Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Church of Scientology Proposes Net Censorship In Australia

Posted by timothy on from the all-they-want-is-a-little-sanity dept.

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."

23 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. Scientology is a dangerous cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Scientology is a dangerous cult

    1. Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult by noundi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      I am the lawn!
  2. Figures... by durin · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Why, yes! I AM new here.
    1. Re:Figures... by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. Good luck mate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Australia is probably the absolute worst place for them to push this. 30% to 40% of the population is non-religious, and our mindset is one of "suck it up" with respect to shit like this. This reeks of bully boy tactics and that doesn't sit well with Aussies.

    Anyway I doubt it'd pass the Senate for other reasons. Between the Greens, Family First, Liberal, and Labour, 3 of those are strong Christian parties, and the other is strongly secular and radically opposed to censorship.

  4. Re:As an Australian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    (As an American.) Wow, that is very space opera-ish. It sounds like the fevered mumblings of a burnt-out science fiction author who has indulged in too much alcohol and too many prescription painkillers. Can you identify the source and describe what it has to do with this post?

  5. Dangerous reading. by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
    1. Re:Dangerous reading. by IrquiM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      This is blinging
    2. Re:Dangerous reading. by AnalPerfume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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"

    3. Re:Dangerous reading. by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Dangerous reading. by Astronomerguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whatever. More often than not people throughout history converted because the church was the biggest employer, controlled whatever education was available, and had a really nasty enforcement arm. Religions are merely cults that managed to last a long time. I've also read the Koran and the Bible and felt no overpowering rush to convert - quite the opposite actually. I heartily agree with Richard Dawkins' analysis of religions and share his contempt for them. He summed up the "god" of the Old Testament succinctly: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." I recommend his book "The God Delusion", Ibn Waraq's "Why I am not a Muslim", and Christopher Hitchen's "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" if you're interested in clear and reasoned analysis of just why religion/cults are dangerous hypocritical bullshit organizations.

    5. Re:Dangerous reading. by moz25 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ehhh, I strongly take issue with your "stop being a hater" comment.

      Have you ever considered that people may have very ethical reasons for strongly disliking religion? I for one strongly reject the concept that religions teach you that it doesn't matter how good or how ethical of a person you are: if you don't follow that religion, you will be punished in one way or another for eternity.

      How can any thinking person accept that possibilities exist for violent criminals to go to Heaven, while the door is shut to completely harmless people who happened to either not be religious or follow the wrong religion.

      And how can any one not be troubled by "gods" who go out of their way to be completely undetectable by any other means than our imagination?

      I also reject the way religion is being taught in churches: it's one-way communication with endless repetition of a very small set of events that supposedly took place and that would NOT pass scrutiny in this day and age. Immaculate conception, uh-huh. How about a DNA test first? :-)

      While I respect the right of people to follow nonsense, there is really no other word than "nonsense" to accurately describe death-denialism tripe.

      That being said, Scientology is not like a regular religion at all. Simply put, it's the most expensive sci-fi book in the world, and not even a very good one at that.

      --
      see a Text Widget
  6. (MS Word document) by Santzes · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  7. What I don't get is... by puroresu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why do they need to be so litigious? Why can't they just zap critical web sites out of existence with their super high level thetan powers?

  8. Re:As an Australian by pisto_grih · · Score: 5, Informative

    woosh

  9. Re:How does this affect them? by Tx · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the eyes of the law, and therefore the taxman, they are indeed a religion.

    Only in some countries, several countries are sensible enough to refuse the scientologists recognition as an official religion. Have a look at this article, and the linked documents. As far as us Brits are concerned, note the findings of the Charity Comission in refusing charitable status to the scientologists; "Scientology is not a religion for the purposes of English charity law."

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  10. Uninformative "typo" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    >"The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, becomes a nigger then dies."

