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."
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.
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
Are you sure you remember the incident correctly? All I remember is that the OT3 post was deleted, only to be followed by hundreds of others in the comments section of the announcement and dozens of links to it elsewhere.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/16/1256226
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
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
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.
In the US, $cientology gained its recognition as a "religion" through its members filing numerous lawsuits against the IRS in all fifty states, bugging government offices, stealing files, etc... . There is a secret agreement between $cientology and the IRS that hasn't been released to the public. (It has since been leaked, but never formally released.)
Essentially, $cientologists get to deduct the costs of their "courses" from their taxes. No other religious group in the US gets to do this. (see Sklar v. IRS)
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.
I'm not one to defend any religion, but Scientology's a lot worse today than any modern mainstream religion. If you need any proof, feel free to have a look here and here. No modern religion forces family members to give up their loved ones, picket outside the house of an 'unbeliever', or essentially, slavery.
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.
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.
While China remains unquestionably a totalitarian state, it is less and less 'communist' every year.While many of China's largest industries are still wholly or partially owned by the state, that's no different from most countries worldwide. The important difference between China today and the hardline communist era is that Chinese workers are increasingly able to decide their own destinies, which aligns China functionally with most modern socialist nations. (Not that I think that's a 'good thing' but it's better than things once were. At least China isn't North Korea.) Really the world is so interested in China's rise because it is using its growth to fund buying interests worldwide, a course of action made even more powerful during the devaluing effects of a recession. China is putting itself in the catbird seat ironically by the same method that made the US the dominant power in the 20th century: economic conquest. If you have time, pick up the current issue of Fortune magazine at a library or something and read their article on China's diversification of worldwide interests.
However on the issue at hand, it is my opinion that the internet will manage to prevent any crazy religion from overturning civilization and bringing another dark age upon humanity.
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
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!
No modern religion forces family members to give up their loved ones, picket outside the house of an 'unbeliever', or essentially, slavery.
Islam prohibits Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men, proscribes death penalty for abandoning Islam (which any Muslim is required to carry out should he get the opportunity), and provides a legal framework for slavery, including female sexual slavery.
It's not just words on paper, either - some or all of the above are actually practiced in a certain Islamic societies around the world.
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.
I have studied them. I portray them as multiple wars specifically characterized by horrific and specifically religious atrocities. If you think they were other, by all means, make your case. I didn't say who started them, or make any claims about justification for keeping them going. My key problem with them is the acts of religious evil that saturate the reporting of the events.
That wasn't my characterization. So your whole argument is trashed. The crusades are a religious problem because they are a mass of religion-justified atrocities. As I have said elsewhere, justifying self defense is no problem. Justifying rape, pillage, infanticide... can't be done. When - as is the case with the crusades - the permission, and not just that, but the instructions, to commit those acts comes from religion... then we have our master criminal identified. Its name is religion.
You should have read the thread.
Atheism contains no dogma, no instructions, no justifications, no tenets, no belief. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. So it isn't in any way responsible for Stalin (or anyone else's) descent into evil sociopathic blundering.
Religion, on the other hand, uniformly contains instructions, dogma, tenets, and so forth. People do things specifically in the name of religious instruction. History is replete with examples. An astonishing number of those examples are evil. Even the written mythos of religion - the bible, the koran - contain extreme examples of religiously inspired evil. Mohammad humping his 9 year old "wife". Lot offering his daughters to the crowd. Jesus assaulting merchants. God turning people into pillars of salt. It's like reading about psychotic children.
Consequently, your attempt to tar the atheist lack of belief fails simply because that idea, the lack of belief in a god or gods, is so insubstantial and dogma free that no tar can possibly stick to it. If I say absolutely nothing to you about your life, you cannot blame me for influencing your life choices. And that's atheism in a nutshell. It says nothing about anything but that there is no belief in a god or gods. End of story.
Sure. It's always convenient to have slaves. So tell me, this makes it OK that religion still does so? That it codifies it? That it's written down for all to see and stick to in the bible, in the koran? Oh. Guess not. That's what I thought. So you fail. Looks like it is correct to castigate religion for propagating that retarded old nonsense, isn't it? Thought so. :)
Sure. Giordano Bruno. Google him. He's not the only one, either. Maybe your history needs a little brushing up.
I'm talking about excommunication. A very powerful religious tool in the past, and to some degree, still today (see the Jehovah's Witnesses modern "dis-fellowship" practice, for instance. Again, study your history. Find out what happened to those who were excommunicated.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
not quite so. Here in brazil (world's biggest roman catholic country) the pentecostal churches are all the rage. You actually can buy your way into heaven, and the owner of the bigger pentecostal church goes to the mass in a helicopter.