Slashdot Mirror


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.

122 of 755 comments (clear)

  1. Go On Post, Say all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're Watching.

  2. ElRon must be so upset... by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:ElRon must be so upset... by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    2. Re:ElRon must be so upset... by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  3. Re:Beware the intertubes by rabidMacBigot() · · Score: 4, Informative
  4. Will this cause by kaufmanmoore · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tom Cruise to come out of the closet?

  5. Re:Who is next? by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The Pope? hard to Sue...

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

  6. Re:Who is next? by Daar · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  7. Scientology not a Cult? by Esteban · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:Scientology not a Cult? by norite · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Cult (n) A small, unpopular religion.

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

      --
      -- Fuck Beta
    2. Re:Scientology not a Cult? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:Scientology not a Cult? by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    4. Re:Scientology not a Cult? by p0tat03 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Scientology not a Cult? by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    6. Re:Scientology not a Cult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  8. All churches are guilty of that by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:All churches are guilty of that by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:All churches are guilty of that by Selfbain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    3. Re:All churches are guilty of that by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:All churches are guilty of that by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    5. Re:All churches are guilty of that by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!! by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  10. Well... by martinelli · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Well... by kwandar · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  11. Seems stupid by rm999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Seems stupid by pstrong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Seems stupid by toleraen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Seems stupid by new_breed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Seems stupid by dave420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  12. Re:Who is next? by ajs · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  13. Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!! by VJ42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  14. Not officially recognized as a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Not officially recognized as a religion by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Not officially recognized as a religion by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Not officially recognized as a religion by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  15. European headquarters here too. by bmcage · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  16. a few more followers by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Interesting



    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

    1. Re:a few more followers by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

      --
      This space available.
  17. Re:Who is next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  18. arguments by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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".

    --
    The game.
  19. Fucking Scientologists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    His name was Xenu. 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.

    1. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by VENONA · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    2. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    3. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by David+Hume · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    4. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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 :)

    5. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      Deleted
    7. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by VENONA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    8. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > 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.

    9. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by ccguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      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 :-)
    10. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by hxnwix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    11. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by jcr · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    12. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by Ajehals · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    13. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    14. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
    16. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am Spartacus
    17. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
    18. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    19. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    20. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

  20. Re:Beware the intertubes by Cheapy · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
  21. nitpicking by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  22. Re:belgium and freedom of religion by lbbros · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
  23. Re:Who is next? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  24. Scientology is NOT a religion! by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

    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...

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  25. Re:Who is next? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  26. Scientology is so 20th century by Arcturax · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  27. Re:Who is next? by faloi · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
  28. Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance by Arcturax · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  29. They're lunatics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  30. Re:Who is next? by be-fan · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  31. Re:Who is next? by ajs · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  32. Gonna have a Clam Bake! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      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...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake! by Don853 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but Scientology is more of a pyramid scheme than a religion.

  33. Spawn of a science fiction writer's imagination by Porchroof · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.)

    --
    Fata viam invenient.
  34. Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!! by VJ42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  35. Co$ abuses the legal system by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    1. Re:Co$ abuses the legal system by narcc · · Score: 5, Informative
      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
    2. Re:Co$ abuses the legal system by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

  36. Good luck Belgium by Synchis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Thomas A. Knight
    Author of The Time Weaver
  37. Re:Who is next? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  38. Re:Mod Parent Informative by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  39. In other happy news, Keith Henson is out of jail by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  40. Re:Who is next? by LordZardoz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, how many tanks does the pope have anyway?

    END COMMUNICATION

  41. Re:Who is next? by ajs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  42. Re:How rich is the catholic church? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  43. Clarification on Unitarians by benhocking · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  44. Reductio ad absurdum by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by arth1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.
    2. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    3. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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?
    4. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by Brickwall · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    5. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by Kyojin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by jeffasselin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    9. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    10. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by trenien · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

    11. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by jandersen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by bentcd · · Score: 2, Informative

      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).
      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    13. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by Weedlekin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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).

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    14. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by aclarke · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  45. Mathematics as a cult by eimikion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  46. Re:Who is next? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  47. Good news by ynotds · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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'.

    --
    -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
  48. No, the Co$ has some well-established company by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
    1. Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company by jandersen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:No, the Co$ has some well-established company by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be honest, that's a tiny percentage of Muslims doing that. EVERY Scientologist leaving gets shit for leaving.

  49. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with it by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I don't therefore I'm not.
  50. No, no no! by cumin · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    Back in my day when we chiseled our bits into stone and sent them by mule train from village to village...
  51. Who Cares by slyn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
  52. Re:The difference is... by Bemopolis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    --
    "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
  53. They're too dangerous to ignore by Von+Rex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  54. Re:Who is next? by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  55. Re:more on Belgian religious intolerance by dave420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  56. 10M members is a made-up number! Try 150K by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  57. Re:The difference is... by Bemopolis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    --
    "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
  58. Re:Gonna have a Clam Bake! - NICE LINKS by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  59. I am a Jedi Knight by teal_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  60. Smith was killed for trying to censor his critics. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."