Slashdot Mirror
French Branch of Scientology Is Convicted of Fraud
The trial we discussed this spring has come to a verdict, and
reader lugannerd was one of several to note a milestone in the fight against the Church of Scientology. "The French branch of the Church of Scientology was convicted of fraud and fined nearly $900,000 on Tuesday by a Paris court. But the judges did not ban the church entirely, as the prosecution had demanded, saying that a change in the law prevented such an action for fraud. The church said it would appeal. The verdict was among the most important in several years to involve the controversial group, which is registered as a religion in the United States but has no similar legal protection in France. It is considered a sect here, and says it has some 45,000 adherents, out of some 12 million worldwide. It was the first time here that the church itself had been tried and convicted, as opposed to individual members."
Another victory for Xenu!
Well a 900k fine isn't going to be much. These guys have armies of members that fling money at that them. The best thing of this story is the bad press (though people say there is no such thing) given their army of lawyers I don't imagine this will ever hit main stream media, at least here in the states.
... The court also decided that the Scientology Sect^H^H^H^H Church is a 'legal' church, that should be allowed instead of banned in France.
A spokeswoman for the church, Agnès Bron, called the verdict "an Inquisition for modern times."
Help me out here, which Inquisition are you trying to draw a parallel to?
... which sound more like extortion through coercion to me than anything else.
In all of the most popular ones I think it was the several hundreds (possibly thousands) of individuals being persecuted for not believing Roman Catholicism (the popular religion). Crazy Catholic tribunals prosecuting people on arcane doctrine! Usually resulting in the end of their life or excommunication. Now the current situation is the government of France in a single instance finding the Church of Scientology guilty of fraud. Was there anything to do with religious doctrine in this case? Because I thought fraud was fraud whether you're the pope or Richard Dawkins! And the result is a paltry sum of $900,000 that is -- what? -- 1/7th of what it cost Tom Cruise to get to his last level of clairvoyance?
To reiterate, you're not being persecuted for your beliefs but instead your finances
Go ahead and use this to try to appeal to people with a persecution complex. If they have one, they won't find more persecution anywhere else than your ranks. I'm glad that sane people -- when hassled by you -- can now be informed that your accounting practices in France have been legally decried as fraud!
My work here is dung.
The Roman Catholic Church is one of the world's largest real estate companies and source of crazy statements by The Pope.
Yours In Petrograd,
K. Trout
If you weren't around, a few years ago, Taco caved in and released the info behind /. posters that Scientology came asking for. They are incessant, aggressive, and well-funded. If you want to post your OT III+ info, you may want to put it elsewhere.
I don't know why this is considered censorship. They brought the case before a judge who made a legal decision which can be appealed (and is).
France did not ban the organization from the country (although it seems as though they wanted to). Had they done that then I could understand the censorship tag, but really... Being tried for a crime in this case does not mean censorship.
So we have successfully chopped a branch off the TREE of Scientology? Should we continue to ROOT out more or should we LEAF it alone and look at other places to STEM our anger?
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/french-branch-of-scientology-is-convicted-of-fraud/ or http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/27/scientology-church-fraud-france
https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom
thousaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnndddddddddd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111
Let's see the French courts go after Islam.
At least in the catholic church you can learn about the Holy Ghost without "donating" a lifetime of earnings.
Cant say that I have, I am not a member of that sect either....
Of course there is only the one true Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ..
There are things for which the positivist, almost socialist state works wonderfully. This is one of those things. I say yay to the French and if in this instance you guys are thinking of bringing your old friend Ms. Guillotine out for a ride, I wouldn't cry a single tear.
NO SIG
the Holy Ghost? Is that the outfit Charlie Brown wears in the "It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" TV Special?
no, just 10%
Perhaps you're thinking of the Mormons. Catholics are too cheap to tithe 10%.
And you won't have to worry about audit process R2-45 should you decide to leave.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not "whetstone bridge":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatstone_bridge
See discussion on their numbers at adherents.com, a site whose main purpose is to track # of adherents to specific religions world wide, where they discuss why scientology isn't on their default charts. The discussion mentions "8 million", which at the time was the number often found in the media, that number is now apparently often 12 million. But the source of this number is the Church of Scientology itself. From this analysis, they conclude the # of Scientologists claimed by the CoS is "the total number of people who have participated in Church of Scientology activities since the inception of the church."
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
> > > > > > > Scilon Troll: "Hey, it's no sillier than $mainstreamReligion"
> > > > > > Fundamentalist Religious Dupe #1: "No it's not, our $mainstreamReligion is holy, space aliens are weird."
> > > > > Fundamentalist Atheist Dupe #1: "You silly $mainstreamReligionist! Both your belief systems are bogus!"
> > > > Moderate Atheist Dupe #2: "Yeah, all religions are the same."
> > Trolly Atheist Dupe #3: "Yeah, we should tax 'em all!"
> Paranoid Religious Dupe #3: "No way, I'd rather just let the Scilons keep on doing what they're doing... Relijus Freedumb!!!"
And then the Scilon troll reports back to the mothership: "False equivalence has been established. Everyone's bickering about whose religion is weirder, and all the moderates have agreed that our beliefs are as legitimate a religion as everyone else. Now we can claim religious persecution when speaking to religious audiences, and that we're being attacked by fanatics when we speak to non-religious audiences. Mission Accomplished!"
This isn't about whether Jesus or Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is weirder. Or about the relative atrocities of Crusades, the RPF, or not serving meatballs with spaghetti.
It's about one specific organization, and its track record of using litigation as a tool to silence dissent. Sonny Bono, Scientologist and Senator, not only supported the Mickey Mouse Protection Act which extended copyright terms to 75 years plus the life of the creator, he got the damn bill named after itself. When the DMCA was passed in 1998, guess was among the first first lawsuit under its provisions just a few months later? Hint: It's the same organization that attacked Slashdot itself in 2001 and Google in 2002.
It's not about space aliens, UFOs shaped like DC-8s, or volcanoes. It's about one organization's multi-decade track record of attacks on the Internet. That - and nothing else - is why it's News For Nerds, and Stuff That Matters.
Of course, by the time I've typed this, we'll have already gone through 100 posts of "No, your religion is weirder!" "No, all religions are silly", and Scilon trolls sitting back and smiling gleefully as they watch yet another message board thread fall for the distraction tactic, and this post all pointless.
(Yep, the Cult has already compared it to the Spanish Inquisition. For something nobody's supposed to expect, I'm not at all surprised the cult spokesperson has already started to draw comparisons to the Spanish Inquisition, especially in a historically-Catholic country, and right on time, two attempts to distract us by advocating taxation of the Catholic Church shows up here...)
But it felt good to rant for a bit.
Major differences with Scientology:
1. It does not have a thousands-year history of people believing it
2. It is a single centralized organization instead of a widespread population with sects and branches
3. The individuals controlling that single centralized organization today have a long history of criminal activity, as did just about everyone who ever had a position of power in that organization
The significant difference is that we know that the Co$ was started with express intention of fleecing money from its drones. With the others, we just have to use common sense to infer it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"The Roman Catholic Church is one of the world's largest real estate companies and source of crazy statements by The Pope."
2 items:
1) your link points to a site regarding the LDS church, aka the Mormons which, last I checked, have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church
2) A lot of what churches do is legal under another part of the code cited.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Look up evangelical leaders. Most of them get busted snorting coke off their gay hooker's ass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard
. . . the First Church of Appliantology?
What?
I knew it would not be long before a Slashtard waxed on Bush- "Christians used "God" as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst *atrocities* in history. The Crusades. Manifest Destiny. George Bush."
In comparison to your beloved Barack, Bush is a fucking genius and not a marxist socialist who thinks he is smart enough to fool all, only some who would probably like a one way ride on a DC8.
As for Scientology in contrast to Catholicism or Islam etc.m at least these religions were based on events and persons known to have existed with some ackowledgement as to how embellishment may color the belief today, maybe, but Scientology, there is not a fucking lick of evidence regarding anything those tools believe.
If you appear at the gates of heaven and are solicited for a "donation", cut his fucking throat and run but for gods sakes dont post it on /.!
of course it matters! the penguin cult might be next!!!!!
Someone from atop a French building turned on a large searchlight that blasted an image of a fighter jet into the air...
Just minutes later bad 80's music was heard all over the city as Top Guns' Maverick showed up to save the day..
Nice, If it helps I was going to say it if you hadn't beaten me to it. Christianity has been fucking with progress taking money and killing people way longer than Scientology and it certainly affects my daily life more.
I like the Colbert link.
3. The individuals controlling that single centralized organization today have a long history of criminal activity, as did just about everyone who ever had a position of power in that organization
The same thing can be said of the catholic church.
I'm sure L. Ron would laugh his ass off
Actually, L. Ron Hubbard *is* laughing his ass off, because as you are probably very well aware of, he never actually died but merely advanced to a higher state of being.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion? Catholicism has excommunication, same idea.
Nonsense. Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who "don't buy into their crap." I say it's actually their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults. Excommunication is reserved for cardinal sins, not merely associating with people who don't buy your crap. Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.
Finally, there are a few reasons why Scientology is far more dangerous than today's mainstream Abrahamic religions, Hinduism or any other organized religion. There is the US vs Them mentality that pervades the organization, the complete disregard for laws in their pursuit of their enemies and the practical enslavement of the low-rung members. In other words, the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed, and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations. With the former comes extreme (and deadly) actions, with the second comes power to carry out the extreme actions in great numbers and under cover.
Hubbard might have laughed at all the money Cruise has forked over, but he would be laughing on his yacht while figuring out how to extract more money.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"And have you tried those cookies that other fraud church gives out. Bland bland bland."
Yeah, but you get wine. True, it's basically a watered down Manischewitz, but it IS alcoholic, and they serve it to kids. In public. How cool is that!
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I am an atheist. I have many friends and family (including my wife) who subscribe to one of the many Christian variants. Also friends and colleagues who are Hindu, Sikh, Islam etc etc.
Once upon a time I had lots of close friends who are now Scientologists. They actively, passionately, and publicly hate me and consider me to be a deeply immoral person. A SP in their own language.
The gulf between your 'typical' Scientologist and how they view the world and other mainstream faiths is in my own very direct experience, is an extra-ordinary gulf.
You can trot out the religious atrocities of the past, but your typical theist today is as likely as a non theist to be a decent, social, community minded person. Scientology followers, by virtue of their extremist and uncompromising doctrine, are very much an anti social vector, and the only community they respect is their own Scientology community. As for your uninformed comments about only 'retards' being attracted to Scientology - cults like Scientology are actually quite nuanced and sophisticated in their recruitment - and attracting educated white collar folk is their bread and butter. Read this book if you have the inclination. A piece of blue sky
The scientologists have copy righted the judgement in USA and you are going to receive a DMCA take down notice soon.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I agree about the money portion
While that may be true outside France, inside France things are a little murkier. Now that they have been convicted of fraud they have to be careful since now a lot of the people who gave them money can probably get it back. Paying the fine might not be a problem but continuing to raise funds might.
When do all of L Ron Hubbard's writings pass into the public domain, at which point the CoS can no longer sue for copyright infringement anyone who posts their "religious texts" on the net, thereby cutting off their cash flow from charging hundreds of dollars for copies of said texts. Yes, CoS would be in favor of copyright extension, wouldn't they?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Christians used "God" as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst *atrocities* in history. The Crusades.
Don't know much about history, do you? The Crusades were in response to hundreds of years of Muslim invasions. The Middle East (which was Christian) was conquered by Muslims in the 7th Century AD. The Muslims invaded Europe in 711AD and sacked Rome in 846AD. Europe's Dark Age was dark because of Muslim slave raids destroyed Europe economy. You might want to read a biography of Miguel Cervantes (the author of Don Quixote)....he was held as a slave by Muslims for 5 years.
Scientology is no worse or better than either of them. At least it hasn't (yet) marched a bunch of its adherents into other countries, slaughtering "infidels", or set up any 800-year long inquisitions, or flown any aircraft into buildings, or burned any "witches." Though no doubt, give it time -- fanatics who base their thinking on superstitious bullshit almost always get around to such idiocy.
Societies should treat all superstitious nonsense the same way. So either prosecute 'em all, or leave em all alone. This "attack Scientology" business is inconsistent and hypocritical. Unless it leads to attacking the rest of them the same way... which trend isn't apparent at the moment.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I tend to agree with you, but I'm not quite sure how you they were able to prove fraud. If they made specific claims in regards to what the purification and vitamins would do you for, that's one thing. But if it's just a bunch of marketing speak then how exactly was fraud proven? If I claim to have a rock that keeps ghosts away, how can you disprove that? There weren't enough details in the NY Times article, so maybe specific disprovable claims were made; if that's the case, I'm fine with that. Otherwise, I think it's going down a slippery slope just to punish a few assholes.
"tithe" means 10%. If it's not 10% then it's not really a tithe at all.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
Neither of these points make the original irrelevant. :)
They operate like a business, owning land, stock, collecting money for services etc. They make a profit on a lot of these activities just like a business, why shouldn't they pay taxes like everyone else? They have their own COUNTRY , don't tell me the can't get some favorable tax laws there
It's a troll because you dragged your anti-religious agenda against a variety of unrelated other religious organizations into the matter. If we had an article about "terrible bug in Cisco routers almost broke the Internet" (like we did a few months back) and someone used it as an excuse to say "Microsoft is crappy, and PHP sucks" then you'd see an analogous phenomenon.
We know you hate religion. We don't care. Thank you.
Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap.
