Church of Scientology Proposes Net Censorship In Australia

An anonymous reader writes "Submitted by the Australian branch of Scientology to the local Human Rights Commission is a proposal to eliminate anonymity on the net and the removal of critical websites (MS Word document). The submission is listed as #1931 at this page at the Australian Human Rights Commission." (Read on below for some of the details of what the Scientologists propose.) "SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendation 1: The implementation of Criminal and Civil Restrictions on Religious Vilification. Recommendation 2: Restriction on Anonymity on acts of Religious Vilification: 2.1 Websites created with primary purpose of inciting religious vilification shall be removed or their access to the Australian public restricted. 2.2 Creators of websites whose primary purpose is the incitement of religious vilification shall be prevented from concealing their identity. Recommendation 3: Restriction on Religious Misinformation and Misrepresentation known or reasonably known to be untruthful in the Media Recommendation 4: Include a form of Bill or Charter of Rights into the Australian Constitution, which prevents the Commonwealth from making any law, which 'directly, indirectly or incidentally' prohibits the free exercise of religion to the extent of such prohibition."

Comments

Scientology is a dangerous cult

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientology is a dangerous cult

Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult

[noundi]

But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists.

Do Scientologists become better people in general? If Scientology would be promoted to state religion, how long would that society last?

Stop bashing the story and start listening to the teachings. If you read the Bible, you'll realize none of it was supposed to be literal anyway.

Do you really think worshipping money (debt, actually) is a better alternative? Look around you: are the people you know, happy? Do they live a truly fulfilling life? Do you?

Why must I subsitute? Why must I worship something? I feel no need to worship neither gods nor assets, and why is it so obvious for you to do so? And please don't give me that nonsense about "if you read the Bible." Although I haven't read the entire book, I'll admit, I have read big proportions of it. I have also read interpretations of the Quran, and translations of the Talmud. I have also studied Zoroastrism and vaguely read the "teachings" of other religions. You say now that the Bible wasn't supposed to be literal, yet you have no idea how egocentric you are. Do you not realise that the common knowledge of your surroundings today differ vastly from those whom lived 1500 years ago? Do you not realise that the way you read the Bible differs significantly not only from your neighbour, but probably even more from your ancestors whom lived thousands of years ago?

And about a fulfulling life. Right here on /. there was recently a link to an article which showed the difference in fear of dying between religious people and non-religious people. The study showed that those who feared death were by far represented in the religous sector. Is this your definition of fulfilling life? Fearing death to such extent that you create your own fairytale in order to accept life? No friend, this is not living a fulfilling life and you simply cannot cheat life in that way. What is wrong with simply ceasing to exist upon death? Why do you feel the need to "live forever"? I accept my existance for what it is and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I love my life and when I die I hope I'm old enough to have grown tired from it. If I'm not, then so be it, there is nothing I can do other than try my best to prepare for tomorrow. I don't know if I live a truly fulfilling life, and I cannot judge that until I have lived it. If you think you can then, my friend, I would say you suffer from severe hubris. You are but a human, nothing more and nothing less, and there is nothing wrong with that. So tell me, who has the most sound view of life?

Figures...

[durin]

Scientologists have never been too fond of freedom of speech. Hurts their profit margins.

Re:Figures...

[Nerdfest]

Do they tax "religious organizations" in Australia? If not, perhaps it's time to start looking into it. Network censorship isn't going to pay for itself you know.

Dangerous reading.

[miffo.swe]

Anyone reading Scientology material becomes pretty much immune against their brainwash. Its more like a very badly written sci-fi novel than anything else. Letting people read it in a safe enviroment makes recruting more cultists so much harder.

The only way to get rid of stupid cults like Scientology, Christianity and the like is to expose them freely and put them against real knowledge and science. Religion has no place in a modern society.

Re:Dangerous reading.

[IrquiM]

I went the other way... I read the bible and became a non-christian! I've also got the Koran and the Torah in my collection, and I'm not Muslim nor Jew.

