythology. Given that the world's largest religion is based on it, I think knowing which bits are true would be rather important.

My point being that if the Bible is the infallible word of God then there is no room to pick and choose. If the tale of Jonah is a myth then the gospels are suspect as well.

I have no such problem with The Iliad because no one is basing a religion on it. It's just a rip-roaring action adventure and the truth of it matters little.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Das Modell]

Scientology serves as the "Reductio ad absurdum" for all religion. This may explain why so many feel so uncomfortable about it.

The Church of Scientology is a ruthless criminal organization. That's why people feel uncomfortable about it. Don't try to make this issue a part of some childish anti-religion agenda.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[rumblin'rabbit]

The Catholic Church was also, at one time, a "ruthless criminal organization." Or at least that's how I would describe an organization that used to torture and kill those who refused to join it.

I suspect most religions appeared pretty ludicrous early on. Only with the patina of age did they gain respectability.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[ACDChook]

Scientology is bizarre and ridiculous, and yet how can one criticize it without casting doubt on all religions? Well, you can't, but all religions are just fictitious platitudes invented, and perpetuated, by people who can't deal with the notion that death is the end, and that they are just another insignificant creature on an insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy. I think in this day and age it's about time people realised this and stopped fearing the inevitable and praying to made-up deities, but accepted that their time is limited, and then it's done. Over. Finito.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Arterion]

Does the "religion" make you pay to find their beliefs? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No

Actually, you pay 10% tithe or go to hell. As for legal action, I'll bet you all the christian publishing companies prosecute and maintain their copyrights fiercely. And if the bible could be copyrighted, you'd see them acting just like scientology over its contents. Those religions exist the same reason any other business exists: because someone, somewhere is getting rich off it.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[rumblin'rabbit]

I was surprized at how little negative reaction my post generated. It suggests that in slashdot, at least, atheism is either common or strongly tolerated.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

can anyone say "strawman"

btw... certain translations of the Bible are copyrighted...

your opinion of religion must be based on what you have seen on tv... get a clue

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[ACDChook]

Well, I'd like to think the average Slashdot reader has more than two brain cells. The whole concept of gods and life-after-death just seems totally insane to me. Show me some scientific evidence to the contrary, and I'll re-examine, but for now, with no evidence to support it, I'll believe in what science can tell me, and nothing more.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Kyojin]

It is actually a lot simpler than going through the book with a highlighter. As you have pointed out, there are a number of writing styles in use by the various authors of the Old and New Testaments, sometimes the same author may use different writing styles for different books. In general, however, each book is self-consistent.

For instance, the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the Old Testament, are written in a number of styles. Genesis and Exodus are largely prose narrative with many figures of speech. Leviticus is largely a book of law. Numbers is intended as a historical account of the beginnings of the Jewish civilisation in Israel. The emphasis in Deuteronomy is of a more spiritual nature, outlining the love relationship of the Lord with his people.

Likewise, in the New Testament, we have the Gospel according to Luke, a doctor, which begins:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophillus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

and we have the Gospel according to John, which focuses on signs of Jesus' identity and mission, presenting the facts as he saw them, and explaining further the meanings behind what occurred. Also by John (generally accepted as the same John, but potentially John the Presbyter), we have the book of Revelation, which is the only book in the Christian bible to be composed of entirely apocalyptic literature.

What I am trying to show is that there are sound reasons for not taking every word of the Bible literally. The authors did not intend each book to be taken literally and the writing styles show this. For more information, many recent publications of the Bible include introductions to each book, and some "study" Bibles offer commentaries from biblical scholars. Zondervan publishing usually include such introductions at the beginning of each book, especially in the New International Version (NIV) translation.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the world's largest religion is based on it
 
i didn't realize that islam was based on the bible. i know they have the same roots...
 
ultimately, your post stinks of another christian-basher who's more then willing to beat on the religion from his own point of view and not as much from the facts of the religion.
 
but i guess all that won't matter on the day that you're forced to bow to allah or face a firing squad. will it?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Hooya]

Well, me and my karma will burn for this (never has that phrase been more on-topic!). Incidentally, the word "karma" comes from the Hindu religion.

> Well, here are my "smell tests":

Yup. Those would be your tests. There are many tests. Those are yours.

According to those tests, FSM and IPU clearly are religions.

PBUH my friend, PBUH.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[mightyQuin]

I'll believe in what science can tell me, and nothing more.

Science damn you!

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[cheater512]

Some things I dont bother trying to understand. I can sense a headache coming and I back off.

The guy who invented scientology must have found a rather potent drug combination.
Thats the only thing I can think of which could have produced that drivel.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[cheater512]

Open Word/OOo and hit Print. The output will be whats left of the Bible after all the literally false stuff is removed.

Ok sure its a little too powerful but it beats spending a week with a highlighter. :P

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[cheater512]

It *may* be IQ related.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[jeffasselin]

There is no hell.

Also, mythology is not bad per se. It can help us understand archetypes of human nature, and provides a basis for culture. Believing it's true, indoctrinating children into believing it's true, that the supernatural is real, that they have an invisible friend who lives in the sky listening to them... that's infantile, sad and something that belongs in the middle ages.

Wake up, and stop believing in anything supernatural. There's the Universe, and it's a lot more than we can comprehend even there. But we should at least do our best to figure out what part we can, rather than inventing nonsensical explanations. Creationism, the immaculate conception, heaven & hell, sin, adam & eve, all this is no better than Tartarus or lightning being the tool of Zeus. Same pure bullshit.

And for what it matters, as far as we can historically figure it out, Yeshuah didn't invent christianity. Saul of Tarsus did. Before him, christians were nothing but a rebellious jewish sect.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

I personally love how various translations can give you completely different interpretations, as well.

For example, if you quote Psalms 22:21 from the King James Version you get " Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. " and then someone somewhere along the line realizes that there were no unicorns, so to keep the "truth" "truthful" they translated it a little differently in the New International Version " Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen. "

So, if we believe the King James Version, then there were unicorns in biblical times, and since we are reasonably certain there were no unicorns, we'll just sweep that under the rug and change them into 'wild oxen'... that way people will continue to believe the bible is factual and will keep coming to Sunday services and tithing...

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments was awesome.

John Travolta in Battlefield Earth was terrible.

CAPTCHA=audited

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Micah]

For some balance here, here is how the NET Bible notes put it:

The Hebrew term

English has changed a good bit since the KJV was published, and numerous words today have entirely different meanings than they did in 1611.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[trenien]

Actually, considering the way traditional religions have been used to get, keep and justify power (and quite a few other things, think mormons), I disagree.

As for taking you to court or not, considering the way the catholic church forbid anybody who wasn't a priest or training to be one to even read the bible in the first millenium or so...

It's not that they don't have this kind of thing in them, it's only because they learned they can't get away with it, and got subtler about it.

The only real difference between scientology and classic religion is that scientologist are just a bunch of rank amateurs.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Scruffy Dan]

some religions don't expect their "bible" to be taken literally.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[prionic6]

Propably the King James version was incorrect in the first place. Translating the original Hebrew texts is clearly non-trivial and open to interpretation.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[prionic6]

Hubbard was a science-fiction author before he founded scientology, so he had some training :) Go read the Wikipedia.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[AmigaMMC]

>but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not? That's not religion, that's Pinocchio, a fairy tale. :)

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[orcrist]

Well, I'd like to think the average Slashdot reader has more than two brain cells. The whole concept of gods and life-after-death just seems totally insane to me. Show me some scientific evidence to the contrary, and I'll re-examine, but for now, with no evidence to support it, I'll believe in what science can tell me, and nothing more.

Were you aware of the irony of this statement when you wrote it? :-P

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[ACDChook]

Ok, fair point - that wasn't a very well structured sentence. Let me rephrase to make the intent of that sentence clearer...

Show me some scientific evidence to the contrary, and I'll re-examine, but for now, without quantitative evidence to support some sort of divine being or influence, I'll believe in what science can tell me, and nothing more.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[KDR_11k]

I don't know about Mohammed but I seem to recall Jesus never saying anything about having to pay the church, in fact I don't think he even cared about the concept of the church. I'm unsure but I think he even said that he didn't want people to worship him, he wanted them to worship God. AFAIK it's not impossible to follow Christian beliefs without ever interacting with any church. In contrast many modern cults are pretty heavy on demanding money and idolizing a specific person (technically the bible even forbids idolizing the saints and Jesus as much as the church does...).

Overall I agree with you, asking whther gods exist should be preceeded by asking why we even consider the concept of gods as something that might exist, after all there's nothing that points at the existence of such a being. Personally I think claiming a god is with you was just a way for the smarter cavemen to gain control over dumber but stronger ones.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[KDR_11k]

In the times of the inquisition that behaviour was probably closer to "government" than "criminal".

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[mrchaotica]

Damn, dude, read your history! The answer to all those questions either has been, or even still is, "yes" in the case of Christians, Jews, and Muslims too! Haven't you ever heard of Sharia law? The medieval Roman Catholic church (tithes, the Inquisition, bibles written only in Latin so the vulger people couldn't read them for themselves, etc.)? I mean, seriously -- you've got to be some kind of illiterate moron not to understand that all the major Western religions have been just as fucked up as Scientology since Day One.

Besides, who knows -- maybe in a thousand years or so, after a few schisms and reformations Scientology could be in the position Christianity is in today (which would be a very scary thought, except that Christianity is equally scary!). After all, if you make a fair comparison -- i.e., +50 years in from the founding -- Christianity was still considered to be a whacko nutjob cult too, persecuted by the people in charge at the time (i.e. pagan Romans and Jews).

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[mrchaotica]

According to those tests, FSM and IPU clearly are religions.

No shit, Sherlock! What else would they be?

rAmen!

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[RadioElectric]

I'd say that in the modern world there are probably about as many smart, critical religious people (as opposed to those who never question or analyze it and take it as a given) as there are atheists. Usually the balance seems quite equal on Slashdot too. Maybe we missed the rapture?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[jandersen]

My point being that if the Bible is the infallible word of God then there is no room to pick and choose

Good point. However, the Bible is NOT the infallible word of God; it is a collection of texts that were extracted from a larger tradition of Jewish and early Christian texts by a group of Christian leaders some time in the early middle ages; or something like that. In other words - this is a highly edited work and certainly anything but a text written or inspired directly by an almighty god. So you can indeed pick and choose - it makes no sense to insist that it must all be perfectly true. At best it can serve as an inspiration, an indication that if you go looking for God, it may not be all wasted.

That said, though - I think the Bible is mostly a collection of insipid nonsense and trivialities, but that is just my opinion.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[hb79]

I like you "smell test", but I'm not sure how you got the other religions to smell so good...

> Does the "religion" make you pay to find their beliefs?
Paying for salvation has and is still practiced in Christianity. What's more, all the three world religions you mention have a stated mission to rid the world of non-believers. Those that don't believe the right fairy tales will pay the highest price. And so they have throughout history.

> If you only pay a little bit, are you told a different truth than if you pay a lot?
As with any danegeld, you always end up paying more, because "it is in your best interests".

> Does the religion take you to court if you reveal their beliefs?
Only if you disagree with their beliefs: Jesus, Galileo, Martin Luther. And in modern times, pretty much anybody saying anything about Jews are antisemitic, anybody drawing Mohamed are threatened, and claiming that we originated from other lifeforms is still rediculed in large parts of the world.

So there you have it. It all comes with a stench of rotten decay to me.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anzya]

Thank you. It's refreshing to see a non christian (which I gather you are) who is not as litteral minded as some of the right winged conservative christans. Most christians I know are not that extreme and know that not everything in the bible is true. Just like the muslims we get a bad rep for what the wackos are doing/saying.
Some of the stories though are backed by other sources. The use of a tribe for building a city in egypt (exodus) are mentioned in egyptian texts. What I mean is, and this is not aimed at you jandersen, is that unless you actually have studied the bible at an university level then you should be carefull about claiming what stories in the bible is true or not.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[pAnkRat]

> Most examples of the former were created with the best of intentions. Scientology was not.

That's not true, Ron H. had the best of intensions.
Only that the best was only for himself and a select few,
and not for all others.

But intensions are still intensions.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[myxiplx]

AAAOOOOOOOOOOBBAAAAHHHHH

ROFLMAO. If I had mod points you'd be getting all of them :)

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[bentcd]

If the tale of Jonah isn't literally true, what else in the Bible isn't true? Perhaps someone could go through with a yellow highlighter and mark off those parts I should believe, and those parts I can dismiss as mythology. Given that the world's largest religion is based on it, I think knowing which bits are true would be rather important. The highlighter you are looking for is generally referred to as an education in theology. Depending on what interpretation you subscribe to, different parts of the book will be highlighted. If you go strictly by Aquinas, only a handful of basic tenets remain and the rest is open to questioning and is only really meant as a tool to instruct those less well educated (which would include the lower priesthood).

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[bentcd]

The Catholic Church was also, at one time, a "ruthless criminal organization." Or at least that's how I would describe an organization that used to torture and kill those who refused to join it. The inquisition would tend to go after those who pretended to have already joined but who were still following their old religions in practice. The incentives put in place for converting were not, I believe, directly connected with the inquisition (tax breaks and what have you) although the church may certainly have been lobbying for them.

Others were killed and tortured, not for not being christian or not wanting to become one, but for being it in the wrong manner. Obviously, being a misguided christian is a greater crime than being a jew or a muslim in somewhat the same way that being a tratitor is worse than being the enemy.

Of course, that still makes the historical Catholic church a very violent and ruthless organization after modern standards.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[bentcd]

I was surprized at how little negative reaction my post generated. It suggests that in slashdot, at least, atheism is either common or strongly tolerated. Are you suggesting that the normal state of affairs would/should be for atheism not to be tolerated?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Jesus_666]

Well, much of the traditional religions' tenets emerged as useful knowledge that needed to be disseminated in some way. One example is the whole "do not eat pigs"-thing: It started as simple sanitary advice, since pig meat rots much faster in hot weather than beef, thus making it difficult to store (and easier to kill yourself by eating it).

Many of Scientology, however, does focus around "give us money for treatment/device/procedure X".

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anzya]

Overall I agree with you, asking whther gods exist should be preceeded by asking why we even consider the concept of gods as something that might exist, after all there's nothing that points at the existence of such a being. Well, what kind of proof do you have that builders built the house you are sitting in? If you didnt witness it your self then all your evidence could be false and all your witnesses could lie. :)
Now lets imagine that you can't leave your house and that everything you know of the world comes from studying the house. You might be able to determine how the house fits togheter but you can only speculate in how it was built. As to reason to why it was built...
Science have a real hard time proving that god doesn't exist or exist for that matter. A prudent man is at least agnostic :)

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[mjjw]

You may be interested to knwo that in the Old Testament there are essentially two distinct collections of books. As I understand it the first five are the Torah. The Torah is considered to be the Jewish collection of holy books and what they consider to be the word of God. The rest of the books are still held in high esteem however they are not necessarily the word of god, and most detail the adventures of the jews as they meandered around the planet.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[master_p]

"Most examples of the former were created with the best of intentions"

And how do you know that?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[master_p]

"Does the "religion" make you pay to find their beliefs? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes"

Well, if you ever go to Sunday Church, and don't put money on the collection plate, and receive the cold look from the fellow Christians, you don't really know if you have to pay for it...

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

And, for pity's sake, the Jonah/Noah/parting of the sea myths are all thousands of years old, and part of an oral culture that embellishes stories to make them interesting. I seriously doubt that every part of the Iliad (let alone the Odyessy) is factual, but it's still an important part of ancient Greek culture.

As long as a myth is only culture, I have no problem with it. When the myth becomes religion, treated as the absolute truth and frequently imposed by deadly force -- that is when I start having problems with it.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the "religion" make you pay to find their beliefs?

church tax exists in Germany etc.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Weedlekin]

"Given that the world's largest religion is based on it, I think knowing which bits are true would be rather important.

