Slashdot Mirror
Church of Scientology On Trial In France
An anonymous reader sends word that a trial has opened in Paris that could shut down Scientology in France. The organization stands accused of targeting vulnerable people for commercial gain. Scientology does not have the status of a religion there, as it does in the US, and anti-cult groups have pursued it vigorously over more than 30 years. The current case is based on complaints filed by two women in December 1998 and July 1999. Three other former members who had initially joined the complaint have withdrawn after "reaching a financial arrangement with church officials." If convicted, the seven top Scientologists in France face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of €1M. The Church of Scientology-Celebrity Centre and its Scientology Freedom Space bookshop not only face a much larger fine but also run the risk of being shut down completely.
I guess the whole "child slavery" thing hasn't been working out so well lately.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
This evil can't come to an end soon enough.
My experience of the Scientology center in Los Angeles, California, was that it was run entirely for financial gain.
Xenu's gonna be pissed!
Well, let's see. Germany declared Scientology unconstitutional in '07... are we seeing a domino effect starting?
I mean, scientologists are a bunch of loons, but take a look at the first set of Google search entries when you look up "catholic priests"
Deleted
I'm not sure how this qualifies as "Your Rights Online." Unless you think people have a 'right' to run a criminal organization.
damn you anonymous!!!
Its not because of "their beleives". Its because they attempted to scam a lady!
NO SIG
Nope.
The other difference is that you arent CHARGED for reading the bible: try and get an "advanced" scientology text (pure bull, BTW), without forking some serious cash.
NO SIG
Does anyone else LOVE the fact that an ANONYMOUS reader posted this article!!!
After reading about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R2-45 in wikipedia, I can't think how can this be part of the modern, civilized world if that turns out to be a true fact.
FYI: R2-45 is a Scientology auditing process created by L. Ron Hubbard. The process of R2-45 specifically pertains to shooting the target with a Colt .45 pistol, causing the victim's "thetan" to leave the body (exteriorization). In 1952 during a meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, Hubbard demonstrated the process of R2-45 by firing a shot at the floor.[1][2] In a lecture of 1958, Hubbard comments that "Death is not the same as clearing but there is, remember, R2-45. It's a very valid technique. A lot of people have used it before now." [3]
Read Margaret Singer, Richard Ofshe, or many others if you want a good comparison of religion and cults. The key thing is that cults deceive people into joining so there is no real informed consent. People join under false pretenses and are conned out of their money (basically by false advertising / fradulent misrepresentation). No cults are ever upfront about all their beliefs because nobody would ever join if they knew about the wacky shit higher up the ladder. You have to be good and brainwashed before you even find out about the space alien stuff.
An interesting question, but they're not in court because of their beliefs, but because of their alleged actions: "The organisation, he [the magistrate] argued, is 'first and foremost a commercial business' whose actions reveal 'a real obsession for financial remuneration'."
Read Margaret Singer, Richard Ofshe, or many others if you want a good comparison of religion and cults. The key thing is that cults deceive people into joining so there is no real informed consent. People join under false pretenses and are conned out of their money (basically by false advertising / fradulent misrepresentation). No cults are ever upfront about all their beliefs because nobody would ever join if they knew about the wacky shit higher up the ladder. You have to be good and brainwashed before you even find out about the space alien stuff. Christians are at least up front about what they believe (often annoyingly so). People have a right to believe what they want, sure... but fraud is another story.
Are you ignorant about how Google Ads work or about the meaning of "ironic"?
Try dealing with his point honestly. You know he's more right than you are.
If you're dumb enough to spend thousands of dollars on something called a 'Thetin meter' then it's your fault.. not the seller's, then again it's France :P..
So there should be no laws against fraud? Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, Madoff ... all that should be completely legal, because it's the victim's fault?
Breakfast served all day!
If you're dumb enough to spend thousands of dollars on something called a 'Thetin meter' then it's your fault.. not the seller's.
In many places, there are laws regarding the safety of a product and its fitness to perform the function for which it was purchased. They had better be able to demonstrate that a Thetin meter definitely measures whatever it measures properly.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
R2-45 may go a long way to allow others to conclude Hubbard thought his religion was a joke. I do wonder if you invest your entire life saving in religion, whether you actually meant a self R2-45 but were just too squeamish.
Umm.. I agree with him, Scientology is a bunch of nutjobs. What he doesn't seem to have expressed an opinion on is the nutjobness of Christians. So who is not dealing with whom honestly?
How we know is more important than what we know.
I know it's trendy and hip to bash Christianity on Slashdot (before you ask, I'm agnostic), there are significant differences.
1.) The Bible is pretty easy to access. In fact, you can often get it for free because its believers want you to read it.
2.) I submit that believing some creator of the universe manifested its power in the form of a sacrificial holy man long ago is far less wacky then believing an intergalactic overlord imprisoned in a volcano who attached alien ghosts to primitive humans, causing all their problems.
3.) In spite of all the shit they get, the Christians I've met in life have generally been very friendly and nice to me. Just good folks who believe what they believe. You have your bad apples, but that's true for every group in the world. Scientologists, on the other hand, will ask you if you rape babies and are trained to believe that anyone critical of the religion is a criminal who is hiding dark secrets.
So, yeah, very little like Christianity, to be perfectly honest. You were just going for a cheap +5 Insightful by bashing the easy target.
They are trying to ban them because they are using peoples beliefs for the monetary gain of the church.
Oh, and that's unique to the scientologists right?
If thats what it is, they've got a long road ahead of them, and scientology is just the beginning.
One thing I've noted is that you don't actually have to pay large sums of money to be a Christian. In fact, I don't know of any mainstream churches that will toss you out or suspend you if you don't put any money in the collection plate.
