Slashdot Mirror
AU Senator Calls Scientology a "Criminal Organization"
An anonymous reader passes along news that an Australian senator, Nick Xenophon, has denounced the Church of Scientology as "a criminal organization" from the floor of Parliament. "Senator Xenophon used a speech in Parliament last night to raise allegations of widespread criminal conduct within the church, saying he had received letters from former followers detailing claims of abuse, false imprisonment, and forced abortion. He says he has passed on the letters to the police and is calling for a Senate inquiry into the religion and its tax-exempt status." It wasn't that long ago that the CoS was calling for Net censorship in Australia; a month later the organization was convicted of fraud in France.
Good
If you think a person has broken the law then call the cops. Don't just splash allegations around under parliamentary privilege. If people in the CoS have broken laws then that says nothing about other people who associate with that organization.
In the absense of facts the senators statement in the summary could be applied to pretty much any set of people.
I don't like Scientology either but I value my freedom to associate.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
To me, all religions are a scam. Some have been around longer than others and thus emanate a sense of legitimacy but they're mostly cults with a God that we offer our prayers and money to in return for a hope of a better life.
Religions come and go, their Gods are offered gold, placed upon altars and have great building and churches erected in their names - and yet, people die of violence, starvation, and famine. Their Gods grow weak and frail, their subjects grow old and a new religion eventually emerges and takes its place as the new "true" religion. A sad cycle indeed.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
That's fairly rare among politicians. Congratuations, Austraila!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I don't like Scientology either but I value my freedom to associate.
Should all associations be given tax-free status? If not, then what conditions deserve tax-free status, and should that status be irrevocable once obtained?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Pretty OT here but with people making Xenu gags because of the name its worth point out that Xenophon's Conversations with Socrates is one of the few sources for views of the great Greek philosopher and orator.
CoS are of course a shill, its not even a very clever shill, their "e-meters" are almost as dumb as the bullet proof pants that the Mormons try and pedal.
Why should any religion get tax status? They aren't a charity, the money is primarily there to support their own organisation. They are selling a product called "salvation" and people are paying money in the belief they are getting something back.
Socrates wasn't the biggest fan of religion either... question everything.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
"Someone get me an e-meter, quick!"
I'm afraid sir you'll have to buy your own. This is a religion not a charity.
With the tax exemption, new members only have to pay x% of their salaries to the church instead of y%. Since x is still a positive number I wouldn't call it an incentive to join, just a reduced burden.
From an outsiders perspective (atheist), scientology isn't any more corrupt or evil than any other organized religion in the world. It always amuses me when people of other faiths unload on scientology, while ignoring the crap their own religions promote.
Give it a couple of thousand years, and they'll be able to join the club of Established Religion.
Scary thought? Not really. It's no different than the bronze age fairy tales that millions of people believe in today...
You haven't really researched this a lot, otherwise you wouldn't say that. Check out Operation Clambake (http://www.xenu.net). Usually, religions aren't all about money and mind control. Scientology is:
"The Church of Scientology is a vicious and dangerous cult that masquerades as a religion. Its purpose is to make money. It practices a variety of mind-control techniques on people lured into its midst to gain control over their money and their lives. Its aim is to take from them every penny that they have and can ever borrow and to also enslave them to further its wicked ends." (cited from xenu.net)
I am sure there are plenty. The difference is in Australia these politicians are occasionally voted into office.
Religions aren't about money and mind control? Really? That's an incredibly naive statement.
I see Operation Clambake and raise you the house arrest of Galileo, the crusades, 9/11, Salem Witch Trials, etc, etc, etc, etc. The list is pretty long...
Perhaps you've never heard of the Socratic Method?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The sad thing about that? People want to be taken advantage of, they want to be cheated and they want to be abused. Scientology is merely another organisation focused on getting the best out of people, i.e. their money.
"[insert government or bank of choice] has gotten away with innumerable crimes over the years in part because the average person is incapable of imagining that anything can be so completely malign in its goals. The organization is completely sociopathic."
It's a pretty versatile quote.
As he should. I don't agree with the man on most of his points, but I can appreciate someone getting up and metaphorically saying "Are you fucking serious?!" to the rest of the parasites he has to work with.
A government should be doing what is best for the country, not what is seen to be most politically correct - at least Nick is working on getting that to happen.
Even if he is a filthy South Australian.
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
Thank the Hollywood stars who keep funding it.