My point being that if the Bible is the infallible word of God then there is no room to pick and choose. If the tale of Jonah is a myth then the gospels are suspect as well. "

This is a straw man, because the major Christian denominations outside the US (and therefore the vast bulk of the world's Christians) don't claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God, and do not therefore try and pretend that scientific explanations of the origins of the universe and the origin of species are false. I'm not a Christian myself, but I am interested in the truth, and the fact of the matter is that the three biggest branches of Christianity (Catholicism, which dwarfs the others, followed by Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, in that order) are far from being biblical fundamentalists, but like the Jews, regard science science and religion as being two faces of the same coin.

NB: interestingly, secularism (atheism, agnosticism, etc.) is the third largest "religion" in the world, having 1.1 billion "members", which is more than Catholicism, by far the largest Christian denomination (half of the world's Christians are Catholics).

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[shilly]

There are translations that attempt to get closer to the meaning of the original language. One of the best is by Everett Fox (it covers the Five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch or Chumash). It helps to convey the very remote nature of the people who wrote these books.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[dajak]

bibles written only in Latin so the vulger people couldn't read them for themselves

Attacks on religion are so much more convincing if they are historically accurate. In fact almost nothing was written in vernacular languages before the rise of the (educated) middle class and the invention of bookprinting. What point would there be in writing books by hand in a language that has no standard orthography and, most importantly, no potential readership besides the few that already read Latin? The Roman Catholic church reacted arrogantly and stupidly in the 15th and 16th century when they should have taken the initiative in spreading the good word among the newly literate middle class, and lost the initiative to protestant heretics, but it goes too far to say that they intentionally kept the contents of the bible secret in the centuries before that. It's not some kind of conspiracy.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Weedlekin]

" One example is the whole "do not eat pigs"-thing: It started as simple sanitary advice, since pig meat rots much faster in hot weather than beef, thus making it difficult to store (and easier to kill yourself by eating it)."

Pig meat doesn't rot faster than beef or goat / sheep, and is at least as amenable to preservation by salting / drying / smoking as any of the meats they're allowed to eat, as is proven by the fact that salami and a wide variety of other dried / smoked sausages are made from pork, as is Parma ham and Spanish Jamon Serrano, both of which are dry-cured rather than cooked hams. The reason that both Judaeism and Islam prohibit eating pork is therefore most probably due to the fact that pigs carry diseases such as trichinosis that can easily be transferred to humans if their meat isn't properly prepared and cooked, whereas most of the diseases affecting cud-chewing hooved animals are much more species-specific.

The Jewish food prohibition that probably did come from problems with rotting is the one about only eating water-dwellers that have both scales and fins. Fish can be pretty effectively preserved by salting or smoking, but many other forms of water life such as crustaceans are much more difficult to preserve in societies without refrigeration, and spoiled food of this sort can harbour a variety of very toxic bacteria even when it looks and smells OK.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[lekikui]

Hm, so much stupidity, where do I start?

Tithes: Untrue. That may be a Jewish belief, but the key (in fact, only) factor in Christianity is believing in Jesus. Nothing more is required.

Copyright: From the NIV I just picked up to check:

    The Holy Bible, New International Version(r).
    Copyright (c) 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
    [Zondervan logo]
    The NIV Student Bible, Revised
    Copyright (c) 1986, 1992, 2002 by Zondervan
    All rights reserved.

Seems to me that they do maintain their copyrights. Incidentally, just lower down the page, it outlines what you're allowed to do. Roughly: without written permission, you may quote up to 500 verses, as long as they don't amount to a complete book or to over a quarter of the work they're in. If it's not going to be sold, you don't even have to stick the copyright notice on. For anything else, write to ask permission.

As to the last comment, it's entirely possible. Meh, if it's false, what have I lost by believing it?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[zoney_ie]

For a start, there are very distinct types of book in the Bible. Some are obviously history books (Kings, Chronicles), and while there are holes to pick there, they probably are not even as great as modern history books (which do at the least present the past in a particular fashion even if just using "facts"). Psalms is a book of music. There are books of prophecy (considering the nature of "prophecy" even if real, they are for sure going to be a bit different to other books) - some of which did indeed prophesy about real events that later occurred. The gospels are literally that - from even the style of writing they are written as witness accounts - if not direct, then as close as you're going to get. They aren't remotely the same kind of writing as say the Book of Jonah. Pauls letters are quite transparently theological analysis based on the gospels and scriptures (the old testament).

I do not doubt that there's an awful lot to argue about what the Bible *is* and the nature of various parts of it, but it's not sensible to outright write off the whole thing due to choosing some random part of it that seems very odd out of context.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Church of the SubGenius is the "Reductio ad absurdum" of Scientology.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[darksith69]

...being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not?

I think you are confused: Jesus didn't try to catch Moby-Dick.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[GuyverDH]

L. Ron Hubbard never intended Scientology to become a religion.
Some prints of his book specifically state that he was opposed to those who were trying to turn it into a religion. Some time after that he died. Coincidence? or just old age?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

The lack of intelligence is appearant when one takes those stories literally and doesn't try to decode them. The code has been cracked and it is in the stars man. The ancient stories we know of are not myths either they are coded, highly intelligent stories that lay out a course of astrological events. No, Jesus, a man, entity, or whatever is not coming back to save us all; sorry. Anyonw who really cares for knowledge can find this stuff out; it has been know for a very loooong time. Maybe "coded" isn't the correct word but you get the picture.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[cheesecake23]

That's the thing isn't it? Scientology is bizarre and ridiculous, and yet how can one criticize it without casting doubt on all religions? How can one say that stories about volcanoes, space ships, and H bombs are silly, but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not? Hey, don't mock people's beliefs by distorting the facts! He was swallowed by a mammal.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[aclarke]

I think it's important to remember that these are all TRANSLATIONS. So of course they're going to differ. They'll differ even more when you start reading translations into languages other than English. The fact as I understand it is that the meaning of the word is not known, and actually was not known even in earlier translations which might explain why it was left in there even by them. If you look at http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=07214, for example, you'll see a little information on this.

There's no secret or conspiracy here, as anyone is welcome to learn ancient Hebrew or Aramaic and read the original scriptures for themselves.

It's likely that it does refer to an animal that is now extinct, the most likely current thinking being that it was a type of wild ox or other animal with two horns.

If you're going to criticize the Bible, IMHO this is a pretty lame way to do it as even a tiny little bit of research will show that your point is unfounded.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[orcrist]

Ok, sorry I should have been more specific with my joke... I meant that your statement was funny (and ironic) because AFAICT there is no evidence to support the proposition that "the average Slashdot reader has more than two brain cells". IOW, I was just kidding. :-) I guess I was too cryptic about it.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[nojomofo]

And, for pity's sake, the Jonah/Noah/parting of the sea myths are all thousands of years old, and part of an oral culture that embellishes stories to make them interesting.

But that doesn't stop people from believing that they're literally true.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[junglee_iitk]

A guy telling you a consistent and supposedly logical story about how clouds are made of wool would have been believable two thousand years ago, the bottom line being that all these stories tell you something: something related to moral.

Scientology doesn't. That's the major point. If someone comes up with new religion, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. For every society needs certain rules. Rememeber, democracy is new. Brainwash by RIAA is hard. It would have been a lot easier if it were a religion. Because all religions are followed because they fulfill some need, mental piece for an individual. I have no problem with such a religion. If that makes you successful what is wrong with it?

And that is where Scientology fails. It has nothing to offer. It has everything to take.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[rhakka]

Tithing?

How about covering up decades of child abuse to protect the institution?

Justifying war and the murder of millions? How does that stack up?

Different, yes. Not *quite* as different as mainstream believers might wish, though. I mean, organized religion has thousands of years of history of extortion, exploitation, war and other unsavory actions associated with it. By comparison, Scientology is a bunch of two-bit amateurs.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, anyone who know anything about the bible at least knows that the kings james version of the bible, is not really that accurate.

also, if your nitpicking about unicorns shouldnt you also complain about the dragons in revelations? or the leviathan? or any other mythological creature that is referenced in the bible?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

Swallowed by a Whale ?????

The gospel according to Pinochio???

Wait a minute - his "father" was also a carpenter, and he had a rebirth......................

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

"How do you know that Christ or Mohammad were not con men of the first caliber, the Hubbards of their age?"

That's exactly the conclusion I came to, only Jesus wasn't the conman, it was Paul who created a myth around the man.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[fatmonkeyboy]

I say all of this as an Atheist and my own information comes from recently reading Asimov's Guide to the Bible. I'm not at all interested in defending the Bible's validity, I just think it is worthwhile to mention that this one particular issue you have with the Bible may not be valid.

It is certainly not as clear cut as you think it is and you would probably do well to look for problems elsewhere. Personally, my Atheism stems from philosophical arguments instead of nitpicking Biblical discrepancies.

I don't think your example is an attempt to hide the truth. If you were translating English text from the 1920's into another language and came across the phrase, "everyone had a gay time" you would translate it to the equivalent of "everyone had a fun time" and not "everyone had a homosexual time". The difference in translations stems from judgment calls made by the translators.

Ignoring all of the work of Biblical scholars (secular and otherwise), this accusation doesn't make sense anyway. If you think about it, the people translating the Bible have no reason to remove unicorns just because no one has ever found a unicorn. They still refer to angels, world-wide floods, giants, etc. for which there is a similar lack of evidence. Why would they single out unicorns as something worth removing?

There is no evidence to suggest that the modern idea of a unicorn (a horse with a single horn on its head) existed in Biblical times. Instead, it is thought that the modern idea of the unicorn evolved from later readers of the Bible misunderstanding what the word referred to.

The word "unicorn" used in the Bible is thought to refer to the engravings of wild oxen. The engravings had the oxen in profile so that only one horn was showing. The thought is that people may have started referring to the animal engravings as "unicorns", knowing themselves that the animals they represented actually had two. Eventually, the term may have fallen into disuse and its original meaning became obscured.

Another theory is that "unicorn" may refer to rhinos, but there were no rhinos in the area that the early Yahvists inhabited, so it seems unlikely they would feature them prominently in their writings.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but if the religions were still doing those things today, there would be prosecution. The " well he use to do it" defense doesnt really work. They are committing criminal acts and that does not excusable

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Kozz]

Honest Bible scholars can tell you that, for example, the Gospels frequently describe the same events but with different dialogue and different people present. Take the story of Jesus' tomb after his crucifixion: Who went to his tomb? How many were present? What did they find? To whom did they reveal their discovery upon leaving the tomb? The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John frequently present different accounts of the same events.

For those who claim the Bible is a verbatim account of historical events, these things can present problems, certainly. Many Christian faiths (say, Lutheranism) do not read the Bible literally.

Even the Pope (hey, Catholics, are you listening?) has acknowledged that Creationism can coexist with evolution. Many Evangelicals, on the other hand, have decided that they are polar opposites.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[hairyfeet]

I would like to point out that many of those stories in the bible were told as "morality plays" similar to the ancient Greek plays.While I am an Agnostic I can see the point of an entertaining way to teach their youth basic morality(Don't steal,screw your neighbors wife,kill,etc). What does the Xenu crap teach besides "there is a sucker born every minute"?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Creamsickle]

Actually, considering the way traditional religions have been used to get, keep and justify power (and quite a few other things, think mormons) Out of curiosity, what specific experiences have you had that have given you this opinion? I'm most curious about your seemingly negative opinion of Mormons - all the ones I've known have been decent enough fellows.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[mcvos]

blockquote> How do you know that Christ or Mohammad were not con men of the first caliber, the Hubbards of their age?

Well, Christ died poor and persecuted, and didn't wield any kind of worldly power. If he'd been a con man of the first caliber, surely he'd have gotten something out of it, right? You've got a stronger case with Mohammed, who conquered entire nations and was quite successful in any worldly sense.

That ofcourse brings us to the question: are religions only credible if they've been started by someone who died young and poor?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[mcvos]

If the tale of Jonah isn't literally true, what else in the Bible isn't true? Perhaps someone could go through with a yellow highlighter and mark off those parts I should believe, and those parts I can dismiss as mythology. Given that the world's largest religion is based on it, I think knowing which bits are true would be rather important.

My suggestion is to use your god-given brain. Different bits have very different histories, and are written in very different ways. Some parts have been handed down as oral history for a thousand years, others are eye-witness accounts.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[mcvos]

Actually, you pay 10% tithe or go to hell.

Could be (I'm not that familiar with islam myself), but you don't have to pay that tithe in order to learn what they believe. Apparently the Quran and the Torah need to be in ancient languages to be appreciated properly, but they aren't trade secrets.

As for legal action, I'll bet you all the christian publishing companies prosecute and maintain their copyrights fiercely. And if the bible could be copyrighted, you'd see them acting just like scientology over its contents.

Quite clearly not, as the bible is frequently given away for free. Individual translations are copyrighted, and even those are easily accessible. And they're certainly not protected as trade secrets.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[mcvos]

Paying for salvation has and is still practiced in Christianity.

Although this is beside the point of paying for access to their beliefs (as is the case with Scientology), I'd still like to see you back up this claim. It happened in the middle ages, yes, and it was the main reason for the reformation. No doubt there are still corrupt cults claiming this, but I doubt you'll be able to find any mainstream christian church claiming you need to pay for salvation.

As with any danegeld, you always end up paying more, because "it is in your best interests".

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

> Does the religion take you to court if you reveal their beliefs?
Only if you disagree with their beliefs:

That's not the same as revealing their beliefs.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Arterion]

Tithes: Untrue. That may be a Jewish belief, but the key (in fact, only) factor in Christianity is believing in Jesus. Nothing more is required.

In your version of christianity. Many conservative christians do indeed hold this belief. (Of course, I doubt any of them post on Slashdot to verify this.) There is some interesting reading on this at wikipedia.

As far as the copyrights go, realize that copyrighting a translation of something, as opposed to the actual texts. Even with the translation, you cannot freely reproduce it. If they weren't in it for the money, why would they care? What scientology is doing isn't so different from the dark ages. The priests were usually the only ones who could read the bible, and everyone had to rely on them, and pretty much believe and do whatever they asked. Participating in a mass is about as weird as working on a E-meter if you ask me.

As to the last comment, it's entirely possible. Meh, if it's false, what have I lost by believing it?

Your dignity? Your sanity? A lot of things. But what if it's not just wrong? What if some other, incompatible, religion is actually right? You might be headed for their version of hell. If you believe hell, it's worthwhile to make sure you're avoiding the right one, as it were. It's like how I've always been confused how someone could claim there was a god, but ONLY one, no more. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[rbanffy]

Well... As far as "Reductio ad absurdum", I will declare myself a Pastafarian every time someone asks about my religion.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[japhmi]

Maybe one should go and find out what the Hebrew term may have meant.

I don't have access to a Hebrew or Greek (Septuagint) version here at work, but I know where there's a Latin Vulgate online, and the word is "unicornium" in Latin. However, Lewis and Short (a Latin dictionary), says that it's simply an adjective for 'one horned.' It often refers to some forms of bovines, or even a rhinoceros.

So, don't assume that something is a simple gloss over when there may be good reasons for a translation difference between bibles translated over 300 years apart.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[budgenator]

From what I understand, trying to understand Christianity from the "Bible" is pretty much impossible. There are supposed to be whole chapters that are in the Ethiopian Bible, that were left out of what we normally thing of as the Bible. Also there is text in the Koran that actually makes more sense to Christians than what is only the New Testament.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Oktober Sunset]

he said, I'd like to think the average Slashdot reader has more than 2 brain cells. He was just being hopeful that was the case, not asserting a fact.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Jesus_666]

Ah right, it was that way around. You're absolutely right.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[budgenator]

Science-fantasy would be more accurate

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

My point being that if the Bible is the infallible word of God then there is no room to pick and choose. If the tale of Jonah is a myth then the gospels are suspect as well.

Infallible, no. Inspired, perhaps.

The "Bible" as you know it was PUT TOGETHER BY COMMITTEE! And we all know about committees...

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Alsee]

I was going to quip that I'm going to need a lot more yellow highlighters...

but then I very carefully reread what you actually wrote.
Not only did you hose my joke, you just hosed my brain.

Perhaps someone could go through with a yellow highlighter and mark off those parts I should believe, and those parts I can dismiss as mythology.

Ummmm... yeah... highlight both. Why didn't I think of that?