So, while the claims of both can be pretty stupid, Christianity actually is a religion, while $cientology is just a scam.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"try and get an "advanced" scientology text (pure bull, BTW), without forking some serious cash." Done https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Scientology
It's not like people are required to give regularly. (many people pay monthly or quarterly) People give under the pretense that God has blessed them and they want to give part of that back out of gratitude. Whether you choose to give or not is up to you, and you give what you feel you should give. It's not like you should feel like you're paying dues or have a mentality where you expect to get something back. Most churches only keep track of how much you give if you pay through check (and that's more of a service to you so you know what to declare on your taxes) You always have the option of donating cash if you want to give anonymously.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
Dan Brown's writing is best consumed with an ocean.
I'm not qualified to judge it directly, but there are enough people out there calling bullshit to make the above pretty clear. I guess it is fair to mention that they don't claim it is pure bullshit, just that there are lots and lots of mistakes and overstated conclusions.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The organization stands accused of targeting vulnerable people for commercial gain.
Other religious groups might want to render an opinion to the courts defending Scientology. How many religions can't be accused of targeting vulnerable people?
I don't think it's necessary for anyone to get into a dick-measuring contest with $cientologists. I don't find Christianity's claims any more credible, per se. But you do hit on one key difference. $cientology is basically a shell game where the believer has to keep paying more and more money to get all those deep secrets. For better or for worse, one can go to a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister and get lessons on their branch of Christianity for free. These guys mass produce for free or for very little cost their holy books, and they even let people into their houses of worship for free. Yes, most churches send around the collection plate, but I don't know of any churches that would deprive someone of the Sacraments because they didn't give their church money.
It's not about qualitative aspects of either religion, it is really about the fact that one is a religion, and one is simply a cult/marketing scam that uses the size of one's pocket book as the only real determinant of salvation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The summary imples that the US has given scientology religious status. The US does not recognise or give religions status. This is prohibited by the Constitution. Furthermore, being a religion does not exempt one from laws, so the law would apply the same no matter if it was a religion or not. Being a religion does not allow an organisation to do things that would be illegal for another religion to do. Furthermore, an organisation being a religion should not single it out for more intense persecution.
As far as the charges against scientology, scientology does use sleazy methods to extract methods from the followers of this cult. However, these persons handed over this money willingly, in cases this is not illegal as long as Scientology did not attempt to coerce them or prohibit them from leaving.
It's pretty clear that he considered it a joke at the beginning, and then he went bat-shit insane.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's not about nutjobness. By pointing out how ridiculous some story about Xenu (or Jesus) is, you distract people from the crimes that Scientologists are committing. Lying to people by saying they're inhabited by thetans, or that they're going to spend eternity in the lake of fire if they don't accept Jesus, is not the crime we're talking about here. This isn't what Scientology has been accused of.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
But you have an informed choice to believe in Zombie Jesus or not to. In Scientology, by the time you find out what it's really about, you've spent hundreds of thousands, all your friends and contacts are Scientology, and leaving means cutting off contact with all of them (starting an entire new life). Generally, Christians won't shun you if you leave (but they might try and convert you back, which is just persuasion).
There is also the fact that scientology practices thought reform (brainwashing) and ericsonian hypnosis, something that does not happen in legitimate religions. The difference, again, is that there is a lack of informed consent. They modify your thinking in ways you do not realize.
R2-45 may go a long way to allow others to conclude Hubbard thought his religion was a joke.
Actually it appears that he thought it was a great way to make money.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html
No, of course not! The Church has never been aboutmoney or power ever.
It's always been about saving the little ones from a lake of fire and doom.
I'm not standing up for Scientology, but regardless of the saintliness you hold your own beliefs, Christianity (as most organized religions have) has had a very checked past when it comes to what those with power and influence in it have done.
Say what you will, but you've got to love the genius of scientology. They take things that are generally considered serious crimes and make them "religious rituals". I can imagine someone coming to Ron in the early years..
Scientologist: Ron, I've got a problem. I just got angry with my girlfriend and shot her in the chest with my .45.
Ron: Hmm.. let me think..
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Lost a couple employees to them. They became involved based on promises of becoming "Auditors", but when they couldn't pay for the lessons (training, etc), they were dumped faster than a hot pan handle.
Interesting thing is I later made the plastic parts for the e machine auditing. (2 plastic parts, 2 resistors, 2 connector pins and wires). Later ran into the molder who makes the training case for their dvds and printed materials. Once the box was filled with $20 worth of materials, the loser had to pay near $2000 for it as I recall (It has been 5 years or so).
It is so hokey it is hard to believe people fall for it.
The process of R2-45 specifically pertains to shooting the target with a Colt .45 pistol, causing the victim's "thetan" to leave the body (exteriorization)
Will that work with my Kimber 1911 or do I have to find an original Colt Government Model to destroy my thetan with? ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The process of R2-45 specifically pertains to shooting the target with a Colt .45 pistol, causing the victim's "thetan" to leave the body (exteriorization)
Will that work with my Kimber 1911 or do I have to find an original Colt Government Model to destroy my thetan with? ;)
Knowing Scientology, you need a very particular custom Kimber that can only be purchased from the CoS for a cost about five times that of the fanciest race gun you've ever seen.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I can't just borrow one from Tom Cruise?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How about World of Warcraft. Isn't that sort of a cult?
How exactly is a video game like a cult? What belief system does "World of Warcraft" have? I'm not talking about the lore of the game, because they don't represent dwarves and elves and magic as reality, they represent it as fiction within the universe of the game. That is a distinct difference between entertainment and religion.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
At one time, Catholic rites were always performed in Latin, a language even most Europeans no longer spoke. Translation of the bible into native languages was considered heresy. Why? To force people to support a priest caste who had a monopoly on reading and interpreting scripture. So yes, effectively people WERE charged for reading the bible, as well as charged for indulgences. The Protestant Reformation was a reaction to the monetization of religion. Sounds like CofS could use a little reformation as well.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"Yeah, that whole indoctrination of the young thing is irrelevant, right?"
