Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology

eldavojohn writes "It's a lengthy read, but Lawrence Wright at The New Yorker has released a 26 page expose on Scientology. In a world where such innocuous sounding words as 'squirrels,' 'security-checked,' 'disconnection,' 'contra-survival,' 'suppressive persons,' 'clear' and 'open season' carry very serious and heavy baggage, director Paul Haggis has exited after thirty four years of membership and massive funding. Now he speaks at length of Scientology's controversies. From how celebrities were recruited with a 10% commission by a worker at Beverly Hills Playhouse to the current investigation by the FBI of physical abuse and human trafficking, Wright draws surrounding histories and accounts of the Church including Anonymous' crusade. The length of this article reflects the unusually large number of individuals (12 cases of physical abuse) cited as testimony of Scientology Leader David Miscavige's inurement and physical violence. The case remains open as the FBI collects data and testimony — especially in relation to Sea Org. Most disturbing are the disappearances of people that the New Yorker piece enumerates. The piece concludes with the author's interaction with the Church that results in several conflicting foundational statements from its stance on homosexuality (Haggis' original reason for publicly leaving it) to almost all details of L. Ron Hubbard's naval service and discharge. The article ends with Haggis' quote: 'I was in a cult for thirty-four years. Everyone else could see it. I don't know why I couldn't.' You can find summaries of the lengthy article and its suspected results along with corresponding reports listing politicians involved with the Church. Copyrighted work, leaked government documents, PS3 encryption keys and everything else has been posted on Slashdot but only the Church of Scientology has forced comments out of existence."

Comments

Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[elrous0]

It didn't even mention the Fair Game practice, Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout, or the numerous other nasty bits from the history of this organization.

Of course, that probably won't stop Scientologists from calling the author a child molester and sending private detectives out to his house to harass him and try to dig up dirt on him. They don't seem to do measured responses very well.

Of course, anyone who believes such attempts to discredit Haggis and Wright probably also believes that Julian Assange is a rapist.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[iluvcapra]

Of course, that probably won't stop Scientologists from calling the author a child molester and sending private detectives out to his house to harass him and try to dig up dirt on him. They don't seem to do measured responses very well.

They have 35 years worth of audits, they don't have to hire PIs to keep their own people quiet.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[HornWumpus]

That would only work on the dupes.

The higher-ups have no illusions and would never reveal anything.

Even this rat deserting the sinking ship is spinning. He was a victim, not a grifter.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

That would only work on the dupes.

The higher-ups have no illusions and would never reveal anything.

That's why they get the dirt on you while you're still a newbie.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[HornWumpus]

When was L. Ron a newbie? Muscarage? The Pope?

Grifters spot each other early and never have to tell each other that they are scamming.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Enderandrew]

It doesn't behoove you to link Haggis and Assange.

There are public records of mailing crypto mailing lists where you can see Assange act like an asshat. His former colleauge from Wikileaks wrote a book saying that Assange is an asshat and theatened to kill him at one point. And Sweden doesn't just make up fake warrants just because we ask.

Heck, Amnesty International ripped Assange for putting innocent civilians in harms way when he refused to redact names, and causing civilian volunteers to suffer death threats. He didn't apologize. He said if they wanted names protected, he wanted $200,000. If Assange were innocent, then it wouldn't hurt him to show up in Sweden and dispute the charges rather than run from multiple warrants. His lawyer says showing up in Sweden will get him sent to Gitmo, but Sweden would never do that in a million years.

In drawing a comparison that any attempt to discreit Haggis would be on par with Assange, you are in turn suggesting it might be valid.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[zaivala]

My guess would be that Haggis himself didn't have the information on those things. It was a good read, and I read it all the way to the end.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

Victim, my ass. Scientology is completely evil, but Haggis is either a moron or almost as bad as the other scientologists.

The publicly available book Dianetics (and any newb scientologist would certainly read it) calls homosexuality disgusting, but it took him 34 years to figure out they had a problem with homosexuality? Even if newer editions have taken that out (I don't know if they do or not), they certainly did not 34 years ago. I call bullshit on Haggis.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh huh. You know who ELSE might say that about Assange? HITLER^H^H^H^H^H^H SCIENTOLOGISTS.

Of course, I'm not saying anything, but why haven't you PROVEN you don't have a Thetan detector, or whatever it is you people call it, hmmmmm?

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Mister Whirly]

Being an asshat does not make a person a rapist.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[HornWumpus]

To be clear: He is spinning that he is a victim.

Also to be clear: Almost all religions have a problem with accepting homosexuality. That is not why Scientology is a scam.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[JordanL]

If that is how you conclude that it is reasonable Assange is guilty of rape, I hope you never get Jury Duty. And if you do, I hope your recuse yourself for being incapable of being impartial.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[clarkkent09]

True but the OP suggests that you have to be insane or hopelessly gullible to even consider that Assange might really be guilty so what you said applies to him even more.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[peragrin]

if your an asshole to others, then your going to be an asshole to the women you sleep with.

Sweden has very very liberal rape laws. All she has to say is not without a condom, and if you enter her without one, you can go to jail.

You don't have to like their laws or think they are fair, but if your ever in sweden you have to obey them.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[WrongSizeGlass]

Being an asshat does not make a person a rapist.

Does being an asshat make someone a Scientologist? Or does being a Scientologist make someone an asshat?

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Mister Whirly]

Yes - and Hitler owned a dog, so therefore anyone who owns a dog is Hitler. Thanks for pointing that out for me.

I am an asshole (at times), yet have seemed to avoid raping someone my entire life somehow. Looks like your "theory" that all assholes are rapists is not accurate, huh?

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Enderandrew]

Have you read over his charges?

This is rape by Swedish definitions. There are two different women who consented to have sex with him, but in the course both demanded he wear a condom, and he refused. He also didn't disclose to either that he was having multiple sex partners at the time.

So he didn't violent force his way on a woman by US standards, but put women at risk of STDs by refusing to wear a condom while having multiple sex partners. By those standards, and with the testimony of these two women, he would be found guilty. That is why he is ducking Sweden and won't show up for his warrants.

And frankly those charges are in line with him being an asshat.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Enderandrew]

No, two women have stated that they demanded he wear a condom and he refused. By Swedish law, that is called rape.

And basically he knows that if he stands trial in Sweden and the two women testify, then he will be found guilty.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to miss the point. I never claimed that is why Scientology is a scam.

He joined the cult knowing their view of homosexuality. His feigning ignorance on the issue is bullshit.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

You just pointed out why being a whistleblower makes you a rapist, not why being an asshat makes you one.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

To be clear: He is spinning that he is a victim.

Please disregard my sibling post. I was the one who was missing the point. Sorry.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Mister Whirly]

I was not commenting about whether or not I think Assange committed rape. I was commenting about you asserting he may be guilty of rape becasue he is an asshat. Also, the only evidence is one person's word against another so the only people who TRULY know what happened are the ones that were present. You and I can speculate about it all we want, but we don't have any proof. I am not so quick as you are to condemn someone as a "rapist" with no proof of rape I guess. A charge of rape is just that - a charge. Anyone can make a charge against anybody else.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Enderandrew]

The OP suggested that Assange has to be innocent because any charges MUST be trumped up. I'm suggesting that there is a lot of smoke, and where there is smoke there is often fire. Assuming Assange has to be innocent against all evidence otherwise isn't prudent.

No one really knows other than Assange and the two women he slept with. But Sweden doesn't make up charges because the CIA asks.

Amnesty International doesn't go after people because the CIA asks.

His colleague split off from Wikileaks and wrote a book about how evil Assange was, a book he has been working on long before most of this hit the fan. His colleague share's Assange's supposed vision of government transparency, leaks, etc. I find it hard to believe he'd write a book accusing Assange of threating his life just because we asked given that he has painted the US government as a villian himself.

I'm saying there does appear to be this trend (especially in his mailing list posts, which are public) where Assange comes across as this massive asshole. And the behavior that he is accused of in Sweden does not appear to be out of line with his other behavior. It certainly isn't beyond reason that he might be guilty, which the OP has suggested is completely beyond reason.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Culture20]

When was L. Ron a newbie? Muscarage? The Pope?

L Ron was never newbie to Scientology, but the Pope most assuredly was a newbie in Catholicism. He didn't invent Christianity six years ago.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[eyrieowl]

When Haggis joined, he had no gay daughters. He probably didn't care much either way back then. However, his views had since evolved, and he probably believed the church had clarified away those now troubling doctrines. He'd allowed himself to become personally invested in those repudiations, those edits. However, he felt betrayed when he realized that those repudiations were likely just window dressing. I don't think that's b.s. He was very arguably being a bit naive, but, taking his cult at its word, he legitimately felt betrayed.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[postbigbang]

And what makes you so sure of that? Do you believe that the CIA does no wrong, doesn't try to find ways to trump up charges against people, and wouldn't do it if they had the chance to get their hands on Assange?

The CIA is going to do everything in its power, including abating charges against former colleagues in the hope that they'll sour the media and world. Look at what the BofA and others are doing to try to prevent Wikileaks from coughing the names of their ostensibly money-laundering clientele?

Correlation != Causation. Assange's allegedly evil behavior with two Swedish women doesn't mitigate the incredible power that the revealed truths of Wikileaks has. Maybe he's guilty. Doesn't mitigate the power of exposing the documents that they've posted. More power to Wikileaks. Truth wins out.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[jav1231]

"Of course, anyone who believes such attempts to discredit Haggis and Wright probably also believes that Julian Assange is a rapist."

Yeah, because the two cases are soooo similar.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[laron]

That might well leave you with nothing much.35 years ago, homosexuality was not quite as widely accepted as it is today for example.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[vux984]

By those standards, and with the testimony of these two women, he would be found guilty.

You mean, all one has to do is allege that one asked one's partner to wear a condom and that they refused to convict someone of rape?

As I see it, whether or not he refused to wear a condom is utterly irrelevant.

If she asked him to wear a condom, he refused, and she said... oh ok fine... then its not rape.

If she asked him to wear a condom, and he said no, and she said, "oh, ok, then we are done here" and he says "come on", and she says "oh ok fine" then its not rape.

If she asks, he says no condoms, she says no sex, and then he forces her to anyway then its rape.

He also didn't disclose to either that he was having multiple sex partners at the time.

So is adultery a felony crime in sweden too?

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[sznupi]

Check this recent subthread. In short - actually, yes, Sweden could conceivably do things just because you ask; it did much worse things than making up fake warrants, quite recently. Clearly on the level of sending somebody to Gitmo.

BTW, Pentagon itself admitted that no lives were put at risk by (certainly redacted) leaks... (of course some time after the official hysteria, so people like you could have their "opinion" shaped in the meantime). And the book of a former colleauge from Wikileaks also says this:

"Julian was constantly battling for dominance, even with my tomcat Herr Schmitt,"
"Ever since Julian lived with me in Wiesbaden he (the cat) has suffered from psychosis. Julian would constantly attack the animal. He would spread out his fingers like a fork and grab the cat's throat."