Just for the record, while that may happen in some cases, Mormons are encouraged by their leaders to maintain positive relationships with family members that choose not to join or to leave the church. The idea there is that if you actually care about people (not just fake it), then maybe you can make their lives better, regardless of their religious or personal choices.
Lumping all religions together as "laughable pile[s] of dog shit" does not reflect logic or reasoning. If your conclusion that they are all wrong is logical or well reasoned, then please share your reasoning. Smart people will listen to your arguments, though they may point out holes in them. No reasonable person will be won over by being mocked.
Don't discriminate. Revoke the tax-exempt status of ALL churches. The tax exemption was part of a Faustian bargain between church and state; the church was supposed to take care of social services for the poor, and in return tithes weren't taxed. The churches long ago abrogated that responsibility and turned responsibility for the social "safety net" over to the state -- and yet they still retain their tax-exempt status?!? WTF?!? Here in Beaverton, the Catholic Church owns hundreds of acres of prime real estate, and yet they have the gall to insist that people suing them get nothing because they declared bankruptcy and their church rules state that church property cannot be taken away in a lawsuit -- as if their church laws trump the government laws?!? WTF?!? Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else, so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
In related news, a major celebrity basically told the church he was sick of the lies and called the "church" morally reprehensible.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/10/paul-haggis-on-scientology-morally-reprehensible.html
Things are looking up!
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit, but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there, like Christianity or Islam?
While you might follow up with good points later on in the post, that first line is flamebait. Try removing all of the "emotional" wording from your post and just supply the information. It's not what you say as much as how you say it. You worded thing in a flamebait manor.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
Only because Catholics had hundreds of years to loot and pillage across Europe and the Middle East to accumulate their wealth. You don't need as much in the way of donations when you own more than any mega corp and just accumulate interest to fund yourself.
Also the only church with their own country.
I didn't read such a thing. The court merely declined to dissolve the cult altogether (what the prosecution requested), which would have been legally difficult considering that a scumbag lawmaker from scumbag Sarkozy's scumbag party passed an amendment that removed the penalty of dissolution for entities convicted of fraud a few months ago.
Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.
True, while not as bad as it was ~1400A.D., it's still has a large affect on people that live in towns where the vast majority are of the religion. (Places like Utah, Idaho)
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
I really wish I hadn't already used all of my mod points. This post is not a troll. There are some flamebait-ish qualities to that, but they're paired with some very valid points.
+1 Interesting.
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family
Citation needed
Catholicism has excommunication, same idea.
Rescinding somebody's privileges of membership is the same as fraud? That's quite a stretch, and your painting every person who ever stood under the banner of religion with the same broad brush is reckless and disingenuous.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
You guys completely miss the point.
In France, there has been an incredible 'mistake', where a law was about to be passed allowing to ban the Scientology.
However, it appears that there have been an error, where all the text expressing the ban of dangerous cults disappeared !
There is a huge debate in France because of this incredible mistake, and a lot of high public officials pretend that this is a computer error (eventually, it was the fact of a human editor).
It has been widely published that the french president Sarkozy welcomed Tom Cruise as a president, and Sarkozy has his own personal guru, who sends him positive waves every day (yes, this has been published too !).
Also, Sarkozy use the Scientology methods, especially in a current lawsuit, involving a previous Prime Minister: Dominique de Villepin.
The idea is to never try to defend, but to concentrate on harassing.
So now, we are in a sad state in France, where the Scientology has been condamned to a symbolic fine, and with a lot of indices that Sarkozy is involved with Scientology.
And the worst thing is that the opposition does not seem eager to attack Sarkozy on this subject.
As usual, the political omerta will cover all these dirty schemes, and the large audience will remain unaware of the real stakes.
BTW, in the last month, in France we had:
1) an ex-prime minister attacked by Sarkozy in the Clearstream affair, but I'm pretty sure he is innocent because it was the president Chirac who tried to trap Sarkozy
2) our minister of Culture who wrote in a book that he is a pedophile (and he just adopted a 18 years guy, as a way to provide inheritance in same sex couples). Funnily, he tried to protest against Polanski's arrest.
3) Jean, the son of Sarkozy, was about to be elected as the director of the EPAD, which is the organism that decides where to install buildings in the new french eldorado (La Défense)
I'm stopping here, I'm just too upset...
Scientology sucks dead buffalo dick.
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
No no, that's Jews.
After all, they like to brag about having the most viewers. I think that makes them pretty damn mainstream.
(Lying to themselves that they are not MSM doesn't mean jack.)
Scientology has its personal crusade against Psychology and Psychiatry, like because they are the branches of Science most likely to out their bogus claims.
Perhaps the final irony of Scientology is that L. Ron Hubbard died while taking psych drugs. Virtually all of their membership doesn't know this, and would consider it a vicious lie if they heard it, despite the fact that it's a matter of public record as reported by the local police.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's about the size of it. There are a few stories floating around about Hubbard's comments to his SF peers in the day, enough to make it very clear that the guy was looking for a vehicle to make money, gain influence and spread his dislike of psychiatry. It's quite possible that, at some point, Hubbard actually began believing the crap he was peddling, but in the early years, at least, it was nothing more than a get rich quick scheme, that worked extremely well.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit, but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there, like Christianity or Islam?
Fuck you. Go worship your stupid fucking alien/zombie magic savior. News flash: He's not coming back for you. Fucktards.
There's very little substantive difference between those two lines as far as being flamebait. Do you really think "fuck" is the difference between being flamebait and not? Or do you not understand the difference between a flame and flamebait?
You were modded appropriately. Sorry if you really didn't understand you were posting flamebait, though it'd be better if you just understood that and accepted the inevitable mods without caring. Either way whining about it is pathetic.
The enemies of Democracy are
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Good use of the [HERO] tag subby!
Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise Crazy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6moDLjGnYro
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Sects, sects, sects, is that all you kids think about?
Free Martian Whores!
Well, considering they're convicted of fraud, I wouldn't take their numbers too seriously.
"They operate like a business, owning land, stock, collecting money for services etc. They make a profit on a lot of these activities just like a business, why shouldn't they pay taxes like everyone else? "
If that is your criteria, then NOTHING would be tax exempt. If that's your point, ok, but don't kame out like the Catholic Church or other denominations are special in that regard.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
That's a lovely story, but not really bourne out by the facts. The Byzantines called on the Western Church and the the Western Princes for help against the Turks, to be sure, but what really happened is a bunch of European noblemen went over to the Holy Land and carved out kingdoms for themselves. To show you just how depraved and greedy the Crusaders were, look at the Fourth, where, seemingly not too interested in fighting Muslims, they sacked Constantinople, seized much of the Byzantine Empire, divided it amongst themselves via an already agreed upon treaty, and robbed the place blind (you'll find a good deal of stolen Byzantine treasure in places like Ravenna, gifted to Catholic Churches).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Scientology is as much a church as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
It's all history, man. -anon
The short version is that Christian salvation is free. I can go to church, I can read the bible, I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination. They're not selling salvation. It might be worth tossing a few bucks their way (or to the mosque, or the buddhist temple) to keep the services available, but there's no requirement to pay up.
With Scientology, salvation is directly tied to how much money you put into it. You buy access to higher levels.
Doctrinally, I don't think they're much different in crazy factor, but as far as the business practices go in terms of bilking believers, they're an outright fraud.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I say that all Scientologists must show their certificates of Anal Exploration by the Aliens that did it!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You missed what I said. I'm talking about their behavior toward FORMER mormons, not NON-mormons.
Speaking as a person who was baptized in the Mormon church when I was 12, and left when I was 17, I must point out that this statement is complete and utter bullshit.
This is a religion created by a washed up author who wrote about how great it would be to make up a religion and make lots of money. I'm suprised that they don't get dinged more in court
Christianity, with its history of inquisitions, crusades, witch burnings, pogroms, blood libel, financial parasitism, subjugation of women, repression of science, burning of scientists at the stake, abandonment of adherents, and general pillage... isn't a dangerous cult? Really?
Islam, with its similar history, including jihads, flying aircraft into buildings, suicide bombers... not a dangerous cult? Really?
Methinks you're not paying attention. And as the wag said, those who do not pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it.
Sounds just like Christianity and Islam to me. Ever see the knees of the Christian "penitent" after they crawl on sharp rocks? Tried to collect the chunks of an Islamic suicide bomber? Know what an "indulgence" is? Familiar with the celibate Christian priesthood's historical use of young boys? Know what the wall behind the nunnery often contains? How do you feel about the Christians who tell their kids they can't have medical treatment because god will handle things? You know you are forced by religious law to pay the portion of taxes that the churches have wiggled out of, don't you? Not defending Scientology here, it's as much bunk as the rest of them, but I sure don't think that the "mainstream" religions have earned your support.
Ok, I'll bite. What's an "actual" religion? Is it belief you're talking about? Would you really claim that there aren't honest believers in Scientology? Is it truth? No religion has demonstrated any grasp upon "truth" at all. Is is bad behavior? Heck, the mainstream religions are *far* more steeped in that. So what draws this clear line for you between Scientology and "actual religion"? I'd really like to know. They all look the same to me, just some are older and have longer, darker, and consequently more evil histories. Scientology, being a young religion, is just barely stretching its legs. So far. Fire away.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Look at all those 3 and 4 digit UIDs!
"Lumping all religions together as "laughable pile[s] of dog shit" does not reflect logic or reasoning."
This is correct. If you think they're all shit then you obviously haven't examined Norse mythology.
I'll see you in Valhalla, brother.
The churches long ago abrogated that responsibility and turned responsibility for the social "safety net" over to the state -- and yet they still retain their tax-exempt status?!?
Maybe some churches have abrogated that responsibility, but many have not. The LDS Church, for example, spends millions of dollars every year on welfare and other aid both for its members and for non-members. Any time there's a large-scale natural disaster in the world, the LDS Church is among the first to send aid. Guess where all that money comes from? If that money were taxed, then the Church would have to send less aid, and then the government would have to send more aid, so that money would be spent on aid anyway.
As far as I'm aware, the Catholic Church spends quite a bit on the same sort of aid.
I see no reason to universally remove tax exemption, but I would not be opposed to requiring tax-exempt organizations from proving they qualify for tax-exempt status (by providing accounting records). I'm not qualified to determine how much an organization should have to spend to qualify, but I'm sure the IRS could come up with some reasonable number.
Thank you for pointing out the GP's idiocy. I was going to do the same, with references from multiple friends of mine who are no longer practicing Mormons, but you saved me the trouble.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion?
Really? My brother's a Mormon and tried (and eventually gave up trying) to convert me years ago, but we still talk pretty regularly. It's impossible to convince him to go out for a beer or a cup of coffee, of course, but he hasn't shunned me.
I get the "you drink a glass or two of wine a day, you may be an alcoholic" speech from time to time, but that's just become part of our routine, and we can still talk about other stuff without getting all worked up about our differences. Personally, he fears for my immortal soul. Personally, I fear for his mortal wallet. We also don't agree politically on much of anything. But we can still enjoy a nice hike in the woods or a chat from time to time, and I don't get any sense of animosity or any attempt to ignore or avoid me.
Heck, the Mormon Church even has some pretty good practical ideas, like stocking up a bit on food (handy in Maine winters, though I realize it's more for the upcoming end of the world or something, but still - good advice for us doomed mortals too).
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Merely owning large quantities of land is not enough to be called a "real estate company". What exactly makes you consider them a real estate company?
Linking to "How to File an IRS 501(c)(3) complaint" does not prove your claim that the Catholic Church is a real estate company.
It is customary to link a claim to a source, rather than to a solution. (The proposed solution should be linked separately.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just because you were modded down doesn't mean that those users disagreed with you. It means that your post was filled with bigotry and, at best, a superficial understanding of what you were talking about.
Don't get me wrong, many mainstream churches have had a history of doing very bad things. That's what humans do. When people attempt to use religion to justify concepts that their religion EXPLICITLY rejects, however, it is not a fault of the religion, but rather the humans in charge. Many religions have gone on to do good things, even if there are idiots out there who attempt to use it to push against gay rights, science and freedom in general.
Please do not lump everyone together in one big group because it serves your argument. Rather, attempt to actually understand what you are talking about and the reasoning that others are using. Open mindedness works both ways, my friend.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The differences boil down to you aren't expected to become a criminal to ensure the bible is believed.
CoS believes that murder is acceptable because if they aren't scientologists they aren't human and therefore no murder is involved.
Show me where the church says (nowadays) that thou shalt cap any motha who disses the pope.
A Law has no place making a judgement on the past (defined as the period prior to the law's acceptance.) Historical injustices of religions, cults, or other groups are irrelevant to modern law. Furthermore, an event like The Crusades should not affect the outcome of some hypothetical trial accusing Christianity of fraud, as the The Crusades are not an event related to the fraud accusation. OK, yes so you could claim certain figures gathered funds for the crusades, but again, the Law shall not pass judgement on actions taken prior to the establishment of the law. If one wants to take on modern religion on these same grounds, they should go ahead; it's their right. But, they should know that the outcome of such trail should (and must) be based soley on the letter of the law. The Law makes special provisions for religion. Religion is defined by the Law. The Law says Scientology is not a religion (in France) but accepts Christianity as a religion. Therefore, Scientology is rightfully (in the eyes of the Law) held accordingly.
Your categorization of these groups are different from that of the Law. If you don't like it, then you must change the Law.
LAWL!!!1
Demented But Determined.
They make a profit on a lot of these activities just like a business, why shouldn't they pay taxes like everyone else?
From here:
Question 12: “Does the Church own substantial farm properties, as some have indicated?”
