Slashdot Mirror


Scientology Tries To Block German Documentary

eldavojohn writes "The Guardian is reporting on the strained relationship that Scientology is having with the German government and the airing of a pesky documentary on Southwest Broadcasting. Until Nothing Remains, a $2.3 million documentary, is slotted to air on German television at the end of this month. It recounts the true story of Heiner von Rönn and his family's suffering when he tried to leave the Church of Scientology. A Scientology spokesperson called the film false and intolerant and also said they are investigating legal means to stop the film from being aired. More details on the film can be gleaned here."

565 comments

  1. Rights? by dziman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are there any laws protecting this type of "speech" in Germany?

    1. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Regardless, Scientology is prohibited in Germany; So I doubt they will have much of a case for the german courts.

    2. Re:Rights? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let's take a look at the Grundgesetz...

      Grundgesetz, Artikel 5:

      (1) Everybody has the right to express and distribute his opinion in word, writing or picture, and also to inform himself from any public source. The freedom of press and the freedom of reporting through broadcasting and movies is assured. No censorship takes place.

      (2) These rights are limited only by the general laws for protection of the youth and protection of the personal honor.

      (3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. The freedom of teaching does not release from the faith to the constitution.

      (IANAL, but it beats Babelfish)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Rights? by rvw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Regardless, Scientology is prohibited in Germany; So I doubt they will have much of a case for the german courts.

      This is like the Streisand effect - it will only generate publicity. So thank you Scientology for making me aware of this documentary.

    4. Re:Rights? by ahaubold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An organization as dangerous as Scientology must not be given a chance to prevent education. The are banned for a reason. I hope the courts will just laugh at them and send their lawyers home. And now i'd really like to see that movie.

      --
      Nope, I think you mistook me for someone else.
    5. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Scientology is not prohibited in Germany. However, it failed to gain the status of a church and is considered a cult. Also it is being watched closely because it is considered "hostile to the constitution", IIRC.

    6. Re:Rights? by dziman · · Score: 5, Informative
      From the official translation: https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf

      Article 5 [Freedom of expression, arts and sciences] (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour. (3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

    7. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      For God's sake, no, Scientology is NOT prohibited in Germany. They are not acknowledged as as a religious group, so they do not enjoy financial benefits. They are however closely watched for violations of the constitution.

    8. Re:Rights? by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are, but there are also laws to protect people (and organizations) from libel and untrue reporting.

      In short: if you don't claim something is a fact but only your opinion, you're pretty much free to say anything. If you claim sonething is a fact, and the subject of the fact doesn't like it, court might ask you to proove that you double-checked your "facts" first.

      This news is nothing special. You're almost expected to go that route if you hear about bad news are to be published (and you employ a lawyer...) but considering the standard of journalism in public tv, scientology hasn't much of a chance to pull that documentary off the air.

      --
      bickerdyke
    9. Re:Rights? by icebraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought Germany still had anti hate speech laws (not that they're relevant for this issue).

    10. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which are limited in many ways.

      cb

    11. Re:Rights? by dziman · · Score: 1

      Even though Scientology isn't a recognized entity in Germany, would having someone present the "facts" about it to the court imply that Scientology is recognized entity? After all, who makes the decision that the facts must be presented? Who else would make the proposition to the government except the "unrecognized" entity in this case? Is this a contradiction of its "non-recognition"?

    12. Re:Rights? by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... which are covered by Art 5(2): "These rights shall find their limits in [...] the right to personal honour."

      And they are covered in Art 1(1): "The dignity of Man is untouchable. To respect it and to protect it is the obligation of all governmental power."

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    13. Re:Rights? by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem here is that many public networks shy away from these documentaries BECAUSE of the clout of Scientology. However, ARD is supported by public euros and as such answers to nobody even the government. Many whine about having to pay a TV tax, but I gladly pay my monthly TV tax as it produces documentaries that ask hard hitting questions. Public networks would definitely not support it...

      I am a supporter of free markets and capitalism, but at times we need the government.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    14. Re:Rights? by value_added · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is like the Streisand effect ...

      We're talking about Germany. I'd suggest "Hasselhoff Effect" instead.

    15. Re:Rights? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1, Informative

      Unfortunately, they aren't prohibited yet; their lobby was too powerful. They're under heavy investigation though, and do not have the status of a religion.

    16. Re:Rights? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      (2) These rights are limited only by the general laws for protection of the youth and protection of the personal honor.

      So they will state that the “honor” of the “church” must be protected. Whatever “personal honor” means. (My guess: Stretchable beyond imagination.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    17. Re:Rights? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      You don't need to be a recognized entity to sue. If you would affected in any way by a publication, you could also sue as an individual.

      if a group of X people (+ 1 lawyer) shows up in court to sue, it's rather about legal details if they are treated as a group or individuals.

      --
      bickerdyke
    18. Re:Rights? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      me too, but it's rather a TV fee than a TV tax.

      (similar to Great Britains TV License)

      --
      bickerdyke
    19. Re:Rights? by teh+dave · · Score: 1

      Scientology is prohibited in Germany

      I am packing my bags now. Any idea where I can learn Germanese?

    20. Re:Rights? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Germany had issues with the left and the right vs their democratic gov.
      So they set up some laws to say that nobody could ever mess with the democratic system.
      This helped stop groups injecting ww2 German ideas into new cut out parties or communist offering one final free vote to get them into power.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    21. Re:Rights? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      You can stretch even them beyond recognition and your case will still be accepted to go to court. But judges (for unknown reasons except the OLG Hamburg) usually dismiss it when you stretched it beyond reason.

      --
      bickerdyke
    22. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a few colleges that teach it. However, it's only taught to people for whom their first language is Americanese.

    23. Re:Rights? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's not libel when it's true.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:Rights? by bjwest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would you pay a tax on something that is an inherent right.

      Since when is TV is an inherent right anywhere in the world? Why would TV even be an inherent right?

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    25. Re:Rights? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the government only needs to print that to pay it. Since the government in most cases is the monopoly on money supply, whose money do you think devalue and end up paying for all the newly printed cash anyway?

    26. Re:Rights? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Of course.

      But as "true" is in the eye of the beholder, it's often the courts job to decide if something is true.

      In other words: It's not libel when it's true, but you don't need lies to _sue_ for libel. But it helps if you actually plan to _win_ that libel case.

      --
      bickerdyke
    27. Re:Rights? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Clause 2

      (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour.

      seems to provide a lot of wiggle room for an enterprising lawyer on the CoS pay-roll.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    28. Re:Rights? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depends on the country, in some countries, how the truth is presented and for what reason it's presented count too.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    29. Re:Rights? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a citizen of Europe, I'm going to have to point out passionately how full of neutering all such "Constitutions" are.

      For example, in Germany I cannot freely:

      - State that only 1,000,000 Jews died in the Holocaust: utter bullshit, but if the above clause has any effect, I must be allowed to do this, lest the principle leading to the exception is used to restrict me from legitimate review and criticism of policy based on established scholarship;

      - Parade with swastikas: fairly stupid, but if the above clause has any effect, I must be allowed to do this, lest I am restricted from parodying a government going where it's gone before ("we're not like Nazis - we ban the swastika!").

      Also, such exceptions inevitably ride the slippery slope to encompass the restriction of far more freedoms. I'm sure the CoS will explain why their detractors are "like Nazis" oppressing religious freedom, their speech thus outlawed - enjoy that hurdle.

    30. Re:Rights? by smurfsurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, not stretchable at all. A legal entity cannot have personal honour. This is limited to natural persons.
      A major difference to the US , which seems to be on the verge of granting corporations citizenship.

    31. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In Germany, it is. Every citizen has a right to be provided with a TV transmission. You still have to get the TV set yourself, but no one can legally prevent you from watching TV once you have that.

      The reason for that is to ensure a basic information flow to all citizens. If you want to be participate in public life, you have a right to be able to watch the news on TV, read newspapers, listen to the radio, and no one can force you not to do that (of course, no one forces you to actually do it either, but you need to have a choice).

    32. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      aahhh! I vomited through my eyes and ears!!!! tks!

    33. Re:Rights? by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      Oh bravo! THAT is brilliant.

    34. Re:Rights? by Jurily · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Any organization must not be given a chance to prevent education.

    35. Re:Rights? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 2, Informative

      This, similar to many European nations. Norway takes the same stance as Germany. They are not prohibited, but also do not have religion status. They are simply a business like any other, with no special allowances.

    36. Re:Rights? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Let's take a look at the Grundgesetz...

      I saw Nirvana, Mudhoney and Alice in Chains back in '93.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re:Rights? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Informative

      but considering the standard of journalism in public tv, scientology hasn't much of a chance to pull that documentary off the air.

      According to the Spiegel article (second link), it's not a documentary, but a drama based on a true case. Since a non-documentary is usually expected to contain fictional elements, I guess that makes it much harder to legally fight it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    38. Re:Rights? by cbope · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good idea, but if I remember correctly, Scientology doesn't like to talk about itself to the general public. Followers tend to be fairly secretive. Any time someone tries to talk about the "church" to the general public, that person is painted as a liar and worse by this so-called church.

      Scientology does not like public scrutiny of any kind. As far as I'm concerned it is no more than a cult.

    39. Re:Rights? by happy_place · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I don't necessarily disagree with the programming that's being offered, though I do think that if one wants to get a good feel for a religion, the dissenters of that religion are probably not your best source, but more troubling to me is the blind faith the above "5 point post" puts in government...

      You don't see an inherent conflict of interest in having the government run a media outlet? In Germany? Oh how quickly we forget...

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    40. Re:Rights? by halowolf · · Score: 1

      There was a Scientology doco on channel 9 in Australia this last Sunday. I didn't watch it but from the ad I saw it didn't look like it would cast Scientology in a positive light. Luckily my Scientology ward, that I developed on the streets of Perth as I walked past their building many times when working in the city years ago, keeps them away.

    41. Re:Rights? by jameson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Person <> organisation. Very, very, very important.

    42. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go away and don't come back until you understand what governments are for.

    43. Re:Rights? by teh+dave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dang, cos I only know Australianese.

    44. Re:Rights? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would you pay a tax on something that is an inherent right.
      I think honestly you need a tax on government. Let's call it a government tax,
      The government must pay this tax to the people because without the people
      the government is nothing.

      You have an inherent right to watch television? Seriously?

      How do you know you do? Did God write it down on a tablet of stone and give it to Moses? If not, where did this 'inherent right' come from?

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    45. Re:Rights? by mattcasters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      According to the law of my country (Belgium) and Germany, Scientology is not a religion.
      In order for anyone to expose that they are not a religion, you do indeed need dissenters, not die hard fans.

      I think you owe the people in Germany an apology for that last comment you made but hey, it's your karma (and I don't mean /. karma).

      --
      News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
    46. Re:Rights? by TheMidget · · Score: 1

      And what about Entavio? (a.k.a. Dolphin, a.k.a. HD plus, ...)

    47. Re:Rights? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      (2) These rights are limited only by the general laws for protection of the youth and protection of the personal honor.

      So they will state that the “honor” of the “church” must be protected. Whatever “personal honor” means. (My guess: Stretchable beyond imagination.)

      The soi-disant 'church' is by definition not a person and thus does not have personal honour.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    48. Re:Rights? by MikeFM · · Score: 1, Troll

      I think we should send Scientologist to work camps. They can produce crappy movies day and night until they are cured of their stupid religious ideas or die in the process. Safer than letting them roam the streets preaching alien conquest or whatever it is. Let's pack the Raelians in too as they're probably dangerous too.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    49. Re:Rights? by donaggie03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It looks like you have a case of selective reading. The GP discussed how one TV station is funded by public money and thus isn't scared of programming like this. That hardly proves that they have "blind faith" in anything. It definitely doesn't mean these people have a blind faith in government! Why? For the same reason your other point is bunk. Government run media outlet? The GP specifically said that this station answers to "nobody not even the government." Maybe if you had taken the time to disprove his assertion that this station is free from government control, your second point would stand. Either way, your first point is just stupid.

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    50. Re:Rights? by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not libel when it's true.

      Orthogonal concepts. Its libel if it makes the plaintiff look bad, which is fairly irrelevant to truth or falsehood.

      Some legal systems (by no means all) allow truth as a defense, pretty much "just because". But there's no logical connection, and certainly there are legal systems that do not allow truth as a defense, again pretty much "just because".

      Then there are other defenses, some of which seem to apply to CoS such as being "incapable of further defamation", "Fair comment on a matter of public interest", "Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true", "No actual injury".

      All the defenses against libel vaguely revolve around either increasing tax revenues (by collecting income tax from the journalist/muckraking establishment, which would otherwise be destroyed) or around not wasting the courts time on what amounts to BS, aka attempting to eliminate "SLAPP lawsuits" etc. None of the reasoning for libel defenses is particularly concerned with the moral superiority of "truth".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Truth

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    51. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Also, Scientology is not prohibited in Germany. They're just not a church, so they must pay taxes like every other scam.

    52. Re:Rights? by rundgren · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem here is that many public networks shy away from these documentaries BECAUSE of the clout of Scientology. However, ARD is supported by public euros and as such answers to nobody even the government. Many whine about having to pay a TV tax, but I gladly pay my monthly TV tax as it produces documentaries that ask hard hitting questions. Public networks would definitely not support it...

      I am a supporter of free markets and capitalism, but at times we need the government.

      Yes, at times we need the government - but journalism is clearly not a job for the government. Do you think we need a government newspaper, because the normal newspapers are too scared of pissing of corporations or religions? How do you explain away all the good and controversial journalistic work done by privately owned newspapers and TV-stations all over the world? Believe me, there are plenty of good journalists and editors in the private media.

    53. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Scientology is not banned. They have just been denied the legal status of a church, and they're closely watched for their antidemocratic behavior.

    54. Re:Rights? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer it if they were prohibited outright. There are few organizations quite as loathsome as Scientology, which is really saying something.

      But I'd certainly settle for countries matching Germany and Norway in declaring them a business.

    55. Re:Rights? by rundgren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I agree hinting to the war is unneccessarry, his point is valid: An independent media is absolutely necessary to keep the power of government in check. When government is running the media, a huge conflict of interest exists. This problem is unfortunately not being taken seriously by the people in countries with government-run media (most of Europe, maybe?). It's even worse here in Norway, where the government operated media dominates TV and radio - only in newspapers is there some diversity and even most of those depend on government subsidies.

    56. Re:Rights? by rundgren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong: Scientology is registered as a religion ("trossamfunn") in Norway.

    57. Re:Rights? by rundgren · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Mod parent up!

    58. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Not stretchable beyond imagination. Churches are not persons. Corporations are not persons. For example "All Cops Are Bastards" is referring to police officers in general and not to a particular one, therefore it is not limited speech.

      A sentence like "Heinz Mustermann copulates with sheep" is specific to a person, therefore not protected if copulation with sheep is considered dishonourable. But that is for the courts to determine.

    59. Re:Rights? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why did you put "speech" in quotes? Is this a silent movie?

    60. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like the Streisand effect ...

      We're talking about Germany. I'd suggest "Hasselhoff Effect" instead.

      ROFL what is the "hasselhoff effect" ?

    61. Re:Rights? by vikstar · · Score: 1

      Isn't holocaust denial illegal in Germany, and doesn't making it illegal go against these articles?

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    62. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... how can people enjoy free mone^H^H^H^Hspeach if they're not part of a company or union?

    63. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    64. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It seems strange that scientology, which bases its "business model" on the brain, is not aware of such obvious reactions. They might be the ultimate antireligious trolls though: the more people enter scientology, the less they will investigate alternatives (religions and atheism). If they are disappointed or exploited, people will reflexively associate religion and cults with "getting screwed". Which happens often: it seems religious people should be more faithful to their own teachings.

    65. Re:Rights? by HopeOS · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The right to interpret a signal passing through your property would fall under Universal Rights. The "right" to claim that the signal cannot be interpreted without permission is a misnomer. It is actual a property arbitration issue and would fall under Social Contract, more specifically under Law. As for God? I'm not sure how that has any bearing on the discussion at all. -Hope

    66. Re:Rights? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In order for an American to exercise their right to have a free press, they need access to a printing press. Hell, they need to learn a language to exercise their right to free speech. Even the most hardcore supporters of the Second Amendment doesn't think that the government needs to GIVE everyone a weapon so that they can bear arms. Public parks are generally owned by the government at some level and are open to the public, with varying levels of restrictions. For example, my town built a football field for the use of its little league football programs. They charge a modest fee to the parents of the kids in the league. The local high school team also practices on it, and pays the town for its exclusive use during those times. I play in an adult flag football league, and that's our home field too, but we need to schedule our games around times when the town and school are using it. Anyone who wants to play a pickup game is also welcome to use it, but the town isn't going to give you the equipment necessary to do so. We have to bring our own flags, footballs, referee, etc.
      In the United States, we recognize the radio spectrum (i.e. where TV is broadcast) as a public resource, just like that park. The citizens own it and the government administers it on our behalf. Everyone has the right to access it with varying levels of restrictions. If you want exclusive use of it (e.g. to become a broadcast station) you have to pay for that, just like the high school has to pay the town for exclusive use of the field. If your use isn't going to interfere with anyone, (e.g. CB radio, getting TV reception with an antenna) you have the right to use it as a citizen, but you have to bring your own equipment.
      If anyone needs that in car analogy form, the park is a 10 minute jog from my house, and I play running back and corner back on the team, so I need to run a lot during the game; I can't run TO the game as well. Count a car as part of the equipment I need to utilize the football field and *BOOM* instant car analogy.

    67. Re:Rights? by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Funny

      given the number of topless asian chicks in the photos on the wiki page, I'd say the danger is off-set by enough awesome to let them slide... for now.

    68. Re:Rights? by jockeys · · Score: 1

      +1

      --

      In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
    69. Re:Rights? by servies · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the CoS will explain why their detractors are "like Nazis" oppressing religious freedom, their speech thus outlawed - enjoy that hurdle.

      Except that the CoS is considered not to be a religion in Germany.

    70. Re:Rights? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      You only have one language in Australia? Here in the US we have Ebonics, Redneck, Tex-Mex, Corporate-speak, Geek, and a host of other languages.

      Geek: Look, you just delete all the temp files and defrag the hard drive. Get more RAM and windows will run faster.

      Ebonics: "Dat Sound geek to me."

      Redneck: What da fuck y'all talkin' about? What's dis "winders" shit?

      Nyoo Yawk: Windas is a dwag. A dyamn dwag!"

    71. Re:Rights? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      The first rule of fight club...

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    72. Re:Rights? by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      Your wrong. Scientology is NOT prohibited in Germany.
      But it is not considered a church and is watched by governmental organs in some states of Germany.

    73. Re:Rights? by Nemi · · Score: 0

      Its libel if it makes the plaintiff look bad, which is fairly irrelevant to truth or falsehood.

      The Free Dictionary would seem to disagree with this definition

    74. Re:Rights? by Nemi · · Score: 0

      My bad, it looks like the legal definition below is different.

    75. Re:Rights? by Nadaka · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Funny thing. Many scientologists already do just that (Living in work camps and producing bad film until they are sufficiently brainwashed).

    76. Re:Rights? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Yes. In Germany Hustler Magazine would very likely have lost their case against Falwell because of this particular restriction to free speech.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    77. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You don't see an inherent conflict of interest in having the government run a media outlet?

      The point is that the public radio and TV stations are less "government run" as you might think. They are financed through fees every owner of a TV or radio has to pay (which in itself is a controversial topic, but supposedly it is done so that the stations don't get the money from the government directly).

      Of course, political influence is a sensitive issue. One national TV station (the "ZDF") for example has a steering council with members from all kind of interest groups (federal and regional governments, the different parties, churches, unions, ...) to make taking influence for a single entity more difficult. They elect the director of the station who takes care of the day-to-day running.

      I'm not saying that everything is perfect, but it is indeed a sensitive subject, and from time to time (true or perceived) favoring of certain political parties is hotly debated in the media.

      And, by not relying on advertisement income, I have the feeling that they their news program is of a much higher quality than that on the private station. It's information versus infotainment, similar to newspaper versus tabloid.

    78. Re:Rights? by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Why does the guy in the funky disco space suit on the left have a Star of David Swastika on his chest?

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    79. Re:Rights? by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 1

      That depends on what you mean by "it's"...

    80. Re:Rights? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      A legal entity cannot have personal honour.

      Some think that a legal entity has no honor at all...

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    81. Re:Rights? by bigpet · · Score: 2, Informative

      you don't get it. It's not about abolishing the scientologic belief. It's about the Organisation "Church of Scientology".
      Get rid of the guys that are making it hard for it's members to leave and charge them an arm and a leg for "courses" and we're happy. The trial that decided that the "Church of Scientology" is not a religion specifically stated that individuals have the right to practice their belief.

    82. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      An independent media is absolutely necessary to keep the power of government in check.

      Yes. But:

      1) the public stations are not controlled by "the government". Of course, politicians sit in the supervisory boards, but they are representatives of different groups (not just the government). And they don't run the day-to-day business of the stations.

      2) There are also plenty of non-public-run TV and radio stations, plus the newspapers. On the other hand, the largest (privately owned) German newspaper (BILD) is so biased to the conservative party that it would be a scandal if the public stations would be like that.

    83. Re:Rights? by bigpet · · Score: 1

      it's not a business in all parts of Germany. They still get some tax breaks in some regions as a "registered association". But they definately need to tread it like a business if they continue to rob their followers of all their money.

    84. Re:Rights? by Khamura · · Score: 1

      You can state whatever you like, but there's saying it and saying it, y'know? Carefully outlining that scholars disagree about the number of people killed during the Holocaust is one thing -- it may raise some hackles, but as long as you do it with all due scientific and academic diligence, you ought to be fine. If you spout nonsense a la "Hitler was an OK guy, and so were the Nazis, and they never killed that many people" you're basically declaring allegiance with an ideology that by its very nature is unconstitutional and which cannot be made congruent with the aims, goals and means of a modern democratic republic. THAT is the part that'll get you indicted. Even in America, free speech is not entirely free of consequences. In Germany, those consequences are more drastic, but they have little to do with the ACT of saying something, but rather with the implications of saying something that is unconstitutional.

      --
      Graduate of the LeRoy Funkified Badass School of Soul.
    85. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, ARD is supported by public euros and as such answers to nobody even the government.

      As a fellow German I must tell you that your perception is quite naive. State and especially party influence is extremely widespread throughout the public stations. Some work positions (especially those that have influence on the produced content) are very dependent on your political opinion and/or party membership.

      Having said that, I would never abolish the public stations (although there could certainly be some cuts to their budget). But thinking that they are somehow "independent" is simply not true. It's just a different kind of influence.

    86. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny because they like Hasselhoff in Germany.

    87. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Corporate-speak" is a euphemism. The real term is "Corporate-Doublespeak."

    88. Re:Rights? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even the most hardcore supporters of the Second Amendment doesn't think that the government needs to GIVE everyone a weapon so that they can bear arms.

      That would be an interesting proposition. If your free weapon came with a rigourous firearm safety training program and range time, it would put guns in the hands of the citizenry rather than just the police or military. I don't know that that's a good thing, but I do know that the government is no longer afraid of the people - the people are afraid of the government, and that's not the way it's supposed to be.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    89. Re:Rights? by Josh04 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An independent media is also necessary to keep the power of corporations in check, otherwise Murdoch can just buy them all. What you really need is a press independent of any influence whatsoever, but a press independent only of government money is barely any closer to being free.

    90. Re:Rights? by yacc143 · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not optional, and with all the changes, basically anybody has to pay it. A hermite without electricity might avoid the GEZ but else it's hard to avoid.

      So if it's not optional, it's not a fee, it's a tax.

    91. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you spout nonsense a la [words] you're basically declaring allegiance with an ideology that by its very nature is unconstitutional

      You have come very close to wording how the Soviet Union justified oppression of speech.

      and which cannot be made congruent with the aims, goals and means of [Germany].

      And now more like... well, you know...

      but rather with the implications of saying something that is unconstitutional.

      The "implication" you've indicated is that you "declare an allegiance with an ideology". The implication is that a thought crime has been committed.

      The First Amendment does not give me the privilege to incite an immediate riot, but I can express the value of bloody revolution or slavery or matriarchy or any other number of good/bad (delete as ideologically appropriate) ideas which would lead to the loss of freedom/life of millions of humans. See Brandenburg v. Ohio to disabuse you and many millions of the notion that the First Amendment won't let you cry "fire!".

      Meanwhile, in Germany I can talk and quack like a Nazi as long as I don't call myself a Nazi.

    92. Re:Rights? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      An independent media is absolutely necessary to keep the power of government in check.

      If only such a thing existed. Here in the US we have a corporate-run media, that lobbies (buys) what they need from the government. It stretches the meaning of 'independent' beyond anything useful.