Yes. That's what happens when you're young, whether your "indoctrination" is about being christian, vegetarian, not dropping litter in streets, not stealing, learning to write, learning maths... you can be brought up christian, yet drop the religion when you grow up enough to think for yourself. I, many in my family, and many of my friends, are living proof of that. If people believe in their religion, of course they're going to share it with their kids, it's not "evil conspiracy against children", that's a stupid argument, it's just the way things are going to happen. Like people are going to believe their religion is 'The True Way' yet hide it from their children. That's ridiculous. And the religion's ridiculous to begin with... so that's like... ridiculous squared!
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
The problem with your argument is that you treat all denominations as the same.
If you want to talk about indulgences, that's more of a Catholic issue. Protestants do not believe in that doctrine; rather, they believe that once you accept Christ, all sins are forgiven (past present, and future) and no further payment is required.
Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that all evangelicals are like the ones that have been discredited. It's just that the press thrives on scandal and you very seldom hear about the good ones.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
... how can people take money not to testify in a criminal trial? I'm not a French lawyer, but if the penalty could include jail time, this sounds like a criminal charge. It's one thing to settle a civil suit out of court in exchange for some compensation. But refusing to testify if you have evidence of criminal activity is a crime itself.
Now, if the COS is stupid enough to enter into a contract that requires someone to violate the law and they renege on their part of the bargain, a civil court might find that agreement to be unenforceable. Since it requires someone to violate the law, the courts might refuse to find for the COS if they try to get the money back.
Have gnu, will travel.
I do attend a church regularly, and more than half of the people who attend regularly with me never contribute a cent. They are loved just the same as others who do contribute. The only person who knows how much is actually donated is the treasurer. I'm the council president and former treasurer, so I know of what I speak.
On the other hand, I have had friends that attend churches where the whole sermon is about giving money to the church. It was disheartening to them. However, just because it is this way in one, some, many or most, does not mean that it is universal. It is important to note that sacrifice is a part of most religions, in some way or another. The Christian New Testament has a parable about the widow and her two mites, and the rich man an his wealth. This is about sacrifice and not about volume. If you belief in something but are not willing to sacrifice for it, do you truly believe? Or are you there for some side benefit. You don't have to frame this solely in religion. Patriotism (whose concept was abused by our previous president), science, public safety and other noble pursuits are often characterized by sacrifice.
I my church there are many things required of us to be members. Only one of them has to do with money, and all of them have to do with helping humanity (note: not just those of my religion).
It is dangerous to be right on a subject on which the established authorities are wrong. - Voltaire
Why does any "religion" have the status of a religion at all?
It's like saying: Ok, so many people have this disease, that we just declare it as the new "healthy", and be done with it. ^^
I think I just have problems with abandoning my beloved *LOGIC*. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
It's pretty clear that he considered it a joke at the beginning, and then he went bat-shit insane.
Note to self: never make another joke.
And I'm looking forward to US government shutting down Apple.
Obviously there is more to the legal definition of this crime that the summary says.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
And your definition of a religion is?
Any system of belief that requires you put faith in a knowingly non-disprovable dogma before you can label yourself a follower?
I can't just borrow one from Tom Cruise?
Nope. They're custom-tuned to the body thetans of the particular individual. That's what makes them so expensive.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Christianity doesn't tear people away from their families. It doesn't steal its followers money or follow and intimidate anyone trying to investigate it.
Perhaps if you knew something about christianity you might be able to post something vaguely truthful about it but you haven't so let me inform you.
Christianity is an open religion, not a mysterious and closed cult.
Christians believe that Jesus died so that we don't have to get punished for all the shit we've done, and if you ask to be forgiven you can go to heaven when you die.
Scientologists believe that: "Xenu (sometimes Xemu), introduced as an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy." According to this story, 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today." - Wikipedia (otherwise known as fact)
Scientology is not only full of crazy beliefs and ideas but it is dangerous. It is run by an incredibly charismatic conman who splits up families, takes children from their parents and cons as much money as it can out of its followers. If you read about all the damage this cult has done you'll realize why it is NOTHING like christianity.
And if you find out the truth about christianity rather than relying on what you think you know or what you've heard then you'll realize that scientology is nothing like the love and forgiveness you can find there.
In other words, you're wrong on the internet. So very, very wrong.
Scientology does not have the status of a religion there, as it does in the US,
This seems to me to imply that if it were a religion, then a different set of standards for its behaviors would apply. I'm sorry, but why does religion get a pass when it comes to promulgating crazy ideas that suck money out of the unwary? It's just bad policy to go on protecting religions like that. IMHO
Currently hooked on AMP
Supporting those who seek the abolition of Scientology is one thing, and I support such an end goal myself.
Calling for the end of theism in all forms, however, is something else entirely. I realise that atheism (or at least fashionable agnosticism) is part of the established groupthink here on Slashdot, but as difficult as this may be to comprehend, for some of us, theistic belief is nothing but positive, and it doesn't inspire us to go out and rape, murder, or rob anybody either.
Most people here support the concept of entirely customisable cognitive environments in terms of shells, window managers, and so on; from the perspective of mechanistic atheism, a form of theistic belief doesn't need to be perceived much differently.
If you choose to go without one, for whatever reason, that's fine; I'm not evangelical in the slightest, and I endorse the right of anyone to be totally atheistic who wants to be. All I want is recognition of the same right of freedom of belief myself. If people aren't using theism as an excuse to commit crimes, (and I don't) there is no reason why theism should not be permissible.