The Church does own a number of farm properties. As you know, we have some welfare properties whose produce is used to supply food for the needy. These are operated strictly for charitable purposes and legally qualify for tax-exempt status.
Then we have some commercial farm properties. I spoke earlier of the reserves of the Church. Prudent management requires that this money be put to use. In that process, we have purchased and hold some good, productive farms. They are well operated under capable management, and they yield a conservative rate of return. We have felt that good farms, over a long period, represent a safe investment where the assets of the Church may be preserved and enhanced, while at the same time they are available as an agricultural resource to feed people should there come a time of need.
Again, all such commercial properties are taxed under the government entities where they are located. Not only do they pay property taxes, but also income taxes on any profits. So it is with all of the commercial operations of the Church.
In other words, the LDS Church does in fact pay property tax and income tax on commercial efforts. One would assume the Catholic Church does the same.
Do you realize individuals get tax breaks for charitable donations? The exact same reasoning is behind a church's tax-exempt status - except that charitable activities of a church often far outpace what individual citizens could hope to accomplish:
From here:
Donations, principally from [LDS] Church members but also from people around the world, are used to make relief projects possible. One hundred percent of the donations given to the Church’s humanitarian services are used for relief efforts. The [LDS] Church absorbs its own overhead costs.
No for-profit organization would be willing to do that - and an organization that operates that way has great incentive to streamline its operations for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Do you think a government-operated agency would ever be as cost-effective?
Clamor for removing tax exemption from churches if you want, but you'd better not complain when you succeed and your taxes rise to compensate for the government's increased humanitarian aid spending.
Speaking as a former Mormon, I can confirm that you are spewing nonsense. I haven't watched the "documentary" in question but I am going to visit my parents for Thanksgiving. I left the church 15 years ago and never experienced any of the ostracism you suggest is commonplace. Quite the reverse; from time to time, the missionaries will stop by my house to offer to help out with yard work, or to invite my family to a church event. The interactions are always cordial, if a little awkward.
Possibly it's different if you are excommunicated, but consider what you have to do to get excommunicated; in practice it doesn't happen unless you kill someone or start spreading a lot of anti-Mormon hate. In which case it's hardly surprising that friends and loved ones would disown you. It's possible there is an official policy of no contact in such cases, but the worst that would happen if you ignored it is a discussion with your local church leader.
Frankly you sound like someone who has done a lot of research into these questions and I commend you for that. But you might want to consider your sources a bit more carefully, and talk to more people in the real world. Most people are not backstabbing SOBs who will turn on you in an instant if you step out of line. There are a few nutcases out there, but you don't have to be a Christian to be a jerk.
The difference is in theology. The Catholic Church doesn't have a copyright on the Bible and they don't force their members to pay out the ass to gain access to their theology. What makes Scientology a cult rather than a religion is that you have to pay just to know what their core beliefs are. I don't have to become a Christian or a Buddhist to find out what those religions are about. I can find out what they're about and then make an informed decision. I can read the Koran for free on the internet, I can walk into a church and read one of their many Bibles, and if I ask a Buddhist monk what he believes in he won't charge me for that information. In this regard there is a major difference between Scientology and traditional religions. Even Mormonism, which I've always found to be particularly silly, has an open theology.
Another major difference is that I don't have to be a member of a church to be a Christian, Jew, or whatever. Religion is a personal thing and church is a community of religious people (i.e. you can be Christian and belong to no sect). In Scientology, with their closed theology, this is not possible because if you're not a member you don't know what they believe in.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Whether I use the phrase "laughable pile of dog shit" or not is largely irrelevant.
It may not matter to the people you are describing. However it is quite relevant to the issue of whether your post would correctly be modded flamebait by an objective moderator.
My main point - the underlying concept itself - is (quite literally) heretical.
Regardless of the words I choose to express it.
It all depends on the audience.
I think you'll find other posts under this story that compare Scientology to mainstream religions which are not moderated flamebait. So either the "audience" changed halfway down the page, or your theory doesn't hold water and your post was in fact flamebait in a way other posts were not. Though that's not actually an exclusive 'or'... even if an uptight religious person with modpoints modded you for content rather than form, your post was flamebait.
The enemies of Democracy are
Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit, but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there, like Christianity or Islam?
I don't know about Islam, but I'm a nondenominal Christian (meaning I don't care of a church is Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, whatever) amd I've never been pressured to contribute in any of them. Not once. In every church I've been to, contribution is entirely voluntary, and most have empty envelopes that you can contribute NOTHING with. Christ himself said not to let any man know you were tithing, and most preachers respect this.
You might want to learn about a thing before you bash it.
Christians used "God" as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst *atrocities* in history.
No. Non-Christians pretending to be Christians ("wolves in sheep's clothing") used Christianity to perpetrate some of the worst atrocities in history for their own personal, evil ends, usually money and power. That includes George Bush; nothing he did marks him as a Christian, no matter that he does in fact profess to be one. In fact, none of the TV preachers in multimillion dollar churches wearing five thousand dollar suits are Christians; they (like Bush and every other rich person) worship money, not God.
All one has to do is read the first four books of the New Testament to realize that these guys aren't teaching what Christ taught. Pat Robertson has converted more Christians to athiesm than all the athisets at slashdot combined.
Free Martian Whores!
Please use a link that doesn't sit behind a logon
It could be 1 of 2 reasons
1. It might have to do with your referrer settings. I sometimes have that problem with the NY Times & always with the Washington Post.
2. The NY Times also sets a cookie that punts you to a log-in page after you've viewed a certain number of articles.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Aaaaand, by "most" you mean "one"? Or at most, several?
Y'see, those things are called outliers, or exceptions... not the norm.
Take this article from in 2007 by Fox News of all sources, just to avoid counter-CC bias
Trust me when I say they aren't getting anywhere soon in Western Europe.
They try now and then by shipping propaganda books to libraries and other tricks like that. Fortunately, those are usually handled swiftly and efficiently.
News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
And, with Global Warming holding off the Fimbulvintr, no need to worry about the end of the world coming!
And what percentage of the churches income does it use for social services, versus employee pay, non humanitarian admin and missions? Thought so.
I try not to reply to myself, but I feel compelled to add that the link you provide doesn't understand the law it's claiming is broken: it claims the LDS Church is violating US Code Title 26, Section 501(c)(3), but ignores the fact that the ban on activities mentioned in 501(c)(3) explicitly excludes activities permitted by 501(h). The LDS Church's involvement in Proposition 8 was permitted by 501(h), and therefore it was permitted by 501(c)(3), so according to the law, no law was broken. (IANAL, but IMO it's pretty clear.)
So... yeah.
Seriously? Ever heard of black people? Ever heard of native americans? Ever read a fucking history book?? "Oh, but that was a hundred years ago". Yeah, and look around. How different are things? Go walk through a ghetto and see what Christianity did for black people. FACT: America exists because of slavery and genocide that was sold to the populace under the cloak of religion. See, e.g. manifest destiny.
While Christianity is tolerant of slavery (which was a matter of socio-political convenience to get traction in the Roman world), it's unfair to act like Christianity is a cause or origin of slavery. Every major civilization in the world had slavery in some form at some time. The blame should be spread throughout humanity on that issue. Neither the US nor even 'Christendom' were the first nor last to use or abolish slavery. Slavery is neither a solely American nor Christian issue. Treating it as such is disingenuous.
As for how things are different, Native Americans today are now more wealthy and more free from government interference than most people in the US. And blaming Christianity for ghettos is absurd.
I say all this as an atheist myself.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Don't discriminate. Revoke the tax-exempt status of ALL churches . . . Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else, so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use.
Speaking about U.S. non-profits the bright line is "personal inurement" and I think that is a good place for it to say. http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=169403,00.html The government is therefore not placed in a position to say whether donating shoes to Africa or teaching computer skills in Dallas are more valuable. It just has to determine whether the activity results in individuals diverting untaxed income to their personal benefit. The government is also not put in a position of deciding whether atheists, spaghetti-monster-believers, or Mormons are more valuable to the communities where they exist.
Thus if the Church of Scientology loses a tax case it is because it has not respected personal inurement rules (or the related principle that donations must be gratuitous).
The U.S. system has the advantage of content-neutral enforcement but financial transparency. I would choose this result even if it means that non-profits I don't value or agree with get the benefits of the system. BTW, the rules for joint ventures and investment for non-profits are so restrictive, that some health care providers are converting from non-profits when they can. It's not a free-ride by any means.
I think the reasoning the OP said only retards join scientology is because it's difficult to imagine a smart, well-informed person believing it. I mean... came to earth on a jet, aliens inside our bodies, blown up around a volcano... what part of that should make me think "Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable, and fits in with the history of the planet"?
In all honesty, I would LOVE to have a good, thorough talk with a fully-believing, intelligent scientologist. No flaming, no yelling, hell, I won't even insult him or his beliefs. I would just like to see if I can understand WHY he follows that religion as opposed to others.
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
Its cool, I have karma to spend. And it says something about the religion or it's adherants. This whole topic is about bashing on Scientology but I say Christianity did it first and I get modded down for it though its true.
When those privileges include the right to speak to your (still-brainwashed) family.
I suppose that would be worse, but so far we're talking pure unsubstantiated fiction. As far as I'm aware, neither mormons nor Catholics seek to infringe on a persons right (or freedom, for that matter) to speak to their family or anybody else. I don't know where you got that idea.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Really?
You don't think Islamic suicide bombers are carrying an "us vs. them mentality? Or the 9/11 flight teams? Or the pope/catholics vs. anyone else? Or the sides in the conflict in Northern Ireland? Or the Jehovah's Witnesses, who *do* excommunicate (probably who the previous poster was thinking of when they said Mormons) Or the Mormons, with their tons of stashed-in-basement goodies, meant *only* for Mormons? Or Christians, constantly trying trying (and often succeeding) to get their religious agenda coded into US law? Methinks you are bewildered, or simply not paying attention.
well, I dunno. Perhaps you think that making people slaves because they are black isn't practical enslavement, either. No? Well, isn't enslavement the arbitrary forcing/coercion/deception of people to do your will? If so, how can you give Hinduism, Islam and Christianity a free pass here? What's the practical difference between a committed Scientology member and a committed low caste Hindu, or rank and file Islamist or Christian? They're all doing what the dogma of choice says, so where's the actual distinction?
Oh. You mean Islam and Christianity, right?
Which ones are they? The ones who burn witches, do "exorcisms", subjugate women? Or the ones who fly aircraft into buildings, walk into crowded public spaces with bombs strapped to their asses, and make women wear silly hats (or stone them to death)?
There are very few instances in human action where hypocrisy rises to such a level as when one religion, or an advocate thereof, points the finger at another and cries "evil!"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Wait, that doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.
If you are an organization taking in money, and then using that money either for charitable donations or direct charitable activity, there is no tax levied.
That, sir, is why your argument for tax-exempt status seems like a bogus argument: In the US, anyway, you only pay taxes on your net, NOT your gross, which is why I'm tired of hearing about how higher taxes destroy small businesses, when the majority of small businesses pay most (if not all) of their gross out in salary. The company pays little to no tax, and the tax is levied on the salary paid to employees, since the company is running at virtually no profit.
The same holds for religious organizations (or any organization or individual), unless you're not willing to account for your spending... that's when things get a little dicey, I suppose.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You obviously haven't looked at typical synagogue dues lately
I second that bullshit. I know many partially active families and while it does create some tension, it is definitely the exception, not the rule, to exclude those who choose to follow another path.
By that logic you should also convict atheists.
I think they do convict atheists that behave this way. Usually they are referred to as 'the Mob'.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Can we move to the Catholic church next? Can France get the Pope extradited?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap.
Cite for this baseless accusation please: I think you've got the Mormons confused with some other group. That type of action is neither taught nor does it commonly occur, I won't say it doesn't happen, but it's not doctrinal in any way or interpretation.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Actually L. Ron Hubbard and his wife knew exactly how to take advantage of easily misled people, and fueled decades of drug and booze-infused partying on donated funds. It wasn't a joke to the Hubbard family; it was a means to their livelihood.
Your points don't really hold water. For the most part all mainstream religions aren't nearly as weird as Scientology, which is a cult. Not that they haven't been in the past, or that they are incapable of such things. Mormons are pretty weird these days so I'm tempted to agree with you on that one, as a Californian I did not appreciate a bunch of polygamists coming here and saying gays can't marry, as if their own perverted sense of what makes a proper marriage gave them authority to decide it for others.
Comparing the playful and sarcastic innocence of Colbert to Scientology is incredibly offensive. Scientology actively murders people they find to be against their interests. There is no humor in that and Colbert would never approve of such a thing.
I think that's the underlying point for Scientology. They murder, right now, in modern times, and at the request of higher officials. The only parallel I can draw are Catholic priests being shuttled around and protected from prosecution, but there is no other relationship in (say) mainstream Christanity or in Islam unless you start talking about fringe groups which are a minority.
Don't worry. The Christians all think you're immoral. So do the Islamists. As for who hates whom, aren't you glad you weren't in the twin towers on 9/11? Aren't you glad you weren't around during these Christian acts of violence? Aren't you glad you were elsewhere when the Hindus got up and into the faces of the Christians, here? Or when they did the same for Islamists, here? Aren't you glad you can still draw a cartoon of Mohammad here in the US? I'm speaking legally, of course... that doesn't mean some moron Islamist won't come and clobber you for it anyway. Or, try wearing one of my atheist themed tee-shirts (right column) on the street, and see what happens. Better yet, try it in the American south. Oh yeah, you'll feel the love, all right. :)
No. Your experience is in the day to day "get along" strategies of the various religions. It has nothing to do with their world view, and doesn't exempt you from hidden disrespect and hate, or eventual violence. Eventually, an issue divisive enough will rear its head, and you'll see the strength of the relationships you have across these religious boundaries is to some degree imaginary. As an atheist, you are the lowest of the low to all religionists. For your own safety and the security of your family, you should keep that firmly in mind.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Does that mean I'm really an atheist? How will I resolve my disbelief of atheism with my atheism?