-

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Oktober Sunset]

I'd say that criticising translations of the bible is perfectly valid, because it is these translations that people base their beliefs on. People who take the bible literally will quote their little bible verses in English, and say it is the word of god, so, if they are going to make that claim about a bible version, they should stick by it. Either it's the word of god, or it's a bad translation, it can't be both.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[KDR_11k]

Well, what kind of proof do you have that builders built the house you are sitting in?

I don't have specific evidence but since I've witnessed the act of constructing a house I have reason to assume my house was created in the same way. Neither I nor any source that is credible has witnessed anything that would provide a reason to consider the existence of a deity.

Science have a real hard time proving that god doesn't exist or exist for that matter. A prudent man is at least agnostic :)

I still think it's silly to argue whether gods exist because we don't even have anything that would warrant the discussion. I mean, noone expects science to figure out whether Santa Claus exists because we have no reason to consider that he might exist outside of fairy tales. Taking a stance on the "God" issue is already giving it more credibility than it should have, after all we don't have long debates about whether the FSM or invisible pink unicorn exists because we have no reason to. Why even debate a concept like "God"? What made anyone think that it might have any relation with reality?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[EgoWumpus]

There also exists the possibility that Christ and Mohommad and Buddha all actually believed what they said. Ironically, one does not have to be a con man to propagate a lie. And, if our electoral politics are at all in evidence, we actually have a fond place in our hearts for liars and con men.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Weedlekin]

I wouldn't have known this without having met an orthodox Jew who had studied the rules rather more deeply than most to justify eating bacon and mussels, both of which he believed were created by Jahweh with an in-built deliciousness factor so that man could enjoy them once he'd found a way to do so safely.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[vimh42]

It's not that religions themselves were bizarre to begin with, it's just that once you toss PEOPLE into the mix that religion starts to get odd. Of course that leads to the question, was there religion when there was just God (or your deity of choice)?

Did God give you grief or was it a religions institution that did so? Was it a man who thought himself better than you because they were righteous and you are not, or was it God?

Indeed I doubt all religions.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[ScrewMaster]

Yes. But then again, Hell is really Heaven: God is testing the human race and only the ones smart enough to figure out the con get to go to the good place.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[trenien]

I've no special dislike of mormons.

I'm only using them as evidence to the fact religions are used to support any and all claims toward somekind of personnal advantage - in the case of mormons we have (had?) polygamy which had been forbidden for centuries by all other kinds of christianism.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[DerekLyons]

I'm not a Christian myself, but I am interested in the truth

Then why did you make the false implication US Christians believe mostly one way - and the rest of the world mostly another? (Hint: The majority of US Christians and Catholics aren't fundamentalist either. Like you most, you confuse noise and activity with size.)

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Jesus_666]

That has to be the best reason to study one's religion I've ever heard of. It also makes for interesting conversations: "I studied the holy scriptures so I could have a closer relationship with Jahweh/God/Allah." - "Well, as for me... You see, I think bacon has this in-built [i]deliciousness factor[/i]..."

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Weedlekin]

"Then why did you make the false implication US Christians believe mostly one way - and the rest of the world mostly another? (Hint: The majority of US Christians and Catholics aren't fundamentalist either. Like you most, you confuse noise and activity with size.)"

Thanks for pointing this out, because It wasn't my intention to imply this, just as I doubt you intended to imply that US Catholics aren't Christians!

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Weedlekin]

"That has to be the best reason to study one's religion I've ever heard of. It also makes for interesting conversations: "I studied the holy scriptures so I could have a closer relationship with Jahweh/God/Allah." - "Well, as for me... You see, I think bacon has this in-built [i]deliciousness factor[/i]...""

He reckoned that they were one and the same thing. His reasoning was based on the conviction that God deliberately created humans with the ability to learn more and more about how the world he put them in works, so he would have known that we would rapidly (on God time scales) reach a point where a lot of the rules that were intended to prevent us from doing silly things out of ignorance would no longer be required. It was, he said, a lot like the rules that parents enforce on young children so that they won't harm themselves: a mother might for example prohibit a child of three from entering a kitchen while food is being cooked to prevent them from being burned or scalded, while an older child would only be allowed in under strict supervision, but those who are still older can freely use the kitchen to cook meals for themselves if they wish. And just as a mother wouldn't expect a sixteen year old to require the same level of supervision as younger, less experienced offspring, God doesn't expect those of his children who have reached a level where they can figure out a lot of stuff for themselves to live by the same set of "Don't do that because it's bad" rules he gave to people who were (in a technological sense) still toddlers.

I thought this was an interesting way of looking at things that, for those who believe in an all-powerful creator, made a lot more sense than the traditional "God told a bunch of nomadic goat herders living in tents to do this, so we have to do it as well" viewpoint.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[aclarke]

I do agree that a lot of people who take the Bible literally don't seem to understand that the King James (or whichever) version of the Bible is not the divinely inspired original word of God. However, if one starts with the premise that the Bible in its original context is the word of God, one could form a very cohesive belief that a particular translation of the Bible is a bad translation of the word of God.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[nalfeshnee]

Nail. Head. Bang!

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[DerekLyons]

Ack! You are correct in that.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Bob-taro]

There's the Universe, and it's a lot more than we can comprehend even there. But no God, right? I mean, in spite of all the things that might be there that you don't understand, God can't be one of them. Despite all the people who claim to know God, to feel him, hear him, SEE him, experience "supernatural" phenomena -- all those people are either deluded or liars. Is that what you're saying?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[lekikui]

I realize that they are just copyrighting a translation (in fact, I know people who work in Bible translation). However, their permissions etc are much less restrictive than those of a typical book.

Tithes. I don't want to end up arguing an obscure theological point forever, but the Bible is very explicit on the fact that everything is forgiven if you believe in Jesus. Important part of this being /everything/. If you choose to do other things as a recognition of this gift, good for you, but the only requirement is belief. Public acts should be a manifestation of private beliefs - but without the beliefs, the acts are worthless.

As to what I choose to believe, if I do not believe and any religion is true, I've lost, while if one is, I win if I happened to be believing in that one, and lose otherwise. An extended version of Pascal's Wager, as it were. I also fail to see how acting as a better person due to this belief is a loss of dignity, but you may have other opinions.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Arterion]

I also fail to see how acting as a better person due to this belief is a loss of dignity, but you may have other opinions.

Ah, well. I don't think christians act like better people. Just look at what they support and oppose as a bloc. Their main desire is to take away everyone else's freedoms. Basically force everyone to have to do what they believe. Of course, that's just the conservative christians. The liberal christians are pretty open-minded, but definitely the minority.

what is this Slashdot material?

[peter303]

Nothing realy technical or for nerds.

Re:what is this Slashdot material?

[swordgeek]

The Cult of Scientology has been hunting down people on the internet since before /. was founded. They have been involved in lawsuits and forged cancels on usenet for decades (!) now. In short, they brought the fight to the internet, and so it _is_ actually technical (and nerd) related. And it certainly matters.

Re:what is this Slashdot material?

[Tregod]

If it has the word "science" in it, it must be true!

Know your tech!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Free electricity! ...see what science can accomplish?

I think they're already using that to power the "eternal battery" for the force field that imprisons Xenu.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to avoid laughing myself to death. Apparently the world's most powerful Scientologists are focusing their supreme mental powers to kill me with a single thought.

(It'll take them a while. Good thing they sign on for multi-billion year contracts...)

Mathematics as a cult

[eimikion]

Try to ask a mathematicians about their beliefs. You need to be thoroughly initiated to understand their religion. Not everything could be shown to the profane. Only the trivial religions, like Baptism, are simple enough to be grokked by anyone. More advanced religions were always a initiation cults, since the first pythagorean sects.

Re:Mathematics as a cult

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to ask a mathematicians about their beliefs. You need to be thoroughly initiated to understand their religion.

Nonsense. Mathematics is not a religion or a cult -- because it works so very well.

No religion has anywhere near the same reliability in the material world. Because there is such a notorious lack of solid evidence for, say, Christianity, the believers cannot demonstrate, to high probability, that their faith is true. This is why so many religious genocides happen: because the true believers are really not so certain, they cannot bear any dissenting voices -- so they do their violent best to kill off the heretics.

They copied a Jewish initiative

[Anonymous Coward]

The horrific situation of the 5000 year old Jewish culture at the end of both World Wars convinced their leadership that they needed to encourage more aggressive pursuit of positions of responsibility in the premier forum for religious freedom, the United States, while also developing Israel as a safe-haven, if their children were to ever live in the world unmolested. The Jews had tremendous success with their peaceful initiatives and this did not go unnoticed by the current round of greedy nut-jobs who have been setting up get-rich-quick ministries here in America for the past 230 years. The only thing is that when you incorporate such powerful initiatives into any religion, it is going to have real survival potential unlike anything Jim & Tammy Baker like figures could ever dream up. Inevitably these get-rich-quick ministries in America prey upon either those who come from generational poverty and the intellectual disadvantage that environment breeds, or they prey upon those who were disenfranchised during America's difficult transition from rural agricultural economy to massively urban industrial economy. In the former, the problem is cash, pure and simple --so one ministry quickly formed with a religion specifically to knock-off the new Jewish initiatives by advertising that each patron surrenders 10% of their wealth to the Church and pledge to spend a portion of their life expanding the Church's base of followers, in exchange, the Church will cure their generational poverty: not such bad deal. To pickup the later group of potential followers, many of whom had over-developed incomes (due to inability to maintain relationships), another ministry formed to knock-off the new Jewish initiatives by offering really expensive psychotherapy to help the "adult victims" of America's "nuclear family" --so they could have satisfying relationships and know true happiness for the first time in their life. [In the 1970s, 80s and 90s, millions of people in America were not able to maintain their relationships resulting in skyrocketing numbers of singles and divorcees, suicide, drug/alcohol use, wrecked children, etc. --all because the small-town "social ways" taught by their grandparents and parents where completely inadequate in urban settings like NY and LA, a this dysfunction was being rebroadcast to the rest of the nation vis a vie "Disco", "Sex In The City", "Andre 3000", etc...] Both of these particular ministries were laced with typical colorful stories, just as the 2000 and 5000 year old religions of yore, whether it be a story about a chance encounter on a New York subway or a flying saucer, their intent was to captivate their potential recruits and build a giant pyramid scheme that presumably provides at leas the Earthly (but probably not Divine) benefits that the modern Jewish culture is now enjoying.

Conclusion: Society expects you to be part of a religion. You used to not be able to get a security clearance from the US government if you weren't in one. If, as a Slash-Nerd, you can live with your own personal interpretation of the holy scriptures and let the others around you interpret them 100% literally if they want, then you should probably hitch up to a church somewhere. If you are lucky (or cursed) enough to have a J-Gene, you can be or convert back to 5000 year old Judism anytime you want and their entire infrastructure is at your disposal, so long as you are productive. For the rest of us, you can join up with the LDS or Scientologists and gain many of the Earthly (though perhaps not the "divine") benefits the Jewish people in America seek, so long as you are productive. If none of this sounds like your ball of wax, you probably should stick with Catholicism or one of the 1500 year old reforms on it, or with one of the worlds other highly credible religions, like Budism, Hinduism, Islam or whatever else floats your boat and do not ever make the mistake of personally attacking a Jew, Mormon or Scientologist just because they are Jew, Mormon or Scientologist --their entire culture has be

Re:They copied a Jewish initiative

[Anonymous Coward]

"...do not ever make the mistake of personally attacking a Jew, Mormon or Scientologist just because they are Jew, Mormon or Scientologist --their entire culture has been overhauled (or designed) to be self-sustaining and you will find them fighting you on multiple levels and in huge numbers until every cell in your body is destroyed or, if you are lucky, until you are strung up as an example to others of what not to do."

" Jews, Mormons and even Scientologists have contributed heavily to mankind and for that reason alone they are entitled to do whatever they want."

Nice troll.

Even weirder news in City of London

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets weirder. When they opened a new office in the City of London in October 2006 one of the opening speeches was given by Corporation of London representative, Ian Luder (Chartered Accountant, Chartered Tax Adviser, partner in Grant Thornton UK LLP, non-exec director of Homerton NHS Trust) and warmly welcomed by several very senior City of London policemen who also attended the event. The City of London has also given them a generous discount on normal business tax rates.

Re:Even weirder news in City of London

[AndroidCat]

When I saw all those colour-coordinated umbrellas, I thought of the '60s show The Prisoner. Hmm, I wonder why?

Re:Even weirder news in City of London

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine: your whole life on video tape!

not distanced from scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

His wife is all up in Scientology as well...

Filthy Fat Stinking Belgian Bastards!

[Snufu]

Sorry, I held it in as long as I could.

Well, now,

[KnowledgeKeeper]

YAAFM said it best.

For other gems of truth, click here

Good news

[ynotds]

There is something profoundly wrong with societies where somebody like Keith who has lived a productive, generous, pioneering life can have their liberty curtailed because they piss off somebody with greater access to The Law's capacity to pursue single dubious issues against anybody who has really lived.

But we should place more blame on the personal empire builders who are ensuring untrammeled expansion of The Law-Politics-Mass Media axis of evil^Hauthoritarianism than even the criminally motivated cult which has become so good at exploiting our excessive 'authorities'.

"Officially recognized" as a religion in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA: but in the US it is officially recognized as a religion

How the fuck do you get "officially recognized" as a religion in the US?

I run a criminal enterprise too, and I'd like to get my organization on this list. Where do I apply?

Colour me unconvinced

[arth1]

The sad bit is that on balance, connecting as directly as possible to the brainstem usually *does* work. Organized religions do it, governments do it, and corporations do it. That last idea can be particularly entertaining to research. Google around for psychological color responses, and you'll soon see why fast-food restaurants, Denny's, etc., always use red, yellow, orange, and white (warm colors) in logos, signage, etc. No blues and greens allowed--that's for IT firms that want to project a soothing, 'we can fix all your problems' vibe.

You're jumping to conclusions here. There are other factors, including, but not limited to:

• Fast food places mimic a common design because they want the audience to spot from far away that it's a fast food place and not, say, a synagogue.
  
• The red/orange/yellow theme reflects the food itself: Hamburgers, catsup, buns, chips.

Examples of other colours for other type of fast food include Long John Silver's, which use a blue and green logo and theme, because they want to be associated with the ocean, and Subway using green as an association to fresh salad greens.
Also note that Starbuck's colour theme is green, and I don't think "soothing" is the image they try to achieve. Freshness is far more likely.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Colour me unconvinced

[VENONA]

I've possibly overstated the case, due to reading psych studies done several years ago. Those were mostly based around burger chains. But you've made one argument that might actually support me, which would be the association of green with fresh. On one level, that seems so obvious as to be stupid--but that's the entire point.

Green for Starbucks? Well, I could grasp at unprovable nonsense, such as green being closely associated with Washington and the PacNW. Maybe there's something in corporate history involved. That's a reach, too, as I've no clue, and don't mean to research it. Besides which "...I don't think "soothing" is the image they try to achieve." is such a master-stroke that I have to bow.

Re:Colour me unconvinced

[Mark J Tilford]

IHOP has a blue theme, IIRC.

Scientologists=Intellectuals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it strike anyone as odd that the most famous of this religion that spews what they claim as a great secret truth are all empty headed puppets? Where are the true intellectual minds that support this ideology? Scientologists as people are all pretty much the same. They are pseudo-intellectuals who think they are smarter than they are. They are in fact only smart enough to realize that true genius was never in their grasp and that if they want to be as smart as they wish the only way is through parlor tricks. They are a laughable lot and the people that get taken by them deserve it. Its the people AROUND them that get truly hurt.

Re:Scientologists=Intellectuals?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is easy to sound as though one was endowed with great intelligence, whilst speaking amongst a crowd of total morons.

No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[Engineer-Poet]

The Muslims have been known to attack and kill people who convert out of Islam. This is straight out of the Hadith of Bukhari:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

This is not just the work of vigilantes, this is the law in many Islamic countries (for instance, in Malaysia, ethnic Malays are considered Muslims by birth and conversion out is not allowed by law).

Of course, it is very un-PC to point this out. Watch the replies to this comment for gratuitous attacks.