Assange abused my cat: WikiLeaks insider Assange touched my pussy ...but of course such levels of farce must be reliable.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Chyeld]

A. He never read Dianetics. In the article it mentions that he never got further than 30 pages into it.
B. As others have mentioned, when he joined homosexuality wasn't even on his radar.
C. It's extremely easy to be involved in an organization and miss (intentionally or not) it's less than shining attributes. Cognitive dissonance is real, and it occurs to everyone.
D. This is an organization that is known for, if not anything else, it's ability to lie straight faced while doing exactly what it says it's not. It's not particularly revealing to know that the only people who'd bump into it's homophobia would be those who trigger it.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Pharmboy]

Don't forget the potential of asking to someone to use a condom, and they do, then you say they didn't. Or you don't say anything about a condom, but later claim you did. Granted, these do NOT apply in this situation, but it is clear that "using a condom" or not, by itself, doesn't fit the traditional view of rape.

As a matter of fact, it would be irrelevant to the issue of traditionally defined rape, as "forced intercourse or sexual acts". I think that is what has gotten everyone so off track about this issue. Either he raped her (not likely) or he intentionally broke a condom (possible, immoral and potentially illegal but not rape) or something else. But whatever happened, it was certainly not rape as traditionally defined.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[sznupi]

Popes probably internalize lots of this "housekeeping", and differently - very honestly, in a way. One has to, when almost whole life was already dedicated to some cause.

Similarly: I suspect this is one of major factors in how the practice of suppressing sexuality (a practice often quite valued in this context, in those social groups) got a foothold and keeps going - it might have actual benefits for the entirety of particular faith, in its competition with others. Sexuality is an immensely powerful force in us, especially during adolescence and early adulthood, during formative years. One is most likely better off when really internalizing this "forced" suppression, honestly finding a way to value and cherish it somehow, just to not go crazy. With the group helpfully providing majestic reasons to be included. And it's likely to stay for the rest of that individual's life, is likely to be passed on - useful, hm?

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[sznupi]

Hm, maybe somebody should tell Tom Cruise that what they have on him is no longer a big deal?

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Enderandrew]

The CIA has a track record of being a terrible organization. I'm sure they would be willing to trump up charges.

Do I believe that Sweden listens to the CIA? Do I believe that Sweden issues warrants for people we don't like? Do I believe that Amnesty International (who rips the CIA on a regular basis) acts on the behalf of the CIA? Do I believe his fellow-CIA-hating-former-colleague cares what the CIA wants?

No, no, no and no.

And I didn't say it is proved he is guilty. I'm saying you can't say definitively he is innocent, which is what the OP said. I've explained that a few times now.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Enderandrew]

Do I believe that the testimony of two women alleging the same thing is enough to get someone in convicted in Sweden with particularly liberal rape laws?

Yes.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Hatta]

This is rape by Swedish definitions.

Then it's not rape, it's vÃ¥ldtÃkt. The English word "rape" has a specific definition. If what Assange did doesn't fit that definition it is misleading (lying really) to call it rape.

Maybe Assange did violate some Swedish sex law, that doesn't make him a rapist.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[AK Marc]

By Swedish law, that's a crime. Swedish law does not define English. It was consensual sex which means it is not rape, even if it is a sex crime in Sweden. Just because an analog crime could be called rape (more likely sexual assault, similar to slapping a woman on the ass without consent isn't rape but depending on jurisdiction is sexual assault) does not mean it is rape. And it seems that there's either purposeful ignorance of that difference or a deliberate effort to purposefully malign his name. Further, international warrants to be interviewed when the suspect has agreed multiple times to be interviewed, both in person when he was in the country and by any acceptable tele-something option (telephone, teleconference, etc.) after he left. And for some reason, his offers to speak to them were refused and he had an arrest warrant filed without having been charged with any crime.

And basically he knows that if he stands trial in Sweden and the two women testify, then he will be found guilty.

Even there, you can't give permission and then rescind it later to make someone a criminal after the fact. His defense could very easily assert that the permission was given at the time and they both are mad that he was not exclusive and changed their mind after. He complied with all requests at the time, but that they felt betrayed by actions he took when he was not in their presence, which is not a crime. So the "he'll definitely be convicted" statements seem silly at this stage. After all, OJ did it and he still walked.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA says that he skipped that one: âoeI read about thirty pages. I thought it was impenetrable.â

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[rtb61]

It just reflects the difference between being rich in scientology and being poor in scientology. Scientology as a corporation intent is to extract as much money as possible for the insiders, the non-believers that run scientology for the own personal benefit, from the asthmatic dwarf (miscavige's nickname given by those he abuses) down. So there are two distinct tracks, one for the wealthy and one for the rest. The wealthy are more carefully handled to extract the greater wealth and of course draw others in as duped figure heads.

It all seemed to have ended all rather pitifully for L Ron Hubbard, apparently his will was changed and strangely enough he died the very next day without much investigation at all. The revised will basically handed over financial control to the asthmatic dwarf and his cronies who then proceeded to drive out all true believers in senior positions. It also basically handed over Hubbard's grandchildren as psychological slaves of scientology (rather than inheritors).

At that point is basically changed into a two streams or more correctly three streams counting the controlling non-believers. Wealthy never ended up virtual slave labour on 'e-meter' production lines, nor body servants aboard the double speak named ship freewinds, their function was to provide wealth and credibility as such their experience with scientology was carefully scripted.

Of course conscience should still play a role in seeing those exploited around them but they would not be in scientology in the first place unless they are were psychological vulnerable whether temporarily or over a more extended basis.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[BasilBrush]

I see the Assange character assassination tactic worked on you.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[BasilBrush]

I'm suggesting that there is a lot of smoke, and where there is smoke there is often fire.

Or someone with a smoke bomb. Or a cigarette.

If there's any truly suspicious looking smoke here, it's the remarkably small time difference between when Assange became public enemy number one to several governments, and the charges of rape arising.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a real shame they are using a legal definition, and not a traditional definition. Otherwise your post might have meant something.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish Cruise would just come out. he must be burning up inside.

i think at this point it wouldn't hurt his career outside the cult. if anything he'd become much more popular. right now he's just a sad crackpot rondroid.

btw, one of my friends fucked him up the arse. it's actually true.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[mug funky]

the asshat rapes the ass that wears it.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[drinkypoo]

No, two women have stated that they demanded he wear a condom and he refused.

One of those women stated that they demanded he wear a condom, then he didn't, then he was asked what he was wearing and the list did not involve a condom, and the woman permitted the sex to continue. So at least one of the women has NOT made the statement you claim.

And basically he knows that if he stands trial in Sweden and the two women testify, then he will be found guilty.

Yes, and he will be expected to pay a fine.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[meerling]

One place I worked had a new manager that wasn't very bright. Then one day he started spouting off really moronic and imbecilic one liners. Our opinion of him fell even more, and almost everyone wanted to tell him to just shut up. After a couple months of this stupidity we found out he was quoting "Dianetics", and most of us vowed we wouldn't read anything so inane if there was any way to avoid it. It wasn't until years later I even heard of Scientology, much less it's connection to Dianetics. Let's just say that was a bad start for them, and they've only fallen down the scale ever since.

Yes, he may be a victim, even if he was willing before. There's a funny way humans act when they get sucked into certain types of social situations like cults. They turn a blind eye to the negative aspects and try to only acknowledge the positive ones. Does it mean he's innocent? No. Does it mean that he was blatantly lying before? Maybe, but then again he might have believed what he said despite all the evidence to the contrary, that's often called faith. Will he be attacked by Scientology for leaving and what he's said since that point? If they follow their apparent S.O.P. then yes, expect a scandal or 'accident' within 5 years. Will it be provably linked to Scientology? Probably not, especially if the investigation has to go through someone/something they control or have people in. Dose this sound like a conspiracy story? Maybe, but it does match previous accusations, and we are talking about a Hollywood big wig, so anything movie style is a go.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[HBI]

I see you drank the Kool-aid.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Omestes]

But being a rapist makes a person an asshat.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Rophuine]

I spent a big part of my life as a Catholic. Fairly early on, I realised that there needed to be "the real me" and "the me I pretended to be to the church".

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Omestes]

Read up on it, its a bit more complicated than that. Assange isn't painted in a very nice light, and if he isn't guilty of rape, he still doesn't emerge shit-free. Also he isn't being extradited for trial, he's being extradited to give testimony. No one has called him guilty of anything. Part of the charges ARE non-consensual sex (without protection, while a woman was sleeping), and while these charges wouldn't hold water in the US, that doesn't matter one bit. US law means nothing to anyone else.

And no, none of this is terribly suspicious. He's a celebrity, so there is greater scrutiny. It is sad that run of mill sex offenders (by legal standards if not your personal ones) aren't treated equally. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the CIA put anyone up to anything. Lacking any evidence it really isn't a theory worth wasting time on. Might as well say the Grey Aliens put Interpol up to it since Assange is actually a lizard alien from Sirius IV. That premise has about the same amount of serious evidence as the CIA story. Or that Assange is in trouble because he spited the Time Cube. Or (on topic) that it is the will of Xenu.

Personally I find it all a bit strange; but... If that is Sweden's laws, and he broke them, then he is guilty. It doesn't matter if you and I don't agree with them. It doesn't matter if some people find Assange to be some form of modern day saint. It doesn't matter if he's fighting for your cause. If he broke the law of the land, he broke the law of the land. If Sweden calls it rape, then it is rape in Sweden.

Assange is the worst part of Wikileaks. He distracts from anything important, and from the general mission of the site. By all accounts he is an absolute asshat. I like Wikileaks, but can't, personally, stand him. Wikileaks would be stronger, and financially sound, if he just went away.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[BasilBrush]

Says the guy who tries to justify Gitmo. It's not Kool-Aid you've been drinking. You've got GW Bush's cum on your chin.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

the Pope most assuredly was a newbie in Catholicism. He didn't invent Catholicism six years ago.

fixed that for you. try not to confuse the two. Catholicism =/= Christianity. It just pretends to be.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the charges ARE non-consensual sex (without protection, while a woman was sleeping)

how does she know he had sex with her if she was asleep? if she woke up during AND THEN withdrew consent, it would be some form of valid sexual crime. nothing in the women's statements that i have seen mentions anything about withdrawing consent. IANS (Sweden) but, failing to withdraw consent does not make it non-consensual. Retrospectively - it still isn't non-consensual, it is poor judgement. A lesson (hopefully) learned. But not a sex crime.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[couchslug]

"Of course, anyone who believes such attempts to discredit Haggis and Wright probably also believes that Julian Assange is a rapist."

Or that Islam is a religion of peace. ALL superstitions are evil because they are untrue, and propagation of lies is evil. Scientology is merely a newer lie more easily exposed.