Disclaimer: I am an ordained Baptist minister, and have pastored churches on a part-time basis. So, on the one hand, I speak from experience. On the other hand, if you follow the usual Slashdot assumptions about ministers, I'm a liar and a cheat. (I'm neither.)
I can't speak to how other denominations manage it, but in most traditional Baptist churches around here (Virginia) a LOT of effort is taken to prevent this. At the low end, only 2 people count the offering each week, and these people are NOT the pastor. At the high end, many churches outsource the counting of the offering entirely (banks will do this for you, for a fee.) The one constant, in my experience, is that the pastor never has access to the offering figures and that information is always closely held. I've served 4 separate churches, and have never had any idea who gave how much. Nor did I want to know.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Religion "gets a pass" because of a little something called the First Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment
Don't get me wrong, I think religion is evil, but even I think that a lot of the "crazy ideas" of one religion over another is what we're accustomed to. (In other words, I think they ALL have crazy ideas, but I too am probably less biased against some than others... though I think we'd be a lot better off if we got rid of all of them. Though once again, South Park has humorously hypothesized that even if everyone became atheist, we'd find something else to fight about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go)
That's a fine generalization, and may or may not be generally true, but my folks and I attended a presbyterian church for 4 years. We stopped when we were told not to return until we wanted to tithe appropriately.
It's a tax, enforced by social ostracism and in our case at least, direct pronouncements from the pastor. Calling it anything else is disingenuous.
That being said, the Xenu guys are way more obvious about it.
Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
For better or for worse, one can go to a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister and get lessons on their branch of Christianity for free.
Hell, for that matter, one can often go to a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister -- or a Jewish rabbi for that matter -- and get a free meal and a place to sleep along with the lessons. As others have said before me, you ever seen a Scientology soup kitchen?
A friend of mine recently had a pair of Mormons come to his front door and ask to talk to him about the Bible. He, a confirmed nonbeliever, told them he was willing to talk to them ... for fifty bucks. Completely calmly, they replied that they couldn't give him money, but if he needed some help with something -- say, the garbage taken out, or the dishes cleaned up, or some furniture moved, or something -- then they would happy to help him with that first, and one of them could make coffee to drink during the talk, too. He still declined, but I suggest this to you: Next time you meet a Scientologist and they ask you to take their stupid little "personality test," tell them you'll do it ... for one dollar. See what you get.
Breakfast served all day!
Damn. I'm guessing I'll need to pay for some audit counseling to go with the gun so they'll have the information they need to tune it properly, huh?
Better start saving up some money. I never knew that I was totally depressed until I met those nice folks at the mall. Sure am glad they are gonna be able to help me.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
They also have two different words. "secte" and "culte", each with slightly different meanings.
I stopped going to church after I was confirmed (Catholic). Nobody called, nobody showed up at my door. Nobody sued me, nobody harassed me. That's a religion.
I agree, it's a blurry line between a religion and a cult, and as an atheist I find it all equally silly, but at least we can say that there is a spectrum, and mainstream Christianity is on a different side of that spectrum from Scientology. You can knock the Catholics, they won't make death threats against you and your family.
Have you ever read half the stories on Xenu.net? It's pretty disturbing what goes on in Scientology. Better to just be informed than to over generalize.
I think the specific fraud issue here is that they are making those sort of tv psychic hotline claims...we'll make your life better, eliminate sadness, just give us some money...but they're not saying "entertainment only" in the legal copy. Which is not to say that you couldn't accuse all faiths of doing something similar.
They both seem equally wacky to me. If you grew up in Western society, you were immersed from birth in a culture that historically had Christianity as one of its foundations. That's likely to make its wacky myths seem more plausible to you.
I don't think it's valid to judge the validity of a belief system by whether its believers seem nice to you. For example, in 1209 an army of crusaders led by the Cistercian abbot Arnaud invaded the French city of Béziers, where some of the population were heretical Cathars. When the abbot was asked how to tell the orthodox Christians from the heretics, he said, "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own." They killed all 20,000 inhabitants: men, women, children, and babies. If I were judging by Abbot Arnaud, I'd judge Christianity to be a pretty scary religion.
Find free books.
Try attending church regularly and never donating a cent. Watch how the other people treat you.
I did it for 10 years into my adulthood. No one batted an eye. When I started giving (tithing actually), no one changed their behavior then either. Seems money's not the point of church (unless you're going to a fake church).
As a seminary graduate with a Doctorate in New Testament from the University of Virginia... and I never had to blow a single goat. Amazing!
All the source documents for Christian theology are publicly available, and well out of copyright. What are copyrighted is modern translations of documents... which I sort of hate, but then again theology professors have to eat too. If you're willing to take the time and effort to learn Greek and Latin, you can read them more-or-less for free. And if even if you're not, the modern translations are pretty much available from any well-stocked library (sadly, public libraries ignore religion, so public libraries don't help.)
Shoot... Union Theological Seminary of Virginia in Richmond--which has one of the best theological libraries in the country--will give you a card just for the asking. And they're not alone... many seminary libraries are open to the public.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I'm pretty sure the dog shit eating cancer thing can be disproved.
Or, to put it another way, a checkered past is at least 50 percent better than a black past.
Breakfast served all day!
The FLDS Church teaches the doctrine of plural marriage, which states that a man having multiple wives is ordained by God; the doctrine requires it in order for a man to receive the highest form of salvation. It is generally believed in the church that a man should have a minimum of three wives to fulfill this requirement.[43] Connected with this doctrine is patriarchal doctrine, the belief that wives are required to be subordinate to their husbands.