Dude. Relax. It's not a documentary. The movie was based on a freaking comic book. It was an awesome movie, the kind that you're supposed to watch with a bigscreen and bad-ass sound system. They didn't portray the helots either.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The sad truth is that religions become centres of power, and centres of power attract criminals. It's interesting to see how even the green movement is being plagued with criminals selling people massively uneconomic wind and solar systems, because people's desire to do good often exceeds their ability to see through bullshit. But some religions - Zen, Quakers, Reform Judaism, the liberal wing of the Episcopalian Church - have proven very resistant to criminal infiltration. That's possibly because they attract mainly very educated people. To be blunt, one reason Scientology is so successful might be because it has targeted the rich and gullible.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
From an outsider's perspective (atheist) it is a mistake to think that scientology isn't any more corrupt or evil than any other organized religion in the world. Not all religions have specific tenets requiring you to part with large amounts of money to simply read their 'scriptures'. Not all religions specifically attempt to stop members from contacting their families who are non-believers. Not all religions embark on well funded, well organised and effective smear campaigns against ex members. Not all religions have private internment camps for members who are being wayward.
To think that Scientology is on a par with the average world religion is a relativist mistake.
Here's the fundamental difference between Scientology (and a lot of dangerous cults) and real religions (established or otherwise): Walk up to a member of the clergy or lay leader, and ask them the fundamental tenants of what they believe. Any real religion will rattle off a few tenants, point you to some literature and/or holy books, explain the nature of their rituals and public services, and so forth. The point is to spread the ideas as much as possible, and they'll welcome the opportunity to do so. This is true whether you're talking to a Christian minister, a Jewish rabbi, a Muslim imam, a Voudoun priest, a Wiccan priestess, or Ivan Stang of the Church of the SubGenius.
With a cult, if you walk up to the clergy and lay leader, they'll change the discussion from an evaluation of their faith to an evaluation of you. For Scientologists, that's what the initial auditing process is about. Instead of giving you the information you need to decide whether the faith is worthy of your support, they collect information to decide whether you are worthy of the faith. And since people don't like to see themselves as failures (as a general rule), many folks will react to this by trying to prove themselves worthy. And in the often complex process of proving themselves worthy, they will commit themselves more and more fully to the cult, without really knowing what they're getting into.
I am officially gone from
Whenever there's something about CoS it seems like there's a crowd of people who chime in with, "But ALL religions are corrupt, criminal, and commercial." Which inevitably leads to the conclusion that, if you happen to not have a problem with religion in general, you must accept anything which calls itself a religion, or become an atheist.
Here's the problem. We'll put aside my Pollyanna-esque belief that most of the time religions really are about a genuine and sincere effort to understand the metaphysical aspects of existence. Yes, the Catholic church is responsible for suppression of science and learning, set up the "indulgence" system, and a host of other sins. Keep in mind, however, that the Catholic church was the last vestige of Roman-style socio-political organization after the fall of the empire. While the West dissolved, the Catholic church was the closest thing to a stable government that was able to provide legitimacy to regional and local rulers, preserve some measure of learning, and mitigate internal conflict. Not until the Treaty of Westphalia does the modern concept of the state enter into Western thinking, and that was well after the Inquisition's height. So, yes, the Catholic church has done some nasty things, but compare it to any other nation-state if you want an appropriate ethical comparison.
CoS, on the other hand, actively seeks to defraud individuals through a deliberate pyramid-scheme. It is felonious by any legal standards, and does no charitable work to speak of. Churches, synagogues, and mosques routinely collect money from followers as a sign of devotion and as a means of maintaining themselves (literally, as in a "building fund").
Some Slashdotters appear to be confused as to the concept of nonprofit. A nonprofit organization is allowed to raise money through sales and donations in order to pay it's employees and maintain itself; it only has to show that, at the end of the day, it doesn't have any money.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
I attend a church that regularly meets with other churches (of different beliefs, islamic, jewish, etc) to discuss how to best focus thier efforts to improve the community around them. They offer aid to needy families, the just released the parish budget last week showing how our money was used to give over 154,000 dollars to the local community in money alone. I would hazard that over 50,000 hours of time are devoted each year to the local community by our parish alone, not including the mosques and temples whose members also donate their own time. Friends of the night people, GoodWill, Catholic Charities, Shalom House, The Family Development Center. They have open discussions on the ideas of women priests and gay rights. The church is "in charge" if you believe it in, in keep you safe, in advising you in all aspects of your life. They don't want to discriminate, but they also don't want to simply give the "go ahead" over traditional beliefs. It's a slow changing organization, and that is their biggest failing, but it is not the ignorant body of mindless followers you describe.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that if a religion has ever done anything wrong, than it can never be right. You are equating the minds and education of people in the 1000 AD with people in 2000 AD. These people believed that gassy food from your stomach would rise through your body and cause blindness (John Milton). They thought that the body consisted of four humors and there was no proper education to aid them.