      I'm not aware of anywhere where such a media actually exists. In that light, perhaps a government-run media isn't as bad as it sounds. Still worse, I suppose, but probably better than mythical unicorns.

    93. Re:Rights? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      The right to interpret a signal passing through your property would fall under Universal Rights.

      The "right" to claim that the signal cannot be interpreted without permission is a misnomer. It is actual a property arbitration issue and would fall under Social Contract, more specifically under Law.

      As for God? I'm not sure how that has any bearing on the discussion at all.

      -Hope

      I'd agree that any rights to television would fall under law. Which means that, by definition, they cannot be inherent.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    94. Re:Rights? by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      Did god write down "You have the right to free speech and blacks have the right to not be slaves" anywhere?

    95. Re:Rights? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      You just used a lot of words to describe a mechanism to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons...

      In order for an American to exercise their right to have a free press, they need access to a printing press. Hell, they need to learn a language to exercise their right to free speech.

      See your local Library for this thing they call the 'internet'. Likewise, check out 'public school'. These services are available free of charge and would allow for an amount of freedom of speech that might surprise you.

      The rest of your argument is fine, but I guess I'm not quite sure where you're going with it.

    96. Re:Rights? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      All rights are given by default. The only rights denied are those removed by due process of law. Unless someone has successfully legislated away the right to watch television, then yes, it is still 'had'.

      Do they have a right to force others to provide them with free equipment, etc? No. This would violate the right to keep your own property, which has a lot of legislation built up around it, but is still mostly in place.

    97. Re:Rights? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country Registered as non-profit organisation (what..?) but not religion (according to wiki anyway).

    98. Re:Rights? by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. Libel has multiple meanings. Some meanings infer defamation only. Other meanings imply UNJUST defamation.

    99. Re:Rights? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Seems the wiki is wrong (hence the red shading, heh..) The majority of States in the European Union have other forms of recognition. In many of these countries, Scientology has been recognized as a religion through administrative and judicial decisions, including decisions by the highest court in the country. These decisions include the following countries – Italy, Denmark, Austria, Germany, UK and Norway (from a PDF entitled "scientology recognitions booklet")

    100. Re:Rights? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the US, the government used to fund news stations. In that time some of the best journalism this country had ever seen was done. It set the bar for the rest of the world.

      Once go government funding stopped and news source had to get their own funding, it became a race for ad dollars. Now we have Fox news.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    101. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'll tell you what, Germany can have that apology in a few hundred years when they've earned back any level of trust after the shit they pulled in the 20th century.

      Well, apparently, many people by now have moved on to the 21st century and are able to distinguish between the Germany of 70 years ago and modern Germany...

      "Germany once again fared best in the poll, with every country viewing it positively and 61% of people rating it favourably, up from 55% last year."

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7873050.stm

    102. Re:Rights? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because anything with the word tax has cooties?

      Jeez, you people fear of that word is laughable.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    103. Re:Rights? by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see you've gotten an Insightful mod already, but you're nuts.

      "Any organization" could mean all sorts of things. I'll get to that in a minute.

      "Education" is in the eye of the beholder. The proper method for soliciting, enjoying, and reimbursing a prostitute could be classified as education. I'm certainly not as informed as I would need to be, as for example I'm not at all clear how much that service would fetch. So your statement could be applied to say that no organization should stand between me and that knowledge. And this is fine. However, I myself would organize against my eight year old son being educated in that same manner. As a course of his greater education, I'd prefer to defer that topic until he has mastered the underlying ones first (morality, sexuality, etc).

      Same as above for proper use of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, tax evasion, firearm use, etc. Many organizations should certainly be given the chance to prevent that facet of education to my child, until such time as his parents consent.

      Now, going back to the statement you made, let me frame it up with some specificity:

      The Catholic Church must not be given a chance to prevent education about Darwinism.

      The Athiests must not be given a chance to prevent education about Jesus Christ.

      The Jews must not be given a chance to prevent education about holocaust doubt.

      The Neo-Nazis must not be given a chance to prevent education about Zionism.

      The Klu Klux Klan must not be given a chance to prevent education about tolerance.

      The ACLU must not be given a chance to prevent education about white power.

      The Department of Homeland Security must not be given a chance to prevent education about terrorist operations.

      etc, etc, etc.

      To adults, fine. Mostly, anyway. To children, maybe not.

    104. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that movie.

      Yes, MOVIE. I can't believe nobody's bothered to RTFA and discover that it is NOT a documentary, but a DRAMA based on that guy's story.

    105. Re:Rights? by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      Scientology is prohibited in Germany

      Scientology is *NOT* prohibited in Germany. Because of the way "The Church of Scientology" operates, it is considered a for-profit corporation and not a religion in Germany.

      Basically it is treated the same as Microsoft, Apple or IBM in Germany and not the Catholic Church.

    106. Re:Rights? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, that's more or less what the Swiss do.

    107. Re:Rights? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      No. if it was a tax, the revenues wouldn't have to be spent exclusivly for public broadcasters in return.

      It is as optional as owning a computer or tv is optional. And there are several non-optional fees as e.g. sewage fees.

      And you just gave the right example that GEZ IS avoidable. (if you choose to live as hermit, but hey, it IS your choice)

      --
      bickerdyke
    108. Re:Rights? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "In the US, the government used to fund news stations. In that time some of the best journalism this country had ever seen was done. It set the bar for the rest of the world.

      Once go government funding stopped and news source had to get their own funding, it became a race for ad dollars. Now we have Fox news."

      Really?

      Can you get some citations on this statement? You're trying to tell me that the old pioneers of TV news on CBS, NBC..etc...were funded by the US Federal Govt?!?!

      Really...I gotta see something credible to back that up before I'd half believe it...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    109. Re:Rights? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Informative

      When the militia was designed at the federal level under the Militia Act of 1792 signed by ol' George Washington himself, it was codified into law that every enfranchised citizen of the US between the ages of 18 and 45 was required to acquire and keep in good order a long gun of some sort (musket, flintlock, whatever) and appropriate ammunition for it. Unfortunately Americans are so lazy that they didn't want to bother mustering to train, and consequently the militia was phased out in favor of a voluntary standing army and national guard. For my part I would love to see the original law reinstated.

      --
      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
    110. Re:Rights? by cyberczar1 · · Score: 1

      Once government funding stopped and news source had to get their own funding, it became a race for ad dollars. Now we have MSNBC.

      Fixed that for you.

    111. Re:Rights? by Jurily · · Score: 1

      To adults, fine. Mostly, anyway. To children, maybe not.

      Stop hiding behind the children already! That's what their fucking parents are for.

      Whether Darwin or Jesus is the higher authority shouldn't be legislated. Everyone should make up their own fucking mind. We have the internet now, everything's out there if you look for it.

      As for the holocaust doubters: what kind of historical fact needs to carry a jail sentence for anyone questioning it (yes, it does in Germany for example)? If I can't even ask about it without getting thrown into jail, how can I know it did happen?

    112. Re:Rights? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      It's a difference between 'negative' and 'positive' rights (his reference to Moses is, I suspect, nothing more than a rhetorical device). Freedom to speak or from slavery doesn't cost anything. TV is a service, and in order to make a 'right', somebody has to pay for all the production and distribution costs (unless the people doing that work are going to be slaves). It can be argued, and is implied by the GP, that no 'positive' right (entitlement) can be 'inherent' because that creates a continuous financial burden on others for things they may or may not want/use.

      --
      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
    113. Re:Rights? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      No. At least in the german-legalese dialect there is a differnece between things the state organizes (but is paid for by fees) and things the state actually PAYS for (with tax money, without taking care from which tax the money comes)

      A Euro from a TV-fee has to be spent for TV. A Euro from a TV-tax could be spent for anything. Thus giving the state much more control over public broadcasters.

      --
      bickerdyke
    114. Re:Rights? by agrounds · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Where would we be without those hot chicks doing Yoga on public access TV? I fucking LOVE public access.

    115. Re:Rights? by agrounds · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll tell you what, Germany can have that apology in a few hundred years when they've earned back any level of trust after the shit they pulled in the 20th century.

      Just out of curiosity, what is the timeframe for American trust levels after the shit we pulled in the early 21st century?

      See how that works?

    116. Re:Rights? by catman · · Score: 1

      Cite? I've checked everywhere I can reach online, and they are not registered as such. That is strange, given that every registered "tros- og livssynssamfunn" (faith and life philosophy community) gets a government grant per member equal to what the State church (yes, we still have one) gets. Somehow I don't see the CoS walking away from a source of non-earned income ...

    117. Re:Rights? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      No. if it was a tax, the revenues wouldn't have to be spent exclusivly for public broadcasters in return.

      Is that some German law? Because it certainly doesn't appear in any dictionary's definition of tax.

      If it's true that if you tax X it has to be spent on X, where does the defense budget come from? I doubt many German individuals own tanks.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    118. Re:Rights? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They're just not a church, so they must pay taxes like every other scam.

      Surely you meant, "unlike every other scam"?

    119. Re:Rights? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Regardless, Scientology is prohibited in Germany;

      *sigh* - no it's not. Do you think a prohibited group could have a big
      HQ building in Berlin? It is not considered a religion
      though, and is under constant scrutiny by several federal and state agencies
      for human rights violations, fraud, and other interesting things.

    120. Re:Rights? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Stop hiding behind the children already! That's what their fucking parents are for.

      I AM a 'fucking parent'. Read the post.

      If not even the parents can be parents, then - well, I refuse to even try and parse that logic into anything witty to say.

      Whether Darwin or Jesus is the higher authority shouldn't be legislated.

      Which was my point. Read the post. The parent was the one that removed the legal aspect and applied it to 'everyone', not me.

      As for the holocaust doubters: what kind of historical fact needs to carry a jail sentence for anyone questioning it (yes, it does in Germany for example)? If I can't even ask about it without getting thrown into jail, how can I know it did happen?

      On this, we agree. Does anyone from that neck of the woods know what defense is levied in favor of those kinds of laws? They are forbidden where I am from, so this seems very foreign to me. Any insight would be most interesting.

    121. Re:Rights? by cekander · · Score: 1

      A major difference to the US , which seems to have already granted corporations citizenship.

      I think this is more accurate, and I suspect it is this American style corporate citizenship (actually corporations have more "honor" than people in the american justice system) that Germany is trying to prevent with its wording. Fascism is well understood and feared there.

    122. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so. You made that up. The US government never funded news stations. It is illegal for them to do so.

      dadinportland@yahoo.com

    123. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many whine about having to pay a TV tax, but I gladly pay my monthly TV tax as it produces documentaries that ask hard hitting questions.

      For German television, that's the exception rather than the rule. Most of the money from licensing fees goes into lavish salaries and buying commercial trash and soccer broadcasting rights.

      And Germany is rather late to the party; US and British television both already had several "hard hitting" documentaries about Scientology.

    124. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I meant it like I wrote it. Homeopaths, astrologers, dating agencies and insurance companies all pay taxes. That's because they're all in it for the money.

    125. Re:Rights? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Yes. I'm afraid german language is sometimes a bit closer to that accurate but unreadable legelase.

      Plus, you missed a NOT in my posting. "if it was a tax, the revenues would NOT have to be spent exclusivly for public broadcasters in return."

      It's the fees on X that have to be spent on X.

      --
      bickerdyke
    126. Re:Rights? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you have a right to property?

      Can I have some? I'd like a few acres please, ideally with a bit of woodland and a large pond.

    127. Re:Rights? by billius · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, the German Grundgesetz guarantees free speech under section 1.5 which states:

      Everyone has the right freely to express and to disseminate his opinion by speech, writing and pictures and freely to inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by radio and motion pictures are guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

      The only exception to this is materials considered "harmful" to youth, although from what I can tell that's largely limited to either things with large amounts of graphic violence, denying/"revising" the Holocaust or using Nazi symbols in inappropriate manners. In the case of Scientology, not only is the religion banned, but some government organizations like the Bavarian State Office for the Protection of the Constitution have gone as far as creating pamphlets warning people about the dangers of Scientology (PDF in German)

    128. Re:Rights? by Some+Bitch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Germany is a special case with regard to denying the details of that particular era, my grandmother was Austrian and died 20 years ago still believing Hitler knew nothing whatsoever about the concentration camps and that he was a great leader lied to by his generals.

      Germans need to know their past so they can move forwards, there can be no muddying of the waters or revionism permitted.

    129. Re:Rights? by mikerz · · Score: 1

      This line sticks out like a sore thumb: "I am a supporter of free markets and capitalism, but at times we need the government." You are describing the problems of a corporatist, mercantilist market - not a free market (scientology only has power because they exploit the regulations to their advantage). Furthermore, you are implicitly equating markets with government, which are separate entities very often found intertwined (this is done by the government). "Many whine about having to pay a TV tax, but I gladly pay my monthly TV tax as it produces documentaries that ask hard hitting questions." -- Your willingness to pay for what you want is indeed fundamental to all people -- and is the basis of a free market (it is driven by human nature itself).

    130. Re:Rights? by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      How cute.

    131. Re:Rights? by bjwest · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I never thought of it that way. It's not TV itself that's an inherent right, but the information obtained from the TV. Does Germany, or any country for that matter, consider the internet in the same way? I can see this becoming relevant in doing away with the three strike crap that's trying to make its way in many countries.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    132. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment can be boiled down to "Do we need A? B is sometimes good!". That's totally absurd. If 'A' is good, then why not have it?

      As someone from a country which has ~6 publicly-funded FTA channels (2 public providers), I can only say that they're the best thing on the box. If you want to talk journalistic integrity, you're laughing if you think the private channels even hold a candle to the public ones. The private channels have perhaps 5 minutes of patronising and biased "news" coverage (presented in order of most emotional appeal, as opposed to most important - eg, you'll hear about some paedophile or a cat in a drain before a natural disaster), 7 minutes of tabloid style news-ertainment ("Freedom Of Information Investigation") and then 7 minutes of news and sports. The private channels will do a full 30 minute report, presented in order of actual importance, which is consistently honest, even-handed and comprehensive.

      If that's not enough, one of the broadcasters has news shows for multiple lingual groups (they're focused on international programming), and the other has a rather good show ("Media Watch") which analyses and criticises media coverage (and yes, they quite often attack their own station's news coverage) for factual errors and undisclosed interests. Plus, both stations have been instrumental in pushing for extra digital channels, which the private stations have reluctantly committed to.

    133. Re:Rights? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      I have an even better idea, lock them in a room and play Battlefield Earth non stop until they surrender.

      And you thought waterboarding was torture!

    134. Re:Rights? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      "Heinz Mustermann copulates with sheep"

      Ah he's a Kiwi then!

    135. Re:Rights? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Some think that a legal entity has no honor at all...

      As an experiment, voice that view in a bar full of US Marines.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    136. Re:Rights? by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It is not officially recognized as a religious organization (as, e.g., the various christian churches are) but it isn't banned either.

      --
      (+1, Disagree)
    137. Re:Rights? by rundgren · · Score: 1

      http://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=970551972 I do know it's easy to register as a religion in Norway (which I think is a good thing) - I once was seriously considering registering some religion with the sole purpose of getting government support and the sole function of gathering once a year and drinking beer for the gov. support money. I still think I could have pulled it off :-) I was inspired by these geniouses: http://www.gateavisa.no/blekka/ga152/religion/152ralt.html

    138. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops!

      and then 7 minutes of news and sports

      I meant to say

      and then 7 minutes of weather and sports

    139. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germans need to know their past so they can move forwards, there can be no [dissident speech] permitted.

      That's pretty much what Hitler said.

    140. Re:Rights? by multi+io · · Score: 1

      they like Hasselhoff in Germany.

      The only one who believes that is Hasselhoff himself...

    141. Re:Rights? by HopeOS · · Score: 1

      I think you will find that you have confused the words Liberty with Entitlement. If this was the difference between air and water, you would have drowned, and under more graver circumstances, the outcome would have been the same.

    142. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't see an inherent conflict of interest in having the government run a media outlet? In Germany? Oh how quickly we forget...

      Actually, the 3 Western occupying powers designed the German system so that the public broadcasting system would not be owned by the government, but by the people, quite similar to the British one. But thanks for trying.

    143. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe me, there are plenty of good journalists and editors in the private media.

      Sure, and in Germany many of them learned their trade in Public Broadcasting.

    144. Re:Rights? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      But in Germany I can freely state:

      - More then 100,000 Jews died in the holocaust.

      - Use Nazi images in the correct historical context (such as a movie, play or other dramatisation).

      I'm sorry but your attempt to vilify the German people with your horrendously inaccurate and phenomenally stupid rant (why would anyone in their right mind want to falsify history or march with Nazi symbols is beyond me). You are permitted to state or display anything about the Nazi's or German history if it is true and within proper context. What you may not do is produce Nazi propaganda or recruit for a Nazi-like party, I remember there was a time when the mere accusation of being a communist in the United States would ruin entire lives, it is still a social sin to be in any way affiliated with Communism even if there are no laws against it (not that I wish to vilify the people of the United States due to some minor idiocies, once outside the United States you tend to quite good people).

      Remember that Downfall, (source of the angry Hitler videos) was made in Germany, by a German, with German money and featured a German speaking (Swiss) actor, playing Hitler with Nazi references and symbolism up the wazoo. Germany appears to be running up the aforementioned slippery slope here.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    145. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixed that for you.

      So you are saying that the mere fact that MSNBC is slightly more truthful and accurate that FOX, means there is no problem in contemporary US media?!

    146. Re:Rights? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Finland's codified 1 Mbps broadband (not just basic internet access) as a right.

    147. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't see an inherent conflict of interest in having the government run a media outlet? In Germany? Oh how quickly we forget...

      That's an American misconception about public service television in Europe that I've encountered before. Now, people here bitch about TV levies, which are arguably set unfairly (since it's usually the same fee for every household) and misleadingly sometimes call it "TV tax", which makes your misconception understandable. However, it is not a tax by government for the very reason that public service television must be separate from government.

    148. Re:Rights? by cbreak · · Score: 1

      Scientology is neither young, nor a person. And as such, it has no personal honour.

    149. Re:Rights? by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      Without government to enforce contracts there are no markets so sure you are allowed to believe in both capitalism and government.

      I know Americans tend to love Reagan but he really screwed you over with the whole government is the problem crap.

    150. Re:Rights? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No, I fear you have falsely assumed a right to interpret electromagnetic waves crossing your property when in fact you don't even appear to think you have a right to the property.

    151. Re:Rights? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Use Nazi images in the correct historical context

      As long as it's "correct" speech, you are free to utter it as loudly as you please.

      I'm sorry but your attempt to vilify the German people

      Wait, what? I love a German as much as the next man, but your government's censorship 65 years after the fall of Nazism is harmful and immoral. If I didn't care, I wouldn't "passionately" point it out.

      why would anyone in their right mind want to falsify history or march with Nazi symbols is beyond me

      It doesn't matter. That's the censors fallacy: to assume that he has the right to declare what it is good for another man to hear. I could give you a million bad reasons and one or two good reasons for "marching with Nazi symbols" - a parody protest being an obvious one - but it doesn't matter. The Nazi has as much right to express bullshit as you do, and you have the right to explain why he is wrong. This latter method enables the majority to learn: censorship does not.

      Ask yourself: what will happen when there is no-one left with a living experience of Nazism? Do you think that we will preserve an appropriate record of what it really feels like to experience Nazi sentiment, 100 years on? Don't you think that it's necessary to experience a fascist first hand to know what they're really like, devoid of the romance of history? See Griffin of the UK British National Party: his being given a platform in the media here (I'm British, not American) is a great thing, as young people who only know about the far right from text books can now hear what it's like to have one speak in their own country. The response was not praise and support, as some Germans fear, but a mixture of well-reasoned criticism, laughter, pity and anger. Less extreme Parties struggled to address the issues which might have otherwise given him support. Freedom of speech worked.

      I remember there was a time when the mere accusation of being a communist in the United States would ruin entire lives

      This was wrong, and fortunately is no longer the case. The US has a new bogeyman now.

      it is still a social sin to be in any way affiliated with Communism even if there are no laws against it

      This is silly, but a social sin is not the same as a crime. The state should not make its people love or hate communists or Nazis, and it must certainly not invent laws to promote such feelings.

      Germany appears to be running up the aforementioned slippery slope here.

      Producing Der Untergang was a great (and unique) leap forward for Germany. Well done, seriously. But you have a long way to go before you'll be regarded as free. The film might represent the bold, progressive elements of German culture, but it does not represent the enlightenment of the German government, unfortunately.

    152. Re:Rights? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      The post I replied to asked for places in which it was assumed to be a right to receive television broadcasts. I answered that since the citizens own the radio spectrum in the United States, American citizens have the right to receive television broadcasts. Since a radio broadcast signal* is not a limited resource, the Tragedy of the Commons does not apply at all.
      My point was that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that the government has to give you the equipment to exercise that right. I picked "freedom of the press" as the 1st amendment freedom for my example because it requires equipment. I'd argue that the Internet counts as "speech" and not "press" for the purposes of this argument, but it doesn't really matter, because you still need equipment to access it. (Most libraries will lend you their equipment, but by no means all of them.) Similarly, the government can't MAKE you learn a language. They can pass laws saying that "All high school students MUST take 2 years of a foreign language to graduate," but the only ones who continue and become fluent in the language are the ones who put forth the effort to actually care.

      *A radio broadcast signal is not the same thing as a section of the radio spectrum; the latter IS a limited resource. In other words, the number of broadcasters is limited, but the number of receivers is not.

    153. Re:Rights? by Jojie_T · · Score: 1

      The people are afraid of the government because of their propensity to be a puppet of XYZ Corporation. If we are able to make it so the government cannot be made to be a puppet then that's a good start. But, with that recent supreme court decision giving corporations the same rights as individuals in influencing government through their pockets, then we are royally screwed.

    154. Re:Rights? by catman · · Score: 1

      Thanks! Of course I should have checked brreg :-) And then there was the PI-ism gang, worshipping thw number pi. After all, it is not only irrational, like most religions I know of, but actually transcendent ...

    155. Re:Rights? by Jojie_T · · Score: 1

      God (or supreme being) gave you eyes therefore you have the inherent right to watch (with your eyes that is). Now whether or not you have an inherent right to have the material put before your eyes, I'm not going there.

    156. Re:Rights? by cyberczar1 · · Score: 1

      No, not at all. I'm just tired of people implying that political preachiness disguised as journalism is hardly a problem exclusive to the right. neither extreme position is one that I can stand (nor the center, of course, damn wishy-washy bastards, they just stand for nothing)

    157. Re:Rights? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Enough to make you consider a change of religion huh?

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  2. Where can I find a copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, where can I find a copy with subtitles?

    1. Re:Where can I find a copy? by icebraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You can't for now, but maybe XenuTV will be able to help when a digital copy is released.

    2. Re:Where can I find a copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie will air on March 31st. I think there'll be viewer-created subtitles and torrents shortly after. The movie may also appear on the web at http://www.swr.de/mediathek/ under the German title "Bis nichts mehr bleibt". It is not strictly a documentary, more of a "based on a true story" thing.

  3. A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Germany doesn't know yet what Scientology is, a business, a religion or a cult. This may make up the courts' mind.

    From Wikipedia/Church of Scientology:

    In Germany, official views of Scientology are particularly skeptical. In Germany it is seen as a totalitarian anti-democratic organization and is under observation by national security organizations due, among other reasons, to suspicion of violating the human rights of its members granted by the German Constitution, including Hubbard's pessimistic views on democracy vis-à-vis psychiatry and other such features. In December 2007, Germany's interior ministers said that they considered the goals of Church of Scientology to be in conflict with the principles of the nation's constitution and would seek to ban the organization. The plans were quickly criticised as ill-advised. The plans to ban Scientology were finally dropped in November 2008, after preliminary investigations failed to unearth evidence of illegal or unconstitutional activity.

    The legal status of the Church of Scientology in Germany is still awaiting resolution; some courts have ruled that it is a business, others have affirmed its religious nature. The German government has affirmed that it does not consider the Church of Scientology to be a religious community.

    If any fellow Anonymous in Germany feel like telling the German government why they should not consider Scientology a religion, then please be my guest. Be clear, make yourself heard. "Ich bin Anonymous!"

    1. Re:A point to note by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0, Troll

      In Germany it is seen as a totalitarian anti-democratic organization

      If only somebody in Germany had the guts to say the same thing about Catholicism, or for that matter Islam.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:A point to note by bloobloo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In Germany it is seen as a totalitarian anti-democratic organization

      If only somebody in Germany had the guts to say the same thing about Catholicism, or for that matter Islam.

      They did, 500 years ago, and it led to the Reformation.

    3. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!

      What ever happened to "live and let live"?

    4. Re:A point to note by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In Germany it is seen as a totalitarian anti-democratic organization

      If only somebody in Germany had the guts to say the same thing about Catholicism, or for that matter Islam.