An Atheist is a 'A thieist', where a theist is someone who believes in a god. It seems plain to me that you need to found a movement of 'Aatheists'. Until you do this though, I refuse to believe you or that you don't believe in Athesim, making me an Aaatheist.
Chant some Rene Descartes mantras, and hope for the best.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You can EXPLAIN why people believe in Christ, in Yawe, in Alah. You cannot, in any way, explain why people believes in a sci fi character which their OWN WRITER said was false, and just fantasy, and a great business.
Yes, there IS a difference in being a conman and being a man of the cloth.
NO SIG
Don't forget OSD (ten commandments) and Linux (prophet Torvalds)...
Cult: " Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing."
*Chambers a round - you aint getting me alive!*
Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion?
Pardon me, but... The hell?
I was friends with a number of Mormons in college, some from part-member families, some whose entire families were members of the church, and some who had left the church while their families remained active in the church. There were some social cliques (probably from the group that moved here together from Utah), but there were also plenty of 'normal' students who worked in labs, played in the bands, or joined fraternities, and were pretty much indistinguishable from the students around them, except for the fact that they refused to get trashed on Friday nights. I got to know the families of a few friends--some of the families were not even members of the church (*gasp*!), but there was certainly no "shunning" going on.
I ended up joining the LDS Church (the Mormons) on my own some time later--though that's another story altogether. My family wasn't happy with the decision at first, but they didn't shun me, and I certainly didn't distance myself from them. Fast forward a year or two, and I am closer to my parents and brothers than I had ever been before. I've never been taught to "shun my own family", even though they take little interest in my beliefs--in fact, the Sunday sermons tend to be lessons that my family is incredibly important, regardless of our differences.
On another note...
Christians used "God" as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst *atrocities* in history. The Crusades. Manifest Destiny. George Bush. The list goes on.
News flash: People in power will use whatever excuses available to them to increase/consolidate/extend/continue their power. Your examples all come from Western, Christian societies. If you expand your scope, you can find plenty of other examples: Hindu Kali Thuggees, The Samurai culture and Japanese war crime in WWII, or the animosity between rival denominations of Islam based upon succession to Muhammad.
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
Ok mods, this IS flamebait, but its a very nice one. Have mercy.
NO SIG
He didn't say anything about why the wars were prosecuted; he pointed out that they were the vehicle for Christian atrocities, which is straight up truth. Certainly a culture has the right to defend itself against violence; but the manner in which that is done is still relevant.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Because they might have? There are over 11 million Mormons. You can't expect all of them to act the same. Every group, not just the religious, is going to have its crazy people.
I was baptized a Mormon when I was 13 but I'm now agnostic. I still have a bunch of friends that I met through my church. I still talk and hang out with them on a regular basis. I haven't gone to church in over 6 years now.
Because Religulous is not a statistical study, and as such not a credible source for extrapolating towards a larger population? Because it isn't even a documentary, but more an interest piece in the vein of the Moore films?
And people wonder why American education is going down the tubes... it's because too many Americans confuse entertainment with reality.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
And 4:
It doesn't have a moral code which is why lefty Hollywood types flock to it.
Whenever I see the term "mainstream" used, I wish it were replaced with "lowest common denominator" instead. It'd be a better world.
Whenever I see the user "causality" commenting, I wish the user name were replaced with "elitist douche" instead. It'd be a better world.
Because the public opinion and political power wielded by that majority which, by definition, adheres to "mainstream" views has led us to such a delightful society full of happy, loving, peaceful people . Surely anyone who thinks otherwise is an elitist, and a douche. Right?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Many peoplw will only look at the first sentence if that sentence is flamebait.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
Christians used "God" as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst *atrocities* in history. The Crusades.
Don't know much about history, do you? The Crusades were in response to hundreds of years of Muslim invasions. The Middle East (which was Christian) was conquered by Muslims in the 7th Century AD. The Muslims invaded Europe in 711AD and sacked Rome in 846AD. Europe's Dark Age was dark because of Muslim slave raids destroyed Europe economy. You might want to read a biography of Miguel Cervantes (the author of Don Quixote)....he was held as a slave by Muslims for 5 years.
Rome's empire was invaded from the north too. Later when the Vikings emerged they plundered the continent into even darker times. Contrast that with the Muslims who settled for a while in southern Spain. They built cities with libraries, universities and theaters at a time when the Christians to the north were living in mud hut villages. They had a library in one city that contained more books than existed in the whole of contemporary France at the time, and that was one of about seventy libraries in that one city.
It was Islam that carried on the work of Classical Greek/Roman civilisation with so many developments in mathematics -- why do you think half the words in modern mathematical English are Arabic words?
Islam gets a bad press in today's world (deservedly so, IMHO, since it seems to predisposed to extremism) but let's not get too carried away with the version of history that was written by the victors. The Crusades were as much a political quest as a religious one. The perversions of the Muslims were the 'threat from WMDs' of their day.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
2. Lenin. "The more religious we kill the better."
Hmmm, to be fair, I think that was less about religious beliefs and more about simple power and control. The Bolsheviks weren't objecting so much to the church's beliefs as much as its power to influence large amounts of people. I would be more inclined to put stock in your suggestion if they had restricted their killing exclusively to religious people, as opposed to anyone they though could get in their way.
I think that if you look at a lot of the religious persecutions and killings done by non-religious groups, they aren't so much being done because the victims are religious but for other reasons. Even the holocaust was more about ethnic cleansing as opposed to the Nazis objecting to Jewish dogma.
Atheists may not have 'clean hands' as a whole, but the movement or concept of Athesim seems to be pretty much removed from mass genocides and such.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Also,
I was not trying to argue with you. I was just attempting to offer an insight as to why your post was mod'ed that way it was.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
You don't think Islamic suicide bombers are carrying an "us vs. them mentality? Or the 9/11 flight teams
Note my use of mainstream. There are far more inclusionist Muslims than there are inclusionist Scientologist. Especially once you get into the hierarchy. Same for your digs at the various other religions. You're analogy with the Pope might have had traction 800 years ago, but the Church's position in secular politics was emasculated several times in the last 300 years.
Methinks you have an unhealthy fixation on any organized religion, and are incapable of seeing those who do good in the name of their God, and who welcome people with other beliefs. If anything, you're the kind of person that makes atheists the world over look bad: shrill, with historic arguments that have long ago run their course and that are laden with emotional trigger words.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
There are 2 separate issues here: 1) Real estate taxes and 2) Tax on corporate "profits".
By definition, a "non-profit" should not be paying out dividends to anyone; all revenue taken in should be reinvested or used for charitable works. So other than salaries and perks for workers, they should not be taxed. Real estate taxes are based on a different principle: land owners are paying for services provided, e.g. street lighting, roads, police protection, utilities infrastructure, etc. You can argue that amount of land owned or market value of land owned is not the best measure of government benefit provided to the landowner, but I can think of no logical reason why church owned lands should be subject to any different rules than the land I myself own.
Complete accounting transparency should be a legal prerequisite for any corporation claiming non-profit status. Without that, their is no way to determine whether or non profits are being taken out. The Church of Scientology has always co-mingled their non-profit church with their for-profit book publisher Bridge Communications; books are sold out of Church buildings, and church members are required to purchase books from Bridge for services. In addition, "donations" for services are in no may voluntary. These factors make any claim of non-profit status by CoS extremely questionable. In my view, you simply cannot have it both ways -- claiming to be a church whenever it benefits you, then turning around and claiming to be a business whenever it benefits you. On occasion CoS is actually denied tax exempt status, but not often enough. Apparently in 1993 CoS was granted by the IRS tax exempt status in US.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I mean... just look at this shit:
Locate by meter read or an area of pressure, a body thetan or
group (cluster). Run Incident 11. If the BT does not blow off or
'the group break up and blow, then run Incident I on individual
BT's. Each will blow off with an FIN.
When you can find no more on which to run Incident I's, once
wore locate a pressure area or by meter read on looking over body
run another Incident II. Then Incident 1's on any.
Incident II made clusters of BT's. Severe impacts and
(0082)
experiences ALSO make clusters. (See the data called "Milazzo" in
this pack.) Those who do not leave on running the impact or its
chain will leave when Incident I Is run on them.
Incident II sometimes forms gigantic clusters. In such there
is a leader, an alternate leader and several (eight to eighteen)
more. These were all implanted in different volcanic areas with
fractions of the nain 36 day implant and then "packaged" in Las
Palmas or Hawaii. Thus if you run Incident II as far as "the
pilot" it blows up or loosens up and those who don't go away can
be run on Incident I's.
Do not speak your commands. Just "intend" them. A BT
controls easily. BT's can be ARC broken by rough or careless
auditing. You can also run an incident II on a BT and he doesn't
blow, but you accidentally run in Incident I on another one and
leave the first still there. The remedy is to run Incident I's on
anything you find.
A very SP BT can be run on grades and Power and should then
respond to Incident II and Incident I.
After a BT leaves, some other BT may copy him or the incident
just run.
We don't need any special rules for that. Any money that churches spend on charity should be tax-deductible under the same rules that apply to any other organizations. All other money shouldn't be tax-deductible. A church may also apply to be a tax-exempt organization, but it will have to prove that it really is a non-profit, and comply with all other regulations that any other tax-exempt organization has to comply.
since the company is running at virtually no profit.
A company needs profit to grow ;) Besides, I don't think you understand how taxes on small businesses work. It's not just "you're taxed on gross minus employee salaries minus expenses". If that were the case, then no company would ever pay taxes, because they'd make sure to spend all their income.
What I mean is, it's far more complicated than you're making it out to be, and yes, higher taxes do make things more difficult to small businesses - especially when the business' profit is the owner's income. If the profit is virtually zero, then the owner is living on virtually zero, and that situation doesn't work very long.
If you are an organization taking in money, and then using that money either for charitable donations or direct charitable activity, there is no tax levied.
That, sir, is why your argument for tax-exempt status seems like a bogus argument
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You switch from talking about tax-exempt, non-profit organizations which take donations and spend all of the donations on charitable work, to talking about for-profit small businesses with no mention of charity.
There's a disconnect in there somewhere, and I think you need to revisit this a little more clearly.
You're the one interpreting them that way. You are not a persecuted martyr.
In all honesty, I would LOVE to have a good, thorough talk with a fully-believing, intelligent scientologist. No flaming, no yelling, hell, I won't even insult him or his beliefs. I would just like to see if I can understand WHY he follows that religion as opposed to others.
What are your crimes? Did you club a baby seal?
Yeah, that sounds odd but there is a fairly well documented instance where a celebrity Scientologist asked that of a critic whom, to be fair, was wearing a t-shirt that directly attacked their "religion". Most people would call him an idiot and move on, or just walk past, but they began insinuating that he was a criminal and had committed some truly heinous crimes.
I'm not saying you can't have the conversation you wish, but if some idiotic t-shirt can cause that response I can't imagine that there is much hope. Though it isn't something I've seen advertised, it appears that there is a trained response to critics where the practitioners accuse the critic of committing crimes as evidenced by their criticism of Scientology.
I can't speak for the Catholic Church on this, because it operates differently, but the LDS Church uses a lay clergy; none are paid for their religious service. For example, an LDS Bishop is not paid for the time and effort he puts into his duties (which are given on top of his normal full-time job and family responsibilities).
The vast majority of LDS missionaries pay their own way (the Church absorbs the overhead of managing fund distribution from a missionary's family at home to missionaries out in the field).
Whatever profits the LDS Church makes on its commercial activities it does pay taxes on, and even then, that money is not used for non-commercial activities.
As far as "employee pay", the Church has very few actual employees; a handful of accountants at Church headquarters, some janitors. That number pales in comparison to the expense of managing the Church's humanitarian aid programs :)
So... what's your point?
In addition to the two very fine other comments:
I was raised in the LDS church, and am now atheist. My family (all mormon) and mormon friends still talk to me.
My girlfriend was raised in the church, went on a mission to brazil, and is now atheist. Her family still talks to her, my parents have no problem with her, etc.
One of my friends joined the church for a few years, went on a mission, quit halfway through, joined the Anglican church, AND is gay. Our mutual mormon friends haven't shunned him, either.
The plural of 'anecdote' may not be 'data', but I'd say the singular of 'biased documentary' is 'bullshit'.
I'm no fan of mainstream or historical religions either, and agree with nearly all of what you said. But:
So what draws this clear line for you between Scientology and "actual religion"? I'd really like to know.
Scientology refuses to even tell you what they believe without you spending large amounts of money. If you "convert", you do so without any knowledge or even opportunity to examine their beliefs. The beliefs, such as they are, are not revealed until after you've emptied your bank account for them.
Pretty much all "actual religions" are happy -- overeager, even -- to tell you what they believe. Their holy books are publicly available. Only this one charges you many thousands of dollars to learn what your own religion's beliefs are if you convert.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Here's the distinction, and it's quite the heavy issue:
Religion orders, demands, ordains and directs atrocities. Witch burnings were _specifically_ religious. The inquisitions (papal and Spanish) were _specifically_ religious. The arrest of Galileo and the burning of Filippo (Giordano) Bruno at the stake were _specifically_ religious. The atrocities of the crusades were _specifically_ religious. The list goes on, and it is monotonously consistent.