Scientology is a racket, but they have a ways to go before they catch up to "mainstream" religion.

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[IdahoEv]

The Muslims have been known to attack and kill people who convert out of Islam.

Christianity does not get a pass, ether. It's comparatively accepting today, but has several hundred years' history of crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, and the blood libel.

Scientology sues its apostates sometimes, sure. But almost all of the other religions have traditions of killing them -- at least at some points in history.

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, how will anyone even know if you have left a religion, unless you claim free-speech, FREE-SPEECH, and run around the streets claiming to have left a religion.
Think before you post a comment.

Also, that rule doesn't apply to non-Islamic countries - not living by the Sharia law.

And, just to correct you, there's a good reason why that law was introduced during the time of the Prophet Muhammad - basically Jews used to claim to have reverted to Islam, then leave the religion at night, so that they could cause mischief, split the believers, and generally cause chaos / disorder.

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but that rule can only apply once gone through a Sharia court. And any Human (whether Muslim or not) who kills another Human (unjustly), then Qur'an states that it's like he has killed all of mankind in the sight of God!

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[KanLiDaL]

A translation of a Hebrew verse to English is as bad as a translation of an Arabic Quran verse to English. Some people do think wikipedia is a strong source to base your story on but we know better now... Are your sources to be trusted???

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[TheLink]

Main thing is: can those actions be reasonably justifiable by the Muslim/Christian/Scientology "scriptures" e.g. Koran, Bible, CoS copyrighted stuff?

Could anyone with reasonable understanding of the Bible claim that Jesus told his followers to kill nonbelievers and provide the verses that show it?

There are tons of groups that call themselves "Christian". The difference between Christian and "Christian" is one follows Jesus, and one follows someone else (some pastor) or even some_thing_ else (e.g. Money, Power).

Just because someone claims they are a follower of Jesus doesn't mean they are.

Of course, some of us (like me) may not behave very well and be following Jesus from a rather great distance behind. There should hopefully still be a general "drift" in the right direction (brownian though it may seem sometimes ;) ).

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[jandersen]

So have Christians, not all that long ago. The United States of America were more of less founded by people who were persucted because they dared to disagree with the established churches in their home countries, weren't they?

And apart from that - the way you say this makes it sound as if this is what all Muslims do: 'The Muslims have ...' The truth, however, is that Muslims, just like Christians are simply people, and just like with Christians, most are tolerant, kind and open-minded, unlike you.

And don't start quoting the Qur`an at me either - the Bible contains some hair-raising crap all of its own, even in what Jesus is alleged to have said. The morale of all this is that it is not what your religious book says that counts, it is what you choose to do in your life. Jesus never said that all you had to do was go and have water splashed on your head, and then you would go free from the eternal punishment, no matter WTF you did afterwards.

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[dave420]

To be honest, that's a tiny percentage of Muslims doing that. EVERY Scientologist leaving gets shit for leaving.

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[shilly]

I think we should be clear about these things: "And any Human (whether Muslim or not) who kills another Human (unjustly), then Qur'an states that it's like he has killed all of mankind in the sight of God!" -- the Qu'ran is just quoting the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5: "For this reason, man [i.e. the first human being] was created alone to teach that whoever destroys a single life is as though he had destroyed an entire universe, and whoever saves a single life is as if he had saved an entire universe." (Lefikach nivrah adam yekhidi l'lamed'cha shehkol hame'aved nefesh ekhad ma'alah alav hikhtov c'ilu i'vad olam maleh...)

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[Andrew Nagy]

I lived in Malaysia and can verify this. The Christians (or Buddhists or Hindus or whatever) who are there (primarily comprised of Chinese and Indians) are not legally allowed to "convert" any Malay. If a Malay does convert, he or she is generally ostracized and sent to a "reeducation camp" where I heard stories of mild to severe forms of torture employed to convince a convert to recant. The last part I only heard second-hand, but the locals seemed to believe it pretty strongly.

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[Darby]

The United States of America were more of less founded by people who were persucted because they dared to disagree with the established churches in their home countries, weren't they?

Kind of sort of.

For the most part the "Christians" who came to America due to "religious persecution" were the most extreme nutballs who were the ones doing the persecuting. They wanted to enforce their extremist interpretation of their fairy tales on everyone else around them. Sanity was coming back after a couple thousand years of brutal, murderous, savage, inhuman religious rule and so decent people were not particularly eager to see those monsters bring back the atrocities they were working so hard to do, so they left to go bring their evil to a new place.

Luckily, there were some great people here as well who were the ones who actually wrote the Constitution specifically to prevent insane evil nutters from shoving their ignorant hatred into the laws of a free society.

So, with the contempt for integrity and honesty typical of that sort, they have engaged in a campaign of revisionist history to deceive people into thinking they were the victims rather than the perpetrators. This campaign of deceit continues to this day with various lies Christians like to tell about how the founding fathers were Christians, America was founded on Christian principles, etc. Additionally, they actively work to subvert the basis of our nation through various sleazy scams like ID, putting crap about god on our money and in the pledge of allegiance (and then calling maintaining the actions of extremist radicals "conservative") as well as various other assaults on liberty, truth and common sense.

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[Kettle Face]

While I agree that many "Islamic" countries as they claim to be use the death penalty as a punishment for conversion to another faith, I would advise you not to use hadith as partial/whole proof of the practice being a historical norm in Islam. And yes, I am a Muslim :) Hadith science is an extremely complex field mastered by very few people, specially today. I barely know much about it but based on what I do know, English translations (especially ones that simply list the hadith w/o any background, context, commentary) cannot be fully trusted. Bukhari is considered to be one of the most authentic hadith collections but w/o property explanation and commentary several hadith can be extremely misleading. This is something that happens all too frequently among Muslims. They'll pick up a translated copy of Bukhari, read a hadith out and simply use it as law w/o any research. Now I'm not saying that the hadith example you gave above definitely falls in this category, but it is fairly likely that the hadith is not a standalone. It probably had commentary and explanation around it and perhaps even referred to a specific case at a pivotal moment in history for the parties involved. I personally don't know but thats exactly why I can't draw any conclusions from it. Lastly, to give you a more serious example, there are hadith listed in what are considered authentic hadith collections (such as Bukhari) that are actually false. They are not listed so that people can use them. They're specifically mentioned with proper warnings that under no circumstances should the hadith be used for legal cases or even personal issues. The narrators will highlight these hadith and give reasons for why they are prohibited. These reasons can include things like it was fabricated, one of the transmitters of the hadith was a known liar in his/her time, and so on. It is of course the fault of the translator of the hadith collection for not doing a good job and this in turn can have dire consequences, specially in tribal regions where there is a patriarchal social structure and so-called scholars rule in a hardline manner using a literal interpretation of hadith literature as law. Hopefully this wasn't too heavy-handed :)

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[Engineer-Poet]

how will anyone even know if you have left a religion, unless you claim free-speech, FREE-SPEECH, and run around the streets claiming to have left a religion.

Are you saying that anyone who's left Islam should have to stay closeted, and risk their life if outed?

that rule doesn't apply to non-Islamic countries - not living by the Sharia law.

Tell that to the Muslims in the Netherlands who attacked Ehsan Jami (the head of the ex-Muslims committee). Tell that to the daughters in England and Germany who risk being killed for "the family honor" if they adopt the norms of their country.

basically Jews used to claim to have reverted to Islam, then leave the religion at night, so that they could cause mischief, split the believers, and generally cause chaos / disorder.

Given the atrocity perpetrated by Mohammed at the Khaybar oasis, this was justified. Would that they had been more successful.

any Human (whether Muslim or not) who kills another Human (unjustly), then Qur'an states that it's like he has killed all of mankind in the sight of God!

You are misquoting that. That appears, not as a general commandment, but in the context of a warning to the Jews that they will be punished if they reject Muhammad. Also, the very definition of "justice" is in play here. Muslims are allowed and even commanded to kill to promote Islam.

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[Engineer-Poet]

(aside: why the hell don't my italic tags work inside blockquotes?)

The United States of America were more of less founded by people who were persucted because they dared to disagree with the established churches in their home countries, weren't they?

And some of them learned not to do this to others, e.g. Roger Williams, who established Rhode Island as a colony which did not practice religious discrimination.

Muslims, just like Christians are simply people, and just like with Christians, most are tolerant, kind and open-minded, unlike you.

Yes, and so are most other people. The problems are usually (but not always) caused by a minority, and the effect of that minority depends on the ethos of the majority. If the majority opposes and restrains the minority, things can remain peaceful and tolerant; if the majority supports or even merely tolerates the minority, the violent and intolerant determine the result.

The violent and intolerant Muslims have scripture on their side. They have been known to label their tolerant opponents as apostates and kill them. Can you show me a Muslim-dominated society which does not have blatant discrimination against non-Muslims?

And don't start quoting the Qur`an at me either

Why not? Its commandments are the eternal, unchanging word of Allah. It is used as the moral justification for acts of terrorism, religious cleansing and genocide. When the terrorists themselves are quoting it, what allows YOU to say it is irrelevant to the issue?

The morale of all this is that it is not what your religious book says that counts, it is what you choose to do in your life.

Reason says, and experience proves, that the people who accept a religious book which preaches violence and intolerance are likely to be bad neighbors.

Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[quadrocerebra]

"The Muslims have been known to attack and kill people who convert out of Islam. This is straight out of the Hadith of Bukhari" The hadith is not a valid reference and quoting anything from that cannot be attributed to Islam. anything mentioned in the hadith should not even be considered a part of islam pobably. There IS a huge difference between Islam and Muslims. Religion is quite personal and open to thousand different ways of interpretation. As a matter of fact any religion is absurd but it probably is the only sane way to bring a group of people to agree on something and stop them from killing each other. Scientology should be given a fair chance because all religions were mocked ridiculed and persecuted at one point in time. Islam, Christianity and Judaism probably went through moer than what scientology is going through!

Freedom of religion has nothing to do with it

[Max Littlemore]

While Belgium's treatment of Opus Dei and other 'cults' may be hard, I don't see how this is relevent to Scientology. This action doesn't look to be about the religion. It seems to be about the church itself. If I started a buddhist sect that killed people, conducted violent "mediation" sessions, threatened anyone who left, broke up families and drained peoples bank accounts and did all for profit, I would expect to be prosecuted in any country where the rule of law is respected. And the prosecution wouldn't be a persecution of religion, buddhism would still be perfectly acceptable but the church would be prosecuted.

Bringing freedom of religion into this discussion is bullshit, because the CoS is not the religion, it is the church. If the CoS renounced persecution and violence and not required payment for instruction, they wouldn't be charged with being a criminal organisation.

You may not be able to separate church and state, but at least try to separate church and religion.

Re:Freedom of religion has nothing to do with it

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that it has nothing to do with religion. The original article [remember that?] above states that Scn, Inc. is "officially recognized as a religion." However, the United States [in this casae meaning the IRS] does not officially recognize any 'religion' although it does recognize an organization as being nonprofit and charitable.
I firmly believe that Scientology bullied its way into nonprofit status in the first place with 40 years of lawsuits against the IRS. It certainly wasn't always a 'religion' but became one conveniently after the FDA started looking sideways at the e-meter and some of the vitamin formulas in the 1950s.
Follow the money. See xenu-directory.net

Which is all very convenient for the bloody-minded

[Engineer-Poet]

"Islam" is not an entity, like say the Church of Scientology or the Catholic Church. Like "Protestantism", Islam is decentralized religion with many sects.

Which allows anyone with a grudge to get an authority figure to pronounce takfir on another sect (declare them apostates), which creates an obligation* (not just an option) to kill them. This happens a lot; all the Sunni/Shi'a violence stems from this.

* see Bukhari, which is accepted as authoritative by all major Islamic schools of jurisprudence.

The difference is...

[Anonymous Coward]

... most other religions understand that their old stories are mythology, meant to explain truths about the world and human nature on a non-literal level.

And they're usually OK with it if you "expose" these beliefs.
And they're usually fine with it if you want to walk away and no longer believe what they believe.

Scientologists actually believe this Xenu shit.
And if you try and walk away, you're toast.
If you reveal their secrets, you're toast.

All over a religion that was probably started on a dare to see how much money could be made.

Now we get to see if they can take on an entire government.

Game on!

Re:The difference is...

[Bemopolis]

And they're usually OK with it if you "expose" these beliefs. And they're usually fine with it if you want to walk away and no longer believe what they believe.

Ahem.

Romans v. Christian converts
Catholic v. Protestant
Sunni v. Shi'a
Shi'a v. Baha'i
Hundu v. Sikh
Christian v. Mormon
Jew v. (please select one from Column B)
Southern Baptist v. Fossils
Zoroastrians v. (too lazy to Wikipedia it)
Communist v. Other Communist (cults of personality are no different than religions except where their god lives)

Just to point out, I'm not defending Scientology, just making sure that the playing field is level. Makes it easier to set the goddam field on fire and bury it.

Re:The difference is...

[painlord2k]

You missed the obvious: Islam versus Christian, Jews, Hindus,... anyone else. Last time I checked they had an Allah dictated order to kill them all if they change their religion or spread mischief on the land.

Re:The difference is...

[junglee_iitk]

Hundu v. Sikh

Are you kidding me? Hinduism has problems with Sikhism?

Tolerating IS the sense of Hinduism. There are people who are dick heads but where they ain't? There are dick heads in Linux zealotry.

Bashing religion without making any point is a cult at Slashdot. But don't you want to be a little more knowledge full before delivering your judgments?

Re:The difference is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those are no longer fighting over the tenets per se or arming themselves over defections.

Most of those are fighting over power or land and using religion as a flag.

You left out atheists vs. religious. Oh, right - you covered that in your final sentence.

I'll spot you the pesky Romans.

If what you used as examples were literally true and universal, the city of Worcester MA for example would be on fire. (For a smallish city they have lotsa different churches there and they are certainly not armed camps.)

Northern Ireland has always seemed less about religion and more about the British doing exactly what would cheese off the Irish in the most blatant way possible while seeming to grant independence to them.

Re:The difference is...

[Bemopolis]

Are you kidding me? Hinduism has problems with Sikhism?

I refer you the storming of The Golden Temple. You can argue that it was a political act against a separatist movement, but I don't think Indira Gandhi's guards would agree with you. As to the general tolerance of Hinduism in the context of being better at accepting "insults" than other faiths, it's a pity that Deepa Mehta doesn't have a slashdot account to make a few points.

Regardless, I think the original point of my post was muddied; I was not referencing the current level of conflicts between religions and offshoot sects, but rather the usual level of violence seen by those offshoots in their infancy. The argument being that the vehemence of Scientology's attacks on its critics is typical for such a young, um, "religion." Soon enough they'll settle into the usual routine of calmly spouting their bullshit in public in the course of political campaigns and pissing me off with their constant stupidity like all the rest of them.

Re:The difference is...

[Stargoat]

Research is generally best before flipping out on someone.

But what do I know? I could be wrong.

Re:The difference is...

[Sattwic]

Bemopolis. Ignorance seems to be your forte.

Storming of The Golden Temple had nothing to do with Sikhism per se. A Pakistan funded and armed Seperatist group had holed up inside the temple with full confidence that they would be safe there.

However, Indira Gandhi was a woman with Balls who had just dismembered Pakistan and won't take Shit. She ordered the Army into the Temple and clean it up from vermin. What happened is history. Sikhs took unkindly to the Army wearing boots and marching into their most holy place, riots happened.

But over all, Hindus and Sikhs enjoy better relationships than say, Irish Catholics and Protestants. Hindus look upon Sikhs as guardians of the 'Dharmic religions' against Islam. Read history of Sikhs and their persecution at the hands of Aurangazeb and other Mughals before you can shoot your sorry ass off. You just have a tiny bit of information about some Golden Temple entry and think you know a lot.

Secondly, Deepa Mehta is different story. She took advantage of the plight of Widows to make a film and make money. Different groups protested against this expoitation in different ways, some more emotional and passionate than others. What Mehta did was to capture poverty and poverty driven prostitution on film to gain fame at the expense of the filmed widows. Her story was meant to shock and thus gain her a few awards, not for any creativity or talent, but merely by playing to western imagery of India and Hindus as pagans with no civilization waiting for the White Man to come and teach them. And so did it work, that jackasses like yourself now know about her a bit and thus try to passoff yourself as well read or informed, while you know nothing more than a few names.