Faith is shit, prove thy superstition or expect no respect, for superstition deserves none nor do believers therein.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Stormwatch]

Catholicism =/= Christianity. It just pretends to be.

In a sense, it really is. As a sociopolitical entity, a "corporation" so to say, Catholicism is "core" Christianity, the original one, while Protestantism is a "spin-off".

Not that I believe in either, or any religion at all...

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[jellomizer]

No. But such traits could lead to rape. He loves power and the fact that world leaders are afraid of him. Rape is a way to take power over an other person.

Thus making the original comment that thinking this guy could be a rapist is just a silly idea only to be believed by the religious right.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[jpate]

I'm not a lawyer, but if we're just talking about what the word "rape" means in English, then you're absolutely right that it does have a specific definition: non-consensual sexual contact. It doesn't have to be a stranger jumping out of a bush for it to be rape. It doesn't have to involve a knife or a gun or a fist to be rape. If an individual says she (or he) is not ok with any kind of sexual activity, including sex without a condom, and you proceed to engage in that activity (by force or deceit or whatever), then it is rape.

By arguing that only some kinds of non-consensual sexual activity count as rape, you're contributing to a culture that turns a blind eye to the kind of rape (non-stranger, little or no physical force involved, etc.) that is most common. This gives rapists cover from their peer group and license to think that what they do is not really rape; David Lisak, for example, has built a research career out of interviewing rapists, and 6% of men will self-report as rapists as long as the word "rape" is not used. Please stop.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[wmaker]

adultery is a felony in oklahoma. not only is the married person guilty of a felony charge, but the other person involved in the affair is guilty as well.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

And where there is smoke there are often... Fog machines! Duh, duh, duuuuuuuuh!

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Lumpy]

It was lime flavored... I couldn't help it.

I can not pass up a lime Kool-aid.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Mister Whirly]

All the CIA (or whatever acronym organization) would need to do to facilitate this, is dig up any dirt on the two girls in question (or just flat out threaten and intimidate them), and "convince" them to file rape charges. Because they know that even if not true (and i am not saying it is or isn't), they know a certain percentage of people (you included) will think "where there is smoke there is fire" - so even if it isn't proven in court the damage is done. It isn't like the entire country of Sweden would need to be involved. We are talking about intimidating 2 young females - how hard do you think that would be for seasoned psychological operations agents? Once they filed the charges, the rest would fall into place with no further effort on the USA part.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying under Swedish law if I make a false claim and find one person to back me then it isn't false anymore? Great system!

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[kaatochacha]

It was FLAVOR AID. Do not sully the good name of Kool-Aid. Thank You.

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP suggested that Assange has to be innocent because any charges MUST be trumped up. I'm suggesting that there is a lot of smoke, and where there is smoke there is often fire.

Or a smoke machine....And by smoke machine, I mean the C.I.A......

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[PachmanP]

...ALL superstitions are evil because they are untrue, and propagation of lies is evil. Scientology is merely a newer lie more easily exposed.
Faith is shit, prove thy superstition or expect no respect, for superstition deserves none nor do believers therein.

In the absence of "superstitions" and/or faith or whatever you're ranting about, *there is no evil*. The whole concept of good and evil is based on the belief in something. Please at least try to be internally consistent when spouting about who does and does not deserve your respect. *rolls eyes*

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[sznupi]

People "lie" to themselves that such concepts of social animal are based on superstitious belief in something (...another evolutionary determined construct; having oversensitive alertness, internalizing the world around, or perpetration of social constructs increasing the chances of a coherent & stable group, working together - was beneficial for a long, long time to survival & chances of offspring)

Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame

[tbannist]

In the absence of "superstitions" and/or faith or whatever you're ranting about, *there is no evil*.

Nonsense, there are plenty of moral codes that don't involve deities. Of course, an Athiest would tell you none of the codes actually involve deities. However, the concept of good and evil depending on the existence of a deity is one that doesn't work well. If a deity is the definition of good, that leads to an inconsistent relativist moral code. As long as something is good because the deity commands and evil because the deity forbids it, then you end up with the possiblity of the same action being either good or evil depending on who did it and when. This is a common problem among religious conservatives who often seem to decide that an action is either good or evil depending on who is the recipient. For example: Killing Muslims = good, killing Christians = evil or vice-versa. In theory, having a moral code dictated by a deity ends up being the same as having no moral code (because any action can be justified). In practice, most people substitute their own moral code for the will of the deity and conclude that anything that contradicts that code actually wasn't ordered by their deity. In Christianity these people are often called Cafeteria Christians because they pick and choose which parts of the religion to follow.

The whole concept of good and evil is based on the belief in something. Please at least try to be internally consistent when spouting about who does and does not deserve your respect. *rolls eyes*

On the other hand, people who don't base their moral code directly on religion (including most western "religious" people), tend to have more consistent moral beliefs. They believe that certain actions are moral or immoral regardless of whom is the recipient. Excepting, of course, those people who explicitly believe in moral relativity.

In any care you might like to learn more about Deontology, Consequentialism and Teleological ethics.

Innocuous

[camperdave]

In a world where such innocuous sounding words as 'squirrels,' 'security-checked,' 'disconnection,' 'contra-survival,' 'suppressive persons,' 'clear' and 'open season' carry very serious and heavy baggage...

'Security-checked', 'contra-survival', and 'suppressive persons' are innocuous sounding words? One of us doesn't know the meaning of that word.

Operation Clambake

[TheGreatAvatar]

The obligatory link when discussing $cientology:

http://www.clambake.org/

Re:Operation Clambake

[Anonymous Coward]

His words are wise, his face is beard.

Re:Operation Clambake

[sznupi]

Couldn't we have some obligatory funnies in such threads too, please? ;/
Like most of those images. Or a beautiful irony from XKCD...

( Particularly this one (but certainly not this!). Very related to TFA. And another. BTW, Zeus is pissed off... Or maybe... Definitely this one in the case of this story, also those two, and certainly this...

Even reminders of how our world unfolded can cheer you up: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten ... possibly even future one )

Best snag a copy of that now

[lee n. field]

Best to print off that New Yorker piece now, before the CoS sics their lawyers on them.

Re:Best snag a copy of that now

[Superdarion]

before the CoS sics their lawyers on them

I would love to see them do that because, you know, the more they try to hide it, the more Anonymous and others will do to scatter it all around the globe.

Re:Best snag a copy of that now

[Anonymous Coward]

saved to instapaper, uploaded to phone, done.

Re:Best snag a copy of that now

[AndroidCat]

It would quite a fight since the New Yorker has the toughest fact-checkers in the business. However, it's unlikely to happen. While Scientology makes legal threats, huffs, puffs and throws poo, they haven't actually sued a publisher in quite a few years, and there have been countless critical articles and books since then, especially in the last three years.

Re:Best snag a copy of that now

[alva_edison]

Anonymous is mentione in TFA, apparently some of the people arrested for the Assange stuff pleaded guilty to messing with CoS

Human Trafficking

[Anonymous Coward]

For those still unaware, "human trafficking" is basically a euphemism for slavery. See River of Innocents for a good primer. In the US alone, tens of thousands of kids are at high risk for being enslaved every year.

Re:Human Trafficking

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> For those still unaware, "human trafficking" is basically a euphemism for slavery. See River of Innocents for a good primer. In the US alone, tens of thousands of kids are at high risk for being enslaved every year.

Victor Malarek's The Natashas is also good.

I've always heard Scientology engaged in some disreputable tactics, but seriously, this is a new low.

Excuse me, my Kitchen is on fire.

Re:Human Trafficking

[Nadaka]

New? Its been part of their practice for decades, since the beginning.

Re:Human Trafficking

[jd]

Which is why, when the FBI announces they rescued two or three or maybe a dozen in a raid, I'm not terribly impressed. I seriously doubt a police force would brag about a 0.01% to 0.1% rate of solving cases. It's better than nothing, but this is a yearly at-risk figure, so the cumulative total of slavery in the US is going to be insanely high - probably on-par with the total number of people in prison. (Assuming one slave owner or other active participant per slave, plus one full-time councilor to help a former slave through rehabilitation, it doesn't take long to figure out what would happen if there was a serious effort to purge the US of such degeneracy. Like a malignant tumour that has metastased, cutting it out cleanly may have become too difficult.)

Re:Human Trafficking

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why, when the FBI announces they rescued two or three or maybe a dozen in a raid, I'm not terribly impressed. I seriously doubt a police force would brag about a 0.01% to 0.1% rate of solving cases. It's better than nothing

Sounds like a nice motto!

"The United States FBI -- Common mang, it's better than nothing!"

This is a DMCA-free comment

[Drakkenmensch]

I've personally known someone who was, for a decade along with his wife, a scientologist. He now has no qualms about calling them cultists and thieves and is glad to be out of there, though he deeply regrets the years he wasted there. I'm pretty sure that the drones of the church of happiology will be pretty pissed off at me for this, but hey, since this article is purely an opinion, there's no law they can pull to force this comment off slashdot.

Re:This is a DMCA-free comment

[0racle]

All they have to do is threaten with big words. Most places will not risk having to prove a challenge was bogus.

Re:This is a DMCA-free comment

[Thing 1]

All they have to do is threaten with big words. Most places will not risk having to prove a challenge was bogus.

Including here, according to the submission (yes, I lived through that, and shame on you Slashdot).

Re:This is a DMCA-free comment

[FragHARD]

You know Tom Cruise!!!!! So tell me is he a cool guy in real life too????

Re:This is a DMCA-free comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask him if he wants to speak out publicly, then he might be the 1400th person to do so.

Re:This is a DMCA-free comment

[robthebloke]

Yeah he's fairly cool, although we have to wash his muddy footprints off the sofa after every visit....

Re:This is a DMCA-free comment

[badkarmadayaccount]

Posting anonymously because... well... I'm anonymous, and this information has been removed from slashdot before due to COS C&D letters. In the words of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, 'THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!!' As quoted from L. Ron Hubbard: The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged". His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants. When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert. The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development. One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time. In December 1967 I knew someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but only that given here is needful. One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body. One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I. It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing. You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small. Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error. Good luck.

Really?

[gazbo]

...but only the Church of Scientology has forced comments out of existence.

I could have sworn that several years back some comments were removed because they contained a threat to the US president?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

They would have simply moved the threats to Idle, but the board didn't exist at the time.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could have sworn that several years back some comments were removed because they contained a threat to the US president?

Threats against the president, if they refer to physical harm rather than voting him out of office or otherwise disgracing him, have no place on Slashdot, or any US-based outlet. Trash talk him, spread false rumors about him, make him look silly with his own words, whatever you like. But if you threaten the President with violence, you should be held to answer for it, since we have seen assassinations (and unsuccessful attempts) before, and any holder of that office is a constant target for wackos and extremists. So that is one of the few areas where I condone censorship, or at least official investigation of anyone who might make such threats. But for cults (e.g. scientology)? Whole different story. Expose them for the frauds they are and you help to prevent them. If they disagree with our opinions, let them debate us in the open.