Now these people were motivated / told / ordered by religion to do what they did. That's the nature of the acts -- they were religious acts. They may also have all liked bread, and sex, but those were not their motivations. So we don't blame the "sexers" or the "breadeaters" for the witch burnings, etc. When you blame a system for acts, you need to positively associate the system's dictates with the acts, otherwise you're just spouting bullshit. Correlation is not causation.
Stalin did not kill people because atheism told him to, hinted that he should, or even led him in that direction. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's all it is. There is no dogma; no instruction; no direction. It is *entirely* disingenuous to try to blame motivation - Stalin's or anyone else's - on atheism. Likewise, the blowtards of Columbine were not taking direction from Atheism; their pathology was something else entirely (and we would probably find it had something to do with religion, if we actually thought it through... after all, it is religion that dictates behavior, not atheism, and those broken individuals were clearly reacting against something, not for something.)
Theism is a set of active belief systems with rules, directions, leaders, and so forth. Atheism is not.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Christianity, with its history of inquisitions, crusades, witch burnings, pogroms, blood libel, financial parasitism, subjugation of women, repression of science, burning of scientists at the stake, abandonment of adherents, and general pillage... isn't a dangerous cult? Really?
Yeah! And white people, with their history of colonialism, slavery, pillage, and rape of minorities need to be locked away as well. Because the sins of ones ancestors are exactly the same as acts committed today!
Christianity is no different from any other major religion in the horrors it has created, and it's no different from modern, secular, state-scale cultural/political forces like state communism or nationalism. It turns out that when we humans band together in large groups around a shared system of beliefs and cultural identity, we have an overwhelming tendency to act like murderous, condescending assholes to everyone else. Religion is just the form we're most familiar with due to the short time-period that widespread secularism has been in existence.
Personally, while I think Scientology is a pretty dangerous organization today, I'm not too worried about their future. Scientology today is just kind of like LDS church was 100 years ago -- feeling persecuted and justified in lashing out at its critics. They don't face the same kind of (often violent) persecution the LDS church did, and their ways are really out of touch with modern society's opinions on "asshatery in the name of faith," but give it a century, and they may well turn into model citizens. Doesn't really mean that they're not a group to watch out for in the meantime, though.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Well that's sort of my point. There is little difference between a Church and a non-profit charity organization, and the tax code already treats them largely the same. There's no reason to change anything, we merely need to better enforce the existing rules for the non-profit tax-exemption status to cut out the groups that try to take advantage of the rules for their own personal benefit.
Yeah, you might actually want to read subsection h, and the interpretations. Basically, it limits 501(c)3 organizations to budgetary limits on lobbying efforts (20% and lower depending on size of the budget), but in any case not to exceed $250,000 on grassroots campaigning (cap of 25% of all lobbying on grassroots, and cap of $1 mil on all lobbying).
I'm not sure how much LDS spend on Prop 8 grassroots organizing, but if they exceeded that amount... well... they'd be in violation.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Noted.
There are far more Muslims. As for how many scientologists believe Hubbard dances on the head of a pin with aliens, I don't know, and you don't know -- what we both know is that there are plenty of them. Regardless, it isn't a matter of quantity that validates or invalidates their position, so the point you're trying to make is moot. The issue is, those "mainstream" religions have a history of very recent extreme violence, extreme violence that is at the direction of the religion itself. They are not clean of hand here.
The Pope has plenty of authority where it matters: With Catholics. He tells them what to do, and a very large number of them do it. He is anything but "emasculated." Likewise the Mormons are effective politically, the Islamists, and so on. To the degree that they aren't, it isn't generally a credit to their religion.
Really? Personal attacks? This is how you think you'll make a telling point?
My arguments are, at least as best as I can manage, based upon facts. If you can't meet that standard, you'll fail to make your point every time. Name-calling will not advance your position.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
And we keep it going because the pope is a very funny guy
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
thanks for your comment. too bad i used my modpoints a few days ago :)
The LDS Church spent less than $200k on the effort.
The problem is, the people complaining are trying to claim that independent donations by members (through non-Church channels) are part of the Church's official contributions.
The logical extension of that claim is that any donation made to any cause by any member of a church must be counted toward that church's expenses, which is quite frankly a counter-intuitive, idiotic, unworkable, and unenforceable idea.
The result would be all churches losing tax-exempt status merely for having charitable members!
This somewhat could be summarised as "oh no, actually all bad persons are not christians, no way. Only good persons are."
You can't undo history. And christianity has left enough footprints in the history that it is judged by - and pretending that only good people are christians is just silly excuse.
Wow, what a lot of paranoid drivel. "For the security of your family?" Did you note that his wife is a Christian?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What school of revisionist history did you attend? When the First Amendment was written, there was no income tax, so the taxability of tithes was a non-issue.
Of course, the 10% tithe that members pay does -NOT- go to said humanitarian services.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Ok. And Christianity tells you up front, as does Islam. Though both say you won't "get it" until you drop your logic and sense of reality and "just believe", which can, and often does, take quite some time. And time, as the wise man tells us, is money. I guess the order of the revelation of the superstitious dogma seems like a pretty minor point to me. There are differences in the order of teaching, and who you get to talk to, in every religion. Your average Catholic doesn't get to converse with, or receive the pope's specific advice; your average Islamist doesn't get to speak to, or receive guidance from, the Ayatollah, either. But in both cases, apply enough money, and bingo, you have an audience. And the Vatican basement is renowned for the squirreling away of large amounts of art and writings. Just try and get to those. Money (first) will definitely be involved. Scientology's flaw here, if I understand you, is that they seem to have formalized the process. I don't see that as disqualifying them from being essentially the same as the others: Marketers of superstition to the weak-minded, the gullible and the non-critical thinkers (in various combinations.) Another thing is that Scientology certainly does give you starter dogma, just like the others do. The ratio of starter to "you'll get that later" is different, that's all. You'll be paying, in money and time and lost opportunities to be a sensible human being, no matter which one you go with.
Agreed, that's the general case. But how does it make one vendor of superstition different from another? Money up front, or money later? They both will happily take your money insofar as you let them and spend that money as they see fit (if you ever visit the Vatican, this point will be made resoundingly clear. Or the basement of your local Mormon church. Or the headquarters of Scientology. Etc.) They both will sell you nonsense as if it were truth. They both will take advantage of the political system to make you pay the taxes they should be paying.
And again, "mainstream" religions have a long, consistent history of imprisoning, torturing and/or killing those who don't believe or even just don't quite believe the same. Scientology is just barely a beginner here. So far. So I really have a difficult time with any argument that they are worse than the others.
Personally, I see one vendor of superstitious nonsense as in the same industry and carrying the essential same goal set as any of the others. They peddle imaginary hucksterism, they want your money so they can do more of that, and they also want your money so they can spread the system far and wide by whatever means are affordable. Some of them do good in process; some do evil; some do both. "Feed a child and warp their mind" is a pretty good summary of most religious outreach. You find very few anonymous religious outreach programs. In other words, soup kitchens where no one says anything but "good morning, have some soup" and in answer to "who are you people", answer "just people concerned about your well being." It's largely a shell game with goals that are generations wide; convert and prosper, fail to convert and fail entirely.
The Scientologists, being new at this, have a more "now" approach to income and conversion, but I think it will boil down to the same thing in the long run.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The tithe is entirely voluntary. It's the clowns in bad suits on TV who pressure people to 'give til it hurts'. Real churches don't do that kind of crap.
You give in gratitude for your salvation, not in order to win it. That is bedrock Christian theology. And God is just as happy with you giving
through volunteer work or simply visiting a friend. But do keep in mind that your local church can't keep the doors open unless they get help.
Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion?
Speaking as a Utah-raised Mormon with several family members who are no longer active in the Church, I call your bluff.
Nobody in my family is shunned for not believing. I have many friends who are not members of the Church. Furthermore, the LDS Church explicitly disapproves of shunning people who have left the Church, especially family members, and we are encouraged to befriend those around us who are not members of the Church.
There's always isolated examples of person X shunning person Y for reason Z, no matter what group of people you're talking about. Don't judge an entire group of people based on third-hand stories.
Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit, but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there, like Christianity or Islam?
It's not. But Christianity and Islam are pretty fucking evil, so I'm not sure how that gets Scientology off the hook.
... and then they built the supercollider.
which is registered as a religion in the United States but has no similar legal protection in France
Since 1905 the French state recognize no religion. You can worship the great spaghetti monster and pretend to be a religion, it's not the problem of the French state if you don't break any law and regulation. Your so call religious organization will not give you any tax reduction. It only allow your organization to get donations and legacy legally. It should conform to strict financial control and is limited to non profit organization of the worship. If you want to do charity business, sell religious book, etc ... it's not considered as a religious activity and it become a regulars associations, sport club, etc. That why most of the so call new religious movement can't have the tax reduction, because they are not non profit organization and no tax reduction either!
Most established religions have multiple legal or associative entity with different statues, usually only one is a “association cultuelle” roughly a religious association. So the book store money, the charity money and the money for the organization of ceremonies never cross or mix. An association if it recognized of public interest can receive a tax cut ( mostly for the donors in fact ). So you can have a religious association, a charity association of public interest and a book store recorded as a regular business for the same religion.
I'm atheist, I give time and money to the secours catholique a catholic charity association ( they are on the other side of my street ). I'm sure that none of my euro will ever pay a priest. In my view it's a pretty good system.
What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." do you feel addresses the issue of taxing Church property or income? Quite to the contrary, it seems to argue that churches should be treated exactly like any other entity, not given an exemption from property taxes by virtue of being a religious organization. Yes, to the extent that tithes are not taken out as profits (e.g. some televangelists do lead extravagant lifestyles) they should not be taxed. Churches should be treated no differently than any other nonprofit.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Yeah, but you get wine. True, it's basically a watered down Manischewitz, but it IS alcoholic, and they serve it to kids. In public. How cool is that!
Makes it easier for the priests to ass-rape them later.
No. Non-Christians pretending to be Christians ("wolves in sheep's clothing") used Christianity to perpetrate some of the worst atrocities in history for their own personal, evil ends, usually money and power. That includes George Bush; nothing he did marks him as a Christian, no matter that he does in fact profess to be one.
Such a bullshit argument. Ever heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy? Unfortunately, you don't get to disown members of your group/clan/religion because they did something bad. The truth is that many actual Christians were involved in committing terrible atrocities.
All Christianity is, is belief in (a certain interpretation) of God. That's all it takes. You can be criminally insane, a brutal dictator, whatever - you can still be a Christian if you believe. And many perpetrators of crimes against humanity did believe.
... and then they built the supercollider.
No, but it's also not used for profit ;)
Tithing goes toward (for example):
- meetinghouse and temple maintenance and construction, and purchase of land for new church buildings
- funding for church ecclesiastical activities, both religious and social
- funding the Church Education System, which runs seminaries and generates printed materials for distribution to members
- some of the missionary effort is funded through tithing
You'll note that none of these things generate profit (and in fact none of these things generate any return at all). My list is not complete, but it does account for the vast majority of tithing expenditure as far as I'm aware.
The Church's for-profit activities are entirely separate from tithing, and are taxed appropriately.
To be fair, it wasn't just a get rich quick scheme: he also got to score with tons of hot cult chick groupies.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Seems to me that you morally object to tribalism and fundamentalism - not religion per se. I too object to tribalism. Religion can be a carrier for tribalism, but it is not the only carrier. Your own post above obviously carries highly antagonistic us vs them theme which in itself is tribalistic.
No shortage of atheists who go through great contortions to try and rationalise atrocities of the 20th century against religion in order to remain true to their beliefs that religion at heart is fundamentally evil - the crusades into the holy land and all of that. I must admit I used to think this way once too. But deeper forces are at work if you are seeking a theory that consolidates horrific events from the crusades, to the rise of Fascism and National Socialism to the Cambodian killing fields
As an atheist I consider religious doctrine silly. I'd sooner read Thomas Paine than read what some silly goat herder felt was important 2000 years ago and I don't try to hide my feelings about issues like this from the theists around me. But I try to remain respectful. Its a balancing act. I may of acted like a fundy atheist in the past from time to time, but fundamentalism/tribalism are ugly human traits no matter what the underlying cause - and I have little time for fundamentalists of any persuasion, hence there are no Scientologists in my life.
He did a sight bit better at making a religious cult than he did as an SF writer. Compared to most of his peers, Hubbard sucked.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Kilgore Trout" may be an interesting troll, but he's still a troll.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
it's like comparing volunteering to clean up the highway median of garbage, and being forced to clean it up, and your income from the job goes to your crew boss
yes, there is plenty of monotheistic religions you should skewer and condemn
but to not recognize that for all the crimes of judaism, christianity, islam, etc., that scientology outdoes those religions and adds a few more crimes, is to not understand the subject matter you are injecting yourself into
i dislike organized religion. but i dislike slavery even more. and that's what scientology is
you really should read up on how especially vicious this nasty cult is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_snow_white
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Major differences with Scientology:
1. It does not have a thousands-year history of people believing it
Argument from antiquity fail.
Any FORMER mormon who leaves the church will be prevented from seeing his family and friends again. Anyone current mormon who breaks the rules and speaks to a FORMER mormon risks the same.
I already responded in general here, but these claims merit separate response.
First, recall that I am a Mormon who was raised mostly in Utah in mostly Mormon communities with mostly Mormon friends.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but your claims certainly do not reflect my experience living among Mormons.
As a Utah Mormon, I just want to point out that excommunication is not used as a threat, and when someone is excommunicated, it's for one of two things:
- Member broke the law, and remained unrepentant (i.e. continued breaking the law). In the case, if that person is shunned, it is for being a criminal, and for no other reason.