One of the characters of Hinduism is assimilation of anything that comes in contact with it. Buddha who stood against Hinduism was made a part of Hinduism and converted into a god. Thus Buddhism in India declined, not Hindus decapitating Buddhists, but simply by absorbing 'renegrade' Buddhist ideas into the mother religion.

Re:The difference is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

Please show us some evidence that support that.

Last time "I" checked (I can actually read the book you know), it says "to be a true Muslim you have to believe in all god's books(religions)/angels/prophets, etc.".

So, technically if you don't believe in Christianity/Judaism and others, you are not a Muslim.

And there's another verse that says "Ye who don't believe in my beliefs, to each their own" (very crappy translation), which means you shouldn't influence others or dictate what they should believe in.

Now if you're talking about the Suni's and Shea (Or as I'd like to call them the Mormons of Islam), then sure.

The religion itself has nothing to do with that crap.

Re:The difference is...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Are you kidding me? Hinduism has problems with Sikhism? Tolerating IS the sense of Hinduism.

Any Muslim who lived anywhere near a potential border during the partition would probably dispute your characterization of Hindus as uniquely tolerant.

Re:The difference is...

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Last time I checked they had an Allah dictated order to kill them all if they change their religion or spread mischief on the land.

You need to check again.

Re:The difference is...

[painlord2k]

http://emuslim.com/IslamAgainstVoilence.asp Al- Quran 5:32 "...if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy Kill whoever changes his religion. Sahih Bukhari 9:84:57

Re:The difference is...

[Master of Transhuman]

"most other religions understand that their old stories are mythology"

Bullshit. While SOME of the stories are considered mythology by the more liberal of religious scholars, this is not the attitude each religion wants its laity to take. They want the laity to believe these stories in toto.

As an example, you have the Catholics. Back in the late 19th Century, the Pope, concerned that the new sciences of archaeology and mythology were eroding the faith, ordered the top Catholic scholars to dig up proof that the Catholic dogma about Jesus was correct. The scholars labored long and hard.

They came back and told the Pope that not only couldn't they prove anything, as far as they could tell, it was all bullshit - though of course they didn't use that term!

So the Pope had them all declared heretics and excommunicated them, then promulgated a doctrine that Catholics were forbidden to believe anything they read or hear that conflicts with Catholic dogma.

We're not talking five centuries ago - this was in the last one hundred years.

And the current Pope was previously in charge of the office once known as the Inquisition - they changed the name in the 19th Century, but it's the same office.

When "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", the book by Baigent and Leigh came out, the Church attacked it, but couldn't actually refute any of its historical claims (as opposed to the conspiracy theory, which even the authors didn't say was actually true.) When the second book came out, the authors pointed out that most of the facts in their books were well known to the church hierarchy - but not to the laity. And the church hierarchy means to keep it that way.

The Scientologists are not seriously more cynical about this process than any Catholic Cardinal or any other senior member of any religion.

The only difference between Scientologists who extort money from their followers and your average church is the degree of actual extortion and the pettiness of the money involved. Look at the finances of any major Christian denomination and see how much money is rolling in - and what's done with it.

As for poor treatment of their followers, compare how much Scientology has paid out in legal judgements vs how much the Catholic Church has paid out for sexual abuse of children. Of course, percentage-wise it might be the same, given how small the Scientology fraud is compared to the Catholic fraud. More likely, considering the wealth of the Catholic Church, their payouts are even smaller than Scientology's.

As for people dying in Scientology, well, at least most of them have been Scientology members at one point or another. The Christians have been killing millions of people for centuries who aren't even their members. Not being a Christian is a quick way to get killed by a Christian, as the Muslims are finding out these days.

Re:The difference is...

[junglee_iitk]

And indeed you are.

Come in India... it is a little different from your world. It is like Europe 200 years ago.

I can write and essay about Hindu-Muslim riots but that won't change your thinking. Internet is full of evidence...

Citing "Operation Bluestar" for Hindu-Sikh problem and telling me to "research" is pot calling kettle black. Do you believe Christianity and Sikhism has problems and then go on to say to it is because of religion?

So stay to the point. Yea! for the Wikipedia link. Because that proves you are right.

Re:The difference is...

[junglee_iitk]

Your examples of Deepa Mehta and Golden Temple describe your point of presenting trouble between sikhs and hindus or intolerance in Hinduism is just another way of saying Islam is always at fault because Taliban was muslim.

Or Linux is a faulty system because some people do zealotry.

There is a hole around you, should take a look outside of it sometime.

Extremists are everywhere. Come again with a better example.

For what it's worth, I am a nihilist and personally do not believe in Gods.

Now that you mention it, I will tell you something. Coming from India where I have enjoyed more religions and beliefs surrounding me than anyone from a foreign country will probably ever be able to imagine.And here is the truth of religious tolerace:

• Give people food and they will not kill you

Sikhs are basically all Punjabis: they are business men. Years ago a riot happened because Sikhs were ruling the business class in Delhi and natives were pissed. Go to Delhi today (or before), there are more inter-religion marriages than any where in the world.
Deepa Mehta is an idiot socialite whore, nonetheless she should have been allowed to what she wanted to. Unfortunately, world is not America, and freedom of everything is regularly laughed upon in households there (freedom to have guns for example). Welcome to the real world. Your system is different, not best. Again I say, extremists are everywhere, they are minority everywhere, they are noisiest everywhere, and characterizing any theory from extremists is stupid.

Regarding Scientology, it is a US phenomena which is sucking its system until copyright expires. They are probably counting on Disney for their future, while making money of richest people. I don't know of political campaigns, but I don't know of any religion which started out from rich and then became popular. Scientology is doomed, except probably in US... I don't know.

Regular bashing of religion got you mod points. As some one once said, moderator pool is trash.

I have faith in metamods though.

Re:The difference is...

[Stargoat]

(1) Did at any point I claim other religions were not hostile? No. I did not.
(2) Did I claim that Sikh's were left alone by other groups? No. I did not.
(3) Did I reference other religious groups difficulties with Hinduism? Yes. I did that.
(4) Did you claim that "Tolerating IS the sense of Hinduism" or that "don't you want to be a little more knowledge full before delivering your judgments" to a person who was more correct than you? Yes. You did that.
(5) Junglee_iitk, are you wrong in every possible meaning of the word concerning your various (and remarkably ignorant) statements? Yes. Yes, you are.

Your complete lack appreciation of Hinduism or the actual culture of India indicates that your education on religion or culture has not gone beyond the Dharma and Greg TV show. You should open a few books before opening your mouth again. It'll save you embarrassment.

Re:The difference is...

[junglee_iitk]

Guess there is a lot of confusion in here. Let me clear it without baseless characterising:

So look at the list again (do it! really!!)

Romans v. Christian converts (Always a problem, has been since the division, problem on a philisophical level, not personal, countless examples of intermarriage and other personal deals)
Catholic v. Protestant (Always a problem, has been since the division, problem on a philisophical level, not personal, countless examples of intermarriage and other personal deals)
Sunni v. Shi'a (Always a problem, has been since the division, problem on a philisophical level, not personal, many examples of intermarriage, countless examples of personal deals)
Shi'a v. Baha'i (no idea)
Hundu v. Sikh (Never a problem, Sikhism was originally found for saving Hinduism - later they seperated, not a problem on philosophical level[1], 1984 sikh riots were personal - not philosophical, personal, many examples of intermarriage[2], countless examples of personal deals)
Christian v. Mormon (no idea)
Jew v. (no idea)
Southern Baptist v. Fossils (problem on a philisophical level, not personal, countless examples of intermarriage and other personal deals)

This oddity was what I was against. NOW can you see it?

[1] For all people who believe in something, when involved in a debate involving that belief, have trouble with opposing side.

Dharma and Greg TV show

(3) Did I reference other religious groups difficulties with Hinduism? Yes. I did that.

So here is your reference. Because I say Hinduism is about toleration, you come up with your own bias and accuse me of I don't know what!

The core philosophy of Hinduism is there is one Brahma, and every one's duty is to realize It. It is the only Perfect Thing and all realizations by a human is bound to be imperfect, and every one has a way to realize it. So Hinduism has many gods, which all refer to many facets of one Brahma, but every one is allowed to worship his own god. If I want I can create a god of my own and teach my children to pray it... this is the reason Hinduism has different sects, each having a different way of how to have realization.
Did that interest you? I bet it didn't because you are already predisposed to Your Own Definition of What A Religion Is(TM).

(4) Did you claim that "Tolerating IS the sense of Hinduism" or that "don't you want to be a little more knowledge full before delivering your judgments" to a person who was more correct than you? Yes. You did that.

Read the above paragraph again. If it is not "toleration" I don't know what is.

(2) Did I claim that Sikh's were left alone by other groups? No. I did not.

When did I claim Sikhs are left alone group or they aren't? I presented you the facts of Anti-Sikh riots of 1984 to show how it is was not against religion but against Punjabi and this is what you understand?

(5) Junglee_iitk, are you wrong in every possible meaning of the word concerning your various (and remarkably ignorant) statements? Yes. Yes, you are.

OH! YOU GOT ME!! MY PANTS ARE ON FIRE; RUN JUNGLEE_IITK RUN!!!

Yesterday I had a fight with my friend, who is Punjabi. Since I am Hindu and he is Sikh, this proves that we were fighting about our beliefs and were "exposing" it to each other.

Oh I am sorry, the Punjabi guy was from Pakistan. Replace Sikhism with Islam. If he is from Gujarat instead, that just proves it more!

(1) Did at any point I claim other religions were not hostile? No. I did not.

Did I ever say that?

Now click on one of the links in my previous post. AND READ IT! It was there to show the flaws of your references - relating an event to some sort of "clandestine battle

No, no no!

[cumin]

I'm going to hell for these postings, aren't I?

You don't go to hell for posting stuff, you go to hell for postings that disagree with mine!

Standard disclaimer: Yes, I firmly believe God has a sense of humor, at least I firmly hope so.

How about this SAT analogy question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Astronomy : Astrology :: Science : ?

Mod Parent Up

[EightMillion]

Come on mods. This was obviously meant to be funny, not flamebait. I think it's hilarious.

On another note

[Tregod]

Scientology simply fails to point out the significant and obvious correlation between the increase in global warming and the decline of the overall pirate population. When will we take notice of the real problem here!?

Since nobody has come up with it yet...

[rrohbeck]

1. Write up some really outlandish fiction
2. Promote it as a religion
3. ...
4. Profit!

Works every single time... not just for Scientology.

/. get the legal coffers ready...

[pigphish]

...the scientologists are going to get you for hosting all these blasphemous comments.
how come all their famous members are half-witted artists. why no notable nobel prize winners. you would think some physics guys would appreciate having science fiction for a religion.

Chthulhu is not amused

[some old guy]

Who really cares about a bunch of nutjobs who take science fiction seriously? The rank-and-file $cientology adhereant isn't any different than a Trekkie or an H.P. Lovecraft cultist. This is the same sort of life-challenged whacko that stays up all night listening to Art Bell and George Norrie.

Re:Chthulhu is not amused

[pandrijeczko]

Actually, it's spelt "Cthulhu"... whoops! There goes my sanity... wibble...

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to these people's families, and the are many more...

http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/

Re:In other happy news, Keith Henson is out of jai

[dr_dank]

Sweet, now he can get back to work on the Muppets.

NOT Officially Recognized

[rossz]

Scientology is NOT officially recognized as a religion. Nor is it recognized as not being a religion. Any fool can start cult and claim tax exemption status. They get no special status beyond that. The 1st Amendment of the Constitution doesn't allow the government to take a stance except in very limited situations.

Please! They do not have "ten million members"

[Catbeller]

The Scientologists have claimed eight million members for over a decade. Now ten?

Not true, as in a lie. They count EVERYone who ever walked into a storefront vacuum cleaner as a member. We really need to stop and challenge this UFO cult when they can't even be honest about the rolls. I am always incensed when a reporter accepts the multimillion member organization as a given, when the organization itself is the only source. Census data does not bear out their claims. And since most Hubbardites are US based, their given number means that they claim to have on average 200,000 members in every state in the union. Uh uh, not true.

Who Cares

[slyn]

Regardless of whether religion of any sort has truth or not, I could care less. Mythology of any given religion is irrelevant.

Though an argument could be made otherwise (crusades, inquisition, etc.), for the most part (IMO) religion has benefited mankind as a whole.

The main points (in major summation) to most religions are: Be nice, and worship X deity. Only the former really matters.

I like the way Douglas Adams puts it:

And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, one girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything. Though I don't agree with any given religion's beliefs, I do agree that being nice to yourself and others is a good thing. If a religion says that it does such and practices doing so, I'm cool with that religion.

Re:Who Cares

[mux2000]

I know I shouldn't be replying... but I'll do it anyway.

BULLSHIT.

Religion has done no good whatsoever to anyone. Like Zaphod's sunglasses (I forget the name) that turn to black at the slightest hint of danger, religion can be comforting and relaxing, but it can also be extremely dangerous as it prevents you from really looking at the world. I think it's like a doctor, telling a man who has two days left to live he's completely healthy just so his patient wouldn't be sad. Do you think he'll thank the nice doctor if he knew? The road to hell etc.

If you need some crazy mythical story to tell you being nice to each other is a Good Thing, berlieving in that story isn't going to help you anyway.

Come all ye religious zealots (and grammar nazis) and flame.

Re:Who Cares

[DerangedAlchemist]

I believe the opposite. Religion causes great evil. You can't give religion credit for the good without giving it credit for the great evil (crusades, suicide bombers, etc.) it causes also.

Sure some religions say to be nice to people, but the truth is people do that anyway. You see it in all cultures, even if the religion says otherwise. The problem with religions though is that blind faith lets people commit acts of atrocity while believing they are righteous. Things like torturing a woman until she confesses her friends were witches or dies were helped by religion, which prevented questioning of its interpretation, rather than hindered by the 'be nice' part.

Re:Who Cares

[jwo7777777]

I came that you may have life ... and that more abundantly.

Re:Who Cares

[LordVader717]

To quote Richard Dawkins, responding to how the World might have changed since 9/11:

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

I don't want to dig deeper here, as people can make their own mind up about it. But whenever I have met a truly nice and honest person, not once have I come to believe that it was really their religion which was making them that way

Re:Who Cares

[honestmonkey]

Wasn't her revelation eventually revealed to be "Sorry for the inconvenience"? Always thought that book was a bit rushed or something, being the fourth in the trilogy (IIRC).

Re:Who Cares

[Burz]

The main points (in major summation) to most religions are: Be nice, and worship X deity. Only the former really matters.

No, the main point of most religions is to habituate people to credulity, and build an identity-group that will selectively drop critical thinking in response to learned religious invocations and icons. The practice has all kinds of side-effects: the main ones being that its a very convenient shield for authority against investigations and general inquisitiveness, and allows those authorities to increase their standing by converting their incorrect/unverifiable pronouncements, neglect and misdeeds into "deep meaning" and "the will of god".

Unlike irreligious/rationalist world views that go awry, the big lies of religion more often perpetuate themselves for millennia because their central claims revolve around what is undetectable by definition.

Ten million?

[sqrrl101]

FTA: Scientology has 10 million members

Looks like Scientology's media goons have gotten to this article- adherents.com quotes it as probably having fewer than 750,000 active members.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.ht ml#Scientology

Who's a cult?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Christian scripture has a very simple touchstone for recognizing dangerous religious leaders. Matthew 7:15-16 says "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"

In other words, what results emerge from their teachings? Are their followers ennobled, or are they terrorized? Are they good neighbors, or do they try to take over the neighborhood?

The American Family Association had a longer checklist with warning signs like unaccountable leadership, feelings of elitism, attempts to cut members's ties with family and friends, and rationalization of unethical conduct toward outsiders.

They're too dangerous to ignore

[Von Rex]

Because one of the tenets of this cult is to infiltrate federal governments throughout the world to increase the power and influence of the cult. They also do a host of personal intimidation tactics to critics and former members of the cult.