      Your list misses one of the main world religions ;)

      I get worried when Germans talk about wiping out religions. They have a tendency to push through with their mad schemes.

    5. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh hai straw man.

    6. Re:A point to note by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What ever happened to "live and let live"?

      No atheist is stopping religious people from living. Check the history of all major religions and you will find out that religious people quite often did stop atheists from living, and in quite imaginative ways too. I am just giving my opinion, feel free to give yours and stop playing the "hurt feelings" card you big baby.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    7. Re:A point to note by PeterBrett · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In Germany it is seen as a totalitarian anti-democratic organization

      If only somebody in Germany had the guts to say the same thing about Catholicism, or for that matter Islam.

      The thing is, though, that they aren't. If you're a Catholic, no-one's going to try and make your life a living hell if you want to stop coming to church. People say horrible and untrue thing about Catholics and the Catholic Church all the time, but they don't try and abuse the legal system to stop them, because they recognise the importance of freedom of speech. You can get all of the advantages and privileges of being a member of the Catholic Church for free just by turning up; you don't have to pay to access any of its teachings.

      To describe Catholicism as a "totalitarian anti-democratic organisation" and thereby making a direct comparison to Scientology is simply doing your own intelligence and critical thinking skills a disservice.

    8. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religious factions with their "death to the unbelievers" policy.

      But you can't do anything about it, it's their human right to believe in killing you.

    9. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Do you always assume everyone you write to on the internet is an idiot and an ignoramus? Then you pull out the internet tough guy routine by calling me a big baby and assuming you've hurt my feelings with your witty one liners! Oh the arrogance!

    10. Re:A point to note by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, though, that they aren't. If you're a Catholic, no-one's going to try and make your life a living hell if you want to stop coming to church.

      First of all, can you say the same thing about Islam worldwide? And as for the Catholic church, check it's history in Europe, as well as Latin America and elsewhere. For centuries they did indeed make your life a living hell if you as much as disagreed with the smallest part of the church's official doctrine. I would say that the fact that lately they can't get away with similar behavior is not for the lack of will but for the lack of power.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    11. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get all of the advantages and disadvantages of being a member of the Catholic Church for free just by turning up; you don't have to pay to access any of its teachings.

      There, fixed that for you.

      And am actually being serious rather that going for funny.

    12. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between the policy of a group and the tactics of members of that group.

      cb

    13. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my case, stooped with the crusades, then the wars of religions, then the child sodomies. Payback's a bitch.

    14. Re:A point to note by dylan_- · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Check the history of all major religions and you will find out that religious people quite often did stop atheists from living, and in quite imaginative ways too.

      Check the history of Atheism and you'll read about Stalin's Purges. Millions were killed in his attempt to build an Atheist society.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    15. Re:A point to note by mrsurb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to defend the history of religious oppression, but atheistic Leninist Russia had quite a habit of stopping religious people living, as does Communist China

      The persecution of minorities is a feature of all totalitarian ideologies, religious or otherwise.

    16. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Oh really? You were there for all of those? Or is vengeance and petty hate your prime motivator? Show me one culture that has been peaceful for thousands of years.

    17. Re:A point to note by chewthreetimes · · Score: 1

      Based on your other post above, it seems that, if not "an idiot and an inoramus", you were at the very least being a troll.

      "You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!"

      That's painting with a fairly broad brush, don't you think?

    18. Re:A point to note by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm sorry, my friend. That's not opinion at all. That is absolute historically documented fact.

      Anyone who says otherwise may as well deny the Holocaust.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    19. Re:A point to note by loutr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you saying that catholicism should be forbidden because of what happened centuries ago ? Next you'll tell me I should be apologizing to every black person I come across for slavery...

      I don't agree with most of the Catholic church views, and it certainly has major flaws, but *nowadays* the leaders of this religion are not motivated by greed and power (if they are, they're doing a very lousy job at it). Scientology obviously is.

    20. Re:A point to note by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or in the words of Kennedy, "Ich bin ein Anonymer."

    21. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      always remember the motto of the german army.
      3rd time lucky! :-)

    22. Re:A point to note by srussia · · Score: 1

      In Germany it is seen as a totalitarian anti-democratic organization If only somebody in Germany had the guts to say the same thing about Catholicism, or for that matter Islam.

      What's wrong with being totalitarian and anti-democratic when you can leave if you want to and you are not forced to give money?
      Your assignment this week: United States vs. Catholic Church - compare and contrast

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    23. Re:A point to note by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wiping out religion is only bad if one is religious.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    24. Re:A point to note by obarthelemy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please do provide us with examples of democracy at work within the church. Or do you mean that though internally anti-democratic the church respects the democracies which harbour it so much that it would never try and avoid secular law via non-reporting of crimes, influence elections from the pulpit, lobby elected officials and the press... ?

      Regarding freedom of speech (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_versus_blasphemy): "In 2005 Marithé and François Girbaud's parodied Leonardo's religious painting The Last Supper in a publicity poster. The Catholic Church initiated a lawsuit against the Girbauds, sparking concerns regarding freedom of expression and blasphemy.", for example. There are plenty.

      As far as it still being a scientology-like racket, it clearly was in the middle ages and afterwards. Recent info is hard to come by, though the Banco Ambrosiano thingy hints at juicy stuff. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banco_Ambrosiano).

      The catholic church feels to me like a successful sect, no more, no less, no better.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    25. Re:A point to note by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People say horrible and untrue thing about Catholics and the Catholic Church all the time, but they don't try and abuse the legal system to stop them, because they recognise the importance of freedom of speech.

      Uh, what?

      The catholic church isn't very keen on any freedoms, and freedom of speech doesn't rank highly on their value-list. However, ever since burning people at the stake has become unpopular, they've largely abstained from the crap. The other reason they don't use courts very often is that they have a massive dislike for accepting that someone else might have power they don't. For their generally take on the legal system, just look at the ultimatum(!) that a catholic bishop put to the ministry of justice in Germany a few weeks ago when it came to child abuse issues within the catholic church.

      I don't know of many other institutions that attempt to bully a national government, you know?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    26. Re:A point to note by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correction, millions were killed in his attempt to build a Communist society. Religion was an incidental thing in Communist ideology that barely gets a mention in the Communist Manifesto, except as one of the many things to get rid of as the new society is built. Orthodox Church in Russia was diminished by Stalin and many priests killed as part of a struggle for power between rival totalitarian ideologies. In other words, Stalin may have been an atheist but that doesn't mean he killed in the name of atheism. Big difference.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    27. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hostile? Why? Because of what?

      I am non-religious to the bone but I have friends who are very religious and we don't have problems with this situation. To the contrary, we gain from this as we learn to see things from different points of view.

      A priest of the village I am from asked me once to help out with a Christmas play, as nobody from his community was willing to sit behind the Christmas tree for the whole service. He asked me half an hour before that service as his very last resort. I had better to do than to sit in a church for hours but I did help him and I got into big trouble for that. As well as the priest. Those attending the service didn't see me and didn't know. They just realised it wasn't anybody from their community, asked the priest and got the answer.

      cb

    28. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's painting with a fairly broad brush, don't you think?

      It is, and it's wrong in both cases, C'est la vie. Humans seem to have a desire to view things in extremes of black and white even though no such dichotomy exists.

      Based on your other post above, it seems that, if not "an idiot and an inoramus", you were at the very least being a troll.

      No, not necessarily. The original poster seems to want to condemn religious intolerance and injustice by being intolerant himself.

    29. Re:A point to note by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Germany doesn't know yet what Scientology is, a business, a religion or a cult.

      Same thing!! A cult is a business that makes money and gains power from people with a small schizophrenic delusion that partially detaches their inner model from reality. And a church is just a cult that’s officially accepted by the powers that be (e.g. Government). Which happens, as soon as they catch themselves enough politicians.

      Organizations like these are by definition immoral, since they exploit people who need help. And control their lives with nasty social engineering. There is no good about it...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    30. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Do you still blame the Germans for the holocaust?

    31. Re:A point to note by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm afraid I'm going to "Godwin" myself here, and say it took an international invasion force to clear Nazism out of Germany, and the Cold War to clear Communism out of East Germany. The Germans have become very, very touchy about top-down, authority heavy organizations with thought police, regular interrogations of members with lie detectors, and locking up of dissidents, all of which Scientology does as standard policy. (Look up the Scientology "Guardian Office", the "e-meter", and "Flagg Base" for details on these policies.)

    32. Re:A point to note by dylan_- · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In other words, Stalin may have been an atheist but that doesn't mean he killed in the name of atheism.

      Yes, he did. He wanted to destroy religion in the Soviet Union and build an Atheist society. Nitpicking about the cause when you're quite happy to ignore historical context for religious abuses of power suggests a double standard on your part.

      What the Communist Manifesto mentions is irrelevant: Stalin hardly followed it to the letter.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    33. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How does one wipe out religion without killing millions?

      More importantly, how do you wipe out something which is built into human nature itself? The desire and need for religion has existed throughout every culture in human history. It seems very likely to be something that has evolved with humanity as we have matured from cave dwellers to space travelers. Something not easily shaken,

    34. Re:A point to note by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I don't know of many other institutions that attempt to bully a national government, you know?

      I take it you're not a member of a union?

    35. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This generation of Germans, certainly not. I do however hold the generation of Germans who did in fact perform the holocaust as liable for the blame. If you don't hold them so yourself, you may as well say it never happened.

      Everything that happened in history was because of someone or a group of someones. Nothing "just happened". If you forget that, you aren't learning any lessons from history.

      Posting Anon as I have already mod'ed further up in this thread.
      - Fluffeh

    36. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Believe in our god or we'll kill you!" Hmm. I've seen that in history OFTEN.

      "Don't believe in a god at all or we'll kill you!" Wow... that's a rare one.

      You religous nuts worry me.

    37. Re:A point to note by daveime · · Score: 1

      because they recognise the importance of freedom of speech

      Yes, this is why they bribe abuse victims to stay quiet.

      You can get all of the advantages and privileges of being a member of the Catholic Church for free just by turning up; you don't have to pay to access any of its teachings.

      Except for the looks you get from the collectors when you pass the collection plate along without making a deposit.

    38. Re:A point to note by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cults need not be profitable. Take a look at the history of Charlie Manson and his cult. And no, here are some differences between cults and religions. These include the cult tendency to focus around a single, charismatic leader whose word is absolute law, and their tendency to conceal their genuine inner beliefs in layers that each must be struggled through by new initiates, and each is further divorced from the beliefs taught at the outer layers. This is part of what helps separate the cult inner core from the outer world, and helps bind them together among others who have learned to share those new increasingly bizarre core beliefs.

      It's not uncommon: there have been a _lot_ of cults in history. There used to be a pretty good organization for publishing information about cults and helping people get the facts and support from former members, called "Cult Awareness Network", but they got sued to bankruptcy and their assets taken over by Scientology, so now they're a pro-cult organization.

    39. Re:A point to note by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Communism and its variant Juche are 100% religions in everything but name. They have their rituals, clergy, scripture. They fight infidels and are highly proselytic. You have portraits of the Prophets everywhere. There are holy sites, and sometimes pilgrimages (like to Lenin's corpse). And I really can't notice a modicum of difference between 1st May processions we used to have in Poland and catholic Corpus Christi ones we have now.

      It's quite strange that Juche tends to be quite often named a religion, yet the Soviet and Chinese versions are not.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    40. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, religious people tended to kill other religious people. Atheism wasn't even invented until quite recently. Almost all famous scientists were theists. The supposed incompatibility of theism and science is also quite a recent invention.

      So quit playing the "downtrodden minority" card. Religious people never harmed you.

    41. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your post is contradictory, you say you would not blame the Germans of this generation for the Holocaust, yet you would blame the Christians of today for their past misgivings?

      Also, can you truly blame an entire country or organization? Do you blame the Peasants for the Kings war, or do you blame the King?

    42. Re:A point to note by daveime · · Score: 1

      but *nowadays* the leaders of this religion are not motivated by greed and power

      While at the same time having an estimated wealth of 15 billion dollars.

      When the Italian government tried to tax the Vatican, they threatened to dump all their Italian stocks and shares to bankrupt the country.

      Try reading up on Law No. 1773

    43. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Religious nut? I'm an Atheist myself!

    44. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Therefore, Nazism was only bad if you were a Jew?

    45. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      15 billion is all it takes to bankrupt Italy?

    46. Re:A point to note by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...Nitpicking about the cause...

      But the cause is exactly what we are talking about. There are about 18,000 homicides annually in the USA. I'm sure there are some where the murderer happened to be an atheist and the victim was religious or vice versa. But those are not relevant to our discussion because their beliefs had nothing to do with the cause of the murder. Stalin sent thousands to gulags or to firing squads, not because of what they believed about God (after all, surely he killed just as many if not more atheists than religious people) but because he perceived them as a threat to his power. This is quite different from say religious laws in Islamic countries today, and Christian countries in the past, which have, for example, a death penalty for things like blasphemy, apostasy etc because those penalties are proscribed very clearly in the Bible and the Koran and are an integral part of their religion.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    47. Re:A point to note by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He also purged homosexuals, intellectuals, scientists, entrepreneurs, communists, anti-communists, foreigners, foreign-sympathises, oh, and other atheists. If you want to obsess over one minor part of the purges, that speaks more to your agenda than Stalin's.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    48. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      People say horrible and untrue thing about Catholics and the Catholic Church all the time, but they don't try and abuse the legal system to stop them, because they recognise the importance of freedom of speech.

      Right, they only abuse the legal system to stop people who are pointing out the truth. Don't believe me? Here is a recent case, where they threaten bloggers who basically citet a newspaper article about child abuse in the catholic church. They are not threatening the newspaper, because they could afford to defend themselves. So much for freedom of speech.

      http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.politblogger.eu/kindesmissbrauch-katholische-kirche-mahnt-kritischen-blogger-ab/&prev=_t

    49. Re:A point to note by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      Your assignment this week: United States vs. Catholic Church - compare and contrast

      Yes, I would read that essay with interest and probably great amusement.

    50. Re:A point to note by ThaReetLad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well you start by confiscating children of believers, in the name of preventing "brainwashing", move on to imprisoning believers for "anti-revolutionary activities", and then start killing millions. You might also set up state approved alternatives that gradually remove spiritual elements. You also mandate "atheism lessons" for all school children.

      It's what the USSR, PRC, and DPRK did.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    51. Re:A point to note by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      But those are not relevant to our discussion because their beliefs had nothing to do with the cause of the murder

      From wikipedia:

      Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    52. Re:A point to note by VShael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!

      Really?
      When is the last time you saw an atheist fly a plane into a sky scraper? Or shoot a doctor dead, because some invisible man in the sky didn't like the LEGAL work the doctor was doing? Have any ministers, reverends or priests (even the PEDO ones) been assaulted by bands of roving atheists? Are atheist groups campaigning en masse to deny rights to homosexuals and legislate bigotry?

      I seem to recall something in one of those holy books that said "take the log out of your own eye, before you attempt to remove the speck from your brothers eye"

    53. Re:A point to note by juasko · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No atheist is stopping religious people from living.

      So you mean Mao, Stalin and Lenin are good examples of how we should treat each other.

    54. Re:A point to note by pmontra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Orthodox Church had (and still has) its own chain of command and its own agenda. Both could be in contrast with the agenda of Stalin. Every dictator attempted to control religion since the beginning of the world. You can see that happening today in many parts of the world. My take is that the real reason Stalin killed priests was not religion or communism but because they were part of a possibly competing organization. Atheism was just a convenient excuse to justify the killings and the deportations and I see that many people are still buying it. Stalin did its best to kill off every competitor starting from inside its own party and yes, I think he cared much more about himself than about communism. Even communism was for him a convenient excuse to rule a country on his own.

    55. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know of many other institutions that attempt to bully a national government, you know?

      Aside from every major corporation, right? Like Google is bullying China? Like the RIAA bullies every national government? Hell, even Hugo Chavez got up at a UN summit after Bush Jr. and said the area smelled like brimstone, I would call that bullying.

    56. Re:A point to note by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And no, here are some differences between cults and religions.

      True. A religion is a cult that is tax exempt.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    57. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad the isn't a "+1 Entirely Wishful Thinking" moderation.

      I don't think you can imagine what a world without religion would be like. It sure as hell wouldn't be a "brotherhood of man" as Lennon speculated.

    58. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!

      Turning the table and trying to say others are hypocrites is absolutely irrelevant to the matter being discussed. It's called Red Herring (and more specifically, Tu Quoque, google it). Whether atheists are hypocrites or not has nothing to do the fact the crusades happened, people were hanged for being heretic (and they were all doomed to Hell for eternity, basically cursing people even after they're dead) or practicing witchcraft (witches exist too I know right). And what was that expression about the Earth again?... For those thinking about al-Qaeda google Qutbism (enough said).
      You're also assuming that everyone who criticizes religions has to be an atheist, and there are no other options (called False dichotomy). This might make sense if clarkkent09, who you were replying to, had talked to you about his religious views in the past and in which case I apologize but I certainly don't see that here. And if you're not sure then might I ask who you were directly replying to ? Or do you have some kind of supernatural power that could help you predict the future and the fact that whoever you reply to will turn out to be an atheist?

      And for the atheism part, see Cultural Evolution in China and the Great Purge. Might depend on whether you think atheism is communism. (well if you do it looks like communism is on the rise right now). And the Nazis used Martin Luther's teachings as part of their propaganda to justify Holocaust. Anti-semitism is hardly atheism. (unless you also think Luther is an atheist who just happened to translate the Bible). What's certain is that anything that has to do with religions (atheism, or whatever) has always been used by the governments.

      A little time spent googling logical fallacies can go a long way, and of course throughout this reply I've not implied that you're a big baby, a Holocaust supporter, an advocate of geocentrism, a creationist, or an Islamic terrorist. I have also not implied that every religious person is a big baby, a Holocaust supporter, an advocate of geocentrism, a creationist, or an Islamic terrorist.

    59. Re:A point to note by dylan_- · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could well be right. My point wasn't to suggest that somehow atheism was bound to result in mass murder, it was to say that a simplistic reading of history that condemns religion for the past, can also condemn...well, just about any group, including atheists.

      There seems to be little consideration that the religious abuses of the past were more political than anything else. Though they do emphasize why mixing religion and politics is such a terrible idea: politics corrupts religion ;-)

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    60. Re:A point to note by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No. Whether Stalin was an atheist was his own business. Whether he wanted the country to be atheistic, that's a serious question. He did not.

      He wanted the country to be mono-religious and the only religion allowed would be the Communist Party religion and Stalin would be it's Christ.

      You would understand that if you knew that during the war and the more difficult 'peaceful' times, the main slogan that was pushed into everybody's heads was: For the Motherland, for Stalin!

      Atheism was just a word, the purpose was a single religion and no other religions were allowed, since they were strong competition.

    61. Re:A point to note by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I blame the Germans who were responsible for / involved in the Holocaust. I do not deny that the Holocaust happened, in the same way that I do not deny that the Crusades happened or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened. I do not hold descendants of the Germans involved responsible, however this is all moot.

      I stated that it has been documented that in the past, various religious and demographics have committed atrocities against others. I did not speculate on the reasoning for it, or attempt to justify any action. If you took that as the intention of my statement, you might want to address your issues with reading comprehension.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    62. Re:A point to note by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      you say you would not blame the Germans of this generation for the Holocaust, yet you would blame the Christians of today for their past misgivings?

      No, he didn't say that at all. He said that he does not hold the current generation of Germans responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Nothing more. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    63. Re:A point to note by juasko · · Score: 1

      I have visited the consentration camps. Have you? If you don't blame Nazi Germany for the Holocaust who else? It's true that other leaders have killed more people than Hitler did. One example is Stalin. However Hitler did systemize what he did in a way no other did. At it's peak Auschwitz II had a turnover of 20k persons a day. And that was only one camp. There was Auschwitz I, Auschwitz II, Auschwitz III + other. Still I don't like how the modern Israel nation was formed, due to the belives of Christians that Jew's still where the chosen people and it will be in Jerusalem that Christ will have his second coming. The Jewish and Christians countries trough UN formed the modern Israel state on Palestine ground. Modern Germans are not guilty and it's all history, but don't fight the history try rather learn from it so you wont do the same mistake ur selfe.

    64. Re:A point to note by data2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, there is the church tax in Germany, which you have to pay if you are a member of the protestant or catholic church. So in a way, you do pay for the privileges and advantages.

    65. Re:A point to note by qc_dk · · Score: 1, Troll

      Your post is contradictory, you say you would not blame the Germans of this generation for the Holocaust, yet you would blame the Christians of today for their past misgivings?

      It's not contradictory at all. If he had said he wouldn't blame nazis of this generation you would be on to something.

    66. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you for being predictable. I was starting to wonder when the "religion is a cult" post would come up. Never mind that the cult copyrights its secret texts and demands money for them, while religions' holy literature is freely available. Never mind that the cult breaks the law willy-nilly. Never mind Fair Game and the Protocol involving a gun. One could go on...

      By equating a religion and a cult, you're actually doing Co$ a favor. One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens: "if religions are cults, then cults are religions, so maybe there's nothing wrong with them after all".

    67. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit they aren't motivated by greed and power. And bullshit that they don't make your life hell for trying to leave.

      1. The priest at the church I used to go to decided that, out of nowhere, it was 'God's Will' that he orchestrates building a whole new church for no goddamn good reason, and it cost a few million to build. Now you tell me whether that few million is better off on a new church that is no bigger, except now flashier, than the old one or is it better off attempting to help people in need? Well apparently according to our priest, it's better off serving his own needs rather than the community's needs. Also the church has its own form of taxes, you're 'highly suggested' to making a 'certain amount' of donations per year for them to actually consider you a member of the church. Also, the church I used to go to decided that it was going to raise that 'certain amount' and start hounding people more and more to 'voluntarily contribute' that amount of money. So that's complete bullshit! Religions everywhere are motivated by nothing more than money and greed. Hell, the Vatican has enough assets that they could easily end world hunger in a single sweep if they sold off their assets and used it for the greater good rather than their own flashy goodness.

      2. Every kid I know that started out in a Catholic family and later realized religion for the bullshit that it is has gone through absolute hell with their family. Every. Single. Kid. I. Know. I went through that hell as well with your parents yelling at you for 'not being a good kid' and all that nonsense. You try to be as respectful as possible and they just blow up in your face. It may be easier to leave if you're an adult, but as a kid coming to that realization, your life is an absolute hell.

    68. Re:A point to note by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lenin was a true atheist, Stalin... I don't know. But their motivations were a bit different than just 'stopping the religious from living'.

      They did not stop religious Muslims from living, they were going after Jews, but not for religion purposes, they just needed a distraction, and Jews were always a good one.

      The main point was to get rid of the Orthodox symbols and rituals because that was the religion of the Tsarist Russia. They needed to get rid of the 'old' and it also was a good way to get rid of the competition.

      With Lenin this was not as obvious as with Stalin, he really saw religion as competition to the new religion, the Communist Party with Stalin being the leading character, Christ or something to that order.

      Consider that old churches were turned into vegetable stores and morgues and that Party had very strong symbols of its own, the colors, the sermons (ceremonies of the party meetings on TV, so called 'plenums'), the insignia, the icons (Mother Russia, voloneters).

      This was not a society of atheists, this was something else.

    69. Re:A point to note by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is that a new kind of doughnut?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    70. Re:A point to note by juasko · · Score: 1

      So quit playing the "downtrodden minority" card. Religious people never harmed you.

      Hey, I'm a so called religious one or theist, but there is no need to undemine the fact that in most wars if not in every war, religion has been involved in one way or the other. So for sure religion has hurt people an that is a lot. Take a modern warfare where the priests on each side bless the soldiers and the weapons. Somtimes they even have the same religion. Religion have hurt a lot of people. But I would like to call it false religion, as the teachings are that you should not hurt your naighbour, or e.g. turn your other cheack to, etc etc. The true face of religions today is that it's a means to gain power. Hitler and Catholics did comon ground, -for what, for power! Catholics are no exception this is the case for all religions. And Christendom has been the worst through out the whole history. People complain today of the Islamic extremists, while the own backyard is even dirtier. True faith can be upbuilding, but based an false asumptions it's extreamly dangerous.

    71. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The persecution of minorities is a feature of all totalitarian ideologies

      It's a feature of all governments. In the US for example, recreational drug users (a minority group) are regularly persecuted, despite being peaceful and non-violent.

    72. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have their rituals, clergy, scripture. They fight infidels and are highly proselytic

      so, a lot like /.

    73. Re:A point to note by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm, what's that? You don't see anything wrong in the Catholic church?

            An institution that used to torture people and burn them at the stake in order to "save" their souls, that used to preach its agenda in Latin (which no one understood) until less than a century ago. It teaches that everything bad that happens to you is YOUR FAULT, for which you should seek confession to accept forgiveness AND is also part of God's "plan" and therefore you should just shut up and accept it. Catholicism teaches people that they should do NOTHING (except, of course, pay the tithe), that God will do everything for them.