- Member cheated on member's spouse, and remained unrepentant (i.e. continue cheating on spouse). In that case, if the person is shunned, it's for being a disloyal jerkface, and for no other reason.
Generally speaking, if Steve is excommunicated, chances are most of the people Steve knows won't even find out unless he tells them. It's not something that gets announced in Church meetings. Furthermore, Church members are generally encouraged to maintain existing friendships with people who leave the Church.
Personally, I think that churches should have to organize under the same rules as any other non-profit in terms of tax status. Also, per the GP post, I personally believe that property taxes are inherently wrong. Now, taxes on the sale/transfer of property I'm fine with. I don't think you should be taxed simply for the fact that you own property or exist/breath and otherwise not taking any otherwise progressive steps. Income I have mixed feelings on as well. I'm okay with import/export/excise/purchase/sales taxes...
I feel that the right to life and property are themselves inherent and should be protected from encroachment by taxation.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Off Topic, but nice user name.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
No. But any attempt at colonialism, slavery, pillage, torture, misogyny, class-ism, caste, and rape needs to be stepped upon. More directly, any organization that espouses these ideals needs to be stepped upon. The flaw in your idea there is that people, white or otherwise, are not the same as religion. Religion equates to things like the KKK; long-extant organizations that have formalized goals which have not changed in any significant manner, and a history of doing profound evil to pursue those goals (and sometimes, as with the KKK, goals that are themselves evil.)
You'll note that the KKK is not a reason to pillory current white people, and likewise, the tenets of religion are not a reason to pillory current people, even if religious - they are reason to pillory *religion*. The organization is responsible for the evil done at its behest and encouragement. You don't take that responsibility away by saying "well, they did that *yesterday*, so it doesn't matter any longer." It bloody well does. Because the organization isn't its own descendant: It's the *same entity*.
For instance, the US government is still responsible for jailing US citizens of Japanese ethnicity during WWII. Because it's the same organization. The responsibility doesn't go away when the legislators change seats. Sure, those original legislators are guilty too, and sure, modern legislators didn't cause the problem, but they are *still* responsible for the consequences, because they represent the organization, and the responsibility accrues to the organization. If they don't want to deal with the acts of the government, they shouldn't be in government. Any religion is exactly the same. So the atrocities of the crusades matter. The witch burnings matter. Galileo's imprisonment matters. Also, these things tell us what the religion will do if it has the freedom to do so. In the US, at least, we've managed to trim back access to such powers by separating church from state. Somewhat. Although lately, they've been making some very unfortunate gains back.
In any case, it isn't the sins of the ancestors that are the concern here: It is the fact that the religion instructed them to commit those sins, and that the religions have not changed a great deal from those days. Society has changed around them -- religion no longer officially serves as high level political authority right in the middle of the power structure -- but that doesn't mean that they aren't responsible when aircraft are flown into buildings, clinics are blown up, suicide bombers walk into crowds, or laws are made restricting the actions of the general public to those the religions think are "ok." Your assertion that religions of today are innocent of the kinds of motivations and acts we have seen in the past is simply unsustainable, no matter if made directly, or with a failed analogy, as above.
Your analogy breaks down immediately because an ancestor is a unique individual acting on their own; a religion is a still-extant entity that was, and is, acting on its own, using the same precepts it always has, and so is still culpable. They know it, too... just look at the apology for Galileo's imprisonment. Centuries later. Why? Because it's still the same Catholic church. The pope wasn't apologizing for the sins of an ancestor; he was apologizing for the sins of his organization. He's saying "we screwed up based on our beliefs", and I'm saying, "keep watching those idiots, they still believe the same stupid things and are the same stupid organization."
Oh, I agree completely. Except for Scientology. Thus far. They're young, I'm pretty sure they'll find a way. Look how quickly the Heaven's Gate saucer religion managed to get people killed. Scientology's just a little retarded, that's all. They'll probably find a reason. Xenu and all.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
> You really don't really adhere to "atheism".
So, you mean that the atheist groups who forbid religious people from being members (e.g. the Communist Party of China), or those who tried to "purge" all undesirables, like religious adherents (like Stalin) can't be used to accuse atheism, because atheism isn't a religion and therefore isn't bad? If you want to say that atheists can't be blamed for Stalin & Mao, whose crimes happened within living memory, you can't turn around and blame random religious folks for $atrocity that happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago.
If you want to say that they follow a "different" form of atheism, you ignore the fact that there are people calling for an end to all religion now. And they're parroting the exact same justifications that were used during the purges.
"Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit,"
You, sir, show your ignorance. Those Catholic priests who molest young boys and girls are piles of dogshit, and there is nothing funny about them. The CoS are about 3 orders of magnitude smellier. The "religion" is based on fraud, and it subsists on fraud. Those people who started the various real religions believed in their gods, and used those gods to explain the world around them. CoS? The only people who could possibly "believe" that crap are trekkies who gone over the edge.
As I have said elsewhere in the thread, Stalin (and anyone else you care to name) wasn't directed to do what he did by atheism, because atheism has no dogma, no instruction, no goals, no tenets. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. So to attribute any action to "atheism" as if it were a driving force is clueless. Stalin did what he did because he was a power-maddened sociopath. Atheism provided no more guidance to his actions than did the fact that he worked at an observatory at one point, or that he (probably) liked black bread. Correlation is not causation.
Also as mentioned elsewhere, any particular religion is still the same entity. It isn't people that are being pointed at here with a broad brush - it is religion. It is religion that carries the dogma, the precepts, the tenets, the goals, the instruction, the rationales... it is religion that brings these things forward and hands the people of today the same bloody stupidity as the people of Galileo's time. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to point the finger, broadly, at religion.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm not tarring people. I'm tarring religion. Religion causes people to do harm. Lots of harm. Varied harm. Extensive harm. Harm over century after century. This century. Previous centuries. So religion is bad. Not people who manage not to do harm who are religious; religion. Get it now?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I should have said "Christianity's promise of living eternally in the presence of God... there is a difference between that and immortality"
Quite true. Of course there is a subset of Christianity that believes in the literal resurrection of the physical body. Just saying...
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
"So YES, the government of France has effectively decided that the tenets of Scientology are somehow LESS TRUE than the tenets of every recognized religion.
IT IS hypocritical, and we SHOULD be having the "its not weirder than any other religion" debate."
its not hypocritical, because scientology is demonstrably, objectively worse than any other religion in the shit it tries to pull, and gets away with
what would happen to a christian, muslim, or jewish sect that tried to do this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
the "church" of scientology is a slaveholding corporation run by thugs who pay lip service to a playbook of procedures to continue their existence and expansion into the minds of more clueless weak souls. this is what their "religion" is
i have no love for ANY organized religion. all of organized religion, to me, is something to be fought in the name of freedom
however, i recognize that scientology is particularly nasty strain of the phenomenon of religion and requires resistance of a higher order. scientology is the virus-like aspects of religion boiled down to a, pun intended, a science, and it is used in purely greed-oriented criminal ways to spread and devour society like a cancer. in a way, all religions do this, but all of the other religions are rather old and mellowed and weaker and less cohesive in their mind control abilities. scientology meanwhile is a brand new virulent disease, a focused coherent corporate entity which makes no pretense at anything except devouring people and turning them into slaves
its anthrax while traditional religions are the common cold. its the borg while traditional religions are the klingons and romulans
whatever islam, christianity, and judaism do to people that we both consider criminal, none of it rises to the stink this cohesive bunch of zombies and their zombie lords do
you need to accept and recognize that in the pantheon (pun intended) of the vile memetic viruses we call religions, scientology is a new and SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED virulent and extraordinary plague. it reuiqres of you special consideration asd especially dangerous as compared to all other religions
i am no friend of organized religion, like you. but unlike you, i recognize those organized religions that are especially heinous, and scientology is without peer in the world in its virulence and viciousness and disgusting perfection of slaveholding and acquisition
you really need to think about the tactics and history of scientology and consider its attributes and realize this scourge is a new step in the evolution of the mind control and freedom destruction that is organized religion
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Christianity is only free if your time is free.
Respect is an earned quality. Not a given one. Religion has not earned my respect. I am not anti-religious people; or at least, I am only "anti" those religionists who do evil under the guidance of religion or otherwise.
I have no gripe whatsoever with those religious people who manage to not follow the guidance of their religion into doing harm such as clinic bombing, gay hating, marriage classing, blue law creation, suicide bombing, exorcism, withholding of medical care, telling people they're "going to hell", the "earth is 6000 years old" and so on and so forth.
And sure, some of those very people deserve, and have, my respect. Religion, however, does not. Your assertion of tribalism is (people) class based, and it does not apply to me.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
there are a lot of clueless slashbots here who in their comments equate scientology with other religions
this is like calling a pit viper just a snake or a black widow just a bug:
no, no, no
scientology is a corporate entity designed for greed and slave acquisition. it is refined mind control technique and a specially designed playbook of tactics for outright destroying all and any attempts at holding back their fungal growth. there's a reason why they hate psychologists and psychiatrists: these scientific techniques are the same techniques they use but designed for benevolent purposes instead of zombification
no modern organized religion, NO modern organized religion rises to the level of specifically directed and coherently organized malevolent behavior aimed at anything that holds them back from making further inroads into free societies
all organized religion is a threat to a free mind. but traditional religions are mellowed and incoherent. scientology is a disciplined focused corporate effort at destruction and slaveholding/ acquisition. scientology actively and consciously commits crimes against freedom that other older organized religions do incoherently and randomly
the vulture will eat you just as readily as the wolf, but the wolf tends to be a little more focused, aggressive, intelligent and speedier in its attempts to turn you into food. so you worry more about the wolf than the vultures
or at least you would, if you correctly recognized that scientology rises above all other religions in its virulence and viciousness and purposeful, directed maliciousness
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Pope has plenty of authority where it matters: With Catholics. He tells them what to do, and a very large number of them do it.
Here's why I think you have an irrational problem with religion: that sentence is completely unrelated to reality. In the Americas, which has the largest concentration of roman catholics, the authority of the Pope is severely limited. Brazil might welcome him with massed throngs, but few people there consider the Pope their final authority. Mexico is strongly religious, strongly catholic, but the veneration is far more directed at saints rather than at the Pope. The US is incredibly ambivalent towards even appearing to endorse anything the Pope says directly. In Italy, the Pope barely registers. Same in France, the other largely catholic country. Poland is about the only country in Europe that is deeply connected to the Vatican, and that only because of the previous Pope. And in Africa, the Catholic teachings are heavily localized so as to appeal to the local population. The Pope might be the closest thing to an absolute authority there, but even that is limited.
So no, your facts are either incorrect, or dwell on history that no one currently living is responsible for. The fact that you insist on either using incorrect assumptions or outdated data points leads me to conclude that your core idea isn't based on a rational line of thought. Which in turn means that it is pointless to argue.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Wake me when your currency is worth more than the paper its printed on.
And that from an American? Writing in 2009? Wow!
No. But any attempt at colonialism, slavery, pillage, torture, misogyny, class-ism, caste, and rape needs to be stepped upon. More directly, any organization that espouses these ideals needs to be stepped upon.
Of course. No one sane would disagree -- unless it was their own group doing it. (See post-Abu Ghraib acceptance of torture in the US and support for firebombing Cambodia during Vietnam before and after we started doing it.) Humans are frighteningly good at rationalizing away the evil of their own groups.
The flaw in your idea there is that people, white or otherwise, are not the same as religion.
Well, yes and no. Race is but one arbitrary line to draw between people, but it's an extremely important one because tied to the core evolutionary trait that drives most human conflict -- social hierarchies and the instinctual drives needed to facilitate competition between them (i.e. war and genocide).
Modern, evangelical religions are actually a fascinating technological development for humanity because it allowed people of *different* ethnic backgrounds to unite underneath *one* unified set of moral codes with shared dietary, dress, and cultural shibboleths to separate the "good people" from the "dangerous savages." Before evangelical faiths, one had to be *born* into a group to be considered worthy of the protection of the gods and law. Religion gave people a way of judging whether people they had never met before were "safe" members of the same group or people who were different and thus "evil."
However, the rise of modern secularism and religious freedom has not worn away the basic human need to identify with like-minded people and to heap misery on those who are different. Right now, there's little material difference between the views that Western Democracy has of Middle Eastern Theocracy compared to what 19th Century White Christendom thought of African Savagery. "Our way of life is superior and more civilized. These people are wrong-headed for not seeing the superiority of our ways, and their way of life leads to terrible, immortal behavior." It's also no different from what atheist State Communists think of Capitalist Bourgeoisie or for that matter what Muslims think of the West in return. It's fundamentally human.
In any case, it isn't the sins of the ancestors that are the concern here: It is the fact that the religion instructed them to commit those sins, and that the religions have not changed a great deal from those days.
Well, you're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of religions preach very strongly against many of the worst atrocities committed in their name. Christianity is an extremely pacifistic religion with a huge emphasis on generosity, kindness to the downtrodden, and forgiveness. Yet, it's the same force behind the Inquisition, the Crusades, money-hungry televangelists, and a large push in American politics to resist government handouts to the poor.
Why is this? It's because it's not the actual values of a social group that matters -- its the fact that they differentiate "good people" from "bad people." It's that they enable our instincts that allow us to look at some people as less valuable than people like us. The worst genocides in history were committed by Soviet atheists who believed strongly in principles of social equity. Does that mean that atheism or egalitarianism are failed belief systems and are responsible for creating all that death? Of course not! What matters is that people in a position of power were able to scapegoat people who were different from mainstream society and to channel that destructive energy towards ill ends.