I'm not saying they should get the attention of law enforcement groups because they're a cult. But I am saying that when a cult acts like a criminal organization, they should not be ignored just because they are a cult.

Islam believes in Jesus Christ and Mary

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's a whole chapter in the Qur'an dedicated just to the virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ.

http://quraan.com/index.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=27&b id=19

Hinduism is the root of all evil in India.

[jawahar]

Hinduism is the only religion in the world that intrinsically still preaches and promotes Racism aka Casteism. Hindu parents covertly train their children to coerce other caste children.

Mmm, religion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying Spaghetti Monster. :D

Re:Which is all very convenient for the bloody-min

[be-fan]

Let me preface this by saying that I have no desire to defend Islam, as I find it as ridiculous as any of the big-three organized religions. My interest is only in defending Muslims.

What I'm trying to get at is that saying "Islam tries to get you killed for disagreeing" muddies the actual situation, and creates resentment among moderate Muslims. There is no "Church of Islam", with the power to speak for all Muslims, which is issuing fatwas saying that certain people should be killed. There are certain elements within Islam that take these sorts of actions, and they are more or less common depending on the country and the demographics. I'll use Bangladesh as an example, since I'm familiar with it (my parents were born there). In Bangladesh, Islamic law has no official authority*. The legal code is based on English common law, not Sharia law. Indeed, in 2001, the High Court declared all fatwas to be illegal, because village clerics were abusing them. So when you lump Bengalis in there with Iranians in some sort of non-existent "Islamic" monolith, don't be surprised if people react negatively.

*) That is not to say that pseudo-Islamic ideas aren't used by some people to wield power over others. In rural areas, clerics (conveniently with no religious training whatsoever) will use fatwas to, for example, order the beating of women that challenge social norms. However, I think the "Islam" angle of such happenings is overstated. There is nothing Islamic about beating women. At a technical level, the Quran gives women many basic rights that women in Europe did not get until well over a thousand years later. The problem in these situations is not really Islam, but the fact that poor, uneducated villagers just do stupid things. To put it into perspective, consider the whole Michael Vick dogfighting thing. People who defend him note that he didn't know better, because this sort of violent, inhuman "sport" was part of his "[redneck] southern culture". Well, I grew up in the south, and have seen enough of it to believe this, at least for some pockets of the region. Now, imagine your most dumbest, most back-water Virginia or Georgia redneck, time-wrap him back a hundred years, reduce his level of education and income by an order of magnitude, and you have the sort of dumb Bengali villager that is willing to whip a women because some mufti told him to. Do you honestly believe you even need to bring Islam into the discussion to explain the behavior?

Re:and that's how Belgium became an offensive word

[Anonymous Coward]

So the parallel to the "B-Ark" story (but with a nuclear plot twist) isn't just a coinicidence?

Wisdom

[jawahar]

God and Religion are Distinct.

crap I need to use preview

[Micah]

For some balance here, here is how the NET Bible notes put it:

The Hebrew term ymr appears to be an alternate spelling of ymar ("wild oxen"; see BDB 910).

English has changed a good bit since the KJV was published, and numerous words today have entirely different meanings than they did in 1611.

Maybe ...

[smodak]

Divine Retribution, anyone ?

Dianetics The Evolution of a Science - FREE

[Anonymous Coward]

Generalities of "it will cost you your life savings" and blah blah blah are crap. Beginning level materials are online and available in libraries for FREE with no strings attached. Books with a self study course are less than $50 USD. All of the basic materials were recently republished and greatly enhanced. http://www.bridgepub.com/

Has anyone around here even read an introductory book written by L. Ron Hubbard? Might be an idea before one claims to know anything about Dianetics or Scientology.

If a first grader looked at a calculus book it wouldn't make any sense either. Get over it. It is in fact stupid to blather on about all that is misunderstood without even taking the time to do some basic reading of actual materials written by L. Ron Hubbard to start with. Taking bits and pieces of more advanced materials and denigrating them out of context only shows how through the lack of understanding is. There is a scale of materials from beginner to advanced. Doing them out of order causes confusion.

RTFM

Here is a link to a FREE online copy of Dianetics The Evolution of a Science

http://www.dianetics-theevolutionofascience.org/

"A world without insanity, without criminals and without war - this is the goal of Dianetics" - L. Ron Hubbard

South park's version of scientology =)

[TheEnlightenedOne]

http://www.scientomogy.com/southpark_scientology.p hp

Belgium prosecutes everybody

[MarkPiepers]

In Belgium, even the biggest political opposition party has been prosecuted since years. The prime minister said literally: I will search the whole country to find a courtyard that wants to outlaw them. One member of parliament got a huge fine 'because he had a podcast'. It's a horrible repressive country to live in.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[Anonymous Coward]

Vertrekt dan als t hier zo erg is, blokkerke van mijn kloten.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[Flous]

You've got to be kidding. It's one of the most liberal countries to live in. It just protects our rights as good as it can at the same time. You might vote for 'Het Vlaams Belang' and agree with some of their points, but in the end they (as an organisation) broke the fuckin' law! I'm friggin' glad I get to live in a country where even the biggest organisations can be held accountable for it's unlawful actions.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[MarkPiepers]

The government voted a law tailored specifically for this political party and then prosecuted for actions in the past (before the law was voted!). And even then, the basis for the conviction was very dubious. No other government since the Nazis have ever done things like this. The only real reason the party was prosecuted was because they gained lots of votes in the elections (more than 30% in the biggest city of Flanders). Do you also deny that a member of parliament was convicted for having a podcast? Yeah, there was some law forbidding politicians to make podcasts (you call that democratic?), but it was not enforced on any of the politicians in power. Even the prime minister had a podcast at that time. The nazis also made laws to enable prosecution of their political opposition. Even the prosecution of the Jews was backed by all kinds of laws. Belgium is no democracy. Maybe you don't see that there's a huge problem because you vote for one of the parties in power that do all these undemocratic things.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[jmj_sd]

How exactly is Belgium horribly repressive ? Is someone forbidding you to gather ? Is someone limiting your access to the Internet so you can't make posts like this ? Were you not able to vote on the party you wanted ?
I am in fact also very suspicious about the motivations behind the lawsuit against Vlaams Blok, but it has had no influence on the popularity, the ability to publish, the ability to organize gatherings, or the ability to participate in local government of Vlaams Blok / Belang.

And I don't know what podcast you're referring to, but if someone was using the Internet to go around political advertising laws, I'm glad they got fined. Do you want to end up with the type of horrible attack ads common in the US ? They add nothing good to the political climate, they only strengthen people in their belief that there is no such thing as a good politician. There are plenty of legal ways to get your ideas published at election time.

I know Vlaams Belang thrives on persecution complexes ("The government is trying to shut us down !", "Foreigners are ruining everything !", ...), but try not to make claims like this without at least knowing what REAL persecution and repression is (hint : some of the older party members may have first-hand experience).

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[MarkPiepers]

Is someone forbidding you to gather ?

Yes. A demonstration in Brussels against islamisation of Europe on 9/11 was forbidden. At the same time, violent demonstrations against the danish mohammed cartoons were not forbidden.

Were you not able to vote on the party you wanted ?

The Belgian government does everyting it can to outlaw the large opposition party Vlaams Belang.

I am in fact also very suspicious about the motivations behind the lawsuit against Vlaams Blok, but it has had no influence on the popularity, the ability to publish, the ability to organize gatherings, or the ability to participate in local government of Vlaams Blok / Belang.

Example: thanks to the conviction, the public television channel was able to ban the party almost completely from its political debates.

And I don't know what podcast you're referring to, but if someone was using the Internet to go around political advertising laws, I'm glad they got fined.

So, you think free speech is a bad thing? It wasn't about ads by the way. It was about a typical podcast (half an hour MP3). And the fine was selective: only members of the opposition got fined, while politicians of the ruling parties could do the same thing without any problem.

I know Vlaams Belang thrives on persecution complexes

This is no conspiracy theory. You can check everything I said. Take for example the podcast history. Due to massive protests, the law was changed in the meanwhile, but the member of parliament is still prosecuted and received an order to pay the fine last week: http://www.vrtnieuws.net/cm/vrtnieuws.net/cultuurm edia/media/070903Verstrepen_boete

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[jmj_sd]

A demonstration in Brussels against islamisation of Europe on 9/11 was forbidden. At the same time, violent demonstrations against the danish mohammed cartoons were not forbidden.

The organisations behind that demonstration are a bunch of racists, and neo-nazis from all over Europe are planning to come. No matter what they claim on their website and elsewhere, the underlying message is that they want all muslims to get out of Europe. The only thing this demonstration will accomplish is to give more muslims the idea that there really is a fight "us versus them". No country in the world will ever consist of a homogenous population again, there will always be different cultures that need to live together. It's pointless (and downright offensive) to wish everyone who's different than you to simply go away, and that's the message behind these organisations. Guess what the Taliban's message is...
If the point of the demonstration isn't blatant provocation, why did they choose that particular date ?

If there are problems with different cultures living together, you deal with them as a society ruled by law, not by wishing the problem away. And I have at least some hope that a new government is more willing than the previous one to make some of the necessary reforms to handle those problems.

About the cartoon demonstrations, I very much doubt a mayor was asked "We want to hold a violent demonstration" and then said yes. I don't remember if things actually did get violent here, but if people got injured or property damaged the individuals involved should be prosecuted.

The Belgian government does everyting it can to outlaw the large opposition party Vlaams Belang.

But still people were able to vote for them. So it had no actual effect except the feeding of the persecution complex.

The public television channel was able to ban the party almost completely from its political debates.

Using the VRT as a measure of journalistic integrity is of course never a good idea, but since I didn't watch those shows I can't determine if Vlaams Belang was unjustly excluded. I do know that using other channels and other media as a reference I never felt that I wasn't informed about their positions.

It wasn't about ads by the way. It was about a typical podcast (half an hour MP3).

If it was made in the election period and contained political messages it probably fell under those rules. If he has actual evidence of identical cases where people were not getting fined I'm sure his lawyers will know what to do.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[MarkPiepers]

The organisations behind that demonstration are a bunch of racists, and neo-nazis from all over Europe are planning to come.

That is not true. The demonstration was aimed aiganst islamisation of europe, not against islam. This is a real social issue and people should be able to express themselves about it. If a German courtyard acquits a muslim man who had seriously beaten up his wife 'because the Sharia allows him to do that', there IS a problem with islamisation of Europe... The organisators have nothing to do with racism or extremist groups. Only when the demonstrations were forbidden, certain extremist groups decided to come. Just like you always have violent extreme left protesters that come stir up ant-globalist demonstrations.

But still people were able to vote for them. So it had no actual effect except the feeding of the persecution complex.

So, in your opinion there would also not be a problem when the counting of the votes is falsified: you can vote; the vote just isn't counted...

If it was made in the election period and contained political messages it probably fell under those rules. If he has actual evidence of identical cases where people were not getting fined I'm sure his lawyers will know what to do.

His lawyers came with a whole list of identical cases but because the judges are completely under the influence of the ruling political parties, this got him nowhere.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[oliderid]

For foreigners, this gentleman is talking about Vlaams Belang. A xenophobic far right party with historical links with WWII collaboration and with neo-nazi gangs.

For example one of his founding father (it used to be called Vlaams block but their change their name) was Karel Dillen. He considered himself as a "passive collaborator" during the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Dillen

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[MarkPiepers]

You're wrong. The party has nothing to do with neo-nazi gangs. That is the lie the ruling parties try to spread. Do you honestly believe that more than 30% percent of the population would vote for a neo-nazi party??

The founder was 15 when WWII started, so I guess he was probably not a major player in the collaboration. When one of the members of the party was asked whether they were xenophobic, he said they were not xenophobic but maybe islamophobic in a sense that they are afraid of the influence the Islam is getting in Europe. Is that being racist? Or is that being just realist if you consider that Belgium (just like its neighbouring countries) is becoming the epicenter of muslim terrorism.

BTW, the current leader of the Belgian socialists has his roots in an obscure and dangerous extreme-left movement. And the German Vice Chancellor Joschka Fischer was a leader in several street battles fought by the anarchist Putzgruppe. And these politicians weren't 15 when they did these thing.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[dazk]

It's really strange to read your post. I don't get how you can say that the current democratic government of Belgium is similar to the Nazis while not noting all the similarities between the Vlaams Blok and the nazis. Well...

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[MarkPiepers]

Yes, tell me. What would be the similarities? Do they try to outlaw political opponents? Do they prosecute politicians for having a podcast? Oh no, those are the ruling parties that use those Nazi techniques.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[jmj_sd]

The demonstration was aimed aiganst islamisation of europe, not against islam.

No, that's just the convenient excuse. There is no "islamisation of Europe", there's only a bunch of scared little men. There is absolutely zero chance of any Sharia-based rules getting made into law in any EU country. If a German judge decided to let that guy off there must either be more to the case, or that particular judge is out of line and will be dealt with by the judicial system.

So, in your opinion there would also not be a problem when the counting of the votes is falsified: you can vote; the vote just isn't counted...

Great logic there : all votes being counted is exactly the same as not all votes being counted. I guess it's pretty useless for me to go up against an intellect like this.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[oliderid]

You're wrong. The party has nothing to do with neo-nazi gangs. That is the lie the ruling parties try to spread.

VMO and De Winter
http://www.blokbuster.be/foto.html

Do you honestly believe that more than 30% percent of the population would vote for a neo-nazi party??

Yes. Who said that they actually know what the VB is all about? And more importantly who said they care about it? As far I'm concerned they can vote for VB, I don't give it a s* anymore.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[MarkPiepers]

Yeah, those pictures on that extreme-left site really impress me. The site shows pictures of people from Vlaams Belang and pictures of nazis. For some reason, I don't see any pictures combining the two. There's also a picture of Filip Dewinter in front of a banner that says "Bush is right". Is supporting Bush a crime? In your eyes, it probably is. In my eyes (and I'm not a Bush supported myself), it's not. Then there are is a picture of Dewinter taking his oath as a member of parliament. The commentary suggests that he is doing the hitler salute. What a load of crap. And yes, there IS a picture of an underaged Karel Dillen doing a real hitler salute during the war (as a boyscout in the Hitler Jugend, not as an SS officer in the concentration camps as the site would like you to believe). Then there are a few pictures of 'fights' on the street. As we don't know the context, we don't know whether they were just defending themselves or not (violence AGAINST Vlaams Belang members is quite common; for example: a few years ago some left-wing guy entered their headquarters with a rifle and threatened to kill everyone). Of course, you will find these things much serious than Joschka Fischer being the leader of a real terrorist group doing real acts of terrorism. The other pictures try to associate Vlaams Belang to neo nazi groups by mean of multiple associations: the nephew of member X of Vlaams Belang once spoke to the dentist of a guy whose sister once walked in the same demonstration against abortus as member Y of this or that neo nazi association. It's like playing 'six degrees to Kevin Bacon' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin _Bacon).

In short, its an extremely dubious and misleading collection of pictures and you know it.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[oliderid]

Yeah, those pictures on that extreme-left site really impress me.
The site shows pictures of people from Vlaams Belang and pictures of nazis. For some reason, I don't see any pictures combining the two.

Look There is a picture of the founding father of the VB (ex-president for life) doing the nazi salute, Skinheads used as security guards for a VB meetings. Then there are tons of links between VMO (which is openly fascist and used a well known neo-nazi symbol as a logo) and the VB.If you can't understand the link between these elements: you are hopeless or a hypocrite. Anyway that's all for me. My beloved slashdot is certainly not the place i'd like to talk about the fascist parties in Western Europe. This is too nasty, weird and depressive. Last time they were in power Europe nearly annihilated itself.