            While this is better than Islam, which teaches people that they should rise up and kill the infidel, Catholicism destroys the human mind.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    74. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The catholic church isn't very keen on any freedoms, and freedom of speech doesn't rank highly on their value-list.

      Really? Free speech is the corner stone and necessary for spreading the Gospel to the unfaithful-yet-to-be-faithful. It's a lot safer and easier to preach about Catholicism when the country you are in has free speech laws than in one that does not.

      Moreover, last time anyone uttered any criticisms against the Catholic Church didn't wake up with a severed horse head in their bed, have their tongue cut out or have their lives turned upside down.

      I'm not saying the Church isn't somewhat hypocritical in certain aspects but saying the don't value free speech is not very factual and since they don't burn people at the stake any more for heresy then I'd say that's a pretty good move towards valuing and allowing free speech.

    75. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None, but neither is the current trend we got going either

    76. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live and let live? You mean like the way Scientology treats those it considers supressive persons? A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind as Scientologists and actions taken against them are not punishable under Scientology Ethics Codes. — L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL of 23 December 1965, "Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists"

      SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. — L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL of 18 October 1967, "PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS"

    77. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      GP is marked a troll for no reason.

      Marx mentioned Catholicism as the opium for the people, it is incidentally a famous quote; he could only understand religion as a means to distribute an ideology that supported the capitalistic machine. He mentions that specific values (such as virtue or individuality) were created to regulate the ethics of the workforce and conform them to what would be the ideal worker. It has nothing to do with atheism.

      Stalin was developing a society according to interpretations of this ideology.

      He did not kill in the name of atheism, for there is no such thing. Atheism is simply a disagreement with any religion and the existence of a deity as proposed by these. The fact that you're capitalizing atheism illustrates your misconception of this. I, am not a group, nor do I actively associate with any. Certainly there are some holding religious views who seem incapable (and I forgive you, it is very understandable) to understand the very fundamental concept of being an individual with his own frame of reference, ideas and beliefs.

      There is no 'our' part, I happen to be an individual; Stalin didn't build a society for me. Maybe you should let others nitpick if your divine argumentative standards allow you to make such gross overstatements and hold such great misconceptions of those you criticize.

    78. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stalin was called the "Red Tsar" for a reason. Instead of Communism, he established a brutal dictatorship built on a state religion, complete with miracles, saints (Stakhanovism), and the systematic genocide of any and all opposition.

    79. Re:A point to note by the_womble · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please do provide us with examples of democracy at work within the church.

      People are free to leave at will if they disagree.

      The only sanctions taken internally for unorthodox views are withdrawal of offical positions (as a recognised theologian for example - as with Hans Kung).

      Monasteries/convents elect their abbots/mother superiors, and a number of religious orders (such as the Jesuits) elect their heads. The latter include some of the most powerful roles in the Church (such as the Jesuit "Black Pope").

      influence elections from the pulpit, lobby elected officials and the press

      That's called 'freedom of speech'. You are entitled to call air your views, so is the church.

      The Catholic Church initiated a lawsuit against the Girbauds

      Did you see the verifiability note on the article? Citation needed.

      In the Middle Ages it was the norm for feudal societies to be dictatorial - wow, some things have improved since then! On the other hand, the church did a huge amount of good throughout its history from opposing the use of gladiators to playing a part is loosening slavery into feudalism, to preserving intellectual life in the dark ages, to education, to medical services.

      All the stuff people on Slashdot sprout about the Catholic church, and religion in general, sounds rather like listening to Microsoft on Linux: it sounds very convincing unless you actually start checking facts, or have direct experience.

    80. Re:A point to note by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      you seem to be a bit religious about the whole Atheist bit though...

      (Honestly, i have no idea where i am going with this post, i just cant resist...)

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    81. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People say horrible and untrue thing about Catholics and the Catholic Church all the time, but they don't try and abuse the legal system to stop them, because they recognise the importance of freedom of speech. You can get all of the advantages and privileges of being a member of the Catholic Church for free just by turning up; you don't have to pay to access any of its teachings.

      To describe Catholicism as a "totalitarian anti-democratic organisation" and thereby making a direct comparison to Scientology is simply doing your own intelligence and critical thinking skills a disservice.

      So this is an example of how they support free speech http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view/20100303-256453/Catholic-Church-seeks-ban-on-condom-ads

      or this http://www.dailynews.lk/2006/05/26/news02.asp ?
       
      It's time you took your head out of the sand and actually looked at what the Catholic Church is doing.

    82. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh hai, I'm here from Scientology to accuse my German opponents of being Nazis."

    83. Re:A point to note by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      not exactly 'living hell', but there are areas in europe (some parts or some countries), where christianity is still so very much the norm that not going to church on sunday will make your neighbours like you much less, and this can very much impact your social life. Sort of shun-light.

      Cristians tend to be far more forgiving compared to islam, but still far from perfect

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    84. Re:A point to note by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      im thinking it would be more of a domino effect. Dumping all that stock might send one or two banks over the edge, crashing the financial market

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    85. Re:A point to note by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall something in one of those holy books that said "take the log out of your own eye, before you attempt to remove the speck from your brothers eye

      The Penguin Guide to Ophthalmology?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    86. Re:A point to note by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      I don't know of many other institutions that attempt to bully a national government, you know?

      How about, Unions, political parties, lobby groups, trade associations, multi-national corporations, political pressure groups, news papers, broadcasters etc. I'm sure there are more, but governments are pressured from all sides. Of course, only one group has real power over governments: the voters.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    87. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish that was true, but there's a body within the Catholic Church, backed heavily by the last two Popes, which qualifies pretty well for the "motivated by greed and power" part.

      Opus Dei

      Be warned.

    88. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Really? When is the last time you saw, say, a Buddhist, do those things?

    89. Re:A point to note by Assmasher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As an agnostic (and ex-Catholic) I'm no defender of the church by any means but asking the other poster for examples of "democracy at work within the church" in an attempt to refute that the Church and Scientology are very different in their treatment of people is patently absurd. I might as well as you to provide us of examples of "democracy at work within a corporation" and then contend that a corporation is as dangerous and abusive as Scientology - which, of course, we know is for the most part incorrect. ;)

      --
      Loading...
    90. Re:A point to note by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Religion also corrupts politics. Despite the separation of church and state in the US, we still have a very large number of politicians in America that claim God as their inspiration. It's very hard to argue against a religious belief without coming out and saying something that ends your political career, and I would really love to hear how some of George Bush's speeches would've gone if he couldn't mention God in any of them...

    91. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy at work within the Catholic Church:

      My Roman Catholic church meets with the local Islamic and Jewish churches (mosque and synagogue?) to discuss the best ways to improve the local community.

      All church decisions are handled through community meetings. All members of the church are invited to talk about their issues and vote on solutions. The Monsignor ultimately has control but he relies heavily on the church community for direction-- the purpose, if you pay attention to Catholicisms teachings, is to serve, not to command.

      If you are referring to the overarching church hierarchy, keep in mind that the Pope is an elected official (I believe they actually use preference voting to eliminate the problems we have in our own government.. (US that is)). The voters debate and keep debating until a winner is found.

      Of course, you may be referring to the fact that certain rules are pretty much "defacto" for church membership. I admit, a community trying to say that Jesus doesn't exist probably wouldn't fly to well inside the Church, but this is outside the scope of our problem. The Church will certainly not stop these people from speaking, they will simply try to get them to stop calling themselves Catholic (which they would no longer be...)

      Small issues, like women priests and homosexuality, are frequently discussed. My priest is for the creating of a female priesthood and is open to talking about it and petitioning the higher level church officials.

      You, like many other people, are confusing the political power that was the Vatican of the past with the present day Church.

      I do not judge England today upon it's imperialist past, nor do I treat China as an imperial state or Russia as a communist tyranny.

      Times change. People change. As people became intelligent and less prone to violence, so did most churches.

      Please try to do even the most basic investigation into churches before making such ridiculous statements.

      You look like an idiot, which, if you truly held those opinions, you were. Willful ignorance is not to be tolerated.

    92. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not an atheist. Scientology was created by a truly *bad* science fiction writer, L Ron Hubbard, who once said (to John W. Campbell, Jr. editor of Analog SF magazine) that he was going to devise a religion that would make him wealthy. That doesn't make it a religion (or a cult), it makes it a confidence scheme.

    93. Re:A point to note by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want to obsess over one minor part of the purges, that speaks more to your agenda than Stalin's.

      OP was responding to GP's statement that "No atheist is stopping religious people from living." OP wasn't the one who limited the debate to purges of religion by atheists, GP was. OP was merely responding within the confines of the debate established by the GP, not promoting his agenda.

    94. Re:A point to note by ProteusQ · · Score: 1

      Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Plot... all atheists and responsible for over 100 millions deaths in the 20th century, not counting deaths from wars (hot or cold).

    95. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ergo religion and politics are one and the same. Neither is required for humans to do what is universally good. One or both is very frequently involved when humans do things that are universally bad.

    96. Re:A point to note by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It's stretching to call recreational drug users a minority group.

      Yes 47% is technically a minority, but not by muchy - http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/AppG.htm#TabG-2

      Of course if you count the number who have used illicit drugs in the last year/month/whatever then you have a clear minority group.

    97. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that you're incorrectly suggesting that every terroristic/violent/abusive event in recent history has had a religious affiliation. I think most religious/atheistic minds miss the grand point that the common factor is that humans are involved, and that is why these things happen. People, regardless of their claimed beliefs, will come up with a reason to suppress/eliminate and opposing point of view. This includes religious beliefs, but also sexual orientation, political beliefs, or any other reason that we can come up with. If it's important enough to someone, it's important enough for them to suppress another group.

      Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice (I'm trying to make an unbiased opinion, but I'm sure my bias will show, so forgive me); it doesn't matter at all what you think you believe, all groups have people who are just messed up inside and will do messed up things.

    98. Re:A point to note by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      A religion is a belief in and worship of a god or gods.

      A cult is a religion that is considered extreme or strange by many people.

      Or in other words, a religion is a cult that has found mainstream acceptance.

    99. Re:A point to note by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      Religion is not harmfull, its the people who lead that can be. In all cases of war based on "religious" grounds, its not hte religion that said "we must fight THIS war" its a person (religious or not), who craved power then used religion as a means to an end.

      Remember Religion itself is based on a Belief system. You need to suspend certain facts to follow a faith, therefore the said "leader" only needs to create new "facts" as part of that faith to get what he/she wants.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    100. Re:A point to note by loutr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My great-grand father was a pastor, my grand-mother and mother are protestants, but after going to sunday school and such I've become an atheist when I was a teen (for the reason you cite), and no one pressured me into reconsidering it. IMO the problem is the bigotry of the families you speak of, not that particular religion. BTW, there's "going through hell with your parents" and then there's "being harassed constantly and having your private life thoroughly investigated for dirty secrets to try and get you fired, jailed or institutionalized".

      Speaking of my great-grand father, he was the kindest, most selfless man I've ever known (hid jews during WW2, helped develop a small pacific island, ...). He most certainly never pressured his parishioners into giving him or his church money.

      Anyway, my point was that despite all the crooked priests and bigot followers, mainstream religions are much less greedy and evil than cults like scientology. For example, you can get the bible for free or at a very moderate cost, and without giving out any personal information. Same with the Qur'an. Try acquiring scientology "courses" for free or anonymously...

    101. Re:A point to note by germ!nation · · Score: 1

      Other than for control of masses ideas of what is and isn't possible Russia and China should not be seriously disccussed as Communist societies. Both used the veneer or Communist ideals to garner grass-roots support but then actively destroyed any traces of worker controlled industry when they got into power. That is just Totalitarianism.

      Infact the practicalities of worker controlled industry were even taking off in northern Italy after the WWII but clearly that was unacceptable incase it worked, so was actively destroyed.

      It could be said that the way Capitalism has been approached by western powers is closer to a religion, full of interollerance and crusades. I'm not sure we even have a large scale real example of Communism to use as an example.

    102. Re:A point to note by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      All of these are Communist dictatorships ....

      Communism : rule by the people for the common benefit
      Dictatorship : rule by one person/group over the rest

      They really are not that compatible, communism as it is/was practiced in these countries has very little to do with the pro-atheist, communal living of communism and a lot do to with an all controlling dictatorship, all dictatorships have always hunted and persecuted anyone who has any power over the people, and labelled them subversives

      The problem is that (Stalin/Mao)ist communism is just a totalitarian dictatorship with a veneer of communism, the (very) few communist governments who were/are not totalitarian dictatorships did not do this and generally were relatively tolerant

      Atheists are not all communists, Communists are not all atheists .....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    103. Re:A point to note by gtall · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Dark Ages are calling, they'd like you to rejoin them.

    104. Re:A point to note by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      shrug. hitler was a religious guy who believed in jesus. that doesn't mean i'd argue that his attempt to take over europe and institute a third reich based on his personal ideals was him 'killing everyone in the name of christianity'. same goes for stalin. religion or the lack thereof was not at the top of the totem pole when it came to these dudes' motivations.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    105. Re:A point to note by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      There are cults that freely publish their literature ... are they religions then?

      Please be aware Cult and Religion are just labels, all religions have been *called* cults at one time (The Catholic church was a cult to the Romans until they adopted it), but most of what are called cults will never be considered religions (CoS I consider one of these)

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    106. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'd much rather live in an atheist state. You are free to move to one too, but it's maybe unlikely you could post here then...

    107. Re:A point to note by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      He also purged homosexuals, intellectuals, scientists, entrepreneurs, communists, anti-communists, foreigners, foreign-sympathises, oh, and other atheists. If you want to obsess over one minor part of the purges, that speaks more to your agenda than Stalin's.

      The generally accepted count for people killed in the Holocaust is 11 million people.
      The generally accepted count for people killed in Stalin's purges is 20 million people.
      Am I the only one thinking we need a corollary to Goodwin's Law?

    108. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I think Scientology should be burned in the depths of Sun, it's an abomination of a religion, however to compare it to the Judeo-Christian religions today is a bit of a stretch. I realize if one is willing to go far back enough in time however one might find characteristics of Scientology in Catholicism, however it is quite different then the modern version.

    109. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Fox News.

    110. Re:A point to note by VShael · · Score: 1

      When is the last time you saw, say, a Buddhist, do those things?

      Never, obviously, but no one has accused Buddhists of being a hostile and angry group, have they?

    111. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ermany doesn't know yet what Scientology is, a business, a religion or a cult. "

      A cult is the same as a religion, just smaller.

      (Unless of course you are of the dominant religion in that area, in which case you define $any_other_religion as a cult.

    112. Re:A point to note by Haxamanish · · Score: 1

      One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens: "if religions are cults, then cults are religions, so maybe there's nothing wrong with them after all".

      LOGIC ERROR.

      Modus Ponens: from (IF p THEN q) and p, you get q
      Modus Tollens: from (IF p THEN q) and NOT q, you get NOT p

      You get from (IF p THEN q) to (IF q then p), there's no way to do that using Modus Ponens or Modus Tollens.

    113. Re:A point to note by VShael · · Score: 1

      It seems that you're incorrectly suggesting that every terroristic/violent/abusive event in recent history has had a religious affiliation.

      Really? Because it seems to me like you're reaching desperately for a straw man argument.
      Let's recap, shall we? Someone accuses atheists of being a "hostile and angry group". Not only is that factually wrong, but it's also insulting.

      I didn't come anywhere CLOSE to insinuating that every terroristic/violent/abusive event can be traced back to religion. In what sick twisted mind does a rebuttal of alleged atheist hostility, become an accusation against religions of all stripes?

    114. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do provide us with examples of democracy at work within the church. Or do you mean that though internally anti-democratic the church respects the democracies which harbour it so much that it would never try and avoid secular law via non-reporting of crimes, influence elections from the pulpit, lobby elected officials and the press... ?

      Regarding freedom of speech (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_versus_blasphemy): "In 2005 Marithé and François Girbaud's parodied Leonardo's religious painting The Last Supper in a publicity poster. The Catholic Church initiated a lawsuit against the Girbauds, sparking concerns regarding freedom of expression and blasphemy.", for example. There are plenty.

      As far as it still being a scientology-like racket, it clearly was in the middle ages and afterwards. Recent info is hard to come by, though the Banco Ambrosiano thingy hints at juicy stuff. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banco_Ambrosiano).

      The catholic church feels to me like a successful sect, no more, no less, no better.

      As I recall that lawsuit was over replacing Jesus and his disciples with people in various states of undress seated infront of a table littered with sex toys. It's the Catholic Church, do you expect them to support everything?

    115. Re:A point to note by hamburger+lady · · Score: 2, Informative

      uh, hitler wasn't an atheist. seriously.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    116. Re:A point to note by VShael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Logical fallacy.
      Just because I have the unmitigated gall to point out that atheists aren't suicide bombers, I am clearly in favour of atheist states like the Khmer Rouge.

      Yes, that makes perfect sense.

    117. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a corporation?

    118. Re:A point to note by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall something in one of those holy books that said "take the log out of your own eye, before you attempt to remove the speck from your brothers eye"

      Yes, note that it's not "Take the log out of your brother's eye before you attempt to remove the speck from your other brother's eye" I doubt GP is a 9/11 conspirator, an abortion-doctor killer, or a pedo priest, just as much as I doubt you are Stalin, Mao, or the type of vocal atheist that believes religious freedoms should be quashed.

      ...nor is it "Take the log from your own eye, but leave the speck in your brother's eye where it is, it's not causing any real trouble". It's important to hold each other accountable, as long as we aren't _personally_ being hypocritical. Groups are almost impossible to hold accountable for hypocrisy (unless it is ingrained as a tenet) because sociopaths tend to rise to the top in any organizational structure. Of course, they rise much faster when there is a lack of a well defined moral structure, or if the "moral" structure is designed around the sociopath ideal (me first), like Scientology is.

    119. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      I did not speculate on the reasoning for it, or attempt to justify any action. If you took that as the intention of my statement, you might want to address your issues with reading comprehension.

      It was a simple question of responsibility and accountability, nothing to do with justifying or reasoning the holocaust.

    120. Re:A point to note by VShael · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hitler was a Catholic Christian until at least 1941, though I can understand why you'd rather not claim him as one of yours.

      Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot may have been atheists but that wasn't the reason they killed people. They were power mad dictators.

    121. Re:A point to note by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      OH, Jesus Fucking Christ. Not that old tripe again. Does no one attempt to research claims (even if they're ad hominems and have nothing to do with the argument) before making them?

    122. Re:A point to note by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Since when is a question considered "putting words into someones mouth?"

    123. Re:A point to note by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      A cult is a business that makes money and gains power from people with a small schizophrenic delusion that partially detaches their inner model from reality.

      If you think you can understand reality you are deluded. Humans have only five senses that are there only because of evolution and help us survive in OUR world. What senses do we lack that would make our understanding of the universe different?

      Knowing reality is impossible.

    124. Re:A point to note by SakuraDreams · · Score: 1
      Intolerance was the norm. However, if you looked at it objectively you'd find that the Catholic Church was probably more tolerant of transgressions than secular monarchs and merchants. Read up Sublimus Dei for example where the Pope forbids the enslavement of native Americans (and other undiscovered people) and taking of their property. Did it stop the SECULAR monarchs of Spain and Portugal from doing that? Did it stop the SECULAR slave merchants?

      Then again torture and harsh punishment were acceptable in that age. Feudalism was the order of the day and most Europeans were slaves (serfs) themselves. It was a different world and while the Church had abuses, one has to put those in perspective of what was the acceptable and expected standard in those days.

    125. Re:A point to note by Mr_Icon · · Score: 1

      I think the point here is that what we're not really against religion, as much as we're against dogma.

      --
      If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
    126. Re:A point to note by gerrygerbil · · Score: 5, Informative

      To describe Catholicism as a "totalitarian anti-democratic organisation" and thereby making a direct comparison to Scientology is simply doing your own intelligence and critical thinking skills a disservice.

      Crap. I was brought up in the theocracy that was the Republic of Ireland, and "totalitarian" and "anti-democratic" are accurate adjectives. It's totalitarian because the Church sought to regulat every part of your life, including your thoughts ('thought crime' is a very familiar term to survivors of Catholicism like myself). It's anti-democratic because religion is, by its very nature, anti-democratic - scripture's scripture, and you have to follow it. The Catholic Church is run by an old man in an Italian city-state with a hierarchy of other old men who give orders and are completely unaccountable to their victims (sorry, 'parishioners'). Catholicism is far, far worse than Scientology, at least in Ireland were it's State-backed and obligatory, and its ordinances reach even unto non-believers (hence all the women who travel to the UK for abortions because the misogynist pricks that run the Church have banned it). At least you've a choice whether or not to be a Scientologist, and if you so choose then more bloody fool you.

      If you're a Catholic, no-one's going to try and make your life a living hell if you want to stop coming to church.

      That's complete bollox, that is. If you were a Catholic in Eire and you didn't come to Mass, the local priest would be calling at your door wanting to know why you weren't there, and he could and would give you serious grief if you didn't turn up next Sunday. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Pleasingly, the Church in Ireland is having done to it what it's done to all those kids over the decades: being fucked up the arse. The days when you'd have to bow and scrape to your local priest because he had an almost literal power of life and death over you are now over - now he's just a weirdo in a black dress who can't have sex like normal folk (and as a result is seriously fucked-up in the head).

    127. Re:A point to note by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      Despite the separation of church and state in the US, we still have a very large number of politicians in America that claim God as their inspiration.

      Which strikes me as a bit odd. In the UK we technically have a state religion, but yet there's far less mention of God from any of our politicians (even the most religious ones). I suppose it's just a cultural difference but it does seem that it should be the opposite way around.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    128. Re:A point to note by falcon9x · · Score: 1

      I'm not too familiar with the Catholic way of doing things, but I can say that the Presbyterian Church (at least PCUSA, the denomination I'm familiar with) has a democratic process where deacons, elders, and other positions are elected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_(U.S.A.)#Constitution

      Some requirements might be necessary for certain positions just as a person running for judge or DA should probably have a law degree.

      I know it is a favorite pastime of Slashdot to bash on religions, but I would like to remind those who do so that not every Christian is a radical right-wing Christian, they just happen to be the loudest. Just as I recognize that not all Slashdot posters bash on religion, those that do just happen to stick out.

      And as others have pointed out, most mainstream religions do not require any payment for access to religious materials (perhaps other than the cost of creation) or for attendance. The Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Talmud, and most other religious works are available for free for public perusal without the worry of infringing on copyright (most works that are copyrighted have very liberal licensing terms). This may not have always been the case, but it has been for quite some time.

    129. Re:A point to note by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

      Mod this up. Where are my mod points when I need them?

      This cycle of resentment and intolerance from both sides will never result in anything good.

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    130. Re:A point to note by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Religion is a primitive form of totalitarian/authoritarian government. If you are going to build a totalitarian/authoritarian government of your own, you are going to want to purge the alternatives.

      Stalin didn't kill religious people/leaders because he was an atheist, he killed them because they represented an alternative authority and weakened his position of absolute power. It could just as easily gone the other way, with a specific religion in power with purges of the others, as it so often has though out history.

    131. Re:A point to note by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Humans have only five senses

      Humans don't have a magnetic sense, yet we can still develop tools which permit us to apprehend magnetic fields. My sense of vision is not sharp enough to see a molecule, but I can build a SEM and see a picture of one. This is a silly objection.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    132. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean I have to log out before I can delete?

    133. Re:A point to note by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Leninist Russia worshiped Lenin.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    134. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans seem to have a desire to view things in extremes of black and white even though no such dichotomy exists.

      and generalise too.

    135. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cult is a business that makes money and gains power from people with a small schizophrenic delusion that partially detaches their inner model from reality.

      If you think you can understand reality you are deluded. Humans have only five senses that are there only because of evolution and help us survive in OUR world. What senses do we lack that would make our understanding of the universe different?

      Well, the senses lacking by those types of humans that would be helpful are sight, hearing, touch, and feel.
      I am only assuming smell and taste are normal, but those are harder to tell from a 3rd party perspective.

      Religious people enjoy talking about how they hear god or jesus or someone speak to them, when in fact no sound is there. This indicates a problem with hearing.

      Some even claim to see god, which indicates a lack of proper sight.

      Then some make claims to feeling jesus inside them. While I do keep suggesting to go to the doctors to be checked for tape worms, they only get insulted and never get medically checked whatever it is they really feel inside them.
      Either they are infested with parasites, or have a lack of sense of touch.

      Also I should point out that by 'lack' of a sense, I just mean a properly working one, not that they fully lack the sense all together.

      Now, there are plenty of senses that would help the average human understand reality better.
      Our eyes can only see a teeny sliver of the RF spectrum. There is a ton of room for improvement there.