Re:Dangerous reading.

[AnalPerfume]

A religion is only a cult that's had more time to gather in more suckers. Every religion starts as a cult. They all have funny rituals as ways to worship their chosen invisible man. The major world religions all started at a time when mankind knew little science, so the stories and explanations about the world around them as told by preachers sounded believable enough to stick with.

The problem any new cult has today is that science has provided a lot of answers which contradict the religious versions, and of course religion being "the word of God" it can't be revised. Modern cults like Scientology are all fighting against a modern backdrop that people have long seen through the bullshit the major religions spew out in an effort to control their sheep, as well as a million and one documentaries and fictional stories about cults, scams and rackets.

In other words they came late to the party, all the gullible people are taken and all they have left are those who pour scorn or ridicule over their claims.

Religions or their underdeveloped little brothers the Cults all have one aim, control. They seek to be the gatekeeper between their God and the believer. They manipulate people's emotions to get and maintain that control. They claim to offer spiritual and therefor unverifiable rewards to those who allow themselves to be controlled, and punish those who seek to either disrupt that control, or seek to escape it. All religions and cults have illogical "truths" told in fictional stories a 5 year old could write better with less plot holes. All religions entrench the leadership in unchallengeable potions.

What many seem to forget is belief in God, is different from considering oneself part of any religion or cult. Many people have seen the damage religion and it's followers have done to the planet and it's inhabitants and can't bare to be associated with it. That does not stop them believing in God. They can see religion for what it is, a man made manipulative organization using an unverifiable connection to God as the hook which amounts to "do what we say, in return we'll ask God to help you out, we have a direct line to him you know. We can't of course teach you how to do that for yourself as we're his special ones."

A couple of quotes spring to mind:

"God, please protect me from your followers"
"Every day more and more people are giving up religion and returning to God"

Re:Dangerous reading.

[mdwh2]

While some atheists might describe some mainstream religious texts as "nonsense", the vast majority of people, regardless of their belief, would not.

Argumentum ad populum. Would Scientology be true, if lots more people believed it?

And actually, you're wrong anyway - since there are several different religions with inconsistent views, religious people would still view other religions as wrong (often with a greater zeal than any atheist - e.g., Christians who preach that non-Christians will go to hell), and therefore any given religion still has a majority who don't believe in it. So for example, there may be about 2 billion Christians, but the "vast majority" still don't believe in Christianity.

But yes, I do agree with you - the only difference between cults and religions are how many people believe in it.

But don't go lumping the major religions in with cults like Scientology

In the context of laws like this, trying to argue against it by saying Scientology isn't a religion is a dangerous tactic - it means the law is still considered justified for religions. I think it's a bad law all round.

(MS Word document)

[Santzes]

If you publish proposals like this as a MS Word document, you should be censored from the internet.

Summary of Document

[Anonymous Coward]

Recommendation 1: Make it illegal to make fun of us so that we have legal grounds to sue.

Recommendation 2: Eliminate Anonymity on the internet so that we know who we can sue.

Recommendation 3: Stop letting the media make fun of us or we will sue.

Recommendation 4: Make a law so that you can not tax us when we sue.

Everybody should be posting on this article Anonymously by the way

Re:As an Australian

[Just Some Guy]

I don't believe that. I have a hard time labeling any belief system as a cult if its members freely and openly offer to tell non-members everything that it believes. For instance, go into a Catholic or Baptist or Hindu or Islam or Buddhist place of worship. Ask the first person you see if they'll tell you what they believe. Chances are strong that they'll invite you in, answer any questions you have in as much depth as you request, give you a free copy of their holy book (if they have one), and offer you as much free literature as you can carry to take home and read on your own.

I wouldn't consider any of those a cult for that reason. You can find out up front exactly what they believe, and choose to join or walk away.

Now, try that experiment with the CoS. Or, better yet, don't.