The church currently practices placement marriage, whereby a young woman of marriageable age is assigned a husband by revelation from God to the leader of the church, who is regarded as a prophet.[44] The prophet elects to take and give wives to and from men according to their worthiness. This is also called the law of placing.
[...]
On November 7, 2007, the Washington County Attorney's Office released video of jailhouse conversations between Nephi and Warren Jeffs. In the videos Warren renounces his prophethood, claiming that God had told him that if he revealed that he was not the rightful prophet, and was a "wicked man", he would still gain a place in the telestial kingdom.[19] Jeffs also admits to what he calls, "immoral actions with a sister and a daughter" when he was 20 years old.[20] Other records show that while incarcerated, Jeffs tried to commit suicide by banging his head against the walls and trying to hang himself.
As you can see, these communities with entirely different value systems still exist. Why else would he feel the need to put out such an idiotic video, in which he claims that "because he had sex with family he can't be the Rightful Prophet, so y'all should follow this other guy now, because he is"?
So sure you can leave, if your denomination is accepting enough.
However, if you're part of some sort of logging community living in Alberta, or part of that sick group ruled by Warren Jeffs, you'll probably be raised in such a way that you either won't know/dare to doubt "your community's" rules, or, if you're male, you'll be so happy with the kickbacks (the fact that women are raised to think they only exist to serve males, and how they're forced to marry some 35-65yo when they reach age 14) that you won't want to leave. And consider here that the cult that Jeffs ruled consisted of more than a thousand males, and had some 10.000 members (men/women/children) total. This is not small sect we're talking about, and the authorities have known about them for years, but nobody can do anything about it (or will). It's just ignored, and these fuckers are left to do whatever they want to whoever they can get their hands on.
The only reason you were able to leave yours, and/or realise that "this life wasn't for you", is because there aren't enough places in the West left that are remote enough for these systems of indoctrination to succeed at what they're trying to accomplish. We should consider ourselves lucky that this is the case.
However, the "evil conspiracy against children" is something very real (and is part of the reason why religious expression should be kept from the schooling system, so that parents cannot try to raise their children in such a way that they start believing that "religion is the only way"), so I don't think it's being quite fair to yourself to say that "all indoctrination is equal" as you argue here. Raising your daughters in such a way that all they know is that they've been created in order to serve whoever you decide to wed them to when they reach puberty (yes, this kind of thing still happens, and is almost impossible to prevent in some states) is whole fucking worlds apart from "indoctrinating" your kids to believe that rabbits shouldn't be eaten, and arguing that that's a "fair" equation is callous (as well as inaccurate) in the extreme.
Yes, "everything is indoctrination", but no, not everything is equally bad.
Religion "gets a pass" because of a little something called the First Amendment.
What makes you think that amendments to the US Constitution apply in France?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I'm not the GP, but I'd like you to explain what you mean.
If you search Google for "Mormon cult," you will find many, many pages that insist that the LDS Church is a cult. If you dig into those pages, however, you will find that most of them are written by evangelicals and Christian fundamentalist sects.
One very common practice on many of these sites is to begin with the dictionary definition of "cult" and use that as "proof" that Mormonism is a cult. There exist, however, very sophisticated definitions and many, many well-reasoned and elaborate essays and explanations of cult beliefs that offer much more proof than the dictionary. It is these definitions that are used when Scientology is described as a cult. The same guidelines don't apply so readily to Mormonism, however.
In fact, the usual objections to Mormonism used to label them as a cult are that they are not true Christians, so-called, and therefore must be a cult. Christian fundamentalists claim that Mormons don't accept the Bible as the undisputed word of God, that they don't believe in the Trinity, that they have different traditions not set out in the Bible, and so on. All of that may be true, but it just makes them bad Christians (in somebody's eyes). It doesn't make them a cult.
Now, I'm not a Mormon and I can't really speak for the wisdom of their beliefs, or lack thereof. But your flip comment seems to be suggesting that Mormons do the things that Scientologists do, such as "splitting up families and taking children from their parents" -- that's just crazy talk, when in modern times Mormons typically have even bigger families than Catholics.
I'm sure Mormons believe many things that you don't believe. But just because you call them a cult doesn't make it so -- it just makes you a religious zealot. So what are you talking about?
Breakfast served all day!
I grew up in Clearwater Florida, one of their, uhmm, headquarters. This is one whaked out group of folks!
Nothing makes me think that. Upon rereading the message I replied to, I realize there is nothing that directly states that they were talking about the US. Since most slashdot readers are based in the US [citation needed], and the *quoted text* in the message I replied to referred to the US, I presumed they were talking about why religions 'get a pass' in the US. I now realize that they could be talking about different legal treatment of religions in France too.
At this point you're wilfully conflating Catholicism with Christianity in order to "prove" your point. I've seen several others point out to you that they are two different things. You've constructed a strawman by taking an implementation of an idea, showing its faults, and then claiming that the idea itself is bad. Doubly so because you're wilfully ignoring an entire swath of Christianity under the Protestant umbrella, and which never had most of the problems you're talking about.
The fact is that yes, the Catholic organisation has had problems over the years. They've abused the trust that people put in them, they've used it as a racket to fleece people of their money, and they've done bad things to little boys. However, NONE of that speaks to the idea of Christianity. It speaks to the disgusting people who have used it as a vehicle for their own personal agendas -- always IN SPITE of what Christianity teaches.
Christianity is, and always has been, based on the idea of free will. This was borne out several times in the story of Jesus, who is looked to as the model of behavior for Christians. That Christians many times come nowhere close to living up to that standard is a sad commentary on the Christians, but not of the standard.