      But I think the main problem is our brains lack of being able to verify a sense, and instead it just injects said sensory response into our consciousness to be dealt with, usually in a very confusing way.

    136. Re:A point to note by jackbird · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Today?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_people

    137. Re:A point to note by IICV · · Score: 1

      Yes, he did. He wanted to destroy religion in the Soviet Union and build an Atheist society. Nitpicking about the cause when you're quite happy to ignore historical context for religious abuses of power suggests a double standard on your part.

      Funny. Then why was Stalin declared "the divinely anointed leader of [Russia's] armed and cultural forces leading us to victory over the barbarian invasion" by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1942? You'd think that if his goal really was to destroy religion in the Soviet Union and build an atheistic society, he wouldn't have negotiated with the church like that.

      Or maybe Stalin just wanted power and control, regardless of its source?

    138. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you imply in your question that a person said something he didn't.

    139. Re:A point to note by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      If you think you can understand reality you are deluded.

      And therefore inventing an imaginary sky faery out of whole cloth is completely rational!

      No. No, wait, that's just completely fucking insane.

    140. Re:A point to note by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Oh.

      In that case, no, and I never did. I blame(d) the Nazi party.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    141. Re:A point to note by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      For the record, I happen to agree with you that cults and religions are clearly not equivalent. But I wonder... you said this:

      Never mind that the cult copyrights its secret texts and demands money for them, while religions' holy literature is freely available. Never mind that the cult breaks the law willy-nilly.

      So, what about the Catholic church back in the days when the bible wasn't available to the masses, and sins could be expunged with an appropriately sized donation to the local diocese?

    142. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion is a pyramid scheme to get gullible people's money.
      Religious organisations use fear of unknown, uncertainty of future and doubt of one self to control people.
      Many corporations are the new religions, they also use F.U.D.

    143. Re:A point to note by dissy · · Score: 1

      You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!

      What ever happened to "live and let live"?

      Purely due to survival reasons, that had to stop when the religious started using weapons and murder to not allow us atheists to live and let live.

      It's been a tiny bit better in some countries where such things are outlawed, but not in say the USA where the government is run by these people and legalized murder is written into the legal system.

      It's one thing to put a murderer to death, as I think both sides can agree murder is wrong, even if it is for different reasons.
      Atheists just prefer not to harm others in ways they wouldn't want to be harmed in.
      Religious seem to want to avoid punishment in the afterlife.
      Both have the same effect in the here and now for the most part, and thus have been OK.

      But putting a person to death for smoking weed is something only a totally detached from reality sick fuck can do.
      Unfortunately the sick fucks that do that need to be religious to even get hired into such a position, so we really don't have any examples to point to showing how bad it would be with atheists in charge.

      I'm sure it would be just as bad, but not having the chance to show it, we can still be safe in the fact it has all be self-defense so far.

    144. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they tend to do things as part of massive organizations. Like China and it's great revolution. Or the USSR and it's purges. Or the Khmer Rouge. Etc etc. So, you're definitely right. Athiests are totally not like any other group of people, they would never be pedophiles or kill people! Get off your pedestal.

    145. Re:A point to note by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      He said not one word regarding Christians. That was all you. I think you were trying to say that because there are currently Christians in the world that the parent for some reason should think that they are responsible for the actions of earlier Christians. I didn't see him say that, so I guess that's not the case. He said that he wouldn't hold the current generation of Germans (Nazis) accountable, which makes logical sense. I would have to (logically) assume that this would be the case for Christians when talking of the Crusades, or some similar past event.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    146. Re:A point to note by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Please do provide us with examples of democracy at work within the church.

      As an aside, a lot of people don't seem to realize that many (most?) Protestant churches really are run as democracies, either direct or representative. I don't know as much about other Protestant organizations, but at least among the Southern Baptists, each church is autonomous. The preacher holds no special position "above" the other church members, and can be hired and fired by those members.

      I witnessed a Southern Baptist church's "board of deacons" - who are elected from and by the church members - vote to fire their preacher. Afterward, they formed a hiring committee, solicited resumes from preachers who wanted to relocate to the area, and had a few come in to give sermons to the congregation on Sunday mornings. The deacons selected the one they thought was the best fit and the congregation voted to hire him.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    147. Re:A point to note by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Have any ministers, reverends or priests (even the PEDO ones) been assaulted by bands of roving atheists?

      Addressing specifically the last category. No, because atheists don't have the moral character to stand up for kids.

      Are atheist groups campaigning en masse to deny rights to homosexuals and legislate bigotry?

      No. They're campaigning en masse to deny rights to heterosexuality and legislate the end of marriage and the American nuclear family.

      Reaper one to base, deploy the atheist ninjas. We have a hot one.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    148. Re:A point to note by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Please do not quote Wikipedia in a politically charged discussion. Especially when all you do is quote a few sentences from a full wikipedia article without linking to the supporting articles outside of wikipedia. It makes it difficult to take your point seriously.

      More specifically to your point: you're omitting the million other reasons people were killed off during Stalin's purges. As a result, you're pretending that the one overriding principle behind the purges was religion, when it really was any opposition to power.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    149. Re:A point to note by arekusu_ou · · Score: 0

      And no, here are some differences between cults and religions. These include the cult tendency to focus around a single, charismatic leader whose word is absolute law, and their tendency to conceal their genuine inner beliefs in layers that each must be struggled through by new initiates, and each is further divorced from the beliefs taught at the outer layers. This is part of what helps separate the cult inner core from the outer world, and helps bind them together among others who have learned to share those new increasingly bizarre core beliefs.

      If you mean most commonly accepted religions now ARE cults, I agree.

      Otherwise, how is that different from.... Christianity's new Testatment focus on the teachings of Jesus? Buddhism's focus on the teachings of Buddha? Muslim's focus on the teachings of Mohammad? Scientology's focus on the teachings of Hubbard? Church of Latter Day Saint's focus on the teachings of Smith and Young?

      The difference between modern religion and cults is that modern religions are old, outlived it's originator by generations, survived persecution and state of resistance. The generations is a good test to exclude the momentum set by the originator.

      Unlike most cults, Scientology garnered support from wealthy people and famous, looking for tax shelters. The Church of Latter Day Saints took the same approach and garnered wealthy people by forcing their young girls to marry, often times multiple girls to a guy or just plain sex.

      Popular cults GIVE something to their followers in return for their obedience, while unpopular cults only TAKE.

    150. Re:A point to note by juasko · · Score: 0

      sorry I cant agree with the last sentece though it's popular oppinnion.

    151. Re:A point to note by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      The original poster seems to want to condemn religious intolerance and injustice by being intolerant himself.

      Off the original topic I'm guessing -- I'm assuming the original poster was being intolerant of all religion and not just of intolerant religion -- but curious about your view:

      If intolerance is wrong, is it wrong to be intolerant of intolerant people? Serious question -- I have rolled this around in my head for a long time and haven't locked in my final answer. Since you indicate an interest in the topic, I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

    152. Re:A point to note by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously quoting Wikipedia as an authoritative source?

      Not that I necessarily doubt the veracity of the entry, but in an discussion such as this, a "real" source would really be preferable.

    153. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Athiests that I know are typically fine with religion.

      Until such time said religion starts to negatively affect them, without their consent or request. Scientology does that. Severely.

    154. Re:A point to note by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Atheists are certainly just as capable of murder as theists, but atheists and theists both are able to choose to murder for reasons other than religion.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    155. Re:A point to note by navyjeff · · Score: 1

      You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!

      What ever happened to "live and let live"?

      When you were young and your heart was an open book, we used to say, "live and let live." But in this ever changing world in which we live in makes you give in and cry, "live and let die."

    156. Re:A point to note by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      A cult is a business that makes money and gains power from people with a small schizophrenic delusion that partially detaches their inner model from reality.

      If you think you can understand reality you are deluded. Humans have only five senses that are there only because of evolution and help us survive in OUR world. What senses do we lack that would make our understanding of the universe different?

      Knowing reality is impossible.

      I certainly agree, but at some point you must start taking reality for granted.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    157. Re:A point to note by VShael · · Score: 1

      Not only do they not research them, they are greatly offended when confronted with the facts. (And will mark such posts "Flamebait")

    158. Re:A point to note by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      But I think the main problem is our brains lack of being able to verify a sense, and instead it just injects said sensory response into our consciousness to be dealt with, usually in a very confusing way.

      A basic CRC check should resolve that.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    159. Re:A point to note by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

      [...]Catholicism destroys the human mind.

      Hah, but in a sense can't you say that about any religion or indeed anything that requires you to accept things on faith alone?

      In fact, it could be argued that the decay of the mind begins when the person stops using it to find their own answers and blindly accepts what is fed to it. Strangely, that's not an attribute of religion alone, but also of advertising, media, politics etc. And, conversely, a person can be religious and still keep an open mind.

      It is possible because there's more to a religion than just the stories about how it came to be, a religion has theories on cosmology, life, morals etc. There's a philosophical component to most major religions that you can't simply ignore and which is not necessarily brain-dead and based on faith alone.

      Dismissing religion out-of-hand with this kind of label is, ironically, very akin to what you were objecting to in the first place.

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    160. Re:A point to note by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      I'm a little confused by how your post deserves mod points. You make a perfectly fair point, but you're contradicting the GP without actually refuting any of his points, which appear on their face to be legitimate differences (*other* than tax status) between most religions and most cults.

      Care to comment on what you think the GP got wrong?

    161. Re:A point to note by Xerolooper · · Score: 1

      If intolerance is wrong, is it wrong to be intolerant of intolerant people?

      I too have thought of this often. I don't claim to have the answer but these are my thoughts. If we all agree intolerance = bad then it is always bad. Unfortunately reality isn't so black and white. It is OK to be intolerant of things that are considered taboo like murder or abuse. So what we are really talking about is socially unacceptable intolerance as being bad.
      But even deeper I think what may be at the root of your question is that you need to separate the intolerance from the person. If something is socially unacceptable, like intolerance toward a certain race, then it is not only good but our duty as a member of society to be intolerant of the persons actions but not the person. They are not where you are yet but if we just dismiss them nothing changes. If we are tolerant of people and help them overcome their intolerance then we can grow together as a society.
      BTW If anyone has figured out how to do this let me know. Currently if I try to reason with someone and they wont come around I still just have to disassociate myself from them.

      --
      "The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
    162. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It deserves mod points because it's anti-religion and anti-religion is always Insightful, unless it's Informative.

      You are in the presence of the anti-religion cult. All beliefs are silly except for ours.

    163. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also sounds pretty much like what the US Govt did to the Indians, but I guess it was ok cause it was done in the name of WASP religion.

    164. Re:A point to note by cusco · · Score: 1

      Stalin was a religious fanatic in his own way. His religion was Stalinism, and Stalin was its godhead. His suppression of various religious groups was no different than his suppression of rival political groups such as Trotskiites and socialists. No alternative power base, no matter how insignificant, could be tolerated.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    165. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok and that's about the only example that you can possibly have of an INSANE dictator who happens to be atheist. But you ignore the fact that VShael was pointing out stuff that the "believers" do in free societies.

    166. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey I'm atheist, but if you live in a country, any country where one religion is dominant, then you're going to face a lot of discrimination. In real life if anyone asks, I'm Christian, but I don't go to church or do anything remotely religious, because I would easily lose my job, or get treated like crap. So yeah in reality I actually am an 'live and let live' kind of guy, a devoted Pastafarian. And pirate on the weekends.

    167. Re:A point to note by cusco · · Score: 1

      So do we add the massacres of Reagan-era Central America, the Iraqi bloodbath, the Afghanistan slaughter and the ongoing slaughter of Colombian peasants to the religion of Republicanism?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    168. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What the Communist Manifesto mentions is irrelevant: Stalin hardly followed it to the letter."

      In other words: Stalin was not a communist.
      If nothing else, it's clear that the popular notion of what communism is, has very little to do with communism as defined in the Communist Manifesto.
      Perhaps more importantly, Stalin was a dictator.

    169. Re:A point to note by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I did read his comment in such a way that he did stress that there are differences between a cult and a religion. Which there are, IMO, not. I tried to point out in a humorous way that the differences only exist in areas that are, at least for the "spiritual" side of the cult/religion, insignificant.

      Another way to put it is that "a religion is a cult that has a large enough followership". In general, religions tend to be more organized and larger than what is considered a cult. Aside of that, (so technically, aside of humorous bickering) it's the same BS. In both you find the harmless, esotheric, searching-for-something, from awakening to enlightenment, as well as the dangerous kind that imprisons its "followers".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    170. Re:A point to note by AGMW · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If any fellow Anonymous in Germany feel like telling the German government why they should not consider Scientology a religion, then please be my guest. Be clear, make yourself heard. "Ich bin Anonymous!"

      Looking at this problem from the other side, if we're against Scientology getting tax breaks and whatnot because they reckon they're a religion why don't we revisit the tax (et al) perks for ALL religions?
      Why do religions get tax perks? Why the special status?

      OK, so _some_ religions do charitable works. That's fine. The "Charitable Works" parts of religions can have some tax breaks because other charities have tax breaks. But a lot of what "religions" do is far more akin to just being a business and they damn well should be taxed on it!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    171. Re:A point to note by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      I don't know of many other institutions that attempt to bully a national government, you know?

      Insightful... haha. More like incredibly naive. I don't know of any institutions that do not attempt to bully national governments. I'm exaggerating, but only slightly.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    172. Re:A point to note by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to "live and let live"?

      Pretty simple really, this ever changing world in which we live in
      Made us give in and cry
      So we said, live and let die.

      You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!

      You know, you have a point. We are always committing terrible acts of violence, like suicide bombing, witch hunts, crusades, and inquisitions, and then blaming it on various religions. We're kind of dicks like that.

    173. Re:A point to note by geekoid · · Score: 1

      When was the last time people used atheism to send people to their deaths?

      oh right, never.

      So atheists aren't really hostile at all.

      Some are angry, but that's because you knuckle-heads always want to force belief down everyones throat.

      Live and let live. That would be great if you cultists would play be that rule, but you don't. You feel you are 'right' and justify shoving belief down peoples throat as the act of god.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    174. Re:A point to note by onefriedrice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When is the last time you saw an atheist fly a plane into a sky scraper? Or shoot a doctor dead, because some invisible man in the sky didn't like the LEGAL work the doctor was doing? Have any ministers, reverends or priests (even the PEDO ones) been assaulted by bands of roving atheists? Are atheist groups campaigning en masse to deny rights to homosexuals and legislate bigotry?

      It's probably a bit too convenient (and dishonest) to take a "religion" that is widely known to be radical and violent as a prototype for typical religion while ignoring the obvious existence of radical atheists. It's also abundantly clear that there exists people who are not mentally well, both religious and otherwise, and such people are prone to do violent, immoral, and insane things. Ignoring that most people on earth (especially in the U.S.) are religious, a dishonest (or naive) person would extrapolate and conclude that religious people are more prone to violence than atheists, or even that religion causes such violence. You're above such naivety, aren't you?

      It's also a clear cheap shot to decree that others are hypocrites when they try and fail to live up to higher standards (or even just different standards) than you yourself willing to accept as providential. But hey, I get it. Playing for the anti-religion crowd is an easy karma boost. To hell with intellectual honesty as long as you get the karma, right?

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    175. Re:A point to note by citabjockey · · Score: 1

      Remember that Charlie Manson considered himself "Theta Clear" in Scientology. He was a great proponent of that "Religion".

    176. Re:A point to note by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You really can't see the difference between purging people for Atheism and purging people towards the goal of creating a perfect communist society?

      His motive was not to get rid of religions, his motive was to purge anything that could be considered dissenting. Religion is only one group.

      Wanting no one to believe in a supreme being and atheism are not the same thing.

      This is like saying Hitler killed the Jews because he was Christian.

      And that analogy fits this topic, so Godwin's law is not invoked.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    177. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend, my thoughs exactly. Living in Ireland too, f'kn tired of all this crap. And the most amazing thing was the request of donations they made to the "fools" so that the church would have a way to deal with all the logal fees regarding this pedophilia cases.

    178. Re:A point to note by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      You do realize that by your definition it would be possible to say that Christianism was a cult back when it first started? Charismatic leader? Check. Concealing of beliefs? Check. Heck, it could still fit the description to a lesser extent if you didn't mind the leader being long dead (or maybe you'd consider the pope instead).

      As much as there are differences between cults and religions, the two notions are very much alike still.

    179. Re:A point to note by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's because they were trying to change blind faith in a supreme being into blind faith in communism. Trading one ideology for another.

      The idea of "Atheism lessons" is ridiculous and shows a serious amount of ignorance about Atheism.

      They did have 'Godless' classes, and anti-religion classes. In all cases it was about swapping Religious believe with Communists belief. Die for communism, work for communism, live for Communism.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    180. Re:A point to note by Terwin · · Score: 1

      If you refuse to tolerate the intolerant, you will not have an opportunity to understand their point of view and gain their trust to the point of helping them overcome their intolerance.

      If the intolerant are sequestered away from those who are otherwise tolerant, then they will not have an opportunity to understand why they should be tolerant, instead their intolerance will be reinforced by seeing how they are scorned by those who claim to be better by being more tolerant.

      You would not invite them to activities where they would be uncomfortable, just as you would not pester an acrophobe to attend a wedding in a chapel at the top of a high-rise, or a demophobe to attend a large rally.

    181. Re:A point to note by geekoid · · Score: 1

      actually:
      " recognise the importance of freedom of speech"

      a more accurate statement would be:
      " recognise the limiting of freedom of speech can backlash against them is some nations."

      In other nation, you will get into serious trouble for speaking against the church.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    182. Re:A point to note by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      Funny. Then why was Stalin declared "the divinely anointed leader of [Russia's] armed and cultural forces leading us to victory over the barbarian invasion" by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1942?

      Probably because the invading Nazi's were winning support from the local populace by re-opening churches that Stalin, working with the Society of the Godless, had closed.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    183. Re:A point to note by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " not motivated by greed and power"

      What! Are you kidding me? Hiding child rapists? Telling governments what policies to create? Telling people how to behave?

      All of that is about greed and power.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    184. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!

      What ever happened to "live and let live"?

      More people have died in the name of religion than from any other cause. Pick your favorite example, crusades, WW2, Stalin's purges, Iraq and Afghanistan, the situation in Darfur, the Israeli defiance of the UN and subsequent deaths of Palestinians. You name it religion most likely played a significant leading role.

    185. Re:A point to note by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "People are free to leave at will if they disagree."
      umm, not always. In America? sure. In many other countries they are not.

      "That's called 'freedom of speech'. You are entitled to call air your views, so is the church."
      false. If the church is getting tex exempt status, then no they don't get to talk about politics.

      ", to preserving intellectual life in the dark ages, to education, to medical services."

      The dark ages were BECAUSE of the church.

      Lets talk about the Churches lies t get money from the poor, and from believers.
      How they used Mother Teressa to get donation that never went to the poor. How many billions did they get? How about using social tricks to get poor people to give them money?

      The Catholic Church doesn't have a lot of power in the US regarding Blasphemy, but in other countries it's common for the Church to prosecute people.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    186. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...some differences between cults and religions...

      cult: (noun) a small, unpopular religion

      religion: (noun) a large, popular cult

    187. Re:A point to note by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      Actually there are several cases of atheist murderers terrorists attacking various religious groups.

      Extremists are extremists. Some extremists kill people in the belief that it furthers their cause. It is irrelevant to their belief, you can find an example from any sufficiently large group of persons.

      History has also shown us that those who resort to the most extreme and violent methods are also the most likely to have their views ignored.

    188. Re:A point to note by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ". These include the cult tendency to focus around a single, charismatic leader whose word is absolute law, "

      you mean like God?

      "and their tendency to conceal their genuine inner beliefs in layers that each must be struggled through by new initiates, a"
      Most chirtian don'tr know their own theology, and finding it out can be hard and blasphemous. convenient, isn't it?

      ". This is part of what helps separate the cult inner core from the outer world, "
      you mean like private meeting cultist aren't privy to unless they devote there whole life to promoting the cult?

      By your definition, the Catholic church is a cult. There just happen to be another degree of separation and a wider 'entry level' base.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    189. Re:A point to note by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Please note even by your own quote, 'Stalin followed [...] Lenin'. Lenin is not the Pope of Atheists. There is no Atheist Bible. There is nothing about Atheism that commands its ranks to do anything . It is not a system or a process. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. That is all. If an one atheist decides to kill people, and another decides to make their life's work feeding the homeless, those are just personal decisions. Neither one proceeds from their shared lack of belief in gods.

      --
      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
    190. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where teh fuck do you get put to death for smoking weed??

    191. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Scientology is a cult, and it's more tax-exempt than any religion.

    192. Re:A point to note by the_fat_kid · · Score: 1

      mmmmm...
      anonymous doughnut....

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    193. Re:A point to note by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      We have a seperation between Church and State as LAW. We do not, nor did anyone (Founding Fathers) ever intend to require such a seperation on a personal level.

      If someone truely belives in something and that something matches your values then you SHOULD want to vote for that person.

      The problem only exists when people pander to a group of people with whom they don't share such values.

      If we as Americans simply got back involved with politics as our grandparents and all of their ancestors did, we would be in a much better position to remove many of our false and pandering politicians.

      Instead most Americans no longer involve themselves in the process. They simply get upset when someone tells them to. Then complain when their life changes in some negative way. If you don't like how something works, then get involved.

    194. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My grandma is very catholic, while I am very much against the church. I see her for a couple days per year, but invariably she tries to convert me. It is a rather uncomfortable position for both of us. She thinks I'm going to hell, which really disturbs her. I on the other hand think her religion is crazy, and want no part of it. Therefore I avoid the subject when possible, and avoid spending too much one on one time with her.

      I'm sure this is not uncommon. The church is supposed to pull people together, not push them apart like it is here.

    195. Re:A point to note by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      Have any ministers, reverends or priests (even the PEDO ones) been assaulted by bands of roving atheists

      Yes. In China religious persecution by the government is common. In one example a 70 year old Chinese christian pastor, the head of his local church, was beaten until rendered unconscious. Medical aid was prevented from being given to him. He latter died in prison due to injuries sustained in the beatings.

      According to many human rights groups, stories such as this are not uncommon.

      Lesson:
      People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. EVERYONE lives in glass houses, the more so if you claim that any group of people is not evil in some way. EVERY sufficiently large group of people has those within it that have committed vile and unspeakable acts.

    196. Re:A point to note by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      15 billion dollars to run a organization that has full time clergy in every country in the world?! And you consider that wealth!?

      The Catholic Church has according to many sources about 1 billion members. The Church pays for full time clergy and support staff for Churches in almost every country in the world. The operating budget for one month is more than 15 billion dollars.

      Whats more, Vatican city is an independent nation, recognized by treaty by the Italian nation. Many of those treaties define taxation and travel rights. Trying to modify terms of a contract after the fact in a way that only benefits one party, has a name. That name is extortion.

    197. Re:A point to note by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were also all MEN! Clearly the entire MALE gender is to blame for mass-murder and genocide.

    198. Re:A point to note by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      Please do provide us with examples of democracy at work within the church.

      The Lutheran church recently had a public vote to allow openly gay pastors. They VOTED democratically to change the requirements of being a pastor. Well technically it is a republic style vote system like the United States of America but it is a good example. Here is your source:

      Before the vote:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/17/AR2009081703016.html

      After the vote:
      http://blog.pflag.org/2009/08/lutheran-church-votes-to-allow-gay.html

    199. Re:A point to note by Tom · · Score: 1

      Really? Free speech is the corner stone and necessary for spreading the Gospel to the unfaithful-yet-to-be-faithful.

      Yes, if their desires are hindered by something, it's easy to be all for it. But as the famous words go, you're only a champion of free speech if you defend it even though you hate the specific content.

      And on that, the catholic church, at least where I live, hasn't a very good track record. Now they are a far, far call from Scientology, etc. - but they're not shiny knights.

      Moreover, last time anyone uttered any criticisms against the Catholic Church didn't wake up with a severed horse head in their bed, have their tongue cut out or have their lives turned upside down.

      As I said: Every since torture and burning people at the stake became unfashionable.

      since they don't burn people at the stake any more for heresy then I'd say that's a pretty good move towards valuing and allowing free speech.

      Well... err... yes, you are right that it certainly is an improvement. Still, you know, not murdering people is an improvement for someone convicted of murder, but it's not something you'd put on your resume as a special ability, is it?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    200. Re:A point to note by Tom · · Score: 1

      Influence, strong words - yes, all true.

      Giving them an ultimatum? Seriously, the only other group of people I know who use those words are terrorist.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    201. Re:A point to note by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes, he did. He wanted to destroy religion in the Soviet Union and build an Atheist society.

      Yeah, which is why he funded the Russian Orthodox Church at the time, so long as they praised him in their sermons.