Christians murdered heretics, Communists slaughtered the religious, and America spent much of this decade torturing and bombing people in the name of Freedom and Justice for All. No belief system can protect against this wicked men exploiting mob fear and xenophobia so long as people are ignora
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I wasn't commenting on that, I was answering this: "Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit, but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there, like Christianity or Islam?"
Concerning the fraud charge, I would assume it's because of all the money they extort from their members. I know the immediate challenge to this would be that lots of churches pressure their members to donate, but I know of no other church which expels members for not giving or charges for access to theology. Scientology is run like a for-profit business (to paraphrase L. Ron Hubbard, "I want to get into the religion business, that's where the money's at."). If a Christian church were to reinstitute indulgences (where you pay the priest for salvation), I wouldn't be surprised to see them slapped with a fraud charge as well. Paying for salvation - whether it be from Allah or Xenu or Yahweh - violates any true theology. Theologies state that 1) there is a universal problem mankind suffers from and 2) through a certain practice 1 can be negated. But most importantly, since religion is a personal thing, a thing which exists whether or not money exists, the solution to the universal conundrum cannot be monetary. Hence Scientology is not a true religion/theology, it's a cult which poses as a religion, which is fraudulent.
One of the main reasons for the reformation was indulgences. Martin Luther, in essence, accused the Catholic Church of fraud.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion?
I've been a member of the "Mormon" church as you call it for over 20 years and I have a large number of family members who aren't members of my church and NEVER have I ever heard in church, from leaders or from just regular members, that we should do anything but show them the same love that Christ showed everyone when he was here. I get that bagging on Mormons is what all the cool kids have been doing since they're embittered about Prop 8 but try to get your facts at least reasonably straight. If we Mormons hate non-mormons so much why do we send millions of dollars of disaster relief and humanitarian aid to people who aren't members of our church? And we send it freely without forcing them to listen to a message or anything like that to get it. But no no you're right all the cool kids are pissing on Mormons so go feel included and popular and secure in your bigotry.
I am a practicing Mormon and really appreciate you speaking up on this. I don't know why people think we just suddenly decide to treat poorly anyone who has chosen to believe differently after having been a member. It's just an attempt by bigots to project their bigotry on the church to hide themselves.
In Scientology, you're not pressured to buy your way to the next level. There's a literal price tag on it. You simply stop dead at the moment that you refuse to open your wallet.
Some Christian churches tithe, but it's not common, and you're free to find a different, non-tithing denomination. Hell, you don't even need a denomination, or regular services, if you believe the bible, or the Quran, or the Sutras, or whatever. There is, in fact, a big difference between some social pressure to contribute and a ticket taker refusing entry.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
You spending your time doesn't serve to line their pockets.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
"Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people, their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults"
Just to clarify your post
Mormon is a loony cult quite free and able to interact with people, their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults.
Fixed
Well I said it in jest but... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_evangelist_scandals The evangelicals ARE pretty damn regular. Something about repression that makes people act the opposite direction who'da thought. Oh wait that seemed obvious.
1) that makes older religions even more of a joke
2) You mean exactly like Catholicism? and Islam.........dumbass
3)Again You mean exactly like Catholicism? and Islam.........DUMBASS (for those of you who dont realize protecting child molesters is a crime even if its only a small fraction perpetrated it the organization protected those perpetrators thus the whole organization is responsible by law in most nations) Need i also mention the crusades = genocide how bout the inquisitions = genocide etc. Not only are all major religions currently involved in some of the most horrible crimes during the whole of history. They currently are still involved in many of these same crimes. Religion really is one of the greatest causes of evil on this planet.
1. Egyption, Greek, and Roman religions also had people believing in them for long periods of time. There have been many religions (and still are) that have lasted for long periods time. The length of time a religion has been around is not a real good metric.
2. Also not a good metric, especially since it's only been around for a relatively short period of. Religions don't appear with people already divided.
3. And that's different from other religions because...?
The simple fact is a religion is whatever you believe it to be. One person's pink unicorn worship is no sillier than a million people worshiping invisible sky fairies. Religion is in the eye of the beholder.
All religions are abusive and used like any tool for power, wealth, etc. . The only real difference is that Scientology is basically coming right out and screaming it's scam unlike most other main stream religions who do it far more subtly.
~X~
~X~
Yeah, religions are definitely cults. I totally agree.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I think you missed the point. He has many friends, of varying religions. One can assume he didn't befriend any fundamentalist nutjobs (and contrary to your opinion, there are people who can handle being told "I think your religion is wrong"). Then, some of those friends were converted to Scientology and now hate him for not believing in Scientology, too. This shows that Scientology is far more brainwashing and hateful than any modern religion.
Disclaimer: I do not consider any religion which advocates violence against non-members to be "modern".
Side note: Who would wear an athiest-themed t-shirt? I mean, this is an area where we're supposed to be better than the religious: no annoying public displays. Hell, almost every day I walk by a truck with "I Love You, Jesus" painted on the rear window in big, bold lettering, but it doesn't make me want to paint "Your God Is a Lie" on my car!
Do you believe that any religion or organization, such as the freemasons, or the Mormon church, is a cult, because they have secret teachings which are not public, and getting access to them does involve money, but not solely money?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Such as, for example, the one with all the pedophile priests and the rituals that include eating what they assert is human flesh?
Or do they intend to continue to subsidize it?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
1. So what? A lot of religions (like the Mormon or Islam, or even arguably Christianity) are founded in the light of history. Scientology isn't special just because it's young.
2. Compared to say the Vatican? Or the Church of England?
3. Have you even been listening to the news? Examples abound: nuns in Ireland, ministers in the US, muslim leaders inciting terrorists, the list goes on and on.
Such a bullshit argument. Ever heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy? Unfortunately, you don't get to disown members of your group/clan/religion because they did something bad. The truth is that many actual Christians were involved in committing terrible atrocities.
Okay, I see your point, but are you willing to concede that atheists were responsible for the deaths and persecutions of around a million people in the Soviet Union?
:)
What's that you say?* Those Party Members weren't really atheists, or directly guided to do this by their atheism, but just used that position to further a money/power agenda? Well, that's the same argument our Christian friend wants to use. In other words, "No true Scotsman..."
* I don't know if you actually say this or not, but it's fun to argue this way!
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
They were all humans, whether atheists or Christian. I don't see any need to disavow myself or other people of the status "human" just because other humans have committed atrocities.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Paranoid much?
Assuming people are intolerent bigots for their faith is a dellusional generalization, and equally intolerent and bigotted. It's the kind of divisive prejudice that leads one group to lash out at another. Sure there's still violence, but it's getting more and more isolated. The only way to wipe it out completely is if everybody crosses borders, gets to know everybody else and realizes that despite all our differences, we all have the capacity to be decent people.
If I wore a shirt that said, "I'm an atheist" down the street, I doubt I'd take much flak for it. All it does is announce something about myself (which is true). Similarly, I don't give any flak to the people I see wearing Christian-themed shirts. The t-shirt you advertise on your site about "Cleaning up after your dogma" is actively insulting another faith by suggesting the destruction of the bible. It's not an "I'm an atheist" shirt. It's a shirt that proclaims "You're wrong for being Christian." It's the equivalent of a Christian wearing a shirt that says "Ask me about how you'll burn in Hell for not loving Jesus." Both shirts are about baiting people and starting fights.
This sig is false.
He was just trying to not hurt your feelings by directly challenging your fantasy/invisible man in the sky beliefs. He was saying that 'adherence' to atheism as if it were a belief structure where unicorns, zeus, or jesus and belief in them is a tenet of said belief is nonsensical. You don't 'adhere' to atheism, you function in the real world and not the fantasy world. You don't rely on primitive belief structures handed down from primitive ancestors whose imagined explanations for the real world substituted for knowledge and understanding. In the past when knowledge was not discovered yet and the world was in darkness and fear it was understandable that the blind could lead (religion) but now there is knowledge and light so it makes no sense to let the blind lead any longer since the blind can only lead you further back into the darkness. Atheist means that you don't need or want to be led into the darkness by ignorant afraid people whose only answer is more fear and more ignorance.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
The GP's point was Religion != Cult.
Not all Christians believe in the Earth being 6000 years old and the creation stories being literal. In fact I'd say it's a vocal minority of people that do believe in a "young earth" (except for the USA).
The difference between religions and cults on these points is the degree of compulsion. With cults if you don't participate in their rites there is punishment. However with religions participation is optional.
Apart from seminaries and tithing, where is the monetary cost to enter further? Being a member of clergy is a paid job, just like yours. As for giving up free will - no one is forced to enter a monastery or go to a seminary in this day and age.
Hopefully now you can see the differences between religions and cults. If you're too stupid to grasp the difference then I've got this idea about the Earth being created in a literal 6 days which you might like.
Yeah, tell me about it. They come around every few months and try and convert me. >_<
(Actually, they're very nice people. If you've ever listened to Garrison Keillor's descriptions of Minnesotans/Lutherans, they're kind of like that. I always chat with them for a few minutes.)
No. Non-Christians pretending to be Christians ("wolves in sheep's clothing") used Christianity to perpetrate some of the worst atrocities in history for their own personal, evil ends, usually money and power.
Nice deflection there. Christians never did anything evil, people pretending to be Christians did!
Sounds just as plausible as OJ pledging to "find the real killers".
So you're the person putting the empty envelopes in the offering bag. I won't be able to send my kids to college if you keep doing that.
There are major difference between the Church of Scientology and other major religions. Yes, any major religion has detractors. Yes, any major religion almost certainly has things in their history that they are not proud of today.
However...
Name me another major religion that hides it's religious documents under the excuse of them being trade secrets and copyrighted. *cricket noises* That's what I thought. Any publishing house in the world could publish the Bible. Any publishing house in the world could publish the Qu'ran. Or the Talmud. Not so with the Church of Scientology.
Go into any church, or mosque or temple... if you ask, you can probably get a copy of the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Talmud for free. Not so with the Church of Scientology. Show me another mainstream religion that hides their book of faith from non-believers/non-practitioners. *cricket noises* That's what I thought.
The Catholic Church does not claim to hold exclusive rights over practicing Christianity. Orthodox Judaism does not claim to hold exclusive rights to practicing their faith. Shi'a Islam does not say that Sunni Islam has no rights to exist. (Okay, yes, some of the more extremist members of them do, but not the faith as a whole.) The Church of Scientology? They claim that they alone can properly control and disseminate the knowledge of Scientology. They regularly used copyright and trade mark laws against "Free Zone Scientologists" (Scientologists who practice the philosophy of Scientolgy outside of any affiliation with the Church of Scientology.)
In most churches, temples, and mosques, you can join study groups for free to learn more about that faith. In the Church of Scientology, you have to pay to learn more about their beliefs. It is impossible to access the higher levels of Scientology without taking auditing and training courses that can run thousands of dollars.
The Church of Scientology also has a history of condemning and slandering ex-members and critics, as well as trying to discredit them through illegal tactics. Look up "Operation Freakout" or "Operation Snow White" on wikipedia for some examples. Or read the wikipedia entry for Gabe Cazares, former mayor of Clearwater, Florida. The Church of Scientology was planning on faking a hit-and-run accident in order to smear him.
I'm not saying that other mainstream religions are 100% sweetness and light. They've made mistakes, and they've owned up to some of them. But the Church of Scientology ruins lives. It hides behind a facade of religion and spirituality and uses the law as a truncheon when it wants to and ignores it when it doesn't suit their purposes.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Do the Mormons or the Freemasons use trade secret and copyright laws against people who practice the same beliefs but aren't part of their organization? (I.e. does the Church of Latter Day Saints sue people who practice the Mormon religion and aren't part of the LDS?)
The Church of Scientology does. They've used trade secret and copyright laws against "Free Zone" Scientologists (people who practice Scientology who aren't affiliated with the CoS.)
Of course, I'm also pretty sure that the Church of Latter Day Saints or the Freemasons haven't attempted to infiltrate the IRS and other government agencies (Operation Snow White), or used illegal tactics to smear their opponents (Operation Freakout, just to name one).
Hey.... that there could be why some of us don't consider it a religion.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I've had cousins almost killed for leaving their church (minister hit on my cousin; 17yr old guy). He ended up with a broken jaw and a few hospital trips before he moved from ontario to BC. Oh and the more indoctrinated aunt ended up kidnapping the youngest kid took him to a different province and changed his name to save him from the godless home (he was 8). I'm sure I could actually write a few pages on this family.
... until her little sister also left the church. Then she was treated as scum, she was the anti-christ. They gave up on her completely and many of her cousins and grandparents actually disowned her. Her folks are from PA and TX.
I know a transgender person who got told to leave his church. He decided to go anyways because he was ok with who he was. There was quite a bit of talking and he felt pretty uncomfortable so he decided not to return again. Unfortunately in the parking lot he was actually called an abomination and was spat on.
And lastly my girlfriend who left her church was ignored and told it was a phase and that she should grow up. She was made to stay in her room during christmas
I know plenty of people that get thrown out of churches for divorces and such.
Just because it isn't common right where you are doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all. Once you leave the city or go to the bible belt people are fucking insane.
USD rose, while GBP and EUR dropped. what was your point again?
Lets try to recall this. 30 years ago the dollar was worth 2 german marks. The ratio mark to euro is fixed 2:1. The euro is worth 1,5 dollars. Thats a factor of 6 (or 6% annuall loss for the dollar, average over 30 years). The dollar has been on a constant decline, with just short periods behaving differently.