Re:Belgium prosecutes everybody

[MarkPiepers]

Hey, look at this Indian nationalist skinhead:
http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/images/YoungWorldLead ers/ghandi3.bmp

And, here's Bush doing the you-know-which salute:
http://www.tonypierce.com/images/2002/bush/waving. jpg

As you see, if you manipulate, you can prove anything. On the other side, here's something REAL: (left-wing) Vice-chancellor of Germany Joschka Fischer (with black helmet) beating up a cop: http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/198/2847/320/fisc her_crimes1.jpg

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake! - NICE LINKS

[donpeyote]

after just reading a litle bit of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology i noticed something funny look: "In 1979 Hubbard's wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, along with ten other highly placed Scientology executives were convicted in United States federal court regarding Operation Snow White, and served time in an American federal prison. Operation Snow White involved infiltration, wiretapping and theft of documents in government offices, most notably those of the United States Internal Revenue Service." well, United States Internal Revenue Service right? got that? they stole stuff... then read on: "the Federal Labor Court of Germany commented that Scientology uses "inhuman and totalitarian practice"..."in France a parliamentary report classified Scientology as a dangerous cult."..."In the United Kingdom and Canada the organization is not regarded as meeting the legal standards for being considered a bona fide religion or charity." now the wiki article talks about how france canada and other countries think they are dangerous right...nothing much, but read this: In 1993, however, the United States Internal Revenue Service recognized Scientology as a "non-profit charitable organization," and gave it the same legal protections and favorable tax treatment extended to other non-profit charitable organizations. ISNT THE ONES THEY STOLE GOT THEM AS NON-PROFIT TAX-FREE BULLSHIT? there's really some fishy thg going on here, i dont understand why ppl get into this, its absurd...more and more i get to thk usa/world is so full or morons, no wonder, smart ass fuck the planet, assholes give away money, and inteligent ppl watch it thru the web and does nothing right? there is only one way to illumination, GOD, ALLAH whatever, and its by the practice of MEDITATION, looking at your inner self, its hard it will take years, it wont be psycho esoteric and visions and shit, it will be a very natural and simple feeling of belonging and peace, you dont need nothing else, just a _quiet_ room byebye

Anonymous

[clickclickdrone]

Is it me or is the % of anonymous posts in this one much higher than usual? Must tell you something about how most people perceive Scientology.

Re: Keith Henson is out of jail

[Martin Spamer]

He should travel to Belgium or even anywhere in Europe and claim asylum.

someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,

http://www.ecre.org/factfile/facts.shtml#6

What is a criminal organization?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a "criminal organization"? I would say that murdering people would certainly qualify. If so, Christianity is criminal. My preference is to throw all the priests, mullahs, rabbis, and Xenuites (or whatever the hell the Scientologists call their higher ups) into jail for fraud and criminal assault.

Secret clubs can be hidden anywhere

[wikinerd]

Be wary when an organisation calls itself religious or anything similar. They may just be a club of individuals with common interests unrelated to religion and use the religion label as a means to not pay taxes, collect donations, and mask their real activities. For example, a very rich person may wish to network with other rich people and influence the society in ways that are good for them. If they write down some fiction and found a religion based on it, they can mask their activities quite easily. In many religious organisations, there are some members who know its true goals and form the inner circle, and lots of members who are in the external circle and think that the organisation is truly religious. The same holds true for other kinds of organisations, eg philosophical, spiritual, or even hobbyist and charity organisations. In fact any organisation, even a government or official religion, can be designed in such a way to hide into itself an inner circle of individuals who use it for their own purposes. Some possible secret purposes of these inner clubs may be the creation or control of more wealth, the control of sensitive industries, political goals, nationalistic goals, terrorism, espionage, and other. A terrorist may found a charitable organisation to collect money for buying firearms, while the donors think the money will go to the poor. A politician may found a golf club while in fact it is used as a means to organise a coup-d-etat. Secret inner circles may even form in already existing organisations that were founded for legitimate purposes; for example, a civil rights organisation may be true to its charter and be a good destination for your donations until agents from an enemy entity (eg a government) infiltrate in it and create a secret circle with not so ethical purposes. If an organisation counts in its members people who have positions in industry, government, or are very rich or famous, chances are that there is something about their organisation that they don't want you to know. Not that I'm suggesting that every secret inner circle has unethical goals, or that I have any specific organisation in mind. It is just a possibility that you have to think about whenever you are asked to join a group or donate some money. Just let your mind be open and think about anything you may consider suspicious or strange in an organisation.

why no mention of ..

[rs232]

the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Re:Which is all very convenient for the bloody-min

[Anonymous Coward]

In Bangladesh, Islamic law has no official authority*.

Yeah, but that cost you an alleged three million dead people to achieve that. Maybe some other countries thought the price of freedom was too high.

I hope that the Belgian justice has a good safe

[renoX]

In France, the legal papers were stolen from the tribunal preventing the trial, and *drum roll*, it happened TWO TIMES!!

Even once, it is inexcusable (security in the tribunals in France is laughable) as Scientology had already done such tricks on other countries, but twice in the same country, the mind boggles from the incompetency of:
- the judge for not taking special measure to protect the documents
- the judicial system for not providing safe to store legals documents.

One word: Tithes

[Anonymous Coward]

Many words:

Many comments here are stating that Scientology extorts money from its followers as a pre-condition to any religious learning. By "religious learning" I mean participation in rituals, access to literature, as well as theological scholarship.

They then say that most mainstream Abrahmic (Jewish, Christian, Islamic) communities don't. Well, maybe not today. Historically, though, the Catholic church demanded tithes to "forgive your sins", to enter the parish church, to confess, and many other pastoral activities. The Inquisition and the Reformation forced you to choose and remain with a specific religion and insisted that you don't do business with certain people or that you actively persecute ("convert") certain people. Mind you, this was after Christianity had matured a millennium and a half.

Where I live, there is no separation between Church and State. If I say I'm Catholic, 1% of my paycheck is automatically deducted and given to Rome, even if I don't go to Mass or confession or have my kids baptised or... To stop the money being deducted, I have to pay some bureaucrat a large amount of money as well as have to go through some sort of excommunication process from the Church. I'm only using Roman Catholicism as an example. All churches have this kind of power where I live (just that 85% of the country is Catholic).

IMHO, I agree that Scientology is a fraud. Other Christian denominations have withstood the test of time, even the Latter Day Saints. They have evolved because of various pressures. Scientology hasn't had the time to evolve the way the others have.

respect is hard to earn

[__aapspi39]

Most of the comments in this thread betray a biased and mean-spirited attitude towards Scientology and its founder, Ron Hubbard.

It is very easy to be disrespectful towards someone you have never met or know nothing about.

The truth is that it is hard to know where to begin in trying to sum up Ron Hubbard. He bestrode' the worlds of science and religion, moulding them into a unique synthesis (Diabetics)

How many slashdotters have sold books in the quantity of Ron Hubbard? Since 1954 when he first exploded onto the world stage with his first major best-selling work of philosophy How I Solved the Riddle of the Universe on $5 a Day, he hardly took a break from writing. He write a book every week for the rest of his life - 257,000 of them - each one a complete masterpiece.

But writing books was just a sideline to this extraordinary multi-faceted super-human millionaire. His real love was money and he made more of it than any other religious teacher in the history of the world.

The message he put across to his millions of followers was simple: "Renounce all your material possessions", he said, "and give them to me."

Scientology = no redeeming qualities

[gosand]

I grew up Catholic, yet I woke up and don't believe in any religion. Haven't for 20 years. But at least I can see some redeeming qualities in various religions and their tales. I don't find anything redeeming about Scientology.

10M members is a made-up number! Try 150K

[AndroidCat]

The only source of the number leads straight back to the cthurch of Scientology which can provide no meaningful data to support that. It's highly suspect that they claim they can't, because the whole organization is obsessed with "stats" thanks to Hubbard, and every Thurdays at 2pm a report goes uplines of how many people on course, how much money, how many new people signed up, how many Stress Tests, how much money, etc.

Even one of their apologists, Dr. J. Gordon Melton said:

[..] that the church's estimates of its membership numbers -- 4 million in the United States, 8 to 9 million worldwide -- are exaggerated. "You're talking about anyone who ever bought a Scientology book or took a basic course. Ninety-nine percent of them don't ever darken the door of the church again." If the church indeed had 4 million members in the United States, he says, "they would be like the Lutherans and would show up on a national survey" such as the Harris poll.

Ref: Elaine, Jarvik, Scientology: Church now claims more than 8 million members, 2004-09-18.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum (OT)

[Mikkeles]

'... most excellent Theophillus ...'

So, the first OpenBSD fan?

Good!.. I hope they all go to court.

[Cythrawl]

Any cult who's fundimental belief is:

"the initiate finds out that there was a huge galactic war 76 million years ago and that earth is a prison planet. The initiate also find out that he is really not one person, like he has always believed, but that he is a composite being that has thousands or tens of thousands of aliens from this old war imprisoned in their current body fighting for control of it."

Accounts to brainwashing innocent or gullable people. Scientology should be eradicated from this prison planet, so we can all go on being prisoners.

The recent behaviour of Tom Cruise should say to us all that pretty much all those who follow scientology are nut jobs.

Believes are Fake..

[PermanentMarker]

I'm sorry to say, but most believes are just plain political frauds for hundreds of years.

For example Church of Scientology, just compare to a tax paradise. Like any other american religion based tax paradise, they all believe in god. But apperently that guy cannt give them money, altough he is in 'their' control.

What I mean by politcal fraud, different believes have the same stories, they use other peoples stories to enrich their stories. You dont believe me ofcourse, but mark my words in about 500 years the coca cola figure on christmas will be declared as a wholy figure. It went the same for the ark of noah and other stories.

Ofcourse you dont believe me just take that on hour watch to http//www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ and then reply and explain to me what you saw at that movie. Would you then still think it all started with a book i doubt you..


But as long as you believe in it, and dont want to look at evidence, it's called a believe as its not the proven truth.
However
They must find it difficult..
Those who have taken authority as the truth
rather than truth as an authority http//www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake! - NICE LINKS

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Stevie Wonder has a song for you!

"Hello Jesus, Jesus children
Jesus loves you, Jesus children
Hello children, Jesus loves you of America

Are you hearing, What he's saying?
Are you feeling, What you're praying?
Are you hearing, praying, feeling what you say inside?

You'd better tell, Your story fast...
And if you lie, It will come to pass...

Tell me! Tell me holy
Holy roller, Holy roller
Are you standing
Are you standing, Like a soldier?
Like a soldier?
Waell...
Are you standing for everything you talk about?
Holy roller...

Say! Transcen
Transcendental, Dental meditation
Meditation, Speaks of
Speaks of inner, Inner Preservation
Preservation
Waell...
Transcendental meditation gives you peace of
Peace of mind

You'd better tell, Your story fast...
And if you lie, It will come to pass...
Tell 'em, Don't lie to 'em
Don't tell lies, Tell 'em
Don't lie to 'em"

NICE LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

VERY nice link.
http://www.nematollahi.org/

Higher?!?

[Kabuthunk]

I don't know if it can be called a 'higher plan' unless he was buried on a hill :P

Re:Higher?!?

[IgLou]

Hahaha, who knows though. He was quick to be cremated... it's important to destroy evidence that your spirtual leader was on anti-depressants when you have such a hard line against such medicines. :D

Praying on our less fortunate

[spitek]

One way Scientology recruits is drug rehabs. It seeks out those in our socity that have problems. Uses some basic logical methods that work weather you are religous, not or crazy scientolgist. They then use that to push there made up stories on these people. Their practices in the rehab are even considered dangerous by the medical community. Since they are staying off drugs this whole time a lot of people buy it and then to make it worse they give them extreamly low paying jobs working for them recruiting more! They don't tell them the really how crazy stories until they are hooked. You don't find out about Xenu(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu) until you have donated majors amounts of cash, some of it going to shock treatment to cleans you! Check out the thing they hook up to you. Its on this page! These people are money grubbing horrible people. They have even built a nuclear hardened facility where they keep there writings. No Joke. If you ever meet one. Ask them how Xenu is doing today. They get pissed. If they are even high enough to know what your talking about. You know the guy that took all these souls and put them in a volcano with nukes.. Yeah that guy.. Whats up with him?

Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake! - NICE LINKS

[budgenator]

ISNT THE ONES THEY STOLE GOT THEM AS NON-PROFIT TAX-FREE BULLSHIT?
Yes indead it does seem fishy that they broke into the IRS and the IRS still declared them a non-profit, and I'm sure that many of the IRS agents as people hated doing that but if they met the legal requirements than their hands were tied

Some insightful facts

[Kilia]

Belgium is much smarter than the USA by far. In fact all of Europe is smarter than the USA. The only reason the USA says the CoS is a "religion" is that during the Operation Snow White caper, the CoS got alot of not-so-nice dope on the IRS when it infiltrated its offices. In order not be found out by the tax paying public, the IRS made a deal with the CoS and there ya have it...instant tax-exemption for being a "religion" . Ps..LRON tacked on the "Religion" bit in order to escape paying taxes. It worked in the USA, didn't it?

Reductio ad brevitum

[abb3w]

If the tale of Jonah isn't literally true, what else in the Bible isn't true? Perhaps someone could go through with a yellow highlighter and mark off those parts I should believe, and those parts I can dismiss as mythology.

Thomas Jefferson obliged your request, figuratively speaking; the highlighter hadn't been invented yet. Not as nifty as Goldman's "good parts" version of the Princess Bride (gad, Morgenstern is long winded, even for a native Florinese), but pretty good nonetheless.

I am a Jedi Knight

[teal_]

My people have been persecuted since the great purge known as Order 66. I have been pursued halfway across the galaxy by a sinister former Jedi named Darth Vader. Please purchase my manifesto and join the Jedi order, all for the low introductory price of $19.95. As you evolve as a Jedi Knight, I will continue to educate you. This crucial second course is a bargain at $599.99 and the third may require you to get a home equity loan, but you NEED it!) Together, we will defeat Lord Vader and the evil mastermind Darth Sidious, and we shall bring harmony in the Force and peace to the galaxy.

That's my religion. You got something to say? I have an army of lawyers waiting to sue you left and right. And I require tax exempt status. Thank you.

I smell doubletalk

[Engineer-Poet]

I have no desire to defend Islam.... My interest is only in defending Muslims.

I notice that you don't defend, or even mention, a right to convert to a religion which has no such problematic commandments. Why are you defending Muslims as if Islam is some immutable trait? Indeed, is not defending Muslims qua Muslims equivalent to defending Islam?

... saying "Islam tries to get you killed for disagreeing" muddies the actual situation, and creates resentment among moderate Muslims.

What's muddy about Abdul Rahman being on trial for his life for converting to Christianity?

What sort of decent, rational person would withhold judgement against the murderers inside his own religion while resenting outsiders for raising the violence and oppression as an issue? That's blatant bigotry. Where's the internal debate in Islam where these things are being rejected? You're debasing the very concept of moderation by applying it to such people.

What you've posted here looks a lot like taqiyya. Maybe you're doing it deliberately or maybe you've not understood the sort of deceit advanced for the sake of Islam, but people are getting wise to it. I'm an infidel, but it looks like I know Islam better than you do:

There is nothing Islamic about beating women.

Koran 4:34, The Women:

[4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Now you'll accuse me of "creating resentment". This resentment needs to be aimed where it belongs, at the 7th-century tyrant and murderer who created this mess and the people who insist that his every word and action be revered and emulated to this very day (because he is "the perfect man" and "an excellent example of conduct").

Islam has a lot of prominent defectors, including Walid Shoebat and Ibn Warraq. There appears to be a very small group of people who reject the intolerant, sexist, oppressive and inhuman elements of Islam and yet still desire to call themselves Muslims. I wish them luck, in staying alive if nothing else. But their success can only be measured in the next generation, to see if the tolerance continues and grows or if the children return to scripture and become jihadis.

Now, imagine your most dumbest, most back-water Virginia or Georgia redneck, time-wrap him back a hundred years, reduce his level of education and income by an order of magnitude, and you have the sort of dumb Bengali villager that is willing to whip a women because some mufti told him to. Do you honestly believe you even need to bring Islam into the discussion to explain the behavior?

That's not the question. The question is whether you can get anyone, from that dumb Bengali villager up to university-educated Saudis, to reject what the Koran explicitly sanctions.

Like Saudis keeping slaves in the USA. They call this a "cultural thing", as if this excuses it. Do you? Are you like al-Turki's defense and put this prosecution down to "islamophobia"?