      Stalin didn't persecute religion for the sake of doing so. He persecuted those parts of it that were in opposition to his rule to maintain power (it just happened to be that very large parts of the Church were opposed to "godless communism"). As any other ruler, he did support his pet priests, though.

      Lenin, now - this guy was really persecuting believers. For him, though, it was also a part of communist ideology as he understood it - he saw religion as a "reactionary counter-revolutionary force", so it made perfect sense to line priests up against the wall, if that's already done to other "reactionaries" (who may or may not be atheist).

    202. Re:A point to note by severoon · · Score: 1

      These include the cult tendency to focus around a single, charismatic leader whose word is absolute law...

      Are you calling the Pope non-charismatic? I think you might be offending some Catholics with that sentiment.

      ...their tendency to conceal their genuine inner beliefs in layers that each must be struggled through by new initiates...

      So like: baptism, confirmation, etc?

      ...each is further divorced from the beliefs taught at the outer layers...

      Uh huh...

      This is part of what helps separate the cult inner core from the outer world...

      The priesthood and convents, okay I'm still with you...

      ...helps bind them together among others who have learned to share those new increasingly bizarre core beliefs.

      Beliefs like reanimating the dead, or ritually consuming the blood and flesh of your messiah!

      Of course, I'm being facetious here. No one really thinks the Catholic Church is a cult, though cult v. "legitimate" religion certainly doesn't seem to break down across easily defined boundaries. I mean, perhaps if this church had used their "inner core" to conceal or promote serious crimes of its members, it'd be a different story COUGHCOUGHcoughcoughpedobearscoughCOUGHCOUGH—ahem.

      (In truth, I could've gone after any religion COUGHCOUGHcoughcoughLDScoughCOUGHCOUGH—ahem—but I was trying to give myself a challenge by picking the Catholic faith...I didn't realize it was going to be such low-hanging fruit when I started this post. Awright, I'mma go get this cough looked at...)

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    203. Re:A point to note by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Dude. You can hate on us all you want. We love you anyway and are praying for your soul. Have a blessed day! :)

    204. Re:A point to note by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are good reasons to believe that Stalin was religious (Eastern Orthodox Christian, specifically), actually.

    205. Re:A point to note by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Truly everyone worships something. Some people worship money, some golf, some worship pussy. I myself have been guilty of that last one a time or two...or maybe even more than that....

    206. Re:A point to note by lilo_booter · · Score: 1

      These include the cult tendency to focus around a single, charismatic leader whose word is absolute law

      Ahem - Abraham? Jesus? Sorry, all religions start with a leader in one way or another... *someone* has to start them, no? There is a difference in how those people use or abuse that position for sure, but fundamentally, it's hard to see much of a distinction at that level... whether the rest is sufficient to distinguish a religion from a cult is debatable too, after all, one fundamental difference exists - new initiates to 'religions' are primarily children...

    207. Re:A point to note by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Really? Free speech is the corner stone and necessary for spreading the Gospel to the unfaithful-yet-to-be-faithful. It's a lot safer and easier to preach about Catholicism when the country you are in has free speech laws than in one that does not.

      It's even easier when the country you're in only lets the Christians spread their faith, but forbids other missionary activity. Which is why Catholic Church loved Franco's Spain so much, for example. Or why it signed a concordat with Fascist Italy before that.

      Moreover, last time anyone uttered any criticisms against the Catholic Church didn't wake up with a severed horse head in their bed, have their tongue cut out or have their lives turned upside down.

      Last time, probably not. But people have been persecuted for not following the Catholic doctrine as late as second half of the last century (I gave one specific example earlier).

      The last mass slaughter carried, at least in part, in the name of Catholicism specifically, was probably the massacre of Serbs by Croatian Ustase - since Serbs converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism would be considered Croats. Local Catholic clergy was complicit in those massacres, a few so much so that they themselves did the killings. That's in 1942.

    208. Re:A point to note by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      So, what about the Catholic church back in the days when the bible wasn't available to the masses, and sins could be expunged with an appropriately sized donation to the local diocese?

      They were in the wrong and they lost about half of their followers because of it. The church is not infallible, God is infallible.

    209. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, my point was that despite all the crooked priests and bigot followers, mainstream religions are much less greedy and evil than cults like scientology. For example, you can get the bible for free or at a very moderate cost, and without giving out any personal information. Same with the Qur'an. Try acquiring scientology "courses" for free or anonymously...

      I have a great idea for a good website. Its called follow the money.

      Churches are just as much capitalists as any other business, and I do not understand why Churches are not simply considered a business. Business models aren't as they appear.

      For example,
      "Wow look at this razor blade for only 5 dollars. What an amazing deal. They must not be profit seeking because they are giving away their product. Oh wait, the cartridges are an additional fee..."

      It's the "cartridges are an additional fee" part that people ALWAYS fail to see.

      And by the way, The bible may be free, but once they convince you of the "Truth" they will also convince you that you will be better off by giving them 15% of your income annually.

    210. Re:A point to note by cekander · · Score: 1

      Maybe athiests have killed in the name of athiesm, but I think that's the wrong argument. Athiesm in my opinion, can be generalized to a universal anarchism of sorts. Now, if we say no anarchists ever killed in the name of anarchism, then we would be correct. Athiestic national figure-heads have killed in the name of bad religious ideology. That's separate from "in the name of athiesm".

      And with similar logic, we can say Christian National figure-heads have killed in the name of bad religious ideology.

      So the problem is bad ideology. Not religion, but rather the ideology that an institution espouses. And it just so happens athiesm is the one religion defined by not having an institution, and I think this generally means that it's adherents think for themselves; and further I think when people think for themselves, and not for ideology, they make more rational decisions that include ideas like "don't kill unnecessarily." I certainly believe athiests to be more religiously tolerant than most western religions, especially Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

    211. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you mention hitler as an atheist.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views

    212. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catholicism is a cult. Christianity is not.

    213. Re:A point to note by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that misses the point.

      The four people you listed didn't do the things they did BECAUSE they were Atheists or to advance an Atheistic viewpoint, they did it to advance their own cause, which usually equals "Staying alive and in total control".

      OTOH, the far-right "Batshit Crazy" evangelicals (Be they Muslims, Christians or Jews) seem to take the positions that they do precisely BECAUSE, in their view, their religion requires them to take the action(s) that they do. If they weren't "Batshit Crazy", they wouldn't do the things that they do or advocate the things that they advocate.

    214. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you are proving the point: the Church has become much more tolerant over the years, unlike Scientology.

    215. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on... Local "yahoos" who resort to murder are most likely not following direct orders from the Vatican.

      Do you have a creditable source that states the Vatican ordered the mass slaughter of the Serbs as a way to convince people of the virtues of Catholicism?

      Your examples prove that local Church officials pander to the local political power in order to keep their own power. I doubt that the present day Catholic Church, in general, believes non-believers should be slaughtered if they do not convert.

    216. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prescribed. (Proscribed is the antonym.)

      gewg_

    217. Re:A point to note by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      PEOPLE! We should be fighting against the common enemy...

      The Judean Peoples Front!

    218. Re:A point to note by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      They were in the wrong and they lost about half of their followers because of it. The church is not infallible, God is infallible.

      Two words for you: Papal infallibility. :)

      Nevertheless, this isn't the point. But by the OPs definition, the Church, in those days, was little more than a cult based around the teachings of Jesus. I'm just curious if he/she agrees with that.

    219. Re:A point to note by cusco · · Score: 1

      If you change the single word 'atheism' to 'christianity' you have just perfectly described the Indian Schools in Canada and the US, and the Aboriginal Schools in Australia.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    220. Re:A point to note by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Which is why I didn't say that orders came from high up in the Catholic Church. Of course, it was a local initiative. However, it was still a Church initiative insofar as the entire local Church organization participated in forced conversions and other forms of religious repression.

      Their superiors in Vatican were, at the time, busy courting their own friends in power (that is, Mussolini). And they also, steered away from any open criticism despite knowing full well what was going on, in the fear that Croatian Catholics would go into a schism in their nationalistic rampage.

      It is also telling that, for all the crimes that happened, the guy who was in charge of the Croatian archdiocese at the time, and oversaw the forced conversions (at the very least; his direct involvement in Ustase massacres, as claimed by Yugoslavian tribunal which sentenced him, can be debated - but the conversions were public and were performed by Church officials acting in their public capacity), was later made cardinal by the Rome.

    221. Re:A point to note by mpe · · Score: 1

      And no, here are some differences between cults and religions. These include the cult tendency to focus around a single, charismatic leader whose word is absolute law, and their tendency to conceal their genuine inner beliefs in layers that each must be struggled through by new initiates, and each is further divorced from the beliefs taught at the outer layers. This is part of what helps separate the cult inner core from the outer world, and helps bind them together among others who have learned to share those new increasingly bizarre core beliefs.

      Note also that cults need not be in any way "religious".

      There used to be a pretty good organization for publishing information about cults and helping people get the facts and support from former members, called "Cult Awareness Network", but they got sued to bankruptcy and their assets taken over by Scientology, so now they're a pro-cult organization.

      More likely they are pro Scientology. Cults tend to be highly "anti-social" when it comes other cults.

    222. Re:A point to note by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      ... are 100% religions in everything but name. They have their rituals, clergy, scripture. They fight infidels and are highly proselytic. You have portraits of the Prophets everywhere.

      Linux!
       

    223. Re:A point to note by dissy · · Score: 1

      Where teh fuck do you get put to death for smoking weed??

      America's prison system.

      The scam works like this:

      1) You smoke some weed and get caught.
      2) You are given a month in jail (Well, maybe not on your first conviction, but still..)
      3) While in jail, actions fully outside your control will be blamed on you, and the punishment will be more jail or even prison time.
      Typically this comes with not wanting to be beaten for your lunch, or raped in your cell at night, and attempting to defend yourself.

      4) After doing nothing more than defending yourself (This is not allowed in jail), you are now a danger to others, and your sentence is added onto to reflect that fact. Your month in jail just became many months if not a year or more.

      5) Eventually the beatings and rape will force you to act in a way to stop such actions, which will result in bodily harm or death to another inmate.

      6) You are now charged with assault and attempted murder (or actual murder if they die), and your sentence is adjusted to life.

      7) Depending what state you are imprisoned in, and the current head count in the prison you are in, you can be moved over to death row.

      Now I am not implying this happens in 100% of cases, but it does happen very frequently. A few hundred times a year is a few hundred and one times too many.

    224. Re:A point to note by macro187 · · Score: 1

      > I don't know of many other institutions that attempt to bully a national government, you know?

      I take it you're not a member of a union?

      I'm no fan of unions, but I think concerns that they wield some dangerous, overwhelming amount of power in our societies is misplaced in this day and age, and I have to question where people are getting the idea from and, then, why a comment like this ends up 5:Insightful.

      I think it's obvious to anyone paying any attention at all these days that concerns about government manipulation, undemocratic power, etc. belong squarely with large corporations.

      For example, I live in Canada, and a cursory search brought up the following list of top lobbyists, the majority of whom represent large, destructive corporations (oil, mining, etc.). I don't think I saw a single union on there.

      http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/.2009.february.16.top_lobbyists_2009

      More links to data appreciated.

    225. Re:A point to note by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Giving them an ultimatum?

      Unions: "we'll go on strike if you do\don't do x"
      Corporations: "We'll pull out of your country if you pass\don't pass law x"
      Lobby\pressure groups: "we'll cary on protesting\causing trouble\telling people not to vote for you unless x"

      Those all sound like ultimatums of one sort or another to me.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    226. Re:A point to note by Tom · · Score: 1

      I agree on that.

      Let's talk again in 1500 or so years. That's how long it took them. If Scientology hasn't changed by then, I will agree that they are much worse. Until then, I merely consider them to be the latest version of the same religious fucked-up-ness.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    227. Re:A point to note by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      Religions are cults whose founders are long dead. Probably, at the time, Moses or Muhummad's word was absolute law, but now their will must be interpreted by scripture and clerics.

    228. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This rant might be understandable if you grew up in Ireland in the 50s but you didn't.

      Let's get a few facts straight

      1. There is no established church in Ireland, unlike in the UK, where the Queen is both the head of state and the head of the church.
      2. There are no bishops appointed as of right to the Irish Senate, unlike in the UK where bishops of the established church sit in the House of Lords
      3. Contrary to what you say the church did not ban abortion in Ireland. It promulgated its teachings, which were anti-abortion, and the electorate voted REPEATEDLY not to have laws legalizing abortion passed (Reminder: the Irish parliament makes the laws, not the church). The same electorate and the Irish legislature agreed to the introduction of both divorce and contraception in defiance of church teaching. Clearly, abhorrence of abortion is a cultural norm not simply a matter of blind compliance with church teaching in all cases. The Irish electorate are more discriminating that you give them credit for.

      I grew up in Ireland and left school in 70s. Even then there was NO QUESTION of attendance at mass being socially compulsory. Church attendance was very high but not mandatory in any way. At the time it was perfectly normal for people to go to mass in a neighbouring parish if the times were more convenient. At the time there were masses on the hour from early in the morning on Sunday, and again in the evening. No busy parish priest then or now could possibly know which of his parishioners had not attended or had gone to a neighbouring church. The idea is simply laughable. On an island parish on the west coast maybe, anywhere else? Get up the yard son.

      I'm no apologist for the Catholic church but It seems you have a large chip on your shoulder. Blame the church. Good man.

    229. Re:A point to note by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      As shutdown -p now has pointed out, Stalin was an orthodox georgian christ, and attended a theological school and later a seminary.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    230. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're a Catholic, no-one's going to try and make your life a living hell if you want to stop coming to church.

      They have in the past, though: they call it excommunication.

    231. Re:A point to note by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      There is this: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/02/11/forced-unionization/

      That's in the US, not Canada, but that's seriously, seriously f-ed up.

    232. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I don't know of many other institutions that attempt to bully a national government, you know?

      I take it you're not a member of a union?

      Or you don't know of the doings of any largish corporation.

    233. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A church is a cult with political power. If you have political power you don't get Waco'd.

    234. Re:A point to note by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Members of CAN were prosecuted for rape because the girl they were 'deprogramming' got away still partially bound and got help. They were as much a cult as lientology.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    235. Re:A point to note by macro187 · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with this particular issue, but considering the source I'd say one would want to take this story with a big grain of salt.

    236. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!

      10 bucks the OP was a protestant, not atheist.

    237. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of those "purged" were Communists - that would make Stalin an anti-communist by your account.

    238. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP was responding to GP's statement that "No atheist is stopping religious people from living." OP wasn't the one who limited the debate to purges of religion by atheists, GP was. OP was merely responding within the confines of the debate established by the GP, not promoting his agenda.

      Errm, have you proved yet that Stalin actually was an atheist, instead of an opportunistic, power-hungry Russian-Orthodox former priest in training?

    239. Re:A point to note by Meski · · Score: 1

      That's no donut, it's a toroid!

    240. Re:A point to note by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      So a religion is still a cult. Just as popular music is still music.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    241. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The generally accepted count for people killed in the Holocaust is 11 million people. The generally accepted count for people killed in Stalin's purges is 20 million people. Am I the only one thinking we need a corollary to Goodwin's Law?

      Well, let's ignore that comparisons to Stalin aren't frequent enough to necessitate that (even though you probably don't even think of the actual Godwin's Law).
      Hitler: 11 Million people in a little over 12 years in power.
      Stalin: 20 million people in a little under 31 years in power .

    242. Re:A point to note by griblik · · Score: 1

      It's probably a bit too convenient (and dishonest) to take a "religion" that is widely known to be radical and violent as a prototype for typical religion while ignoring the obvious existence of radical atheists.

      Thing is, I don't see the GP singling out any particular religion. From a non-religious person's point of view, they're all inherently dangerous and borderline schizophrenic. You're talking about belief in the existance of non-human entities that tell you to act in certain ways, without being able to produce any evidence of their actual existence. "The voices told me to do it" sounds insane to most people, yet if "God told me to do it" society still considers you sane for some unexplained reason.

      I can remember terrorist attacks on the UK by christians, muslims and sikhs within the past 30 years - is it any wonder that everyone, religious or otherwise, has had enough of each religion's continual "We're generally a peaceful group" line?

      --
      Warning: May contain nuts
    243. Re:A point to note by Tom · · Score: 1

      Ok, I forgot non-germans didn't follow the news.

      It was more of the "or else..." kind. Where you don't say what you're going to do, only implying that they really, really don't wish to find out. You know, along the Godfather lines.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    244. Re:A point to note by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, they did exist. I have a Russian friend who did "Atheism class", who now has a PhD in Mathematics. The irony was that it was the atheism class which made her believe there was a God. I too was stunned when she told be about the class, as it made no sense, but she insisted that it was a class dedicated to teaching children that there was no god, and used evolution to try and prove it. It sounded like precisely the sort of thing that Richard Dawkins was trying to promote with his atheist summer camps for children.
      You can shift the goal posts and do as much mental gymnastics as you like; the fact remains that the worst atrocities in history were perpetrated by regimes who asserted the God did not exist.

      Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:
      Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.

      Edward E. Ericson, Jr., "Solzhenitsyn – Voice from the Gulag," Eternity, October 1985, pp. 23, 24.

      That's not to say that all religions have clean hands, they don't, but humans seem to have an inbuilt need to worship something, and what we worship will heavily influence who we live and act, and how we understand the importance of the lives of those around us. If we don't worship a God for whom all people everywhere are equally loved and important, then we will see others as less than human and do evil things to them (and that can, and does occur with some forms of christian theology). If we worship the state then people who threaten the state must be corrected or killed. If you worship science then people who are "anti-scientific" in your view must be corrected, or if they threaten science, killed. In soviet russia, christians and others threatened the state and its religion of the "science" of Marxism–Leninism, and were controlled, imprisoned and killed in vast numbers.

      As has been said before, the only thing worse than what happens when man worships god, is what happens when man worships man.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    245. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point, although Scientology goes way beyond the typical religious "fucked-up-ness".

    246. Re:A point to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, to be able to pull a Robert Langdon and peruse the Vatican archives to get some more interesting insight into the politics of Catholicism!

    247. Re:A point to note by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Nice try, and completely false. Quoting from Wikipedia, which seems to have good material on this:

      > CAN was driven into bankruptcy when a court found CAN guilty of having conspired to violate the civil rights and religious liberties of Jason Scott, a Pentecostalist, who had been forcibly kidnapped and subjected to a failed "deprogramming" by Rick Ross, a CAN-referred deprogrammer.

      The plaintiffs lawyer, Kendrick Moxon, was then sued by his client for failing to serve his client and instead using the case to harass Cult Awareness Network. Kendrick Moxon was a member of Scientology's "Guardian Office", the group led by Mary Sue Hubbard that had its leadership raided by the FBI and convicted not only of harassment, but of planting fake bomb threats to discredit the author Paulette Cooper and her book, "The Scandal of Scientology".

      These are not nice people, at least at the senior levels of the cult.

    248. Re:A point to note by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      No, I'm afraid not. "God" doesn't count as the "leader": he's not around to actually make the rules and announce laws and accept members personally, except nominally through his "representatives". It's "God's chosen" who tends to be the cult leader. The pope, like the archbishop of Canterbury, doesn't have the kind of unquestioned and fanatical loyalty the leaders of cults tend to have.

      The Catholics at least have their core document, the Bible, published. And there doesn't seem to be the levels of belief, with the mysteries only explained to initiates at each level. This is a historical change: when the Gutenberg press was invented, the Catholic Church was very unhappy at the prospect of bibles in the hands of non-priests. But they've opened up since then.

    249. Re:A point to note by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Lenin and later Stalin purged Orthodox clergy because according to them they belonged to the oppressor class, for the same reason they purged many scientists, engineers, teachers, well-of farmers, military officers and other groups who achieved some status under the tsarist regime. Orthodox church actively supported the loser side during the civil war and had nit coming to them just for that.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    250. Re:A point to note by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to trust your senses but be aware that they are often faulty; no two witnesses to any crime ever tell the exact same story. Cops know that if two people give the axact same account, the story's either made up or they have discussed it.

      My old man always said "don't believe anyhing you hear, and only half of what you see".

    251. Re:A point to note by JThundley · · Score: 1

      Charlie Manson's cult was profitable. One of his cult members was a rich teen, he spent a lot of her money on him and his group.

    252. Re:A point to note by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Ok I may have mixed one of the ones mentioned here in with can

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming

      I have no love of either the people behind can or lientology.

      But tit-for-tat wikipee quotes won't do because wikipee is a transitory whiteboard unfortunately. The cost of eternal copyright is societal mental sclerosis

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    253. Re:A point to note by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do. But not all leaders create that isolation of the most devout, the separation of them not only from their families but from their cultures. The Bible hints that Jesus didn't, that he "dined with sinners", much to the shock of his most devout followers. And Paul, as one of his apostles, certainly did not insist on absolute spiritual rigor for new followers. So I think Jesus was a very unusual such leader, a charismatic but more open one than is typical for a cult. I rather wish I'd met him, to hear what he had to say without centuries of "doctrine" overlaid on top of his ideas.

    254. Re:A point to note by Tom · · Score: 1

      Again, compared to todays church, yes.

      Compared to early medieval church? Not so sure.
      Compared to todays islamic fundamentalists? Probably not.
      Compared to what todays christian fundamentalists would like to do if only the evil communist-satanic government would let them? Also not so sure.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    255. Re:A point to note by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      And you've been misled, possibly by the propaganda scientology's propaganda arm was publishing about CAN. It's a practice L. Ron Hubbard called "dead agenting": making someone look so bad that no one would believe them, and it's what Mary Sue Hubbard and the leadership of the Guardian's Office went to jail for. (Among other acts, they faked bomb threats to discredit Paulette Cooper, the author of "The Scandal of Scientology".)

      The fraud about CAN was persistent and nasty: they do the same thing now about psychologists, putting up leaflets and articles with their "Citizen's Commission of Human Rights" which is a scientology front, with vague claims about rapes and abuses without names, dates, or references. They attempt to scare people away from other resources that might question scientology or lead them in other directions with a long history of fraud. Hop over to www.xenu.net for some history of this: I couldn't possibly make it all up.

      More to the point, CAN didn't do forcible deprogramming. They were convicted of conspiracy for referring Jason Scott's mother to a deprogrammer, Rick Ross, which both CAN and Rick Ross said they did not do. And it's even more fascinating: Jason Scott has changed attorneys from Kendrick Moxon, the high-level Scientologist and former Guardian's Office member, to Graham Berry, an attorney who's handled several large lawsuits against Scientology. (An announcement from the new law company is at http://www.lermanet.com/cos/can1.html) Mr. Scott believes that Kendrick Moxon didn't represent him properly in court, and that Moxon used the lawsuit instead as a weapon to attck CAN. (CAN went bankrupt: it is now owned and staffed by scientologists.)

      I couldn't make this material up: it's just too convuluted for wards.

    256. Re:A point to note by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      "Having money" is not the same as profitable. Anyone who bought property in the last 5 years and is now in debt with mortgage payments they can't make can tell you this. And money leached to the pckets of a few leaders does not make the overall enterprise profitable. Anyone who's selling laundry balls as a pyramid scheme can tell you that. (The scientology owned company, Trade-Net, discovered this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laundry_ball#Consumer_protection_and_Scientology_link)

      I couldn't make this stuff up. It's too amazing.

    257. Re:A point to note by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I understand that you're being facetious. But a key difference is that the pope's word is not absolute law to his followers, and analysis and dissent is normal and public. (We could discuss the few occasions where the pope's word has been declared law: they're fascinating.) Another is that the beliefs on which communion, confession, etc. are based is available publicly, and the nature of the rituals is well published. I also agree that the pederasty permitted by Catholic leadership was abominable, but it doesn't seem to have been _policy_ to engage in it. It seems merely to have been hushed up, which is awful. As near as I can tell, it destroyed the chances of becoming Pope of Cardinal Law of Boston.

      It's not the same as, for example, the clitoridectomy (graphically shown at http://islammonitor.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1460) engaged in by some more extreme believers of other religions, where a majority of local clerics still support it. So if you want to do comparisons of "religiously sanctioned" practices, well, we could go there.

      The distinction between cult and religion can get slippery. There have _certainly_ been christian cults.

    258. Re:A point to note by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      That's not clear: while he claimed to be a scientologist at several times, it's not obvious at this late date how far he progressed. And there was allegedly a big sweep of scientology files when Manson was caught, to remove any reference, so it's hard to track now.

    259. Re:A point to note by severoon · · Score: 1

      But a key difference is that the pope's word is not absolute law to his followers, and analysis and dissent is normal and public.

      Officially, the word of the Pope is supposedly guided by the action of the holy spirit in matters of Catholic dogma. So, his word on religious matters is not just law, it's god's law. The fact that the doctrine of Papal infallibility is not invoked often is simply a matter of degree...but the fundamentals are there.

      Another is that the beliefs on which communion, confession, etc. are based is available publicly, and the nature of the rituals is well published.