The fact that you equate a time when most of the church was uneducated and fearful to today is simply ignorant of our own history. If scientology existed in 1000 AD and was pulling this stuff, then fine. I agree, while I don't believe their view, they are no different. But it is not 10 AD, it's not even 1500, 1700, or 1800. The Catholic church supports evolution, the big bang, and has officially adopted all the most modern scientific positions. They have dedicated and inspired millions of people to work harder at a better world. If the church starts a new crusade you can bet I'll be out in a heartbeat, but they won't. They have grown smarter as our people have, and we will continue to work on making sure we are not adhering to meaningless tradition while putting real help into the world.
I cannot defend the actions of religious leaders over 1000 years ago, and I shouldn't have to. If the church of Scientology stops suing people and starts helping I'll gladly back off of them. Likewise if the bible ever become a "for pay" book, I'll be banging on my church door for change.
The Catholic Church, and many other churches, do a myriad of good in the world today. Whatever their individual beliefs, they help atheists and non-believers a like because it is their duty. They may be wrong sometimes, in fact there are things in the church I don't agree with (gay rights is one of them) but the true churches are not hunting down "the gays" they welcome them to talk, to understand, and to try and figure out who needs to change.
The moment I see a group of atheists give this kind of consideration to their fellow man, the day they offer over millions of dollars and man hours to the welfare of man kind, the moment they come together and actually practice the "humanity without religion" they so often preach, the moment they a start viewing mankind as a being with dignity and not a lump of flesh to be abused, well sir, then I will eat my hat.
And not Islam? Islam is more criminal an organization that all other "religions" in the history of the world combined. Scientology may have killed a few people, but Islam kills people wherever they can find them. It's like cancer for any government.
Scientology isn't going to start shooting it's own servicemen or dropping grenades into their own people's bunker. They are scam artists and brain washers, sure. But they don't rise to the level of muslim scum.
>"Someone get me an e-meter, quick!"
>I'm afraid sir you'll have to buy your own. This is a business not a religion.
Fixed that for ya.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
You make it sound like hindu fundamentalism doesn't exist. They make up a large bloq in Indian politics and social structure.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
Seriously.
Hmm, I just read the article. It definitely looks like the CoS contacted ABC to have this article published as their first counter movement. You'll notice the first steps they take are to point out that they're shocked by the allegations and that they've already tried to 'talk' to Senator Xenophon regarding an earlier assault on public television. They attempt to position themselves as a startled innocent party in this whole thing - alleging that they have pro-actively sought resolution with Senator Xenophon to explain their innocence. What where they going to explain? Re-read the article - particularly, the following quote sums it up:
Where is their denial of all the claims? They weren't going to meet with the senator to prove them wrong - that's for sure. They were going to meet with the senator to corner him. This guy's got a good brain on his shoulders. By not allowing them to disguise their blackmail in a 'friendly' meeting, he has forced them to switch play. They certainly cant start bullying him now - because he's gone public he's protected himself from that. At least, he's slowing their movements down.
I think CoS has a number of options here, and I think their plan would be to employ more than one of these options at once to fortify themselves. Firstly, they're going to acquire the specifics of the accusations in question - they want names. From here they can formulate a plan, unique to each individual, that allows them to either bribe or scare them into silence - or even to publicly support the church. This will most definitely involve money and baseball bats - so to speak.
Secondly, another front of assault is the senator himself. Their assassination tactics on public enemies are well documented to say the least, but is this the approach they'll take? We've noticed CoS go 'quiet' lately, at least on the surface. I'm convinced this is due to a wall of lawyers instructing them on the smartest move. But, having said that, if the senator can corner them enough (this will require getting to the victims first) then he can force them to resort to their 'fair game' tactics. This would be beneficial to the senator. Don't be surprised if we receive a nice visit from a big-wig soon - I'm thinking someone like Tom Cruise, but possibly not so publicly famous. If not a visit then definitely some choice phone calls to the senator and other people in power. Nothing that proves their guilt, but just a little "hey, I'm here, I'm powerful, don't get me wrong - I like you, but...." kind of stuff.
Its up to the senator to hold his ground. He needs to cash in on his chips before its too late. This involves the victims and his friends in power - he's got to build his own fort, and jolly quick too. I certainly hope his 'evidence' holds up. But I'm not going to be surprised if the 'police' find that all the witnesses are 'found to be unreliable'.
Xenophon isn't generally reasonable. He is brilliant. Stephen Fielding is an idiot