Well to give credit

[OverlordQ]

Copyrighted work, leaked government documents, PS3 encryption keys and everything else has been posted on Slashdot but only the Church of Scientology has forced comments out of existence

One of the groups behind each of those bits of information will kill you for doing it. I'll let you guess which one.

Re:Well to give credit

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I'm sure if Sony thought they could get away with it they wouldn't hesitate. That rootkit fiasco was pretty telling.

Re:Well to give credit

[spun]

Copyrighted work, leaked government documents, PS3 encryption keys and everything else has been posted on Slashdot but only the Church of Scientology has forced comments out of existence

One of the groups behind each of those bits of information will kill you for doing it. I'll let you guess which one.

But the whole story is about Scientology, and it even talks about Scientologists killing people, so what's to guess?

Re:Well to give credit

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing Scientology.

Re:Well to give credit

[Altus]

Are you telling me you actually read the article?

Re:Well to give credit

[glwtta]

One of the groups behind each of those bits of information will kill you for doing it. I'll let you guess which one.

Sony?

Re:Well to give credit

[alta]

Those with low UID are more likely to do that from time to time.

Re:Well to give credit

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Only on slashdot and other tech blogs can something so trivial as the PS3's DRM be considered as bad as what happened to Lisa McPherson, or any other number of deaths, morbidities or other horror stories to come out of the COS.

Hell, once I saw someone say that we should riot in the street Egyptian style because of what Sony's doing. Here's a bit of perspective. Egyptians rioted on the streets because they couldn't eat. Not because they can't play Xbill and Nethack on their consoles.

Re:Well to give credit

[spun]

No, we who have four digit IDs do not need to read the article, we already know what it will say. I was really just messing with OverloardQ, who obviously wanted everyone to guess "Teh ebil Gubermint!" Some people can't resist an opportunity to express their hatred of democracy and collective action.

Re:Well to give credit

[Altus]

What are you talking about whippersnapper! not reading the article is a time honored tradition. You would know that if you had registered your account 6 hours earlier like I did.

Re:Well to give credit

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyrighted work, leaked government documents, PS3 encryption keys and everything else has been posted on Slashdot but only the Church of Scientology has forced comments out of existence

One of the groups behind each of those bits of information will kill you for doing it. I'll let you guess which one.

This is Slashdot, remember. Half the people here wholeheartedly believe the U.S. government would cheerfully murder you stepping out of line to the extent of wearing a non-government-approved color of shirt in private, and the other half are dead certain this has already happened and anyone who's ever said anything bad online about the ruling political party in the past has been "replaced" by government shills (yet somehow the government is too incompetent to run anything). Add in the belief that they are the sole defenders of "freedom", for some anomalous definition of same (which somehow coincidentally always lines up with their own personal beliefs at the time), and you've picked up any outliers who slipped through the cracks.

Re:Well to give credit

[blair1q]

No. They will, however, kill your box.

Re:Well to give credit

[Anonymous Coward]

Please.... I promise that we'll get off your lawn if you just give it a rest.

Re:Well to give credit

[afaik_ianal]

You three must all be new here.

Re:Well to give credit

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, once I saw someone say that we should riot in the street Egyptian style because of what Sony's doing. Here's a bit of perspective. Egyptians rioted on the streets because they couldn't eat. Not because they can't pirate at will on their consoles.

FTFY.

Re:Well to give credit

[Em Adespoton]

This is Slashdot, remember. Half the people here wholeheartedly believe the U.S. government would cheerfully murder you stepping out of line to the extent of wearing a non-government-approved color of shirt in private, and the other half are dead certain this has already happened and anyone who's ever said anything bad online about the ruling political party in the past has been "replaced" by government shills (yet somehow the government is too incompetent to run anything). Add in the belief that they are the sole defenders of "freedom", for some anomalous definition of same (which somehow coincidentally always lines up with their own personal beliefs at the time), and you've picked up any outliers who slipped through the cracks.

Are you saying that most of the people on Slashdot are Scientologists?

Re:Well to give credit

[icebraining]

Unfortunately, it's not only on Slashdot where a basic joke would be taken seriously.

Re:Well to give credit

[Cederic]

To be fair, anybody your/his age has already read 18 Scientology articles on Slashdot. Including the ones that had the comments pulled from them, and the fallout from that.

Me, I'm still pissed with them over anon.penet.fi

Re:Well to give credit

[glwtta]

Only on slashdot and other tech blogs can something so trivial as the PS3's DRM be considered as bad as what happened to Lisa McPherson, or any other number of deaths, morbidities or other horror stories to come out of the COS.
How should I put this delicately... are you being dense on purpose, to grab at whatever perceived shred of moral high-ground you can? Or are you challenged in some way so you interpret everything only in the most literal way possible? If it's the latter, I apologize for the tone of my reply.

Re:Well to give credit

[grahamwest]

It was Hubbard's cult who had that shut down? I didn't know that.

Re:Well to give credit

[Cederic]

The legend is that Julf took it down and wiped his disks over a weekend to prevent identities being revealed.

Wikipedia and other sources refute that legend somewhat, but yeah, the grief caused by Scientology appears to be a significant factor.

Julf Helsingius is one of my heroes of the Internet.

Re:Well to give credit

[EdIII]

First off he was being facetious.

Secondly, he is speaking to the corporate culture over at Sony and their war against the consumer. Sarcasm or not, Sony is at war with the consumer and has made it perfectly clear that they will spend serious amounts of money to create a legal environment in the US where you don't own a damn thing, but pay them out the ass each month for a user "experience" that includes complete surveillance of your activities with their products and variable features that they get to control. That is not hyperbole, but the environment that Sony actively campaigns for. This does not even give attention to their intent behind the infamous Sony Rootkit. I don't believe that Sony would actually want to kill you, which is what makes his comment sarcastic and funny to me. However, I do believe Sony would like to see me pay to "own" hardware but be thrown in jail at any point I decide to actually enjoy ownership and do anything they don't approve of.

Of course I doubt you would understand this since we have had conversations before and you are willing to "sell" all of our collective consumer rights (including those guaranteed to us as Free People) so that *13 year olds can't cheat at a video game and kick your butt*.

Of course, our defense of our rights are merely the screams of the irrationally entitled, and you are entirely rational and reasonable to give Sony control over your hardware remotely, and ours too, just so you can have a level playing field with the 13 year old children out there.

*Only on Slashdot.......*

Re:Well to give credit

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the groups behind each of those bits of information will kill you for doing it. I'll let you guess which one.

Sony?

*ducks*

Re:Well to give credit

[Chas]

No, we who have four digit IDs do not need to read the article, we already know what it will say. I was really just messing with OverloardQ, who obviously wanted everyone to guess "Teh ebil Gubermint!" Some people can't resist an opportunity to express their hatred of democracy and collective action.

I didn't know they were prescribing psychotropics to the extremely elderly here.

*Insert Rick James*

Re:Well to give credit

[AlamedaStone]

Only on slashdot and other tech blogs can something so trivial as the PS3's DRM be considered as bad as what happened to Lisa McPherson, or any other number of deaths, morbidities or other horror stories to come out of the COS.

Hell, once I saw someone say that we should riot in the street Egyptian style because of what Sony's doing. Here's a bit of perspective. Egyptians rioted on the streets because they couldn't eat. Not because they can't play Xbill and Nethack on their consoles.

YAFMC

I don't think Nethack has been released for the PS3 yet. I'm sure the devteam'll get to it Real Soon Now.

Also, you should unwind your ascot. It was a joke, and humor is an adaptive tool in the face of stress and trauma. Sony wants to kill people! ... well I laughed.

Re:Well to give credit

[alta]

Wish there was a way to tell exactly when we registered, I've wondered from time to time. Got any idea when you did yours?

Basing it on where I working at the time, I'm going to guess somewhere in 97, maybe 98. Ya think?

Re:Well to give credit

[Apocros]

Not positive, but I'm pretty sure I registered sometime in '97; September or October, maybe. You old-timers must have me beat by maybe a day or two... I don't even remember how I found the site. Was probably an altavista search for "linux", or something similar...

Re:Well to give credit

[OverlordQ]

Copyrighted work, leaked government documents, PS3 encryption keys and everything else has been posted on Slashdot but only the Church of Scientology has forced comments out of existence

One of the groups behind each of those bits of information will kill you for doing it. I'll let you guess which one.

But the whole story is about Scientology, and it even talks about Scientologists killing people, so what's to guess?

What the definition of a rhetorical question is.

Re:Well to give credit

[alta]

Yeah, the UID's started going pretty fast since there was a lot of people that were already posting on the site before there even WERE any accounts.

Re:Well to give credit

[nelk]

Only on slashdot and other tech blogs can something so trivial as the PS3's DRM be considered as bad as what happened to Lisa McPherson, or any other number of deaths, morbidities or other horror stories to come out of the COS.

Hell, once I saw someone say that we should riot in the street Egyptian style because of what Sony's doing. Here's a bit of perspective. Egyptians rioted on the streets because they couldn't eat. Not because they can't play Xbill and Nethack on their consoles.

The link between the items mentioned in the summary is not that 'These things are bad in a similar way/to a similar degree', but rather 'These things are backed by entities with huge resources, and said entities would all put those resources to bare in an effort to have materials removed.'

Re:Well to give credit

[Rubinstien]

Mine comes well after yours, and I was going to guess 1997 for myself. My oldest daughter was about 2 at the time, I seem to recall.

Hrmm...

[SniperJoe]

When did freedom of religion become freedom from rule of law? As an incredibly disenfranchised Catholic, I am disgusted by some of the things that my church has done and failed to do. Where are the criminal charges related to the many abuses that people (especially children) have suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church? I ask the same question about Scientology. I am not trying to troll, I'm just trying to understand.

Re:Hrmm...

[TrancePhreak]

I think part of the difference is that much of the things that happened with the church were the work of individuals. However, the church entity did try to conceal the abuses.

Contrast that with the CoS who has organized the abuses at the hands of several members.

I could be wrong about the churches. Any thoughts?

Re:Hrmm...

[HornWumpus]

You might want to look into that claim 'However, the church entity did try to conceal the abuses.' because they've got a smoking gun in Ireland.

The cover-up of the chester priests was started and run from Rome. If their was an activist god like many Christians choose to believe she would smite many of their asses. She has done much worse for less (their claims).

Re:Hrmm...

[mdielmann]

You might want to look into that claim 'However, the church entity did try to conceal the abuses.' because they've got a smoking gun in Ireland.

The cover-up of the chester priests was started and run from Rome. If their was an activist god like many Christians choose to believe she would smite many of their asses. She has done much worse for less (their claims).

First, I'll chuckle politely with your claim that "many Christians choose to believe she would smite many of their asses." If you're going to criticize people, don't spin it with your beliefs - it weakens your own argument. The vast majority of Christians believe in a male diety, quite possibly due to the line "Our Father, which art in Heaven" (KJV).