Consider that the early Christians and Jews at the time expected that he would lead an armed revolution against Rome. Instead, he told them to love their neighbors and their enemies, to pay their taxes ("Render unto Caesar..."), and to dedicate their souls to God. The only force involved there would be that of the Romans toward people who don't pay their taxes.
Consider the story Jesus told about the rich man. Jesus told him to sell what he valued and follow him. The guy walked away, and Jesus let him.
Consider the very act of "getting saved." You need to ask Jesus to save you. You need to make the request -- no force involved. You agree to try to follow a certain set of rules to govern your life, but the only consequence of refusing to do so is whatever your actions directly lead to (jail time, bad health, etc.)
Nowhere in the story of Jesus is force involved, except when it is used against him. The one time someone picks up a sword to defend Jesus (in the garden when Judas betrays him to the Romans), Jesus tells him to knock it off.
So I ask you again, where is the fault in that model of behavior? Or is it the people in certain positions using their influence to advance their own interests? Yes, they may be "representatives" of Christianity, but they're acting in direct opposition to it -- the same as crooked cops don't prove that the rule of law is bad. And, like cops, there are a lot more good pastors and priests out there than bad ones, but you only hear about the bad ones.
Now, I know you'll bring up the idea of Hell being the unspoken threat. There are a couple problems with that though. First, Jesus didn't invent the idea of Hell, nor did the Jews. It's been around in one form or another at least since the early Egyptians had Hades (different, but analogous), possibly before. Second, Jesus was not threatening to send people to Hell. The idea is that you're going there by default, but if you ask him to, he'll save you from it. It was an offer of salvation, not a threat of damnation. It's only natural that an offer like that should come with strings attached. After all, he's asking people to live in his house for eternity, and I doubt you'd invite just anyone to your house for that long either -- especially the unrepentant scum of humanity.
Another point is that you don't need to believe the supernatural aspects of Christianity to find it a useful model of behavior. Don't steal, don't murder, be infinitely forgiving, even if it costs your life, never coerce people, and lots of other ideas most liberals should identify with rather than rail against.
The effects on society without such a standard of behavior are much worse than the paltry things that Slashdotters complain about. Cr
"I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
The Vatican secret archives wouldn't really be source documents for theology. More like a presidential library. But hey, who knows, maybe how many Ducats Pope Innocent XIV spent on hookers really IS relevant for YOUR theology. It's sure not very important to mine. And in any case, everything prior to 1922 is open to non-clerical scholars anyway--and archives from 1939 and before from the department of state are available as well.
Now, when I refer to "source documents of Christian theology", I'm referring to:
Since you're looking for "hidden sources", I assume you've read all that?
Oh... you haven't? Why not?
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
That wasn't the point at all.
mattack2 was simply saying the reason they are able to prosecute The Church of Scientology in France but not in the United States is because the First Amendment of the US Constitution apparently prohibits their Congress from passing any laws either respecting the establishment, or prohibiting the free exercise, of religion.
We have a similar situation where I live, where a polygamist community avoids prosecution (to some extent) because the local government is afraid a case would not withstand a Charter challenge. They don't want to end up enshrining polygamy in law.
I'm not sure how you got the idea anyone was suggesting that the First Amendment of the US Constitution would apply in France.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Hubbard also used it in apparently non-humorous contexts. On March 6, 1968, Hubbard issued an internal memo titled "RACKET EXPOSED," in which he denounced twelve people as "Enemies of mankind, the planet and all life," and ordered that "Any Sea Org member contacting any of them is to use Auditing Process R2-45."
Former Scientologist http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/mom/Messiah_or_Madman.txt >Bent Corydon wrote that in late 1967 at Saint Hill, he personally received a copy of an order naming four former Scientologists as enemies and "fair game" and ordering any Sea Org member who encountered them to use R2-45.
-wikipedia
IIRC, when the Church of Scientology Internationallost a major lawsuit by Steve Fishman, the church executives turned the CSI into a shell, transferring virtually all capital and IP to the Religious Technology Center(which licensed "its" IP back to the CSI), theoretically leaving the plaintiff with nothing from which he could collect.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that although the Paris center is incorporated independently of the mother church, and that it'll turn out that, like every Hollywood production, they've been "broke" all along.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Wow, that's not even close to correct. No taxation without representation was English law, not US law. In the US, we eliminated the need for such a clause by eliminating the kingship and building the entire system around representation. We also did not put taxation in the hands of the executive (not sure if the English did or not, honestly), and territories of the US get non-voting representation in Congress. The clause is not required because it is built into the system.
Churches are tax-exempt because they have charity status. I'm not sure precisely how it is built into the law, but it does not apply to everything the church does, and the assumption is that the church is a net benefit for society.
The reasons religions don't get persecuted, and are in fact very difficult to prosecute for wrongdoing is because of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In a nutshell, it says Congress can't make a law that prohibits or even negatively influences the free exercise of any religion. Cults in the US are on shaky ground, but once you achieve Religion status - i.e. have your own church and can be considered tax exempt - you are on very solid ground legally.
In theory, even cults are heavily protected by the first amendment, in practice they don't fare as well as those belief systems that are considered full blown religions.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Easy, its the power of the farce. Beware the dark side!
And not a moment too soon.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What does Scientology do ... that the Catholic church doesn't?
Many things. Many, many things. DISCLAIMER: I am not a Catholic, and my interpretation of their beliefs is meant only as a guideline and can probably be waved away as fatally inept by any real Catholic. Furthermore I think recent stories about Catholic abuse of children are abhorrent and are probably the greatest crisis the Church has faced since Martin Luther.
That said... here's just one example.
The Catholic church requires believers to confess their sins. Similarly, the so-called Church of Scientology requires believers to undergo a process that it calls "auditing," in which the believer talks frankly about past events. What's the difference?