It's time to hold Muslims morally accountable for the crimes they abet by defending the totalitarian system of Islam.

Re:I smell doubletalk

[be-fan]

I notice that you don't defend, or even mention, a right to convert to a religion which has no such problematic commandments.

What would that be? Maybe Buddhism? Surely you don't mean Christianity...

Why are you defending Muslims as if Islam is some immutable trait? Indeed, is not defending Muslims qua Muslims equivalent to defending Islam?

By and large, you cannot escape the culture into which you're born. I was raised in the US, by parents who were at best non-religious, and more often, actively hostile to religion. However, every time I get into a taxicab with a driver from the Middle East, he sees my last name and assumes I'm a Muslim. There is no getting around that.

Like it or not, when you use the term "Islam", you're not just referring to a religion, you're referring to a group of people. A very diverse group of people, who all follow the religion in very different ways, who live within very different governmental systems, and who are defined less by their religion than by all the other factors of their culture.

What's muddy about Abdul Rahman being on trial for his life for converting to Christianity?

The fact that in more than one "Muslim" nation, together encompassing hundreds of millions of Muslims, such a trial would be a blatant violation of a secular legal code? The simple fact is Afghanistan is a primitive, uncivilized place, Islam or not. When you lump Afghanis together with the people of moderate Muslim nations, using the blanket label of "Islam", it's really no more useful that lumping, say, the Apartheid government of South Africa with the blanket label of "Whites" or "Westerners".

What sort of decent, rational person would withhold judgement against the murderers inside his own religion while resenting outsiders for raising the violence and oppression as an issue?

This is actually a very natural reaction, very common in almost every large group of people. Do you think educated black people identify with Michael Vick any more than an educated Bengali identifies with a Afghani villager? Yet, you see the resentment and defensiveness in the black community whenever somebody attacks Vick. Or, to use another example, do you think Catholics feel any need to apologize for the behavior of certain of their Church officials regarding the molestation issue? None that I have met seem to. Interestingly enough, the Catholic situation is even more interesting, because unlike in Islam, there is a central entity that is assumed to speak for all Catholics. When that central entity commits a crime, all Catholics _should_ feel some degree of culpability, but they don't.

Moderate Muslims don't feel the need to apologize for the actions of extremists for the same reason that anti-war Americans don't feel the need to apologize for the actions of Bush et al. Yet, they get angry when people attack Islam as a whole for the same reason these Americans get angry when Europeans make derisive comments about Americans as a whole. Logical? Perhaps not, but human nature, yes.

Where's the internal debate in Islam where these things are being rejected?

You're obviously not familiar with the politics of secular/moderate Islamic nations. I don't really expect you to ameliorate your ignorance, but it would be nice if you did.

There is nothing Islamic about beating women.
Koran 4:34, The Women [umich.edu]:

The translations I've seen do not have "beat" in them. Your point is well-taken, though.

Now you'll accuse me of "creating resentment".

Well, yes. The Bible says all sorts of horrible things about women, and how they should be punished for what in modern society are routine actions. It seems, for example, that I can get my wife stoned to death if she cannot prove that she was a virgin when I married her. Given that, when some husband murders his wife for sleeping around, is it fair for me to go into a tirade about Christian violence?

This resentment needs to be aimed where

Smith was killed for trying to censor his critics.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

With a strong-arm over the town he ran like a fiefdom.

Except that Hubbard lived in exile, isolated aboard a yacht and not killed, there are many parralells of someone defrauding the gullible with a false religion to personal advantage.

Smith's followers have tried for more than 150 years to cover up his origin in the New England Spiritualist/Seance movement.

Real religion I have no quibble with. "False gold exists, only because real gold can be found".

CoS and LDS are pseudo-religions, who's origins are related more closely to the material gold of coins, than the spiritual gold of inner experience and vision.

Tell it to Osama bin Laden, not me

[Engineer-Poet]

The people you need to tell this to are the terrorists, Muslim supremacists, and other threats to the life, liberty and safety of non-Muslims. Ultimately, Islam is not what's in the books, it's what's practiced. I've heard of moderates being attacked, but I've never heard of a terrorist being declared apostate and anything coming of it. I've never heard of an imam being declared apostate for preaching death to infidels.

I do see Muslim solidarity whenever one of their own is criticized for such statements or acts. You're doing it.

If you believe what you say, let's see you go to Gaza and convince Hamas that they're wrong to kill Jews. Let me know how it goes.

Re:Tell it to Osama bin Laden, not me

[Kettle Face]

&nbspThe only thing I was doing by posting this was to offer you clarification, something religion in general is in dire need of today. I agree with you that whats practiced is ultimately what matters. There have however been several instances of Muslim leaders criticizing extremists such as Bin Laden and Hamas who have their own agendas. The fact that the media coverage is sorely lacking when it comes to events, announcments, etc. that condemn monsters like Bin Laden should tell you something about corporate media in general. You said you've never heard of an extremist imam being declared an apostate. Well, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've seen it happen several times in multiple locations. But it just isn't newsworthy. Don't get me wrong...I place the blame squarely on myself and Muslims in general for our own shortcomings but the blame lies with several parties, not just with Muslims.

There are several Muslim intellectuals like Hamza Yusuf, Zaid Shakir, Charles Gai Eaton, Martin Lings (who passed away recently) who are doing some good outreach work with Muslims and non-Muslims both. The fruits of their labor will take a while to be seen, hopefully in the form of a much more well-educated Muslim population as well as a more understanding non-Muslim population.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict because that situation is most definitely not a black/white issue. You asked me whether I'd be willing to go to Gaza and convince Hamas. I know Hamas is an extremist organization but its a complicated issue. The fact that they kill innocent Jews...is that wrong? Of course it is. It makes them murderers just like anyone else who goes about doing the same thing in the name of "freeing their people." By the same token, its not defense when Israeli forces "accidentally" kill a bunch of kids during an anti-terrorist operation. I know its a naive way of thinking but I don't buy the idea of "casualties of war." If an operation involves innocent people, and you go in knowing someone uninvolved is going to die, that makes you a killer even if its just one innocent life lost. It doesn't matter if the killer is Muslim, atheist, Jewish, or Christian, etc.

There are so many factors that contributed and are still contributing to the ME coflict that the paragraph above just doesn't do it justice. Hamas isn't going to listen to some guy trying to convince them what Islam teaches which I guess is the point you're making. But changing realities on the ground can be convincing. By that I mean the US at least TRYING to talk to the group. Maybe not giving an insane amount of cash to Israel for weapons, etc. while ignoring more important domestic and international issues. Not too mention backing the Fatah movement which everyone knows to be completely corrupt. These types of actions aren't going to gain any sympathy with the Palestinians. Hamas will only be weakened if the Palestinian people are given a reason not to trust the group anymore. And the only way that happens is if you give them a better option and Fatah isn't it. Lastly, this post wasn't at all about Muslim solidarity. It was a purely intellectual point cautioning against interpreting and using something the wrong way. You sound like a reasonable person so I figured I'd just let you know :)

Re:Smith was killed for trying to censor his criti

[billtouch]

I am still confused here. I have not seen any attributed references that put him deeply involved with the Spiritualists. And even the few that do exist, from undisputably anti-mormon sources, don't try to claim contact before he had his vision. The thing that puzzles me, is why did all the major churches of the day attack a 14 year old boy. Why was he that important? You say gold? Where was it. He never lived lavishly. His family didn't either. He was constantly threatened and chased. If it was just a con job as you say, it wasn't real successful. He could have made much more money playing poker or becoming a very eloquent preacher of one of the established churches and not had anyone against him. Your position doesn't make sense. What hold did he have over Carthage. He had no church there. He only preached there 2-3 times. He had no businesses there. Actually, it is an established fact that most of the members of that mob were from out of town. When the sheriff gave his report, he described the killers as "a drunken mob". I'm not sure where you studied your religious facts, but it would do you good to search some more. Bill

Re:Smith was killed for trying to censor his criti

[Anonymous Coward]

Smith's followers have tried for more than 150 years to cover up his origin in the New England Spiritualist/Seance movement.
And for just as long, people have tried to drag his name through the mud. These people have no real reason to do so, other than the fact that their congregations are dwindling and their paid ministries are being revealed as fraudulent, perverted, and selfish. Look at what the LDS church teaches--kindness, charity, family values--and think about why anybody would stop that from going forward. BTW--who gave you authority to decide what is religion and what is not religion? Is it your "spiritual gold of inner experience and vision" that gives you this power? Is the worship of God and His Son not religion in your judgment? Would you define what is religion and pseudo-religion so that we can all strive to meet your expectations?

No one can say why it isn't a religion?

[jgoemat]

it's really simple... Scientology doesn't involve the supernatural. There is no creation story. It starts with emperor xenu, who might not even have been the first emperor. Thetans and everything else are represented in scientific terms, not as supernatural but as natural. Xenu was an emperor of the people and he used space jumbo jets and atom bombs, technology and not the supernatural. Technology is used to detect and remove the body thetans.

Re:Smith was killed for trying to censor his criti

[Master of Transhuman]

Don't bother arguing with these people - Mormons are nearly on a par with Zionists as being intellectually dishonest. The only difference is that Mormons tend to argue more subtly, while Zionists act like thugs.

I've seen Mormons arguing over at Talking Points Memo - they all sound alike. And their arguments all boil down to the same thing: cover up their flaws, argue their virtues and argue that their religion is no different than others (which from my standpoint as an atheist is probably true - it's all bullshit - the only different is the degree of fanaticism.)

Re:Which is all very convenient for the bloody-min

[be-fan]

Wars of independence can be expensive, and it's not surprising that there was a high toll in a situation like this where a much weaker power was opposing a much stronger one.

That said, there are various opinions within Bangladesh on the matter of independence. Many educated Bengalis will tell you that the separation of Pakistan from India was not a particularly good idea. At the same time, given the continued militarization and renewed Islamization of Pakistan, I think you'll find increasingly fewer educated people who will say the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan was not a good idea.

There is of course, a vast number of people who don't think the secularization of Bangladesh was a good idea, and have, since the inception of the country, been trying to turn back the clock. Though, these views are largely representative of the poor, uneducated masses of the country, and I'll be blunt in saying that their opinion really doesn't matter. You'll find that most intellectuals in the country are strongly in favor of the measures that have been imposed by the government over the last few years to crack down on radical Islam.

Re:Smith was killed for trying to censor his criti

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all im a spiritist. In general fanaticism is bad in any belief system. Logic first, everything else later.

MANY of the more organized movements are led by charismatic leaders who had their own ideas and agendas.

Your strawman

[Burz]

NB: interestingly, secularism (atheism, agnosticism, etc.) is the third largest "religion" in the world, having 1.1 billion "members", which is more than Catholicism, by far the largest Christian denomination (half of the world's Christians are Catholics).

One shouldn't be so touchy about strawmen when being so quick to set one up yourself.

Neither theism nor atheism are religions by themselves. A comprehensive belief system may even be atheist and a religion if it requires faith in something that cannot measured or falsified (Buddhism, New Age-ism and such).

Re:Your strawman

[Weedlekin]

"One shouldn't be so touchy about strawmen when being so quick to set one up yourself.

Neither theism nor atheism are religions by themselves."

That was why, as is obvious from what you pasted from my post, the word "religion" was in quotes, so your your accusation of a straw is itself a straw man!

"A comprehensive belief system may even be atheist and a religion if it requires faith in something that cannot measured or falsified (Buddhism, New Age-ism and such)."

See above.

Re:Your strawman

[Burz]

But you couldn't use Buddhist subset as an example that atheism is a "religion". And you could say the same about theism, though I believe the possible set of conditions under which a theist could be considered non-religious is far more limited.

Actual L Ron Hubbard Passage from 1974

[Anonymous Coward]

You can enter or leave any mood at will. You can engender any mood.
You can write in any mood at will and with great honesty.

You start your life anew. You need no excuses, no crutches. You need
no apologies about what you have done or been. Your approach to work
is wonderfully clear and fresh. No experience can daunt you. You can
never be disappointed or morose for you know life for what it is and
therefore are shielded against its suffering. You have suffered much
and you are deep in understanding. But now you enter upon a long, long
period of solemn joy.

What people think of you does not matter. You know when you are right.
Women especially love you and you fear no man.

Testosterone blends easily with your own hormones. Your glands already
make plenty of needed testosterone and by adding to that store you
make yourself very thrilling and sexy. Testosterone increases your
sexual interest and activity. It makes erections easier and harder and
makes your own joy more intense. Stilbesterol in 5 mg doses makes you
thrill more to music and color and makes you kinder. You have no fear
of what any woman may think of your bed conduct. You know you are a
master. You know they will be thrilled. You can come many times
without weariness. The act does not reduce your vitality or brain
power at all. You can come several times and still write. Intercourse
does not hurt your chest or make you sore. Your arms are strong and do
not ache in the act. Your own pleasure is not dependent on the
woman's. You are interested only in your own sexual pleasure. If she
gets any that is all right but not vital. Many women are not capable
of pleasure in sex and anything adverse they say or do has no effect
whatever upon your pleasure. Their bodies thrill you. If they repel
you, it merely means they themselves are too frigid or prudish to be
bothered with. They are unimportant in bed except as they thrill you.
Your sexual power is magnificent and they know it. If they are afraid
of it, that is their loss. You are not affected by it.

You have no fear if they conceive. What if they do? You do not care.
Pour it into them and let fate decide.

The slipperier they are the more you enjoy it because it means their
mucous is running madly with pleasure.

Your argument in a nutshell

[Anonymous Coward]

"OMG, but what if that's what they WANT us to do?!?!"

This "church" is ruining people and we, as the community - and, you know, as people who don't want to be ruined - have a right and a responsibility to stop them. The idea that allowing them to take further victims will somehow be better in the long run just makes you a strategytard.

And you support this claim with what?

[Engineer-Poet]

What are your qualifications for debating Islamic jurisprudence, especially the implied claim that Muslims give no weight to the hadith?

Scientology was begun as a fraud, and hasn't added any science to justify its name. If you took away its fraudulent tactics and its criminal means of sustaining itself against its critics, it would cease to exist. The light of full disclosure would destroy it utterly. What sort of chance does it deserve? If the RCC can be held liable for allowing priests to molest children, shouldn't Scientology be held to account also?

Re:And you support this claim with what?

[quadrocerebra]

i thought being a muslim was qualification enough. If that does not suffice, well i am muslim sufi so getting to know about the Islam quite well is THE core requirement :-) I mean it would be wrong if you take propoganda and make it reality. every religion should be given a chance. presecute the people that do wrong and not the religion. scientology does have some good things going for instance dianetics. we should not blindly be a part of a targetted campaign without doing field research (the net is NOT research) Karma and peace bro

But can they

[nietsch]

count to three while not counting to two and four at the same time?

Re:But can they

[Walt Dismal]

Oh, it is easy if you define normal arithmetic as the product of an erroneous system of mathematics. It is only your trapped engrams that restrict you to that flawed logic. Once you accept the gospel of L Ron there is no limiting you, and you are free to accept that 1, 1q8, 3 is the proper integer sequence. Can you not see it? No? You need auditing. Possibly you were scared by your mother while learning to count as a baby. Free the trapped engrams! Use this handy power drill and open your skull. That'll be $5000 for this arithmetic lesson, please pay at the door or we'll kill your sister...What? How dare you tell us we're fruitcakes! You're the sick one, not us!

Does the "religion" spam you?

[hadaso]

I have never received any spam with copyright notice except for the spam I regularly receive mentioning L. Ron Hubbard as copyright holder and claiming they are not affiliated and only have permission to distribute from the copyright holder.

But then perhaps I'm lucky. Do others regularly receive spam promoting other religions?

Re:Smith was killed for trying to censor his criti

[GSwarthout]

> Smith was killed for trying to censor his critics with a strong-arm over the town he ran like a fiefdom

An unfounded allegation.

> Smith's followers have tried for more than 150 years to cover up his origin in the New England Spiritualist/Seance movement.

And another!

> CoS and LDS are pseudo-religions, who's origins are related more closely to the material gold of coins, than the spiritual gold of inner experience and vision.

The trifecta! You win!