Second, and more importantly, actually read the comment you reply to, rather than going off on a rabid attack. Quoting you, which you quoted the GPP, emphasis mine: 'However, the church entity did try to conceal the abuses.' . And then you: because they've got a smoking gun in Ireland. Those two statements seem to agree, which, combined with your opening phrase, "You might want to look into that claim," implies you disagree, even though both of your stated opinions don't.

Re:Hrmm...

[mangu]

The catholic church has been involved in violent abuse since the start of the Middle Ages, when it came to rule all Europe.

The start of catholic rule also coincides with the start of the "dark ages" in Europe. An event that could be defined as the beginning of the dark ages would be the council of Ephesus, when Cyril of Alexandria won a political dispute over his rival, Nestor of Constantinople. It was in that council that Mary, mother of Jesus, was elevated to the status of a goddess, which she still maintains today in the catholic church, although other Christian denominations are much more discreet about venerating her.

Cyril became one of the topmost leaders of the catholic church as a result of that council. He was an extremely cruel man. It can be argued that the execution of Hypatia at his command was one of the most violent and stupid acts committed in the history of mankind, since it started a period of a thousand years of misery and violence.

Re:Hrmm...

[TubeSteak]

The Federal Government gave Scientology religious/tax exempt status through some shady backroom deals.

The full story could fill a book, but this timeline gives you the rough outline
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/timeline.html

Re:Hrmm...

[blair1q]

The Inquisition was coordinated by an office of the Vatican that has since changed its name to something that doesn't actually say "Inquisition". Technically, the Inquisition still exists. It just hasn't burned anyone at the stake since the 1830s. No, not the 1630s, the 1830s.

Re:Hrmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, apparently in the US at one time it was ok to have slavery. Therefore people in the US are slavers.

*facepalm*

Re:Hrmm...

[shakotah]

At least the catholic church, maybe others, was setup in this country in such a manner that you cannot sue it as a whole, just a parish at a time.

Criminal charges have been brought against some of the individual priests, the ones not charged could be because the state believes in their innocence or because of the great difficulty that these cases involve when there isn't a smoking gun or physical evidence.

Re:Hrmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, apparently in the US at one time it was ok to have slavery. Therefore people in the US are slavers.

*facepalm*

More a problem with the denialism of the slavery, the people who try to excuse it, to come up with reasons it wasn't that bad, who go out of their way to find claims like "Blacks owned slaves themselves, and could vote, and..." in order to make things seem not so bad.

I'd bother finding you a few links, but I'm sure you can just browse Stormfront if you want to see them.

Re:Hrmm...

[Trogre]

Remember folks, it's never Christ that was the problem - it's the fan club.

Re:Hrmm...

[steelfood]

Belief acts in such a way that believers are blind to logic and sense. Believers are willing to do, and endure things that normal, unbelievers would otherwise not do or endure. People believe by turning a blind eye to all that which makes sense.

Believers aren't necessarily of the religious variety, though they are most associated with the word. Belief also applies to soldiers committed to following orders. It also applies to company employees following the company line. It is the foundation upon which trust forms. It is what allows us our humanity.

Being such a powerful force in all of our lives, it therefore follows that it can be corrupted and abused, and further that the consequences of such transgressions are more onerous and far-reaching than usual. It is the unfortunate truth of the matter; that while it can grant us such great strength at times, it at the same time equally exposes our weakness.

All governments comprised of people function through belief. Belief in the government must exist before people will consent to be governed. Thus those who seek to corrupt and abuse the ability to believe begin at the top of the government. In a democracy, they seek to gain the hearts and minds of the masses. In a dictatorship, they only need target the dictator.

As a part of this corruption, they will put greater an greater emphasis upon belief while further marginalizing reason. By doing so, they can make their abuses socially acceptable. Over time, they will make their abuses more flagrant and outrageous, while at the same time, try to push the bar of acceptability higher.

Only when their actions goes over a threshold far higher than normal are they forced to stop. But this does not unravel the beliefs of the believers. This only brings the abuse down to acceptable levels. Those directly affected may no longer believe in that which resulted in the abuse, but those indirectly affected most likely will still believe. And for the latter, it is because they still want to believe.

In the end, that's all it comes down to. People are not held accountable for actions done in the name of belief, because everyone else still wants to hold on to their own beliefs. They see that by denouncing the abuse entirely, they invalidate or weaken their own beliefs. Or, they too are abusers, and wish to rely on furthering corruption for their own gain.

Oh, in full disclosure, I see organization itself as a corruption of the pure and ideal that exists in every human being. Abuse then becomes any act arising out of such organization. But that's just my perspective on the matter.

Re:Hrmm...

[HornWumpus]

I misread. Apologies.

Re:Hrmm...

[Kymermosst]

Actually, there are many reasons that people claim that God is a male deity. One of them being right in Genesis where it says that the first human (Adam - which means "man" by the way) was made in God's image.

Of course, in biblical Hebrew, every noun is ascribed male or female gender as the language does not have a means of specifying a neuter gender. The words Elohim and Adonai are male, therefore that would indicate that God might be male. Somebody praying to God in Hebrew and wishing to reference a parental relationship would have to choose between "father" and "mother." That explains Jesus' words.

So now let me put a bit of a rub into it. In Genesis, the Spirit of God (Ruach Elohim) and the Presence of God (Shekhinah) are both female. How can that be??? Didn't we just show that God was male? Or perhaps God is a female (spirit) trapped in a male (body)?

Of course, in Hebrew there are plenty of nouns that are classes of items. Since all nouns have gender, the word for, say, animal (hayyah) is female even though simple observation proves that not all animals are female. The translation for human (ben adam) is male even though women obviously exist.

My point, of course, is that any historical assignment of a gender to a being that is by its very nature not completely comprehensible to humans is likely mere convenience of language. If you're going to argue theology, spend the time arguing something that is important and provably matters, because whether or not the being Christians refer to as God is male or not is pretty much irrelevant.

Well, perhaps it is relevant in order to say that men are more godly than women are and further the agenda of the patriarchy.

Re:Hrmm...

[Locke2005]

Yeah, I have a similar problem with Justin Bieber fans!

Re:Hrmm...

[tnk1]

The so-called Dark Ages in Europe did not begin with a Church Council, and they certainly weren't caused by the Church. By 431, the fall of the Western Empire was already well in hand and Rome had already been sacked by Alaric in 409.

Also, the Church never, ever ruled all Europe. The pope certainly made some claims about overlordship, but the states of Europe were quite securely under the control of secular authorities from start to finish.

The fall of the Empire began with the failure and slow dissolution of the Western Roman Empire, a process that started well before the Christan church became the official religion of the Empire. This process occurred for many reasons like demographic shifts and economic failures based on the unsustainablity of the conquest and slavery-based Roman economy. I assure you, no matter what you may think of classical philosophers, their existence or lack thereof had little to do with the fall of the Empire.

As for cruelty, considering Ancient Rome pretty much made a science out of painful ways of killing people, for instance mass crucifixions, I don't think that any supposed cruelty of the Christians would have even made a ripple in the mood of the times.

Re:Hrmm...

[mangu]

As for cruelty, considering Ancient Rome pretty much made a science out of painful ways of killing people

Looking at news today, I see plenty examples of random cruelty. I don't think that's a reason for me to behave that way, because I feel I'm morally superior to people who perform those acts.

Obviously, the Christian church didn't feel that way, AND THEY STILL DON'T FEEL THAT WAY TODAY, when every Christian when confronted with the ruthlessness of the church in ancient times insist that's OK, because it was the custom of those days.

A church should be a moral guide, not the follower of corrupt customs.

Re:Hrmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Inquisition was coordinated by an office of the Vatican that has since changed its name to something that doesn't actually say "Inquisition". Technically, the Inquisition still exists. It just hasn't burned anyone at the stake since the 1830s. No, not the 1630s, the 1830s.

You are confusing the Roman Inquisition with the Spanish Inquisition run by the Spanish Monarchy. The Romans stopped burning people at the stake long before the Protestants did.

Re:Hrmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Roman Catholic priests and nuns systematically bashed and abused tens of thousands of children in the small population of Ireland in only 2 generations. But that requires alot of "assistance" from the community and government to maintain. They highjack universal human insecurities and preach it as "Roman Catholic guilt". Used to collect 10% of every peasant's income. barely a century ago. It is the world's largest land owner by its control over followers ("Do you want to go to heaven?"). I do not like Scientology but like even less the gutless hypocrisy of Anonymous and other CoS bashers. There are much bigger, more violent, deadlier, greedier, state subsidised religions all over the world.

Re:Hrmm...

[CaseyRM13]

Being raised Catholic by French/Irish parents, and attending a private Catholic school for years, I like to think I have a pretty good handle on their current beliefs, and I can assure you Mary is not worshiped as a Goddess. Important yes, but she is not considered more powerful then any other Saint. Also I firmly believe the Catholic Church's rise was a response to vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman Empire. It simply evolved as a power structure in that time period. It was run by politicians, men who craved power. They corrupted much of it, with many issues persisting to this day. I honestly believe the members of it that have committed crimes should be punished under the laws of the area they live in. So while I agree with your opinion of violent abuses, I must disagree strongly with your implied causation, when it is simply a case of correlation.

Re:Hrmm...

[t0p]

I think part of the difference is that much of the things that happened with the church were the work of individuals. However, the church entity did try to conceal the abuses.

When a pedophile priest committed his first, undetected sex crimes, he was acting as an individual and the church bore no responsibility.

However, when the church found out what the guy was up to, and instead of calling the police it just moved him to a different location where he could indulge himself with other children, the church (IMHO at least) bore direct responsibility, and the bishops/cardinals/popes involved should be charged with aiding and abetting. What else can you call it when senior clergy knowingly place children into the care of a child molester?

Re:Hrmm...

[Vaphell]

I can assure you Mary is not worshiped as a Goddess

in Poland she is, I kid you not. Icon of Mary with baby Jesus is the most sacred artifact in Poland and John Paul II was a big fan of her, he was praying primarily to her, just like his devoted followers did/do.

Re:Hrmm...

[BobZee1]

and how awesome would the world be without jesus and his ideas that created such a fan club. i can only hope that one day jesus is wiped from all of our minds.

Re:Hrmm...

[Chas]

Remember folks, it's never Christ that was the problem - it's the fan club.

Tell that to the Sanhedrin

Re:Hrmm...

[shutdown -p now]

My personal take on the differences is this:

With Catholic child abuse scandal, your average Catholic believer does not condone it in any way, shape or form - it's entirely contrary to what they believe in. Many of them do refuse to believe that things like that happened, but when they finally realize that this is all true, they are disgusted. In other words, this is a case of Church hierarchy deviating from the very things they teach.