      There are rituals and many other aspects of this faith that are not available publicly, but exist only in the bowels of the Vatican under tightly controlled access. There are other faiths we are compelled to accept as legitimate religions that have secretive practices...the secret marriages, bloodletting, and others in Mormonism comes to mind.

      I also agree that the pederasty permitted by Catholic leadership was abominable, but it doesn't seem to have been _policy_ to engage in it.

      It seems the policy for decades was to cover it up...certainly not to purge it. The Branch Davidians kept the child sexual abuse they committed from prying public eyes as well. Again, the difference in behavior is simply one of degree, not principle.

      The distinction between cult and religion can get slippery.

      The point I am making is that the distinction bewteen cult & religion is slippery, and for good reason: the two don't differ in principle; when you get down to fundamentals, they are the same.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    260. Re:A point to note by citabjockey · · Score: 1

      This was published in the book "Helter Skelter" by Vincent Bugliosi. While charlie may have professed to be at that level it is less clear of other church members would have agreed with him... I myself know nothing about the specifics of this cult (excuse me, church) -- I am just relaying what was observed about charlie shortly after his arrest. That said I do find it interesting that a mass murderer chose that cult as the best match for him...

  4. Thank you! by RuBLed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now I am interested in that film...

    1. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Battlefield Earth?

    2. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Profit: http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4092650/The_Profit_-_The_movie_Scientology_doesnt_want_you_to_see..4092650.TPB.torrent

    3. Re:Thank you! by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    4. Re:Thank you! by N1tr0u5 · · Score: 1

      If you please, what language is this in before I clear and spend the resources to obtain it?

    5. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The film that the article is about is called "Until nothing is left". If it airs, you will probably be able to see it online. It's a production for German television, so it will be in German. Perhaps someone will create English subtitles for a torrent.

    6. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a completely different movie from 20 years ago that scientology got banned in the US.

    7. Re:Thank you! by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Actually, it literally translates to "Until nothing more remains" if I remember my German correctly, but more was probably dropped as redundant, even though it is still OK in English. "Remains" and "is left" mean the same thing in English. You could also say "Until nothing is left over" if you want to throw another word in and mean the same thing.

      There are numerous similar stories in the US and a disowned splinter church in Texas (I believe), so you can probably find similar stories online (I saw one in a newspaper a couple of weeks ago).

    8. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I quoted the name from the Spiegel article. The Guardian uses the "Until Nothing Remains" translation. The movie doesn't have an actual English title. Its German title is "Bis nichts mehr bleibt".

  5. Germany has the right idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/stat.html

    Go Germany. Atleast someone gets the right idea here

  6. BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't wait for the movie to hit bittorrent :)
    In fact the first thing i did was to search the trackers ... no luck yet.

    1. Re:BitTorrent by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      First thing I did when opening this article was search the page for "torrent"...no luck yet.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  7. Irony of ironies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Now that Scientology has spoken up and tried to ban this film, I guarantee you, there will be a much larger crowd turning up to see it than would otherwise have been the case. A direct consequence of this will be a greater interest in the issues surrounding Scientology, and therefore - one hopes - a greater upswell against the cult.

    Thank you, Scientology. You have helped to sow some of the seeds of your destruction. (I hope, anyway ... it's one of the things that gives me warm fuzzy feelings of hope.)

  8. Re:banned religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not banned, it is just not seen as religion, it is seen as Ponzi scheme under the hood of trying to be a religion (which in the US basically gives it some tax benefits)

  9. Someone tag this story ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... "Streisandeffect". Please.

    1. Re:Someone tag this story ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sick and tired of people tagging Slashdot stories with 'Streisandeffect', and I'm starting a Facebook group to organize a protest!

  10. meta-comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would like to see a graph of the distribution of postings by "Anonymous Coward" in the comments for Scientology-related versus non-Scientology-related stories.

    1. Re:meta-comment by Barnett · · Score: 1

      I am not letting you skew that graph.

  11. What is the Catholic Church? by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it a business, a scam, a religion, or a paedophile network?

    I'd say all of the above...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:What is the Catholic Church? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it a business, a scam, a religion, or a paedophile network?

      I'd say all of the above...

      True, but the Catholic church at least lets people leave easily.

      At least the did for me, perhaps its because I never tithed regularly...

    2. Re:What is the Catholic Church? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is it a business, a scam, a religion, or a paedophile network?

      I'd say all of the above...

      The membership of the Catholic Church is about 1/6 of the worlds population. With a sample size that large, one can easily come up with enough individuals in any population to affix those (or any other) labels. It is also one of the world's largest charitable organizations. Surely the number of people donating their time and money exceeds the number of pedophiles; I don't think your list is an accurate reflection of the church. How this somehow relates to scientology is another issue altogether.

    3. Re:What is the Catholic Church? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm taking your bait.

      In what ways is the Catholic Church a business? Have they copyrighted any of their religious texts, saying they are the intellectual property of the church? Do they have business ventures in which they are profit seeking stakeholders? Please point them out if so.

      In what ways is it a scam? Does the Catholic Church demand payment for services such as confession, absolution or even communion?

      In what ways is it a paedophile network? The actions of a few really bad priests, and the terrible actions of people like the Bishop of Boston who took measures to cover these obvious wrongs are NOT indicative of the priesthood as a whole. That's akin to saying all inner city people are gangbangers, because they have gangs in inner cities.

      You need to open your eyes and stop seeing only what you want to see. Analogies of Catholicism to Scientology are flawed at best, ridiculous at worst.

      DISCLAIMER: I am a former Catholic, 12 years of Catholic education, current agnostic, former altar boy and ZERO paedophile experiences.

  12. "Defamatory" by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Network denies that Until Nothing Remains depicts group as totalitarian and unethical

    Why would they need to deny that? It's a documentary, that's the point.

    1. Re:"Defamatory" by WegianWarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Network denies that Until Nothing Remains depicts group as totalitarian and unethical

      Why would they need to deny that? It's a documentary, that's the point.

      The point of a properly done documentary is to show the facts so the viewers can come to their own conclusion - some things are obvious enought that they don't need to be pointed to with huge neon signs, nor be spoon feed to the audience.

      The simple fact that the CoS is trying to stop a documentary that don't show them in a flattering light is enought to tell most potential viewers that the CoS has something to hide. One can only hope that the CoS try to use some of their common - but illegal - ways to try to battle the film, so the German courts can hand their ass to them on a platter, declare the "church" to be a criminal organisation and throw them out of the country.

      A "churc" that requires legal waivers to be signed before taking part in their services are - to say the least - bizarre, and likely up to no good (even if the induviduals takeing part may not be up to any evil per see). In many ways the CoS operates as a secret society, where the members have to swear not to reveal what they learn to the people below them in the ranks... in some secret societies (such as Freemasons) this is to prevent the experience of going up in the system to be diluted, but in the case of the CoS it's because the 'truths' revealed are so retarted and childish that no one would believe them unless they were allready brainwashed to some degree and had a lot of time and money sunk into the organisaton allready.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
  13. Two words by Eggplant62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fuck Scientology. I've never seen a larger collection of assholes ever.

    1. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thats eleven words.

    2. Re:Two words by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, dear. Try watching "Fox News" for an education in orifices.

    3. Re:Two words by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You rarely deal with consultants and auditors, I see.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Two words by lazyforker · · Score: 1

      Thats eleven words.

      Of course. He turned it up from ten because he/she really really meant it.

    5. Re:Two words by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Well, there's Mos Eisley. But yeah, Scientology is pretty bad.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    6. Re:Two words by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Worse, your post falsifies his thesis, demonstrating that Slashdot is, in fact, home to a greater number of assholes...

    7. Re:Two words by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

      It's only one word in German.

      --
      Beep beep.
  14. Mod parent up.. by Weezul · · Score: 1

    ..or just ask mods to add the torrent to the post.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    1. Re:Mod parent up.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except that's not the documentary this article is about - its a completely different film that Scientology has tried to keep quiet.

  15. Somewhere on a cement-hill battlefield in CALIF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A ragtag legion, soarly tired and bruised, led by none-other than Tomb "Hoveround missle" Cruize and "Devil's Haircut" Beck give their last rites before sending their lawyers to infiltrate Watchtower Society like the Illuminati infected Freemasonry...

    "They can take our analog Negaton-reader interpretation jobs, they can take our wifes, but they can never take our money!"
      -Tomb Cruize1962-2010, Tomb Cruize is survived by his identical twin Lieutenant Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, who portrayed Tomb Cruize in the movie Toppe Gung ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHklGtW3rwU )

  16. "Denied church status" != "Prohibited" by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 4, Informative

    Scientology is allowed to operate and exist in Germany, but it is considered a for-profit organisation. That means it doesn't even enjoy charity status, much less the much-coveted tax exemption.

    So yes, they could attempt to get a temporary restraining order, but I doubt that this will go well for them. It's too close to the broadcast date, and the editors and producers have most likely done their homework.

  17. Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by FreeUser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What ever happened to "live and let live"?

    "Live and let live" went out the window when the religious right took over US politics, systematically intimidated (and even murdered) doctors for providing reproductive healthcare to women, and organized to force their toxic agenda down the rest of our throats, whether or not we believe in their sky fairy.

    You are no longer entitled to "live and let live" from the rest of us. If you ever want it back, you'll have to learn to behave yourselves, and prove your benign intentions toward the rest of society, probably over a span of time at least equal to the last several decades of your sustained attack on that society, as you've systematically dismantled separation of church and state, not to mention most of our other fundamental rights.

    Athiests aren't the only ones angry. There are plenty of angry Buddhists, Daoists, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Agnostics, and non-right-wing Christians who are fed up with this, and if the christian right doesn't like it, they need to take a good hard look in the mirror, because they have only themselves and their own excesses to blame.

    As for anger and vitriol in general, Athiests may be fed up, and enjoy using their intellects to rhetorically debunk and expose stupid beliefs, which no doubt makes the religious feel foolish and persecuted (but then, the religious often feel persecuted if someone nearby doesn't share their exact belief system), but that is nothing compared to the hatred and bigotry the rest of us experience from the religious right. Compared to them, Athiests are positively touchy-feely mother-earth all-is-good accepting.

    Indeed, to hear christians accuse Athiests of "being angry" brings to mind pots, kettles, and the color black (except that the rest of us more resemble a tupperware container than a kettle, in that we're more transparent, and less angry, than the extreme right. Though why that's so, after so many decades of abuse from that quarter, is beyond me. Perhaps because those of us with a secular bent have proven to be far more longsuffering than our religiously frenzied co-citizens).

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by HopefulIntern · · Score: 0, Troll

      ATHEIST

    2. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please don't speak in behalf of Buddhists because it shows you don't understand the religion.

      I assure you that Buddhism is different from anything you know and anger is one of the unwholesome feelings that Buddhists try to unroot from themselves.

      The Buddha teached to accept the world and the people as they are and to try to make a change but without involving feelings of lust, anger, jelousy, etc.

      So, "live and let live" but if you see unjustisce make your best effort to fight it.

    3. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      systematically intimidated (and even murdered) doctors for providing anti-reproductive healthcare to women,

      fixed that for you.

    4. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by bartwol · · Score: 1

      Ignore the "Troll" rating. It comes from the dogmatic many who, upon inferring that your political leanings differ from theirs, summarily dismiss all your points, however reasonable they may be, without further consideration.

      The GP was thoroughly disingenuous in suggesting that religious groups are trying to impede "reproductive healthcare". He/she was in fact referring to efforts to deter abortion. He/she tried to distort that fact so as to mis-portray people as being more extreme than they really are. (In fact, almost all of his points are greatly exaggerated and overreaching.)

      Though I am pro-abortion-rights (and a-religious and politically moderate), I found the poster's wording as warped and laughable as you. But then, you must be one of those people who has "taken over U.S. politics." How does it feel to be in control?

      The GP demonstrates common rhetoric of a powerful majority that sees itself as victim to a vocal but obviously subordinate minority. He/she/they do successfully kid themselves about whom is prevailing with respect to what.

    5. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by SakuraDreams · · Score: 1

      Wow, that must mean that anger is a rare emotion in Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc. My Japanese and Taiwanese friends never get angry... they've all freed themselves from that unwholesome feeling.

    6. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually would be a prime candidate for postnatal abortion.

    7. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wish people would stop thinking of the "Christian right" as Christians, as they don't follow the teachings of Christ at all and in fact preach the opposite of what Christ taught.

      Christ was a rebel who was executed for heresy. Were he alive today rather than 2000 years ago, the "Christian Right" would crucify him again.

    8. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      Yes, because everything begins and ends with America.

    9. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Allow me to agree with you less anonymously.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    10. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      Please don't speak in behalf of Buddhists because it shows you don't understand the religion.

      You've confused philosophical aspirations and religious teachings with real-world human behavior, motivation, and emotion.

      Buddhists can and do become as angry as anyone else in this world. Sri Lanka comes to mind as a recent example of that sort of anger taken to a widespread, murderous level (not to pick on Buddhism, just to point out that Buddhists are as capable of descending into mayhem as any other religious group). It doesn't require me to understand the nuances or aspirations of the Buddhist philosophy to recognize hatred or anger when I see it ... and seeking to repress it and accept the world "as it is" appears to be more of an aspiration than an ongoing character trait.

      I do know Buddhists who are angry at where the world finds itself, and what the Christian right has done to America (and is currently trying to export to the United Kingdom, among other places). You may want to claim they are not Buddhists because they feel this way, but what gives you the right to deny them their self-identity simply because they fall short of what you believe to be a central tenant of their religion?

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    11. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      I was just being a spelling nazi, since you spelled it "athiest" instead of "atheist" consistently.... ...I'll get my coat..

    12. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      Before the religious right we had the Imperialist. Before the Imperialist, we had manifest destiny. Before manifest destiny, we had land grabs in Appalachia (and along the entire colonial border). Before that we had a desire for religious freedom so we left England.

      Live and let live was a concept that came about forty years ago, almost no one believed in it. It sounds good though so you see it on slogans.

    13. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Truth is, we don't really know what Christ taught. All we have is a bunch of scriptures that are claimed to be written who claim to be witnesses, which are somewhat vague on many points, and downright contradictory on some. There's no surprise there that people can back pretty much any kind of belief they want with it. For every "love thy neighbor", there is "but to bring a sword" (yeah, I'm sure that you have your own interpretation of the latter that is entirely consistent with love and peace etc - the point is that those "not really Christian" guys have their own interpretation of the other quote that is consistent with their view of "burn the heretics").

      Also, the reason why most people do identify Christian Right with Christianity in general is because the views of Christian Right today are very much consistent with historical views of the majority of what was called Christendom for the last 2000 years. It's not like Christians have been peaceful hippies for centuries. And it's not just common folks, who could be claimed to be ignorant - no, it's such well-respected Church Fathers as Thomas Aquinas who have advocated for violence to counter heresy. Heck, Christians have burned their first heretic (Priscillian) alive only 60 years after they themselves have stopped being persecuted by the Romans!

    14. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      One thing that I have never had the chance to point out is that Christianity's first great missionary, Paul, would be tried and executed for crimes against humanity in today's world, specifically for his persecution and practical genocide of Christians. Unfortunately no Christian I know has lately tried to argue for capital punishment by saying, "Some people are beyond redemption."

    15. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only proving the point that pro-abortion is pro-murder. You guys aren't bothered by someone getting killed, you just don't want someone on your side killed. Anti-abortionists are fair game to you, just not abortionists or little children.

      I didn't need any confirmation of that, but thanks for confirming it for the world to see.

    16. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be confusing Buddhists with Vulcans. I means this is /. and all but still..

    17. Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Don't judge a teacher by is students. Almost all of what the bible reports Christ as saying is not in any way contradictory, and all boils down to the golden rule -- treat others as you would like to be treated, and be humble.

  18. 'Intolerance' by dugeen · · Score: 3, Informative

    The scientologists know whereof they speak when it comes to intolerance. Just ask Paulette Cooper.

  19. What german documentary? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh this one. Geez, never heard about it, never would have, except now they sue so the entire world hears about it.

    Streisand Effect anyone?

    When we shipped the religious nutters to the colonies, the understanding was that they were supposed to stay there. Not come back!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:What german documentary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barbara Streisand is a Scientologist?

    2. Re:What german documentary? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Funny

      All Scientologists are annoying.
      Barbara Streisand is annoying.
      Therefore, Barbara Streisand is a Sceintologist.

      Yeah, I know it's bad logic, but this logic is at least as good as a Sceintologist's.

  20. Be tolerant and understanding: read OTIII now by Antiocheian · · Score: 2, Informative

    You should be tolerant of the Scientology Religion. You should read the OT manuscripts, especially OTIII and fully understand Xenu's agenda against Earth.

    The following link will provide it for you; use eMule to get it:

    ed2k://|file|Scientology%2520-%2520OT3%2520Hubbard%2520notes.rar|15057528|78E963FA4134822640527F4B74184D83|h=LCN5G5OZUE7N47SY23SEPUAAQJ45X5UW|/

    (Be warned: reading these documents may inflict you with pneumonia.)

    1. Re:Be tolerant and understanding: read OTIII now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very space opera

    2. Re:Be tolerant and understanding: read OTIII now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative


      Similar thing happened not long ago with Scientology's daughter cult, The Landmark Forum
      There was a special on French TV with hidden cameras inside the forum one weekend. Crazy stuff, they tried to silence the show but it has been futile. (English subbed)

      Just Say "NO" to Cults.
      .

  21. I've never met an evil Scientologist by bugnuts · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ... but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I completely believe they do exist.

    However, I've met really nasty, mean Jehovah's witnesses which demonstrated all of the points made in TFA. They go after people who try to leave, using incredible guilt trips, calls and visits to their family, etc, and destroy family ties through threats and ostracism. But I've yet to see a publicized abduction for deprogramming of JW tenets.

    I've actually met a lot of scientologists (over a dozen and roomed with several long ago), and while some are a bit fanatical, they themselves stated to me "don't judge groups by the fanatics ... we do have ours and they're misguided." It's a truism, and is why I don't hate the mormons, the catholics, and pretty much most similar groups, including atheists of which I'm one. The thing is, people have the right to believe what the hell they want to believe, whether it's souls, thetans, god, spirituality, or a flying pasta creation. Every article I see about scientology tries to poke fun at their beliefs, dismissing them and using that as the basis of the article, but all religious faith is the same. All of it. Poke fun at one, and you poke fun at faith itself, which means you attack all religions. At it's base, Scientology == Catholicism == Christianity.

    The biggest issue scientology has is their inability to adapt. Even the catholic church has that skill. The debacle of trying to use outmoded techniques (attacking the person, trying to shut down the communication, legal threats) has been shown not to work in this day and age, and yet they still persist. LRH actually wrote techniques that worked in the 60's on how to shut down the critics. I read them. They absolutely will not work today.

    So, scientology is really failing only that they cannot adapt, and as a result, have made many enemies. I am not one of those enemies, but I can understand why they have them. Some of their "technology" as they call it actually does work and is very useful in everyday life.

    Several of the scientologists I knew, btw, left the church with little-to-no hassle. Sure, there are cases where there is huge hassle. And that's EXACTLY THE SAME with any church.

    1. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by DMorritt · · Score: 1

      I fail to see the need for shutting down critics.

    2. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by FroBugg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is Scientology doesn't work the way other religions work, with respect to fanaticism. With Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, or most traditional religions), you get a fair amount of fanatical individuals. You get the people that shoot doctors providing abortions and you get the suicide bombers.

      As far as I've seen, the fanatics in Scientology are all high up in the organization and are smart enough to at least try and be circumspect about what they do. They're better organized than individuals or small groups. They're slicker and know how to sell their product.

      That's the real problem here. Other religions may inspire some fanatics, but Scientology is run by fanatics.

    3. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Scientology == Catholicism == Christianity"

      Every time there is any Internet forum discussion critical of Scientology this same meme pops up. It's not true. Elevating Scientology to the same status as established religions with thousands of years of history is an attempt BY SCIENTOLOGY to legitimize itself. Just look at how a discussion about Scientology and a "docudrama" about it spawned this sub-thread plus discussions of Atheism vs. Theism, Christianity's historical abuses of believers and non-believers, political power struggles of one dogma vs another, the current state of Islam, etc.

      Any other org is fair game so long as negative attention is diverted from Scientology.

      Keep your eye on the ball, folks.

    4. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by martas · · Score: 1

      i don't think scientology is run by fanatics any more than, say, barnes&noble, or microsoft, or any other business, for that matter. the only difference is that scientology's leaders are criminals.

    5. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the real problem here. Other religions may inspire some fanatics, but Scientology is run by fanatics.

      Funny, I would've characterized it as an organization run by savvy business people who don't want the Church's revenue stream interrupted, and realize that stirring up fanaticism among the middle ranks, who then keep the lower ranked folks in line, is the best way to protect their profit margin.

    6. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Okay, then let's separate this, much like Anonymous did during Project Chanology:

      1. Scientology, the BELIEF SYSTEM, is no more or less wrong, absurd, true, or immoral than any other religious belief.

      2. The CHURCH of Scientology is run as an organization that uses immoral, illegal, or abusive methods in its desire for money and power.

      In fact, I believe that CoS considers non-member believers to be as big a threat as ex-members and outspoken critics.

    7. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by Creedo · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that thousands of years of accumulated bullshit is somehow more palatable than a few decades of bullshit. I have news for you: it's all bullshit, and it stinks just the same.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    8. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have to argue that the traditional religions that you have mentioned are also run by fanatics. Because Scientology is a smaller organization that is heavier with extortion on its members than other religions, it's seen as being separate.

    9. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you.

    10. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elevating Scientology to the same status as established religions with thousands of years of history...

      Yeah! They've got thousands of years of history, which makes them different ... because they've got thousands of years of history!

      Seriously, though - if I criticise Scientology for the suffering it causes, and someone (a Scientologist, say) points out that the Catholic church does the same thing, what am I supposed to do? I can either say "That's wrong regardless of whether it's Scientology or Catholicism doing it.", or I can say "Oh, good point. Carry on, then.".

    11. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      "I've met really nasty, mean Jehovah's witnesses which demonstrated all of the points made in TFA. They go after people who try to leave, using incredible guilt trips, calls and visits to their family, etc, and destroy family ties through threats and ostracism. But I've yet to see a publicized abduction for deprogramming of JW tenets."

      I was raised in a JW family, and became an atheist in my teens. I regard all religious believers as delusional.

      However I have never seen the kind of behaviour you describe by JW's and frankly IF it occoured it most certainly happened due to the actions of individuals NOT the JW's standard policy, as is the case with Scientology.

        They do ostracise those who break their rules and "Disfellowship" them-but there is specific exemption of family members, so they do not press for family mebers to ignore their relatives.

      NO pressure has ever been applied to my family to break contact with me in the 35 years since I left.

      There is a big difference between a few individuals over stepping, and a delibertae policy such as scientologies 'Fair Game" Policy.

    12. Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's the real problem here. Other religions may inspire some fanatics, but Scientology is run by fanatics.

      Nah. You've got it all wrong. The people up top aren't fanatics at all, as far as the "religion" goes. The religion is strictly for the suckers. The only thing they're fanatic about is controlling the rubes and making a fortune.

  22. Stupid poor idiots. by miffo.swe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I feel most sorry for the mislead idiots doing the dirty work for Scientology higher ups. They dont know they are following a Scifi novel, a pretty lame one sadly. Written by an utter bastard that once said, "If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion."

    He did...

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  23. Religious thinking is bad for humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religious thinking is bad for humanity, much more where that is backed and promoted by organizations dark and obscure interests with a clear mafia behavior such as the Church of the scientologie. Anything you can do to fight them from the exposure of their lies and science education liberating thought. is welcome.
    I like to have these videos in Spanish.

    Anybody know where to get them?

  24. heh by Haymaker · · Score: 1

    I will now list everyone surprised by this move:

  25. not quite Re:A point to note by weeeeed · · Score: 1

    As for China, they don't really care about your religion that much as it is made to seem, as long as your religion does not get political. It's a kind of easy to follow rule. Falun gong is more a cult with clearly defined political intentions than a religion, anything else is just a plain lie.

  26. I am an atheist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have never understood how people could even pretend that we atheist are "angry at god". Be it whether you have a belief that gods don't exists, or be it that you take the reasoned logic that no evidence exists for such a being, and use the parsimony principle, it does not matter. In both case the conclusion is that such an entity don't exists. Do you know many people angry at non-existing entities ? I don't know of any sane person being so (naturally theist might argue that atheist are insane but that can be disproved). Therefore the "angry at god" don't make any sense whatsoever. Sure some of us atheist are angry toward those idiot impeding on our freedoms in the name of their sky faery, but in such case the anger is directed toward the idiot doing the impediment, not toward a mystical being. Why should we be angry at orcs, goblins, unicorns, gods, or Santa claus if we assume they don't exists ?