    Mods, you've just blown a point on some GNAA flamebait.
    For the real version of "Understanding Scientology" by Margery Wakefield, see http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-07.html

  11. Re:How does this affect them? by he-sk · · Score: 5, Informative

    In Germany, this could be prosecuted as coercion. However, the organizers figure that if you're gullible enough to go to such a trip in the first place, it's not very likely that you'll press charges.

    Wo kein KlÃger, da kein Richter.

    --
    Free Manning, jail Obama.
  12. Summary of Document by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  13. Re:CoS v Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So pretty much, the Scientologists are pissed because their own tactics are being used against them...

  14. Jesus was NOT a hippie by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Informative

    "I normally don't respond to flamebait, but someone modded you insightful."

    What a coincidence. It's the same reason I'm responding to you.

    "Maybe you were reading straight through and didn't finish until you got to the game-changing peace and love hippie stuff?"

    If you think Christianity is all hippy peace and love stuff, then I'd suggest you finish reading the Bible, or take a second look. Even in the New Testament, God (and Christ) often got angry and displayed wrath. Jesus wasn't some Ghandi-ish peace and understanding guy. He said that if you didn't believe he was the Messiah, you were in for an eternity of sufferning. He often told people that it was better for them to suffer some horrible Earthly fate than to violate his teachings, because the punishment for that would be worse.

    Turn the other cheek? He also said not so nice things.

    "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." - Luke 22:36

    In the book of Matthew, one morning Jesus wakes up and wants some breakfast. He comes to a fig tree, expecting fruit. When he sees the tree has produced none, he becomes angry, and curses the tree, causing it to wither and die, never to produce fruit again.

    "And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance said unto him, âRabbi, behold, the fig tree which you cursed is withered away." - Mark 11:20

    Anyone that thinks Jesus was some hippy "I'm OK, You're OK" kind of guy really has never read the Bible.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  15. This isn't funny anymore ... by golodh · · Score: 5, Informative
    First of all the Scientology sect has a long, ugly, and above all well-documented history of harassment, intimidation, and legal chicanery. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishman_Affidavit, http://www.cesnur.org/testi/se_scientology.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karin_Spaink#Scientology, http://www.religionnewsblog.com/23160/james-orrington). The Scientology sect is held in Germany to be aimed at taking advantage of vulnerable individuals (http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/03/german-court-orders-berlins-anti.html). It is also in the business of selling its "religious" material, and makes strenuous efforts to keep such material from being publicly available (see e.g. their way of forcing Slasdot to remove material http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/16/1256226_F.shtml)

    With legal chicanery I mean e.g. leveling a barrage of nuisance lawsuits at an opponent with the objective of bankrupting the victim by forcing him to expend ruinous sums on legal counsel, or alternatively by securing unfounded convictions against the victim where he has been unable to mount an adequate legal defense (See e.g. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Declaration/exhibg.html).

    An additional form of chicanery is to drop charges against a victim who does mount an adequate defense in order to avoid unfavorable precedents from being set against the sect (see http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Gerechten/HogeRaad/Actualiteiten/Hoge+Raad+verwerpt+het+cassatieberoep+in+de+zaak+Scientology+providers+en+Spaink.htm (in Dutch)).

    Of course the wave of counter-harassment and even threats (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology) goes too far. But what the Cult now pleads for is to introduce a totally ambiguous definition of "Websites created with primary purpose of inciting religious vilification" (read: "anybody who says something to the effect that the Scientology sect is a nasty, dangerous, for-profit outfit") and strip those of anonymity or even the right to exist at all. In plain text: anyone who writes anything against the Scientology cult will now be exposed to harassment lawsuits, career wrecking, and intimidation (see the Fishman affidavit in one of the links above).

    The full text of the "recommendations" I reproduce below:

    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

    What part of this looks as if it provides any safeguards against the most appalling abuse? Where are the checks and balances? Who determines what is "misinformation", or "incitement of religious vilification"? Would quoting court documents that state the Scientology sect pr

  16. Re:As an Australian by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?