With Scientology, concepts such as "squirrels" and "suppressive persons" are taught to the rank-and-file, and their persecution is the doctrine of the church, fully supported by all its members (because those who don't are kicked out). Thus, the entire Church, as a single entity, stands behind all this - which makes the whole thing evil, and not just some people (or even all leaders).

Re:Hrmm...

[wierd_w]

As a matter of personal opinion on the deity described in the bible, I would agree with you on the "Literary contrivance" part, given what's below...

However, I would argue that the "Created in our image" line in geneis refers more to the mind of said god, since all previous creations had been created without free will. (Angels are servitors with specific functions, animals follow their instincts, but what drives the will of man?) Further, an incorporeal being could not realistically be depicted in a corporeal form alone; what was depicted was the essence of that being; the creative intellect itself.

As for the whole "Women obey men" thing-- The biblical narrative has Adam being created first, with Eve being created from Adam's flesh. (No, I don't believe such jiggery pokery, for those that would try to contrive such a reference.) The book of genesis gives this as the reason women should obey men-- adam came first. Likewise in the same short passage, it outright says that while women should obey men, men should respect and value women as if she were his equal. (In direct contravention of the agenda of the practice of patriarchy as it is normally manifested.)

That said, I don't think "God" has a gender. It would not make sense for such a pre-eminent being to have one; sex implies that there are others to have sex with-- a statement the bible explicitly denies. (the whole "There is only ONE god." thing.) From a non-religious and non-theological viewpoint, it is further silly to ascribe a gender to such a unique entity, because of the presumed nature of that entity: Having "always existed" pretty much quashes any evolutionary process by which gender would have been incorporated into this being, and despite what some theologists might claim, the concept of gender is not axiomatic. There exist many organisms that simply do not posess a definite gender. (Jellyfish, Sponges, some species of worms, most microbes, nearly all fungi, etc-- Some might be hermaphroditic and have sexual reproduction, but the members are of both genders simultanously, such as with jellyfish, sponges, fungi and the worms; or are fully asexual without any semblence of sexual relation at all-- like most microbes.) Sex is a relatively "new" thing evolutionarily speaking-- meaning that if "God" really did create life on earth, the first lifeforms he created were asexual, and given the well established fossil record concerning the evolution of hominids, then any physically litteral interpretation of "In his image" would imply that asexuality is the ideal, and that sex is part of the degeneracy that the bible rails against. (amusing, considering the catholic doctrine of "original sin" --- [which does not exist in the bible in any place I have read, which is the whole thing and most of the aprochryphal books. The sin of Eve was to disobey god, and the sin of Adam was in obeying his wife over obeying God. Not sex.] One could argue that god shaped evolution, and used evolution as the process by which he converted "lifeless mud" into "living souls"-- but doing so requires strong detatchment from any strictly and fundementally literal interpretation to the story of Genesis, and consigns it to being at least partially metaphorical. (The book of Genesis does not pass muster as a perfectly literal history, as the acts it depicts do not coincide with fossilized geological history.)

From a theological viewpoint, the bible (and several apochryphal books) outright state that angels have no gender, and do not have sex, being spiritual beings, and created perfect from the beginning (and thus have no need to reproduce sexually--being immortal and all that.) By inferrence, this would mean that god considers sexuality to be a necessary function because of the imperfect nature of physical lifeforms. (Duh, they die! Unless you want to keep rebuilding them all the time, you have to make them so they make more of themselves, or else they will all die out!) (Extra credit-- Read the first few chapters of the apochryphal book of Enoch for some amusin

Re:Hrmm...

[maraist]

The Demi-God your particular sect of Catholicism chose to worship is circumstantial in my opinion (as a French Arcadian recovering catholic). I never gave a second's thought to the pre-occupation of Catholicism towards [the virgin] Mary until I heard an outsider say "But you Catholics over-emphasize Mary". Then I remembered that next to every picture of Jesus I ever saw in a Church, there was Mary, sitting at EQUAL elevation. To the left of the Alter was Jesus, to the right Mary, with equal sized statues. No Paul, No Peter (the basis of Catholic might-makes-right against other Christian sects), No Apostles in 'last supper' fashion.. Just Jesus and sexless super-nun-mom. My home (and that of most Catholics we'd visit) have pictures of whom? 3 guesses.. And there are LOTS of pictures/statues there-of. And even if you see a cross-most likely it's bare (with an occasional rosary with a figurine that causes consternation to eastern orthedoxers)

Consider that I spent more time praying to Mary than God - and almost no time to Jesus. I said hail-marry 25 times and our father only 5 times in a given Rosary. When I would hear a baptist or born again Christian use Jesus 10 times in a single paragraph, I'd whince thinking their culture was irreverant / dis-respectful, or just in bad taste. But why would evoking Mary over and over as someone to 'hear our prayers' be more humble? And for all this Jesus is king crap I went through, All the emotional attachment I achieved were for the abstract dis-combobulated Holy Ghost and God the Father.. Jesus was just the under-achieving son. And thus I was able to emotionally detach Jesus. He wasn't God to me.. After 20 years of Catholicism, he wasn't God.. He was part of God's family.. Just like Mary.

While my experiences are anecdotal, my point is that whatever the intent of the Trinity + Mary, it's effect was to dis-allusion me against Baptists and Born-againers who were singularly focused on Jesus. And then when I confronted Catholicism later on in life, I heard not difference, but subdued agreement with these sects - my sense of religious superior reverence was disillusioned. Thus invalidating the entire suite of absurd culture-fucking organizations. Catholicism, in short does indeed promote demi-Godary as is subtle yet evident in at least some youth.

Re:Hrmm...

[AlamedaStone]

The vast majority of Christians believe in a male diety

Wow. Really? I don't remember reading anything about God's genitalia in Sunday school. So this omnipotent and omniscient being who transcends corporeal form is still a dude?

That is so Batman.

Re:Hrmm...

[LongearedBat]

With Scientology, concepts such as "squirrels" and "suppressive persons" are taught to the rank-and-file, and their persecution is the doctrine of the church, fully supported by all its members (because those who don't are kicked out). Thus, the entire Church, as a single entity, stands behind all this - which makes the whole thing evil, and not just some people (or even all leaders).

That's how I picture the Catholic Church's behaviour over several centuries.

Re:Hrmm...

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, back in the days of Inquisition and other abuses, that was certainly also the case for all mainstream Christian denominations.

Re:Hrmm...

[tnk1]

The point on cruelty wasn't to give the Christians a pass on the whole fanatical destruction thing, but within the scope of your hypothesis, to point out that the Christians may have been cruel, but that was hardly a unique characteristic which would have allowed them to be blamed for the destruction of the Empire.

And to jump to another point of yours, for every Cyril there was an Augustine or Aquinas who was more than interested in philosophy and scholarly learning. As it stands, many of the works of the Greeks and Romans that survive today did so via the auspices of Christian monks (as well as Islamic scholars). The beginnings of Western science are synonymous with the history of Christian Europe at the time. Far from trying to eradicate learning, thousands of Christians over hundreds of years tried to preserve it and even push it forward insofar as they could.

You don't like the Christian church, and certainly I can understand that its history can leave a lot to be desired for what is supposed to be a representative of an all-loving Creator. I have a number of problems with the way that the various denominations have gone about their business myself. I'm not going to waste my time writing an apology for Cyril, or Torquemada or Rodrigo Borgia or any other individual who has acted in a manner that seems manifestly hypocritical. I just don't want history thrown around in a manner as to prove a hypothesis that it doesn't actually support. If you want to say that Christians, even prominent Christians have been cruel and most un-Christian in their actions, you will have no argument from me, but get the facts and analysis straight.

Re:Hrmm...

[FooAtWFU]

My point, of course, is that any historical assignment of a gender to a being that is by its very nature not completely comprehensible to humans is likely mere convenience of language. If you're going to argue theology, spend the time arguing something that is important and provably matters, because whether or not the being Christians refer to as God is male or not is pretty much irrelevant.
Well, perhaps it is relevant in order to say that men are more godly than women are and further the agenda of the patriarchy.

Is it? I'm going to quote here some Christian thought presented by C.S. Lewis in That Hideous Strength.

[T]he suspicion dawned... that there might be differences and contrasts all the way up, richer, sharper, even fiercer, at every rung of the ascent... [not] merely a relic of animal life or patriarchal barbarism, but rather the lowest, the first, and the easiest form of some shocking contact with reality which would have to be repeated - but in ever larger and more disturbing modes - on the highest level of all ...
"Yes," said the director. "There is no escape. ... You are offended by the masculine itself: the loud, irruptive, possessive thing -- the gold lion, the bearded bull -- ... [T]he masculine none of us can escape. What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relation to it." ...

You will also note that this particular presentation does have significant theological implications, but also does little to "empower the patriarchy" as such.

(Incidentally, the book is also a pioneering novel of dystopian sci-fi literature. You might be forgiven for thinking that Lewis was cribbing from Orwell's 1984. In fact, it was the other way around.)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled clambake.

Re:Hrmm...

[metrix007]

and further the agenda of the patriarchy.

It's a shame, you were making a lot of sense until this point.

Re:Hrmm...

[couchslug]

"When did freedom of religion become freedom from rule of law?"
Superstition, always, sets itself above secular law.

Re:Hrmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you did. Didn't He have an affair with some cute Jewish chick at some point?

Re:Hrmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also I firmly believe the Catholic Church's rise was a response to vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman Empire

probably why it's also known as the roman catholic church.
not so much as a response to the collapse of the empire, but a new place for the corrupt evil roman ruling class to simply transfer their human depredations into another medium, one that enabled them to claim divine righteousness.

Re:Hrmm...

[DarthVain]

Considering that the abuses from the Catholic church have been happening for hundreds of years, despite the teaching, with a hierarchy that on one hand does not condone it, but on the other protects its priests. How is that not evil.

Scientology hasn't even been around for 50 years. Its a loony money making tax evading scam. Evil? More like criminal, that takes advantage of certain peoples gullibility. The same could be said about douchebags who target seniors to rip them off.

Re:Hrmm...

[joebagodonuts]

When did freedom of religion become freedom from rule of law?

I don't know of a time when religion wasn't used in that way. The catholic church has a long , proud history of being equal but apart from the societies in which is operates. When your institution is that powerful, you can get away with it. Other religions have taken note, too. You might be surprised at what is permitted under the label of religion.

Some of the behavior is benign, some isn't

Re:Hrmm...

[joebagodonuts]

A Church is a secular construct, whose goal is secular power and influence. It is a human institution, and as such it is subject to all of the failings of humanity. Especially when the institution (and it's members) tries to pretend differently.

Re:Hrmm...

[mdielmann]

I agree, the gender of God is controversial. So is whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons, believe it or not. My point was, most Christians believe God is male, and that number probably jumps in the Catholic flavours of Christianity. And that it was totally tangential to the discussion at hand, which was why adding another controversial topic was a detraction from HornWumpus's argument.