    1. Re:I am an atheist by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Nobody said anything about being "angry at God". The GP just said athiests are angry, as are many other non-Christian groups and some non-extreme Christians.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  27. Streisand Effect, Who Benefits? by happy_place · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who really benefits from the Streisand effect here? Sure, you'll want to see this documentary because of legal rangling and its publicity, but you're in no danger of joining Scientology, and you've no love of such things. Even the most critical attack pieces on a topic, often end up generating sympathy for the target. It's entirely possible that the sort of folks who join an organization like scientology will only be emboldened by this particular situation. It looks to me like Scientology will protest its way into "Cha-ching!" every home.

    --
    http://www.beanleafpress.com
    1. Re:Streisand Effect, Who Benefits? by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      I don't think so (or rather, I think the need to educate is bigger than the risk of an opposite reaction). In my area the 'church' of scientology keeps delivering advertisements for books and courses that don't look that scientological (although not that scientific either). The word scientology is written on the form, but the size of the font is very very small...

      --
      It is what it is.
  28. But Germany is part of Europe, and... by TheMidget · · Score: 1
    ... the Lisbon treaty says: "Intellectual Property is Protected".

    So I'd say that since recently, these right are not only limited by the general laws for protection of the youth and protection of the personal honor, but also by the Mafiaa's desire to turn a handsome profit.

  29. Anything that annoys.... by Xenious · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anything that annoys scientology is automatically a plus in my book.

    --
    -Xen
  30. Angry Buddhists? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that kinda defeat the purpose of being a Buddhist?
    Kinda like a nihilist having a purpose in life?
    Or like an angry Jedi?
    Or mushy chips?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  31. Except... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    It is not a documentary.
    Once again, the error in the summary has managed to misinform and confuse thousands of Slashdotters.

    From TFA:

    A new German TV movie tells the story of a man whose family life was destroyed after joining the Church of Scientology.
    The drama, which is based on a true story, was filmed in secret to prevent the organization taking legal action against the project.
    .
    .
    The drama will air on March 31 under the title "Until Nothing Is Left."
    This will be the first German feature film about Scientology, the first drama to use the controversial belief system as evening entertainment.

    So, they are not EXACTLY "just being candid".
    On the other hand, just because something is a documentary, that does not mean that it is true.
    See Operation Lune (Dark Side of the Moon) for an excellent example of how to twist actual events and interviews out of a contest in order to present "your version of the truth".

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  32. Damn spellchecker... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    out of a contest

    Out of context. The above mentioned "documentary" is not about any kind of competition.
    Well... except the "space race"... but that would be stretching it a bit.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  33. Why is Scientology a religion in the USA? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    My understanding is: Scientology wanted to be considered a religion so they would not have to pay taxes. To get that status, Scientologists actually blackmailed the IRS.

  34. Of course its false and intolerant! by Drethon · · Score: 1

    Its about scientology isn't it?

  35. Stop libeling David Hasselhoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did not try to censor pictures of his house like Barbara Streisand

  36. Can someone explain me this? by chord.wav · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can someone who knows about legal stuff explain me this?
    How come Scientology can shut everyone that tries to talk about them and we don't see any corporation doing that too? I mean, what gives Scientology the right to do it while denying it to everyone else? Or is it that the corps just choose not to use that right? I don't think that would be the case.
    Think of all the articles talking sh1t about MS, Apple, you name it. If they had the same rights, they would be able to silence every news article talking bad about them.

    1. Re:Can someone explain me this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I draw your attention to: Trafigura

  37. They're officialy stupid by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    With trying to block it, in the end it will be seen by more people than in first place. For example, I will definitely try to get it when it's released.

    If they would be really that innocent they would just shrug off accusations, released their own version in press release and be done with.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  38. Documentary..? by Robmonster · · Score: 1

    The linked article says that this is a drama 'based on real life events'. I'm not really sure this can be classified as a documentary. I'm sure we've all seen films supposedly based on real life events and know how believable they tend to be...

    R

    --
    I have no sig yet I must scream.
  39. welp by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Informative

    I hope someone gets a digital copy, "fansubs" it, and sends BT links to everyone on the planet.

  40. They are not that dangerous. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is the body count for Scientology?. Ok.

    Now, what is the body count for christianity, islam, and judaism?. Aha ...

    Also, if you are talking about censorship, the scientologists have only been around for 80 years, and the best they can do to censor someone is send you a lawyer. And judging by the fact that you can find anything you want about them on the internet, and that Xenu isn't being taught in schools, I can say they have failed spectacularly.

    Christianity, on the other hand, have been silencing people for 2000 years, and their methodology is murder and torture. They were able to hold back science completely for 600 years just so a few theories wouldn't disprove a few 'facts' on the bible. And Creationism is being taught in schools in more places everyday (Well, at least in undeveloped and illiterate countries like the US).

    Also, if you are a kid, and you go to school and tell your teacher that you can feel the thetans in her blood stream, and that Xenu is a bad guy (or whatever bullshit they believe), you'll get counseling, and she'll call your parents to tell them you are delusional.
    But, if another kid goes to school and tells the teacher that he telepathically communicates with a dead jew carpenter that died 2000 years ago, and carries a little doll of the dead guy nailed to a cross hanging around his neck, the teacher will think he's adorable, and tell him praying is great.

    Many adults believe in an invisible man in the sky. They are all equally delusional, and equally dangerous, and the organization behind them wants money, and will torture or kill for it if required. The scientologists are just like the rest, but they are the new kid on the block, so people say "come on .. really?" to their guy in the sky more often than about other invisible skyman. And their mafia practices are not as well accepted as other more established criminal practices, like bombing people because they have a different invisible man in the sky.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:They are not that dangerous. by bigpet · · Score: 1

      You are right the catholic church WAS much worse than Scientology ever will be. Teaching creationism is very wrong because it brings religion into the public-school system which is run by the government which means that the separation of religion and government is not exercised. But guess what if they'd still torture and kill people for heresy or something like that we would fight them.

      As for the stigma that comes with the belief, you're right again. It's wrong that most people think that Scientologists are loonies because that's just a belief like any other. But unless the Church of Scientology stops it's radical behavior against anybody opposing it this probably won't go away.

    2. Re:They are not that dangerous. by Aphoxema · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is the body count for Scientology?. Ok.

      Now, what is the body count for christianity, islam, and judaism?. Aha ...

      Obviously we should be fighting both, then.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    3. Re:They are not that dangerous. by ilsaloving · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is only because Scientology was invented relatively recently. The level of critical thinking on new things is significantly better now than it was in the past (although it may not seem like it...). We also have much better record keeping practises, so it's easy to identify where Scientology came from, how it started, etc. That's why Scientology is having such a rough time of it. It's a heck of a lot harder to start a religion now than it was centuries ago. As a result, it has to be more aggressive as well, although that's (finally) starting to backfire on them.

      If It had been started a couple thousand years ago like all the other major religions when ignorance was the norm, then we would all be praying about Xenu.

      You'll notice that all major religions were created a long time ago, when superstition was rampant and science as we know it didn't exist. It's very difficult to eliminate something that's been so firmly entwined in cultural memory. Combine that with the human tendency to resist change, especially regarding beliefs taught to you since childhood (when, incidentally, you are genetically programmed to suck up any and all knowledge fed to you, hook line and sinker), you can see how something so nonsensical can somehow manage to keep going for so long.

    4. Re:They are not that dangerous. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So what? the point of this documentary is to expose Scientology.

      Your tirade against other religions doesn't belong in this thread.

      I agree with you, but that's not the point.

      I am doing a story about priests and alter boys, it a dickumentory.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:They are not that dangerous. by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Point: Scientology is a cult built on top of a pyramid (almost a Ponzi) scheme, but technically speaking, religion as a whole is cults built on a pyramid scheme. Take the Catholic Church - it is a cult (by definition, a cult is a group that share similar beliefs) and built on a pyramid scheme (at least, if you look at if from a non-believer's point of view - investors at the bottom are continually suckered into the pyramid with the promise of an imaginary made up thing called a "soul" being saved [this is why it is sort of Ponzi] and the money trickles up to the top of the pyramid, the pope in Rome). Note that usually the top of the pyramid doesn't donate most of their gains to charitable causes like churches usually do, but you can't say they don't flaunt the wealth, too - just look at the mass of gold built into their Cathedrals.

      Counterpoint: If you look at the same thing from a believer's point of view, people invest in the church to help others in need and they get an eternity in paradise for doing so (or lost bad thetans and ascend or whatever), while non-believers burn in hell (or the bad thetans cause evil on earth... not sure what happens when you die in that one). The money thing is a non-issue - there are vows of poverty to make sure that investment goes to the people in need (or money is invested in the church). Also, if there is no such invisible man in the sky, prove it. Christianity has written evidence that God does exist, had a son, and that son performed various miracles before leaving for a weekend in hell with the exiled angel Satan and came back to life on earth for a few days and then went to heaven, body and all. Scientology has similar evidence for their religion in their books. Having opulent buildings is a way to attract new followers and show they have the wealth and power to accommodate people who are in need.

          Personally, I'm extremely skeptical about both, and have plenty of proof that at least some of the old testament is really a collection of stories from earlier religions (for instance, the story of Noah is from the Assyrian tale of Gilgamesh and the creation story is similar to several from religions older than Christianity) and Scientology is based on a bunch of writings L Ron Hubbard wrote while descending into schizophrenia, but hey, each to their own. Not sure about the new testament bible though - that is not based on pre-existing text. Strangely enough, the part of the Bible that I'm most skeptical about is a fundamental part of three major religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

      AFAIK, not too many schools teach Creationism outside of Kansas, and that brought about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which actually stopped such an effort in Florida.

    6. Re:They are not that dangerous. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Oh, it' extremely relevant to this thread.

      What better way to explain people how stupid THEIR religion is, than by comparing them to other very similar religions that they consider automatically stupid?

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    7. Re:They are not that dangerous. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We should be fighting all of them, but not individually.

      We shouldn't focus on how stupid or harmful any given religion is. We have to focus on how Religion in itself i stupid and dangerous. When we attack scientology, christians point and laugh, while scientologists ignore it. When we attack christianity, Muslims laugh and christians ignore us.

      We have to focus on getting rid of religion in general, past, present and future ones.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    8. Re:They are not that dangerous. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nah, nah, nah, you are doing it all wrong!

      It's not wrong for people to think scientologists are loonies. They are fucking loonies.

      My point was that christians, and every other religious person is JUST AS MUCH of a TOTAL NUT as the scientologists.

      We should point and laugh at their crazy ideas, it's only natural reaction to this kind of crazy.

      But I'm against DISCRIMINATION. So, I don't discriminate among religions. I laugh at them all equally.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    9. Re:They are not that dangerous. by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Well, there's also the point that it's really hard to get masses of people to behave without the belief in absolute moral authority. You can try and replace that with the government (see Russian and Chinese flavors of communism as example) but there has to be one or people get out of hand. I grant that it is possible for individuals to have sufficient self control to abide by a generated moral code without further motivations, but for the populace as a whole? Forget it. You don't want religion gone. On the whole it makes society a much more livable place. Yes, there are atrocities, yes there are issues with it, but that's true of any organization run by people.

    10. Re:They are not that dangerous. by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Antitheism is the next, logical step to atheism. Secularism simply isn't "good enough".

      Memes are the most powerful abstract possible. They exist through imagination and as long as someone shares the belief the meme exists. The meme becomes more powerful as more people believe in it. Multiple memes can coexist across the same people, or even distribute between different groups.

      As we grow more intelligent and sentient, we paradoxically matter less, individually, in what we think as we become interdependent on beliefs. Instead of a war between like-minded people, we now have constant mingle of battling concepts. We become tools of our own runaway imagination.

      So, there's two ways to make sure the ideas we agree with win... destroy the people who carry the thoughts or destroy their competing ideas by changing their mind. Murder is infinitely easier to accomplish.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    11. Re:They are not that dangerous. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Murder is infinitely easier to accomplish.

      And way more satisfying :)

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  41. The pics really explain a lot by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    If you take a close look at the first image from the documentary you'll notice at the far left end of the row HRG is being trained.

    Since Scientology trains one to hone their intellect and seemingly gives non-mutants amazing abilities... this could explain how Claire's father is able to fight so effectively against those with abilities far beyond his own.

    Mental OWNAGE. No wonder he's so awesome.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  42. On atheism and governing by Nabbler · · Score: 1, Troll

    I think it's the duty of every government to encourage people to not be religious, because a government is suppose to represent rationality and push the advancement of the people, and to achieve such they should do things like encourage education and encourage people to think for themselves. Unfortunately such governments do not exists so far, and as far as I know there are no movements towards achieving such a state of affairs, and it makes me pretty sad, to think millions of people are being led (or should I say supposedly led?) by people who believe in imaginary superbeings and such things, it is really astounding and depressing.

    1. Re:On atheism and governing by Reapman · · Score: 1

      "encourage people to not be religious"... "encourage people to think for themselves"

      So basically you believe that by encouraging one way to think and discouraging other ways of thinking... that this will encourage people to think for themselves? How about, oh I don't know, stop trying to use the government to force your own views upon others? How about being tolerant?

      Since when did "Atheism" become an intollerant religion? Hell it sounds like the reading someone would have used in the Colonial days as justification for forcing the Native Americans into Christianity.

    2. Re:On atheism and governing by Nabbler · · Score: 1

      I am familiar with the standard operational campaign and form-statements from the christian corner so I won't bother doing the standard reply, I'm sure you know those by now.
      However I obviously believe, believe based on figures and observed trends mind you, that religion has a much stronger foothold on the uneducated and illiterate than on the educated people, and I use 'rational' in my post for a reason, one of which is to basically defuse the predictable US-christian boxed standard response, and although you gave such a response it's nonsensical in regards to my post.
      I could say that you argue against education to help boost religion, but in reality you didn't really read or consider my post I'm sure, so to argue about your response would be silly.

    3. Re:On atheism and governing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm so you whine about some sort of predictable US-Christian boxed standard response, and yet you come up with the predictable "I'm right therefore everything you is nonsensical" standard response. Bravo.

      Just curious, how do you not know the author is Islamic? How do you know he's from the US? Indeed, I believe it is you sir who are the US-Centric one.

    4. Re:On atheism and governing by Nabbler · · Score: 1

      Ah, see here is where such voting systems fails, when people organize (and there are religious groups, christian and otherwise, who do purposefully search comments they feel harm their cause and attack them) they can simply 'mark' someone a troll or whatever nasty title by collectively getting their pals involved.
      I say that because whatever you think of my original comment to call it trolling is obviously and clearly nonsense, you might disagree, might think it stupid, but trolling? Obviously not so, especially since I went from 'insightful' then after annoying the anti-atheist guy I'm marked 'troll'.
      But that just underscores what's wrong with religion eh, as if it needed underscoring after already being printed in bright bold large letters ;) I'll keep it in mind though when dealing with the religious, thanks for the reminder.

  43. Might I point out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google?

    *Ducks*

  44. NOT A TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He brought up the arguments that religious kooks would make for the sake of discussion. What's wrong with that?

  45. Not a documentary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The news story states that the film is a drama based on a real-life occasion, not a documentary. Kind of makes a difference.

  46. The Joy of Slashdot by kenp2002 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is nothing more amusing in life then watching two sides of intolerant try to explain to one another how intolerant each is. Thank you slashdot for another amusing idealogical flame war.

    First: Correlation doesn't imply causation.

    Any organization: religion or otherwise can be taken as the mean of actions. To try and blame religion for the crusades, torture, etc at the time is statistically irrelivant. Those tactics were used with the same impunity by non-religious organizations at the time. The Dutch trading companies, merchant leagues, feudal lords, etc.

    The capacity for evil is universal in humans. The very fact people can throw out secular versus non-secular violence simply states a fact that violence has little to do with and one particular idealogy. People kill in the name of XYZ because it is a source of justification. No different the killing in the name of greed, pride, honor, land, food, etc.

    Crusades religious? That is nonsense. The holy roman empire was just that an empire. No different then Rome. When Ole' Rome invaded and took out the Goths was that a Holy War by Zeus or Jupiter? It's a war over land the "backing" is irrelivant. France's revolution was a secular vs religious blood bath. Athiests, Agnostics, Religious, and other idealogical classifications are statistically insignificant regressors when it comes to the analysis of violence.

    Islam is statistically no more violent then Christianity or Aethiests. The lead indicators in violence is education and poverty levels. After that comes access to fresh water and crop land.

    The crusades was a land grab. No different with the Moorish invasion. The "decorations" of war no different. Any organization\idealogy will attempt to grow it's power and supress dissent. It's human nature. Democrats, Republicans, Masons, Boy Scouts, your local Sigbap, Eve Corp, or WoW guild all have the same basic behaviors. Violence, war, indoctrination, etc are common behaviors.

    It's just a statistical echo that religious organizations were successful enough organizations to escalate to that level of control. e.g. It's not the fact they are religions but rather the fact they were successsful control structures (Which mind you most governement models are based from.) President = Pope, Congress of Cardinals = Senate, etc.

    So go ahead and butt intolerant heads but I hate to break it to both sides, is because human behavior, not a particular belief structure. God didn't invent the atom bomb, scientists, people, humans did. The only thing I see is a world in which people love to blame "the other side" for the problems rather then realize the reasons for our darkest side is universal. Evil is universal, it's just easier to try and subscribe a demographic to it rather then deal with the real root causes.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  47. No atheist is stopping religious people from livin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No atheist is stopping religious people from living. Stalin was stopping powerful figures from living. He wasn't saying "they are religious, so I must kill them", he was killing people who didn't give HIM loyalty.

    Since to Catholics (for example), the top of the tree is the Pope as His Representative On Earth, they had to be removed.

    Just like the generals who were atheists but capable.

  48. Not correct by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Actually he believed that religion needed to be removed to achieve pure communism.

    In short, he used his ideology (communism) as an excuse to remove other ideologies.

    Also, he followed Lenin, who said religion is the opiate of the masses.

    Religious people was just one of the groups effected by trying to achieve pure Communism. Rather, their view of pure communism.

    Saying Stalin was killing people to support atheism is as simple minded as saying he killed revolutionaries because he was anti-intellectual.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  49. Scientology claim to be non-denominational... by merc · · Score: 2, Funny

    But I've seen their eyes light up at 10's and 20's.

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
  50. Excuse me... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    Christianity, on the other hand, have been silencing people for 2000 years, and their methodology is murder and torture. They were able to hold back science completely for 600 years just so a few theories wouldn't disprove a few 'facts' on the bible. And Creationism is being taught in schools in more places everyday (Well, at least in undeveloped and illiterate countries like the US).

    I'm not a religious person but I still say: "Let's take this down a couple of notches". While it is true that the Catholic church stood in the way of science during the renaissance it is also true that a huge volume of ancient Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, etc... writings on science, literature, history and technology were preserved by the religious organizations of Europe and the Middle East and the Far East throughout the various 'dark ages' of the last couple of thousand years. This knowledge would otherwise have been lost to us if it hadn't been for those priests, monks and nuns whom it is hard to accuse of having some sort of anti-knowledge complex. It may be true that today a bunch of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists are making a name for them selves by advertising their ignorance in a very visible way and I'm not even going to try to defend Scientology but we should not dump all reglious organizations into one drawer and label it 'Bastions of ignorance'. In fact we owe Christian monks, as well as Islamic scholars (much material saved in among other places the libraries of islamic mosques) as well as Buddhist monasteries in the Far East and other religious organizations a huge debt for the vast amount of scientific and other knowledge they prevented from begin lost.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Excuse me... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. They didn't preserve it during the dark ages.

      They where the CAUSE of the dark age, and what they did wasn't preserving, they KEPT IT AWAY from the public. It's not quite the same.

      And let's not even get started with the unbelievable amount of knowledge in the form of paintings, music, books, etc. That are hidden in the vatican and that they refuse to release or even inform of their existence.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  51. Maybe They Should Read Their Creed by deeny · · Score: 1

    I find this ironic (but unsurprising). As a former CofS member, I note that their creed states:

    "That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others;"

    Naturally, the practice is different.

  52. Help Scientology is harassing me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the last 2 years they've been sending me junk mail. I get about 3-4 mailings and magazines from them each week. I've called them 3 times to ask to be taken off the mailing list. That was over a year ago.

    How can I make them stop mailing me stuff?

  53. forget germany, how about the US? (The Bridge) by decora · · Score: 0

    There was an incredibly high quality, low budget film called The Bridge, it followed the fictional story of a young scientology member as she goes through the 'Bridge to Total Freedom'. I don't want to spoil it but it goes into a lot of detail about scientology stuff, like the 'state of clear' and how much it costs to get there, what its like working for the org, the tactics they use, the 'supressive person' thing, etc. Scientology threatened and intimidated the filmmaker, so now he basically disowns the film and downplays anything he had to do with it. you can probably find it on the web... maybe.

  54. Are all Christians to blame for that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > When is the last time you saw an atheist fly a plane into a sky scraper?

    What? You want the No True Scotsman fallacy? I don't know the religion of this guy, but most of the Tea Party types I see around here hate the religious side of the Republican party.

    > Or shoot a doctor dead, because some invisible man in the sky didn't like the LEGAL work the doctor was doing?

    They killed lots of doctors during the Stalinist purges, among other people, because they didn't match the Communist doctrine (which, among other things, was officially atheist). But you're going to tell me that they're Communists, not atheists, right? Even though they were actually both. So you can see that someone can be more than one thing (e.g. fascist and religious), but you can't pin the blame correctly unless it's about you (e.g. on the fascism, rather than the religion)? Because I'm sure you won't mind splitting off the beliefs there, but you don't mind accusing me personally of all the sins of anyone who ever claimed to be religious.

    What I'm saying is not that you have to accept blame for the Stalinist purges, but that you paint us with a wide brush and you merely laugh if we point out what would happen to you if we did the same (e.g. blamed you for Stalin... hey, he WAS an atheist!). My point is that the wide brush is ridiculous. If you want me to point out random atheist sins, I can find MANY. Stalin and Mao killed far more than Christians ever have. But several million deaths is a "statistic" right?

    You'll forgive me if I have a hard time accepting that all religions everywhere should bear collective responsibility for anything done by an allegedly religious person while atheists cannot accept any such thing, given that they're not actually a group. Never mind that many of the religious people you tar with the same brush have NOTHING to do with each other... for example, I personally know absolutely NO pedophiles, NO suicide bombers, etc. and it's not like I ever had a chance to talk someone out of doing those things.

    > Have any ministers, reverends or priests (even the PEDO ones) been assaulted by bands of roving atheists?

    See also: Stalinist purges. Heck, they're STILL doing this in China! Or will you defend them because it's legal in China and their churches are not registered? They regularly kill or imprison the leaders of house churches. Not that you would know anything about that. You guys always go on about how Christians aren't persecuted (pointing to the USA) when we point out that it does, in fact, happen abroad. Heck, there are plenty of churches getting burned in places like Indonesia. But they don't matter if you don't know about them, do they?

  55. Liberty is Not Entitlement. by HopeOS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing transcends Natural Law. The right to watch television, as with the right to watch anything within one's domain, is reserved to the watcher as per his Liberty.

    You, like the poster below, are confusing Liberty with Entitlement. The television watcher is not entitled to a signal. If the signal exists within his domain however, he is at his Liberty to decode and view it.

    Anyone who comes to persuade him otherwise may appeal to his senses, but if they persist despite his refusal, they are in fact coercing him. As such, no reasonable person should afford them any moral authority.

    So, Mr. Brooke, if you wish to tell people they are not entitled to television, you would be correct. But if you wish to tell them that they are not at liberty to watch television, you would be quite mistaken.

    When we talk about innate Rights, we are talking about the Right for someone to live. We are talking about the Right to exercise that life to the full scope of one's domain. We call this Liberty. And to ensure one's Life and Liberty, one must be secure in their Property. This means that they are not coerced into relinquishing their possessions or the land which they have acquired by moral, natural means and upon which they are subsequently dependent for life.

    Think otherwise? Coerce a man from his home and take from him his clothing in the dead of winter. You will have deprived him of his life, his liberty, and his property. This is not immoral because the Law says so. It is not immoral because we've agreed upon it. It is immoral because it violates his Natural Rights. All three of them.

    -Hope

  56. Islam is statistically no more violent than Christ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..iantity and atheism

    ahaa haa ha aha ahaa ha aha ah haaaaaaa ha aha ha aha ha aha ha aha ah cough cough heave.....h aha aha ha aha aha ha ahahaha haahahha aaha aha ahaaha aha aha aha aha haa ha ha aha..... oh make it stop....oh ha aha aha ha ah aha ha ah aha aha ha aha ah ha ah aha haahahahahahha haaaaaah ahhh hahhh...hurllllll ha aha ha aha ah aha ah aha ah aha ah aha ahhhhaaha hahahha ahahh ahhhhhahh haha ha ha aha aha ha ah aha aha ha ah ah aha hahahahha..........