Well, when the Scientologists do it, I am told, the subject is asked a series of questions, called a "process." The answers to your questions are written down in the form of notes, which are then compiled and permanently retained in a "preclear folder." You can only move on to a new process -- a new set of questions -- when the objective of the previous set of questions has been achieved (to the interviewer's satisfaction). No other guidance or evaluation of the subject is supposedly given, and the auditing process as a whole takes as long as is necessary, i.e. the subject may have to go home, come back later, and continue the same specific process until the interviewer (with the help of a religious object called an "E-meter") says it's time to move on to the next stage. The goal of auditing is said to be to identify memories of the subject's "thetan," both from the present and past lives, which are inhibiting the subject's full abilities (in other words, those things that make the subject a bad and ineffective person). The subject is told that only ongoing and successful practice of Scientology can free them from those bad qualities which oppress them. And furthermore, practicing costs money.
Compare now to how the Catholics do it. You go into a Catholic church and you sit down in a space nearby to the priest. Generally, the priest is partially concealed from you so you do not have to look him in the eye. He might ask you a couple of simple questions about whether you've been practicing Catholic ritual, and then he tells you to begin. That is, he asks you nothing specific -- you just say what you personally feel you need to say. He might ask you to clarify. But generally, the process should take five minutes or less, if you've been doing it regularly. Then he may give you some advice about penance -- something realistic that you can do to make up for your sins, which might just be observance of some ritual -- and then he says, essentially: "If you do these things I have said, and you've been honest about your confession, then God is going to pretty much forget about everything you've said here for the rest of your life and all of eternity. There may be some Purgatory stuff to deal with, but it could have been a lot worse. Do those things and your burden is lifted, effective today; now go home to your family." Total monetary charges incurred: Zero.
Kinda different, don't you think? Can you see the difference in psychological impact, the subtle manipulation that the Scientologist undergoes? People talk about "Catholic guilt," but that's nothing compared to what the Scientologists put you through.
That's what's so insidious about Scientology -- the way they can manipulate nonbelievers as well as believers. Superficially, all ritual looks the same to a nonbeliever -- that is, it just seems ridiculous -- which is why Scientologists get away with their brainwashing and other manipulative practices. People look at them and say "they're a bunch of kooks, just like all the others." And the Scientologists smile and say, "That's right. See? We're just like all the others." But it ain't true. Diss Catholics if you must, but don't make the mistake of using Catholicism as an excuse to turn a blind eye to the abuses of Scientology.
Breakfast served all day!
... about the French if they'll send Tom Cruise to Devil's Island permanently as part of this action. He can work on his OT LXI level there.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
Hubbard realized that there was money to be made some time before he started his nut-cult.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It gets better: they've got classes and retreats that cost $$$$, and they've even got a bodycount, though nothing compared to Scientology.
Please help metamoderate.
Here's an interesting thread that discusses some of Scientology's favorite psychological methods and related famous experiments. Former Scientologists even chime in.
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/291-scientology-discussion/brainwashing-long-14420/
I like this quote:
An important note: the human brain is a pattern-recognizing machine that evolved over billions of years. It was not engineered to be flawless, and the studies I listed essentially 'reverse-engineer' the system and identify 'exploits.'
this is actually the thing I've never gotten about tax exempt. I know they are classified as a charity, but as a child who had to go to church, I noticed very little went to "charity". Most (about 1/2) went to the building & maint fund. About 1/4 went to the pastor salaries and other salaries. I think about 10% actually got given away. Call me crazy, but can you imagine a charity (secular) giving away only 10c on the dollar and not being hassled for it? I've often thought the IRS should require like a minimum of 60c on the dollar to go to helping people outside the organization for the organiation to be a charity. The numbers should be audited every other year and if you fall below the threshold, your taxable.
...and then I pull OUT MY GUN!
The constitution's 1st amendment however does not give the right to religions for them to infringe upon the rights of others.
Thus it is illegal for some parts of Sharia law to be practiced in the US. A Muslim woman(or man for that matter) could choose of her own free will to abide by a fairly strict interpretation but she could not legally be held subject to some of the punishments there-of for breaking the law.
This gets into difficult territory when you start talking about things like zoning laws. For example: does a church's interests in having say a parking lot where none is zoned outweigh the rights of its neighbors to have some say in how their community is developed?
Also you get into the questions of brain washing, or just good old fashioned abuse and threats it is often difficult to tell if a church/religious group is on the up and up or if they are breaking the law.
Furthermore it is debated weather or not the freedom of religion allows for an individual to choose no religion or for them to remain silent in their choice of religion. Also tests for minimum requirements for religion are sometime difficult.
With a religion, not everyone involved is a charlatan, or at least it's hard to prove. Scientology is a demonstrable fraud thinly disguised as a knock-off of gnosticism with some 1950s technology buzzwords.
What I don't understand is why the Catholic Church hasn't been busted under Rico. I mean, here you have a group that is paying off families to keep them from filing criminal sexual assault charges involving children (which I'm pretty sure payoffs like that are illegal, especially when minors are involved) and then spiriting the criminal out of the area and placing him in the EXACT SAME POSITION knowing he is going to rape again. And of course not even warning the area of what they have done. And from what we have seen in past cases this is well known SOP from at least the cardinal level.
So why haven't they been busted under Rico? Churches shouldn't get a free pass when it comes to organized crime. And the way they had the SOP down seems pretty damned organized to me. Just as I think the CoS should have been shut down long ago using Rico for tactics like Operation Snow White. While I believe you are free to believe what ever you wish, when you start performing criminal acts as a group then all bets should be off.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
They're actually classified as non-profit under 501c3. Thus it doesn't really matter how much money they give away, as long as they're not making money for owners/shareholders, and avoid supporting specific candidates and parties (supporting issues is allowed.) A student-run space advocacy group that i've been involved with is classified the same way as far as the IRS is concerned, and we're in no way a charity, and hardly have enough money for that to mean anything anyway.