Re:Hrmm...

[shutdown -p now]

Considering that the abuses from the Catholic church have been happening for hundreds of years, despite the teaching, with a hierarchy that on one hand does not condone it, but on the other protects its priests. How is that not evil.

The hierarchy may well be evil. The actual rank-and-file members of the Church, for the most part, do not knowingly facilitate that evil, however.

Re:Hrmm...

[guybrush3pwood]

Yeah! Listen to Trogro, you all! It's not Xenu's fault, so stop it with the trolling!

Re:Hrmm...

[Kymermosst]

What's interesting about that is I happen to go to the Catholic mass every now and then (my wife is a Catholic) and there are a fair amount of people who might be a bit rebellious in this. There's a point during the Sursum Corda where the dialogue is:

Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.

People: It is right to give him thanks and praise.

But a large number of people say: It is right to give God thanks and praise.

I asked my wife about this and she says that the majority who say the altered version are not convinced that God is male.

Re:Hrmm...

[Kymermosst]

I think you took that a bit more broadly than I meant it.

I should have said "... patriarchy within the churches."

I have heard it from the very mouths of (men) in leadership positions in churches: that it is a man's place to stand in as the representatives of God because He is male, and that is why it doesn't make sense for women to be the leaders of churches because. The argument is bogus, at least in my opinion. It does smack as a means of keeping a male-dominated power structure within a church. I know there are people who buy off on it, and that's what I was poking at with that last comment.

Re:Hrmm...

[Kymermosst]

... don't know how that extra "because" sneaked in, but it shouldn't have.

Re:Hrmm...

[DarthVain]

Belonging to such an organization, knowing that the hierarchy behaves in such a way does knowingly facilitate that evil. That's my take on it anyway. If it was an "isolated" incident, then yeah perhaps you can argue that simple membership in no way condones that activity, but when it is so rampant that it is a commonly held joke and has been for a very long time, well your continued support of that organization I think then says that you do in fact condone that behavior. I don't think you can separate it, simply by saying oh the members do molest people, only the priests, therefore its OK.

I would invoke Godwin's Law, but its probably been done too many times already.

Re:Hrmm...

[shutdown -p now]

Belonging to such an organization, knowing that the hierarchy behaves in such a way does knowingly facilitate that evil.

My point is that most Catholic church members do not believe that their hierarchy behaves in such a way. They know about specific priests, and I'm pretty sure that most have heard Pope etc blamed for covering it up, but I doubt that there are people who seriously believe the latter, and yet stay in the Church. Are they badly misguided, blinded by their faith? Yes, for sure, and there's nothing good in that. But that's quite different from knowingly supporting such coverups, as rank-and-file Scientologies support persecution of "suppressive persons".

Re:Hrmm...

[DarthVain]

I think it would be "very rare" that the rank and file would be involved with such things.

You made me play the NAZI card. Basically most people that were in that organization were not out committing atrocities. Some defiantly where, and most of the hierarchy was complicit in some why or another. Many didn't believe the things that were said about the organization.

The big difference was that many didn't have a choice about joining, or doing what they were told to do, on possible pain of death.

While Catholics have a choice. Though they might not have a choice as a baby, when they grow up and make decisions, they can choose which organizations they wish to be apart of. They may have pressures of faith and family, but no one is going to shoot them.

Anyway it just baffles me why people associate themselves with organizations, particularly faiths, that preach one thing, but pretty consistently do something completely different than would be considered wrong not only by their own, but by pretty much any others.

Then again I'm not all that religious myself, so perhaps I just don't understand.

Oh and as for the Scientology aspect of this, while it is possible to leave, or get kicked out, you are pretty much ostracized and ruined financially from what I could tell from the special I saw on TV. You leave, your basically starting your life over with no contacts or money. They have a pretty big axe to threaten people into believing or saying they believe something.

Re:Hrmm...

[blair1q]

Wait. You think the Spanish monarchs were protestants?

That'd be news to the protestants they purged.

They were Catholics, and what they did was sanctioned by the Pope.

Re:Hrmm...

[Trogre]

Yeah - love your maker, love your fellow humans, don't worry about what you wear. I can see we'd be much better off without all that. :-/

Welcome to MindHead

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to MindHead...
WELCOME to MINDHEAD!

Repeat after me:

There are no aliens!

Well, except for the blonde, maybe, she mates with almost anyone in power! On a grander scale...

SUCK IT, Anonymous!

[Thud457]

what Anon can't, Paul Haggis delivers

Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to defeat a religion's organization and beliefs by using logic has been tried many, many times before and never stops people from being convinced they are right. If you think this will have any impact whatsoever, I think you need to open your eyes.

You'll have forgotten about this in a week.

Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous!

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Trying to defeat a religion's organization and beliefs by using logic has been tried many, many times before and never stops people from being convinced they are right. If you think this will have any impact whatsoever, I think you need to open your eyes.

As they guy said, you can't logic someone out of something they didn't logic themselves into! On the other hand, this isn't about scientology being a religion, its about it being a criminal organisation.

Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous!

[Kittenman]

You'll have forgotten about this in a week.

Now come on, this is Slashdot. We forget everything in a week,

Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous!

[Macgrrl]

Unless it's a dupe, then we remember it for years. The editors, on the other hand, can forget it in minutes.

Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I can't do all the work. I need to take a coffee break and have a nap, so I delegate some things.

Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous!

[bonch]

Wrong. Shining attention on the cult keeps awareness high and ensures that their financial troubles continue on as the membership runs dry. It doesn't matter if some anonymous coward on Slashdot says he'll forget it in a week. That's not what's important. Somewhere in the world, a Scientologist will read this media coverage, have second thoughts, and leave the church.

Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should Anonymous have to deliver on this, when Paul Haggis has been so decent as to accomplish the task on his own? Scientology can hardly be a source of continuing lulz if Anonymous actually WINS their fight against it on their OWN merits, alone, now can it? Besides, Anonymous' whole point to the crusade against Scientology was to make the remainder of the public aware of Scientology's abuses, and spur that same public to action. Oh, and to expand upon lulz received, of course. Paul Haggis is a member of the public who has accomplished precisely that goal. Lulz accomplished- check, public made aware- check, non-Anonymous public takes action- check, this done at Scientology's expense- check. Anonymous has, it seems, accomplished, yet again, one more objective it set out to do, albeit in a rather circuitous manner.

Such is an aspect of the manner of the hivemind of Anonymous, for they are legion, don't forgive, forget, or pass up a chance at getting cheap lulz. Kinda had to expect it, huh?

LOL.

Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous facilitates. It's only the victims that can witness to the crimes and abuses that the Scientology enterprise has committed against them.

Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous!

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll have forgotten about this in a week.

Now come on, this is Slashdot. We forget everything in a week.

Fortunately, we have the Slashdot editors to remind us.

Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it. Paul Haggis is also Anonymous till he outs himself.

WRONG

[larry bagina]

Slashdot has deleted other posts due to DMCA (Microsoft also comes to mind).

Re:WRONG

[larry bagina]

also, slashdot used purged comments when archiving and with javascript injections.

Re:WRONG

[FatAlb3rt]

Have you read your sig yet?

Re:WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

Read yours?
--
[witty sig]

How to spot a cult?

[hilldog]

Does it want your money? Does it want your mind? Does it want to govern your life? It's a cult. Of course /. 'ers will list about a hundred other things that fit that bill ;-)

Re:How to spot a cult?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4-Hms7bHqY

Re:How to spot a cult?

[Coraon]

Any christian church, any fits that description. So do some flavors of Judaism and Islam. Ironically most flavors of modern paganism don't. Yet are still called such by these groups...

Re:How to spot a cult?

[Nadaka]

Does it want your money?
Does it want your mind?
Does it want to govern your life?
It's a cult.

Of course /. 'ers will list about a hundred other things that fit that bill ;-)

My ex comes to mind.

Re:How to spot a cult?

[Rob the Bold]

Does it want your money? Does it want your mind? Does it want to govern your life? It's a cult. Of course /. 'ers will list about a hundred other things that fit that bill ;-)

That may be a little bit overly broad, since just about any organization with dues and a code of ethics would fit your definition. So, yes, I'd agree that /.ers will be able to list hundreds, if not thousands of things.

Re:How to spot a cult?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Hey! The implant in my head that I got at the Apple store says I should be indignant!

Re:How to spot a cult?

[sourcerror]

"Any christian church, any fits that description. So do some flavors of Judaism and Islam."

They want to control your mind, but they're quite modest with money. You can learn everything about these religions, without getting in debt. And there are no restricted scriptures, everything is accesible to newbs as well. That's a huge difference.

Re:How to spot a cult?

[UnknownSoldier]

> Does it want your money? Does it want your mind? Does it want to govern your life? It's a cult.

How is that different from government? :-) No, seriously?

There are cults that don't require any money, (or time), only your belief system.

> Of course /. 'ers will list about a hundred other things that fit that bill ;-)

With all due respect, your _definition_ is too vague, and not specific enough. The money, and mind-control are simply symptoms of the problem -- that an organization has self-perservation as its basic focus.

Definition:

Cult: any group / organization that says there is only _one_ way (namely, theirs, go figure) to do _X_. Symptoms include all forms of mind control, brain washing, social pressure, etc., so that you never _question_.

Most churches are cults because unless you tow the party line (believe what they tell you, you won't get into heaven otherwise.)

There is nothing wrong with a faith based religion -- it is only the close-mindedness that does not accept criticism of any kind, which _is_ the problem. (The distinction between Blind Faith & Faith is something the Atheists can't seem to grok but that is a different discussion.)

--
Teacher: "The most important thing you can do is Question Authority'."
Student: "Says Who !?" ;-)

Re:How to spot a cult?

[gknoy]

That would imply a much larger membership than most people would be comfortable with...

Re:How to spot a cult?

[roca]

You're quite right, except that most Christian groups (certainly most Protestant-based groups) don't want to control your mind. They want you to believe certain things, because they think those things are true. But they want your ultimate loyalty to be to God, not people or their institutions. In the Protestant tradition, you can reject the authority of any given group and still retain your salvation.

To me, that's the most useful indicator of a cult: does the group acknowledge that salvation is possible outside their particular institution? In other words, do they allow forking? Most Protestant groups do. Even the Catholic Church does these days, in a way (they see other Christian groups as definitely inferior, but acknowledge that salvation is possible with them).

The distinction is important for the same reasons forkability is important in software. Groups denying that salvation (or "enlightenment", or equivalent concepts) exists outside their institution maintain enormous power of their members, and that power is easily abused.

Re:How to spot a cult?

[Anonymous Coward]

most religions are so old they're public domain and have to rely on donations, like a FLOSS project.

on the other hand, scientology is brand new, and so its propriatary. they can charge big money for their scared texts, until the copyright expires, that is.

Re:How to spot a cult?

[Nadaka]

Yes. I wasn't comfortable with it. That is the big reason she is my ex.

