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.
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
"They are incessant, aggressive, and well-funded."
Perhaps RMS could make a deal with them. Imagine if "free" software became part of Scientology's dogma!
> > > > > > > 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.
Look up evangelical leaders. Most of them get busted snorting coke off their gay hooker's ass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You have a point there actually. 2 things seem to be at the forefront of the news these days:
(1) The rise of radical fundmentalist religious groups. Scientologists are the worst of the worst here (kinda - they're greedy rather than crazy in that I don't believe for a second that most people involved at top believe what they're saying), but the crazy fundamentalists of Christianity, Islam, and other off-shoot cults (Lord Our Righteousness Church anyone?) are equally scary. These people are on a dead-end path to nowhere. If they take control of the global mindset then technological progress will halt and we'll plunge back into another dark age.
(2) Rise of China and it's power.
#2 is a scary though, but truthfully, it has SOME comfort because thought a totalitarian regime is the anti-thesis of what I as an American believe in, I also know that regarding situation #1, China won't put up with that shit. If Scientology had started in China this problem would have been solved and over with DECADES ago.
Basically I HOPE that our system works and prevails against this growing issue, but if we fail I'd prefer a secular Communist Dictatorship over an equally oppressive Theocracy.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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 really don't really adhere to "atheism". You simply don't believe what others have told you because it doesn't make any sense. Like leprechauns and unicorns.
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
Sects, sects, sects, is that all you kids think about?
Free Martian Whores!
Intolerant idealism is mankind's costliest folly (thanks Churchill), no matter if it comes in the form of religion, communism, fascism, or anything else. It leads to the most evil behavior that human beings have ever engaged in.
In recent decades China has been more open and more tolerant (which is to say, not very tolerant at all), but at one point they were executing everybody with even an inkling of an independent thought.
Accepting one form of intolerant idealism over another because you like it's marketing strategy better is a fools game. In the end you will find cold hard brutality of the worst kind no matter which you meekly accept.
Modern "Christianity" is not one single entity, so if you were to try to prosecute "Christianity" you'd have to prosecute a lot of groups who have widely disparate views. What is it, exactly, about Christianity that you think is fraudulent? Is it the promise of immortality in exchange for obedience to some set of rules? That doesn't meet any definition of fraud that I'm aware of, unless you can conclusively prove that the promises given by Christian teachings are false (and even then, not all false things are fraudulent).
Scientology is being attacked because it's a group that's actively engaged in fraud and extortion; their sci-fi "religion" is merely a front for their money-making activities. Christianity does not meet that definition - or more accurately not every group that calls itself "Christian" meets that definition (and if they are engaged in fraud, then they're clearly ignoring what they claim to believe). They are not being prosecuted merely for their beliefs.
That's one thing you have to realize: Scientology encourages fraudulent behavior, whereas Christianity (as taught by the New Testament) does precisely the opposite. It is the behavior that is being attacked in court, not the beliefs.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, typo. My Thetans must be high. See?
"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
the crazy fundamentalists of Christianity, Islam, and other off-shoot cults (Lord Our Righteousness Church anyone?) are equally scary. These people are on a dead-end path to nowhere. If they take control of the global mindset then technological progress will halt and we'll plunge back into another dark age.
Modern science was started by the Catholic church. The Muslim world was far ahead of Europe when it came to science and tech at the time.
In short, you're not only a bigot, you're full of shit as well. But that's OK, most bigotry is the result of ignorance, and you can cure your own ignorance, so long as its cause isn't fear.
Free Martian Whores!
Leprechauns don't make sense.
Only because they're drunk all the time.
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
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!
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
Digit envy?
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!
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.
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!
Every society has a right to defend itself. The *manner* in which it defends itself is the issue. And if you look at the manner in which the crusades were prosecuted, you will then understand why they are considered atrocity, not legitimate. To say that state-sponsored rape, directed infanticide, torture, and pillage are ok based upon the fact that the initial motivation is defensive is disingenuous. The crusades were not ok. They will never be ok. End of story, and your feeble attempt at justification is reduced to ashes.
Next time you try to defend the evil acts in history, study them first. It'll shorten the distance you have to pull your foot out of your mouth.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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'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").
Bullshit. Modern science was nearly killed off by the church lasting until persecution of Copernicus and Galileo. Arabs kept the science alive through the period. It was actually the weakening of the grip of church on science that allowed science to flourish. Read up on renaissance when you get the time -- they clearly looked to Greece and Rome for inspiration, not Christianity.
I do agree that after the renaissance the church co-opted science and funded many universities etc. But that does not mean that Church invented "Science".
If it were not for the Europeans and their guns conquering the world, China or India would have discovered "science" on their own anyway.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
It's not perfect, as pretty much nothing is. But insulting the mainstream just because it's the mainstream is what make you elitist. I'm sure any plan you could come up with wouldn't automatically make everyone happy, loving and peaceful. Reminds me of people who stop liking a band because its achieved commercial success or stop drinking a craft brew because it's starting to catch on with many people. Pointless, self-defeating, and yes elitist.
Well, you've already decided that you know enough about me to make judgments about my character. You've also decided to make this into a personal matter rather than telling me why you think my statements are incorrect. There's nothing arrogant about those two, right? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to discover for yourself that ad-hominem attacks are the mark of a weak position, nor will I hold my breath waiting for you to admit that you are judging someone you don't know the first thing about rather than discussing what was said. So I seriously doubt you'll listen to any explanation. But again, what the hell.
I was referring to the results of those beliefs, as evidenced by the society that they produce when they are put into practice. If those beliefs could only be found in a small village at a remote location, then I would have said the exact same thing, only I would not have called them mainstream because in that case they would not represent the majority of people in this society. So we have beliefs and political opinions which have been put into practice with little resistence and mostly token dissent, and those beliefs have given us a far-less-than-ideal world that is substantially worse than what would otherwise be achievable or has been achieved in the past. Yet despite their many flaws, they are commonly-held beliefs. If this isn't a definition of "lowest common denominator" then I am not sure what is.
To assume that my problem with them is just that they are common, when in fact I have specifically told you that the results of those beliefs are why I don't like them, is frankly rather asinine. If the mainstream beliefs led to an enlightened society where people loved freedom and had true agape love for one another, I would have no problem with it at all. You seem to honestly think that I'd actually want to change that scenario. It's like you're eager to make judgments about somebody and were just waiting for an excuse to do so. If so, you have much company, for that too is a common path.
I don't see any injustice here, however, because there is no way that anyone who is that trigger-happy or needs to feel "right" that badly is a very happy and fulfilled individual. Even the ones who think they are happy can become upset and angry with just a few words, a few insults, or a few rude gestures and that's because they don't have the strength that patience and compassion require. If they did, they wouldn't be so eager to judge others or to make everything into a personal matter. So you see, water seeks its own level one way or another.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
If you are religious, you have already disavowed the relevance of logic, so feel free to resolve your disbelief any way that you like.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The best quote I've heard about that:
"Atheism is a religion the same way *not* collecting stamps is a hobby."
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
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").
FWIW, I'm a Christian and I've never felt "pressured" by my local church body to spend money on something I didn't want.
If you feel you've been missing something, you can probably join online !
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
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