If you want to see the definition of paper 'money', look no further than the Euro. Gold reserves? nope.
Gold reserves Euro-zone 10,856.9, USA 8,133.5 tonnes. Source
Natural resources? nope.
You mean, like recently discovered indium deposits in germany, totaling nearly 5% of the worlds reserves? Well, not economicly feasible to mine that yet, but i guess you prefer genocide instead of paying more for electronics.
Expanding economy? nope - contracting.
Germany is nearly out of the global recession. And the rest of europe isnt doing worth than the states.
Global superpower? nope.
You mean europeans dont run around the globe guns blazings making dicks of themselves (anymore)?
Oil - nope, all of Europe's oil-rich countries were too smart to get bogged down in the Euro.
Damn you Switzerland, why didnt you join...
Every major religion aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_writings is obsolete because they covertly promote irrational beliefs and induce you to socio-economic collusion. It is better to align with fastest growing community of nonreligious & rational people http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/06/the_odd_body_religion/
Slashdot = Sarcasm
This is quite disingenuous. If you convict one religion (yes, it is a religion as much as any other) of fraud you have to convict all of them.
Major differences with Scientology:
1. It does not have a thousands-year history of people believing it
True, but why does that make it any better or worse?
2. It is a single centralized organization instead of a widespread population with sects and branches
Christianity or Islam as wholes are not centralized, sure, but there are organisations within them - the Catholic church for example - which are more centralized and larger than Scientology.
3. The individuals controlling that single centralized organization today have a long history of criminal activity, as did just about everyone who ever had a position of power in that organization
This is the best argument you have, but it's still not completely clear-cut. Few Scientology leaders are outright criminals - they have people for that sort of thing.
You really believe those religions started out differently?
God damn fool.
No. Non-Christians pretending to be Christians ("wolves in sheep's clothing") used Christianity to perpetrate some of the worst atrocities in history for their own personal, evil ends, usually money and power. That includes George Bush; nothing he did marks him as a Christian, no matter that he does in fact profess to be one. In fact, none of the TV preachers in multimillion dollar churches wearing five thousand dollar suits are Christians; they (like Bush and every other rich person) worship money, not God.
I get it. The only true Christians are those who agree with your views. Where have I heard that before?
Property is theft.
Nonsense. Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who "don't buy into their crap." I say it's actually their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults. Excommunication is reserved for cardinal sins, not merely associating with people who don't buy your crap. Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.
From what I've seen, Mormonism has pretty much crossed over from being a cult to being a religion. In particular, they engage fully with the world, don't encourage suicide in the faithful, and don't try to extort in order to grant access to the hierarchy. (They encourage tithing, but that's actually fairly common across religions and isn't formally tied to advancing within the church.)
OK, to be fair Scientology doesn't appear to be generally encouraging suicide in the faithful either. But they're not fully engaging (i.e., they encourage converts to sever contact with their families) and, as the French court case showed, they're extorting. So they're a cult still, and unfortunately they seem to be intent on subverting normal mechanisms to serve their own warped ends (not a common feature of cults). If they lose the massive fixation with getting all their adherents' money, stop people from cutting themselves off, and definitely leave off trying to hack the legal system to attack their perceived enemies, they'll be a normal religion (with loopy beliefs, but hey, they're not unique in that!) The real question for them is whether they are willing to make the transition, or if they prefer living in their own bizarro-world instead with everyone else dumping on them.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
So the church of World of Warcraft is bigger than scientology? FOR THE HORDE!
This change in French law was providential. The french government is now doing an enquiry to discover who introduced this change in an article of law. The problem is that this is very intricate as many redactors intervened during the writing process.
This is not new, though : in France, about 10 years ago, Scientology was sued in law for money extortion. Just a few days before the audiences started, the majority of the folders related to the case dissapeared, thus annihilating the charges for a fault in the legal procedure... Scientology went out scott-free from this trial too.
Scary, innit ?
Obviously.
As usual, The Onion is way ahead of the curve. They described how Scientology's days were numbered years ago. This is just another sign.
With respect to non-profits, I believe that some of the other posts have done a good job of breaking down the different kinds of taxes and discussing how property taxes (not paid by non-profits) could be a good example of how tax-exempt status particularly matters. For example, consider the property holdings of some of the mainstream religions -> their accumulation of property is enabled by this.
Now, with respect to the following:
Perhaps you could elaborate. In the US, you are taxed (both corporately and individually) on net profits (gross minus costs). For more detailed information, please refer to (googled link provided):
:-)
http://taxguide.completetax.com/text/Q10_2026.asp
Labor is one of those costs. If you are a C corp, the corporate tax rate is applied after payouts of salary (and everything else), which gives the option of paying out most (if not all) of your proceeds as salary. The salary, in turn, is taxed at the individual tax rate.
Companies make profits so that they can pay some of those profits out to shareholders or expand (as you've pointed out). Regardless, tax is levied BEFORE profits, which is kinda handy for companies. As for needing profits to grow, at least for small companies, that isn't true at all. You could grow from 1 employee to 20 without making a dime. Corporate profits, while nice for the company, are in no way required for small business. Now, if you start talking about banking, lines of credit, and credit ratings of companies, maybe you'd have a point... but if you wear a hat, nobody will notice
The reason that I find this germane to the discussion at hand is the fact that true non-profits shouldn't really be holding onto capital or making a profit. Some of the other comments allude to property tax, which are levied regardless of profits; I suspect that this is the real reason behind tax-exempt status. Other types of taxes which are periodically levied (or some some countries levied WRT gross proceeds) might also be a reason.
As for:
If you operate a business, if you intend to cash out any money (e.g. use it for personal use), you are required to pay yourself, which is subject to individual taxes (in the US, anyway). As a matter of fact, MOST companies operate this way, if you're just relying on a count of businesses rather than their earnings.
This is small business in American, and, dare I say, most of these small businesses don't even bother to become C corps, they just operate via the Schedule C form for their taxes, which again, ONLY TAXES NET.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
in this time of recession and joblessness - the churches are still being built, expanding, have acreage galore and yet - do they not pay taxes? Time to ask the churches to bail out the populous who have donated BILLIONS over and over.
Only if you both die in battle.
Gah, you're going to make me give my dad a call to talk about this :P (He's a tax accountant who is a partner in his relatively small accounting company.)
The reason that I find this germane to the discussion at hand is the fact that true non-profits shouldn't really be holding onto capital or making a profit.
In general, I agree with you, but it would depend on what you mean by "holding onto capital". If by "capital" you mean "money", then that's kind of a silly thing to say; there's nothing wrong with a non-profit having some savings. It's what they do with it that matters ;)
With respect to making a profit, there is a good example non-profits can follow. The LDS Church owns some for-profit farms and such; it pays full taxes on those efforts (including property tax). It keeps those profits separate from its other funds, and re-invests them in existing or new efforts. (It's helpful to own lots of farms in times of need, given the large humanitarian efforts put forth by the LDS Church.)
... well, at least not here in the USA. But if it weren't for the separation of Church and State, EVERY religion would eventually be up on fraud charges. And while I do think it's ludicrious and rather sad that anyone believes in a religion that EVERYONE KNOWS was invented by a schlock science fiction writer, with the express purpose of making big money, who announced said intentions to fellow writers (Harlan Ellison for one... google it) before the fact and all... it is their right to be just that stupid, at least here. And for me, this is only slightly less disturbing than religions founded on the wanderings of stone age desert dwellers a few thousand years ago.
-Dave Haynie
* While the Mark's symbol was "DEM", the form "DM" was used by most Germans until shorty before the Euro changeover. At least that's what I can still piece together; it's pretty hard to find any useful information about the two forms - possibly because "dem" is a German article form and thus completely useless as a search term.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
I only singled them out as they are the single richest organization in the world. You are correct, I think any organization should be subject to the same laws anyone else is. If a church is being run as a non profit, simply follow the non profit rules. They don't need special ones.
If it is not, how does the list of businesses on this page, owned and operated by the church, and the associated congressional hearing come to be?
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon410.htm
Not picking on mormons, I am more than certain were a similar inquiry into the catholic church, politically viable it would go the same, just refuting your claims :)
Way to miss the point - they ARE being run as a non-profit. They just happen to be very big and very rich.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I didn't say the Church doesn't own any for-profit businesses. I said the Church's tithing funds are not used for profit. Similarly, money made through its for-profit ventures is generally not used for non-profit things. An exception would be, for example, if there were a natural disaster that disrupted food supplies, the Church would use the product of its for-profit farms to assist those areas.
Furthermore, the responses listed on that page (presumably from readers) are clearly not people who know anything about how things work. As I've mentioned before: Any commerical entity owned by the LDS Church does in fact pay taxes. Anyone claiming otherwise is either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation.
Just a side note: not everything on that list you link to is a for-profit institution. For example, several of the "Corporations" listed there are merely legal entities created for purposes of Intellectual Property management. None of the universities generate profit, as far as I'm aware. LDS Family Services is a non-profit group that does things like placement of babies from teen pregnancies, counseling for troubled teens, etc.
So the link doesn't really refute my claims... it actually misrepresents what those entities are. Not surprising, really, from a website dedicated to gathering a community of bitter ex-Mormons. (I would expect the same from any group that proudly calls itself "ex-Whoever"s.)
As far as the Senate transcript goes, the Prophet may be President of those entities, but he is not involved in the day-to-day management of the vast majority of them.
Yeah, because discussions with 'normal' religious people are sooo productive!
Are you a masochist?
Practicing Mormonism means going to temple for certain occasions and events. If you're not a member of the church in good relationship with them, they would prevent you from entering, perhaps even to the point of calling the police. So they would use law to prevent you from 'practicing beliefs', similar perhaps to using copyright to prevent non-members to learn secret information. Is Mormonism therefore a cult?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Fraud is the problem. Parent thinks religion _is_ fraud, grandparent thinks it isn't. Both agree fraud must be stopped. By speaking about it passionately they get modded up. (Some people think this also is fraud, but they are routinely banned so who cares what they think.)
Though it helps a lot. :P
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
McCulloch v. Maryland's core ruling was that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." I think that if the government attempted to tax religious organizations, there could be a valid legal challenge arguing that it would violate the separation of church and state doctrine. Just my two cents.
Given all the responses below, I'm actually kind of impressed with just how wrong you were above.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
It is not hard to call and have a chat. One method:
http://www.volunteerministers.org/locate/locate.html
1-800-HELP-4-YU 1-800-435-7498 +1 (323) 960-1949
Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else, so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use.
Fuck you, you self-righteous bastard.
The "taxation at its highest use" is an old canard, used to seize property rights by only those fuckers wealthy enough to put the land to its "highest use".
It's also the reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision a few years back to allow taking a private citizen's property and turning it over to a private corporation. The corporation would then build a mall which would bring in far higher property taxes than the original owner was paying.
Because we have such pusillanimous, conservative, business-fellating bastards on the SC, this is deemed to be the equivalent of a "public good".
Until these buttfucks came along, private property could be taken only if it were turned over directly to the state for a truly public use, such as a school, freeway or the like.
And you can be goddamned sure that compensation to the owner was only for its present value as a homesite, not the fantastically inflated value that it would represent to the corporation once they'd had their way with it. So the owner probably got only a couple hundred thousand, instead of the couple of million that the corporation would realize as square footage in a mall.
No. Atheism is not "a belief there are no gods", it is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Belief is the presence of conviction without the presence of correlating objective fact. This is what makes it distinct from knowledge. It is also what makes the claimed agnostic position untenable - either you believe in a god or gods, or you don't. There's no middle ground between those two positions that is sectioned off by knowledge (objective fact.) So every self-proclaimed agnostic is actually a theist or an atheist.
Quite aside from your incorrect understanding of atheism, the point still stands that atheism carries no instructions, tenets, rules, etc. Stalin didn't do what he did because he was atheist, following "atheist dogma." There is no such dogma. He did what he did because he was a sociopath.
Religion, on the other hand, has directly instructed such acts, and contains numerous rationalizations based on the various religion's dogmas that lead directly to such acts.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination.
Well, kinda. If you're really poor, I guess. But one of the six(?) commandments of the Catholic church is that you "contribute to the support of your pastor". If you weren't raised a Catholic in the 40s or 50s, you might not have heard of this one. I doubt it's much emphasized these days.
OTOH, "support" is not tightly defined, as far as I know. You can contribute, as they say, "time, talent or treasure".
No. Just experienced.
"Another faith"? Atheism isn't a faith. It's a lack of faith. It is insulting to faith, because faith is stupid and destructive and needs to be considered on the same level as crystal-gazing or astrology, because that's exactly what it is - made up nonsense; the difference is that religion does a bunch more harm - to science, to law, to education, to the ability to simply think critically - than those two examples do. I don't have any problem "insulting" religion; it's bunkum, and deserves to be treated as such.
No. One is about selling myth as reality. The other is about valuing reality over myth. If those two things are logically equivalent in your mind, your "thinker" is bustamente.
It is politically correct to not speak out against religion. That doesn't make it actually correct. The state of being correct is not, unlike the state of being politically correct, based on a popularity contest.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
In the first place, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is not generally recognized and doesn't make its way into most logic textbooks. In the second place, it's perfectly possible (and even common) for an argument to seem to exhibit and informal fallacy and still be strong. In the third place, the No True Scotsman fallacy--even as defined at infidels.org (who all but invented it as a bludgeon to use on Christians)--only applies if the change in definition is post-hoc. As an Anabaptist, I assure you that my rejection of any Christianity that uses or endorses violence is not post-hoc.
Your other points (e.g. the real causes of Bruno's execution) I've already responded to.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1