Also, I don't think any honest church would claim to be a direct charity. The standard collections are known to support the ministries of the church, which while good for the community (at least in the eyes of the church members), are not given directly to the poor and needy. In fact, I know at my mother's church they have certain collections where they specifically state that it will go to a particular charity instead of the general church fund.
Finally, I'd point out that even though most church funding isn't directly charitable, it is indirectly. Clergy provide support and counseling for their congregation, regardless of their economic status or amount paid in. Church buildings are used for external groups like AA and the Boy/Girl Scouts, as well as church-run programs that are again not dependent on amount paid to the church. Church members will often volunteer en-masse to help out in the community and in the world, often while avoiding direct proselytizing (rules are that you don't bring it up, but you're free to if those you're helping ask). It seems to me that churches are for the most part good for their community and indirectly charitable, as long as their not trying to force an agenda (ahem... Prop. 8).
Not so much, no.
In, for example, Germany churches can collect taxes on their members. If you declare yourself to be a member of the Roman Catholic church then your employer will deduct your church tax at source. If you remove yourself from the church you stop paying the tax. The tax is not levied by the government, it's levied by your church and optionally collected by the government on their behalf (for a fee). If your church chooses not to tax it's congregation then it is free to do so, just as you are free to declare yourself not a member of the church any more if you don't want to pay their tax.
So no, the politicians have nothing to do with it and it's not something you're forced to do.
Mormons, pentecostals, Christian Scientists. Religions weren't built on attrition rates.
Those churches don't sell salvation though. They claim they have it, but you're free to come and take it. You don't have to pay for it in cash, on the spot.
Actually, you could do this in the USA.
If you're confused, consider it filing a claim against, say, the Archdiocese of Belleville for fraud perpetrated by its Parish of Saint Fnordius. If said parish was stripped of its church status for abusing the privileges, then it would be even easier. This wouldn't even be considered an attack on the religion, but on a "bad apple", an organisation promoting it.
I may be wrong on this, writing from memory, but I believe that the most successful King of Israel - Omri - and his descendants were ignored in the Bible because, under his stable prosperous government, Judaism declined.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
There's a difference though.
Let's say, for sake of argument, that you convert to Catholic Christianity. While there are classes to bring you up to speed on your new religion's dogma and so forth, they're either free or relatively cheap. You also (and here's the important part) DO NOT NEED TO TAKE THEM. You can go to a Catholic Church and participate in the Sunday Services (sing hymns, take communion, etc.) without having to pay a dime.
The Church of Scientology, on the other hand, has courses and auditing sessions that are required. They cost money. It requires spending many thousands of dollars to take all the OT classes. And it's only after you've spent those many thousands of dollars and been brainwashed for months (if not years), that you find out about Xenu and Teeagaack and all the cheesy sci-fi elements of this so-called religion.
Yeah, that's right. All the stuff that we /.ers generally know about the CoS? It's not public knowledge. (Okay, it's a little more public after that one South Park episode), but the point is still there. There's not some super-secret version of the Bible that you only get to look at after 15 years of faithful service and huge stacks of cash donations to the Vatican. There's no super-secret version of the Qu'ran or the Talmud.
And how many other religions do you know of that have trade secrets? Yeah, the Church of Scientology protects the OT coursework under the laws governing trade secrets. Funny thing, that.... I don't recall the Communion class I took as a wee nipper requiring a non-disclosure agreement.
The CoS is a business and a scam masquerading as a religion.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
There's not some super-secret version of the Bible that you only get to look at after 15 years of faithful service and huge stacks of cash donations to the Vatican.
How do you know that?
It's known, for instance, that the Church suppressed the Gospel of Thomas. The only remaining full copy that we know of was found at Nag Hammadi in the 20th century. It escaped the purge by virtue of being hidden for 1800 years or so.
If the Scientologists are ultimately successful in suppressing Operation Clambake and similar efforts, it's conceivable that the full text of LRH's teachings will similarly disappear from history, to be replaced in the public consciousness with a less controversial, Church-sanitized version.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Their church was FOUNDED by a Zombie. What do you expect?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
However EU law overrides French law and in the charter of fundamental rights freedom of religion is one of them. Hence, if the French courts regarded Scientology as a religion they would be bound, by EU law , to allow it.
To be fair, not all or even most of the suppression of the Apocrypha was active and intentional. Most of it was simply that they'd been judged to not fit in with the religion the council was building, for whatever reason (probable forgery, ill-regarded author, or simple lack of a discernible moral lesson), and that most of the preservation of literature was done by the church. There wasn't so much an organized hunting down of the things (though occasionally a pope or bishop or something would take it upon themselves to go a zealot on us) as a general apathy among the people maintaining the libraries. If you were a monk, would you spend a year of your time copying a decaying tome whose contents your society had deemed worthless, when there were thousands of competing volumes of actual worth that needed copying to avoid being lost to the ages? Me neither. I mean, copying a single book was sometimes a monk's entire life's work, that's a big investment.
So lighten up, it wasn't ill-intentioned. And most of the apocrypha are either crazy or pointless (in my own estimation as well as the church's), so meh anyway. Hell, I dunno how most of revelations didn't get thrown out as well, it's pretty whack too.
(Side note: would have been nice if more monks had thought books of math and engineering were worth the effort, all we got was the half-assed job the muslim translators did of preservation. Better than the complete absence of the technical books in europe, but still. Anyhow, if you're going to be mad at the church for losing books, be mad at them for those, not the useless apocrypha bullshit.)
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~