Re:How to spot a cult?

[shutdown -p now]

They want to control your mind, but they're quite modest with money.

Many Christian denominations still practice tithing. In fact, in some European countries (which usually recognize some Christian church as "state"), tithe is essentially an opt-out tax (though it's not 10% anymore, but more like 1-2%), and you have to formally renounce your membership in the church to stop paying it.

Re:How to spot a cult?

[goodmanj]

How is that different from government? :-) No, seriously?

Government -- at least, non-totalitarian government -- only wants your money so it can govern your life: doesn't care if it has your mind. In the US today, you're welcome to be a socialist, a theocrat or a fascist, so long as you pay your taxes and don't blow stuff up. (Of course this hasn't always been true...)

There are cults that don't require any money, (or time), only your belief system.

Those aren't cults, they're religions. To my mind, religion is about pure belief. Cultism is about using those beliefs to create and wield power in the secular world.

Re:How to spot a cult?

[sourcerror]

My family is a member of the reformed church, and the church tax is about $10 for a year per adult. (Hungary) Actually, if you want to be a member any kind of club which has to rent rooms, you have to pay a membership fee.

Re:How to spot a cult?

[Risen888]

Advertisers?

Re:How to spot a cult?

[joebagodonuts]

... But they want your ultimate loyalty to be to God, not people or their institutions...

I disagree. That might be the sales pitch, but in practice, they very much want secular power and influence.

Re:How to spot a cult?

[joebagodonuts]

> Does it want your money? Does it want your mind? Does it want to govern your life? It's a cult.

How is that different from government? :-) No, seriously?

It isn't. Both are institutions. Institutions demand control.

Re:How to spot a cult?

[Alsee]

a cult

L, N, whatever.

-

Opium of the masses...

[TheOldFart]

I always thought that mixing fruits and nuts together to be a bit iffy...

Re:Opium of the masses...

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never tried trail mix?

Re:Opium of the masses...

[Thing 1]

I always thought that mixing fruits and nuts together to be a bit iffy...

Your comment said "batty" in my head, which then said: Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana; and fruit flies are liked by bats.

Innocuous Compared to Their Internal Function

[eldavojohn]

Well, you're free to disagree with me but here are my initial reactions to these words prior to reading the article and what they mean to a scientologist:

'Security-checked'

To me: Checked for security. Maybe used to say you checked out a building for how safe and secure it is or even referring to the process everyone goes through when they fly or enter a sports arena.
To a scientologist: when someone "blows" (or flees the church) they recover them ("blow drill") sometimes physically against the persons will and subject them to an E-meter test which the article says is a powerful form of thought control.

'contra-survival'

To me: Contrary to survival. Doesn't sound like you're committing suicide but maybe smoking or drinking? Making bad choices that jeopardize your health? Hell, driving while texting on a cell phone could be called 'contra-survival.'
To a scientologist: when someone explodes violently, often hitting someone or throwing things at them that is contra-survival. The article mentions that this often traces back to prior lives where the person was a violent or disturbed individual.

'suppressive persons'

To me: Anyone who suppresses you. Probably a jerk or bully. Maybe an evil tyrant?
To a scientologist: anyone in your life that says anything negative about scientology. It's always only someone you have a personal relationship with. The church determines who this is and oftentimes you must cut off contact with them completely or you will never be clear. The article lists tons of stories of families and lifelong friends being separated because of this. I'm sure Haggis is probably an SP now. If I ever meet a scientologist, I plan to announce immediately that I am an SP.

To me these words seemed harmless and tame until you realize what these labels function as inside the church. It's so arcane and ridiculous. I can't believe people don't recognize the easily abused power system here that has very direct and serious consequences in your life. The article was a real eye opener as to how that crazy O.T. III shit is gobbled up by people because by that point they've maybe signed a billion year contract and have easily spent $400k on course work and auditing so they have a huge investment and desire to keep the lie going in their mind.

Re:Innocuous Compared to Their Internal Function

[gknoy]

Makes you wonder where the heck people get the money to spend on the courses.

Re:Innocuous Compared to Their Internal Function

[magarity]

Makes you wonder where the heck people get the money to spend on the courses.

You only need to make a penny a year and over the course of a billion year contract the fees are no problem with loads of cash left over.
 
But seriously, people who are in cults don't have normal expenses; you can rent a cheap room, live off instant noodles and pay $400K over 15 years if your day job's salary is only $40K.

Re:Innocuous Compared to Their Internal Function

[Anonymous Coward]

To me these words seemed harmless and tame until you realize what these labels function as inside the church. It's so arcane and ridiculous. I can't believe people don't recognize the easily abused power system here that has very direct and serious consequences in your life.

This is why it works. It's also probably why ponzi schemes can work for decades and fleece billions of dollars. If you're going to sit there and look down on people involved in these organisations or caught up in these schemes and assume they're religious nuts or idiots, you are totally missing how it works. These are intelligent people - doctors, lawyers, pilots, etc, not just folks with basic high school educations. The reason people go into them is because they're looking for Something, or are vulnerable for one reason or another . That doesn't make them weak - most people do this in some fashion at some point.

It just makes them wrong for choosing Scientology.

In My Opinion.

Re:Innocuous Compared to Their Internal Function

[alva_edison]

I must be more paranoid than you are, because I agree with the parent, the words don't sound innocuous.
'Security-checked'
Checked (tackled) by security, alternately severe violation of privacy ala Big Brother
'Contra-Survival'
Insuring the target does not survive, i.e. killing them (or possibly black-balling them).
'Suppressive Persons'
Again, a police state type of image, someone working for Big Brother.
However, I've never before seen the words used in context. Maybe in-context they sound innocuous.

Welcome to the club

[Bemopolis]

Reading that list of charges and tactics, I may finally be ready to accept Scientology as a member of the fraternity of religions.

Re:Welcome to the club

[clarkkent09]

There are other religions that have a problem with people who leave it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Countries The Christian churches have been and would be the same when and where they can get away with it.

The problem is that in the US, today, only the Church of Scientology seems to be getting away with this kind of abuse of its former members just for leaving the church, so it is appropriate to expose and criticize it.

Re:Welcome to the club

[ravenshrike]

If we assume that vanish is a euphemism for killed horribly a majority of Islam currently fits the latter description. Certain pockets of Christianity have as well for very brief periods of time.

Re:Welcome to the club

[Anonymous Coward]

place denomination here

Church of Scientology

Re:Welcome to the club

[Cederic]

Give me one instance when a Church (place denomination here) sued someone for libel

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy

made their former members vanish

Can't be arsed trying to find a reference to generally making people disappear, so I'll settle for "disappear in a cloud of smoke" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wightman

History is full of such examples, what the fuck is the issue with your defence of these archaic superstitious practices?

Scientology is merely younger than other religions, in every other regard it shares their lies, abuses and greed.

Re:Welcome to the club

[Aboroth]

Please, spare me your simplistic views of religion-hating. You just enjoy feeling superior to everyone that is in a religion, seeing them as stupid, and clearly don't think about it much beyond that.

The truth is, all major religions have had members who have committed atrocities. But that wasn't the purpose of the religions.

In real religions, the main goals are to help people in many ways. You might not agree with what is taught, but the intent is there to help and aid, and improve people's lives. Not to mention, all of their religious teachings are accessible by everyone.

On the other hand, scientology's entire purpose is to screw people over for money. That is what it was DESIGNED TO DO. Sure, people claiming to be Christians have screwed people over (for example), but they did it despite their religion, not because of it. They were't acting like Christians, and clearly learned nothing from the religion they claim to be in.

In scientology, ATROCITIES ARE THEIR CORE PRINCIPLES. If you can't see the difference between this cult and real religious teachings, you are just being willfully ignorant.

Now I will leave you to your fapping to thoughts of how much smarter you are than religious people.

Re:Welcome to the club

[goodmanj]

In scientology, ATROCITIES ARE THEIR CORE PRINCIPLES. If you can't see the difference between this cult and real religious teachings, you are just being willfully ignorant.

I disagree -- I'm not saying that other religions have atrocity as core principles, I'm disputing that you can differentiate scientology on those grounds.

The core principles of scientology, as I understand them, are that all of us are wise immortal spirits, whose bodies contain other confused and unhelpful spirits. By ridding ourselves of the confused body spirits, we can perform at our full "superhuman" potential.

These principles aren't atrocious: they're no more dangerous than "A single God created the world, and presides over an afterlife called Heaven; 2000 years ago he sent his immortal son to teach us the way to enter Heaven." In the hands of another organization, Scientology could be no more dangerous than Buddhism, Seventh Day Adventism, or Neopaganism.

It's not the principles of Scientology that are the problem: it's the *organization* built around it that is dangerous. And that's crucial for everyone to understand: no faith is immune from the dangers of cultism. Not yours, not mine, not even atheism.

Re:Welcome to the club

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading that list of charges and tactics, I may finally be ready to accept Scientology as a member of the fraternity of religions.

Since you put it that way, I guess maybe Scientology should be accepted as a "legitimate" religion, since it is merely following in the footsteps of the Roman Catholic Church, as far as compelling "donations", abusing its members, and fighting blasphemers tooth and nail. They haven't engaged in any crusades yet, so we should consider them a half-assed religion, but a remarkably hypocritical one that is unwilling to truly go all out for its crazy beliefs.

Re:Welcome to the club

[Panoptes]

It never fails to amaze me that anyone can take seriously an organisation founded by someone whose name is an anagram of L Don Rhubarb.

Re:Welcome to the club

[pkphilip]

I know you think you are pretty smart for making that observation - and those with mod points on slashdot here will be falling over themselves to mod you up because of the hivemind.

However, there is a huge difference between scientology and other religions - especially the more benign ones such as Christianity, Buddhism etc..

For one thing, every rite/ritual/creed of scientology is given on a pay-as-you-go basis.. no other religion does that.
For another - no other mainstream religion actively seeks to "disconnect" you from your friends and relatives
No other religion has actively infiltrated government and its agencies with the express purpose of thwarting an investigation.
No other religion has a policy that explicitly states that overwhelming legal force, harassment, lies and slander must be used to torment any opponent.

Re:Welcome to the club

[Bemopolis]

Not that anyone is reading this thread at this point , but I can't ignore a challenge...

For another - no other mainstream religion actively seeks to "disconnect" you from your friends and relatives

Open your books to the Gospel of Mark, 10:29-30 (KSV):

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

But look at me, quoting the words of a prophet of two of the major monotheistic religions, and a member of the tribe of the third. And *without even breaking a sweat*.

Here endeth the lesson.

Re:Welcome to the club

[jregel]

I was going to point out the danger of quoting a couple of verses from the Bible without establishing context, but even taken on its own, Mark 10:29-30 isn't advocating the sort of disconnect being discussed.

Try reading it in its context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:17-31&version=MSG

(using a modern paraphrase, The Message, because it gets the point across in everyday language. If that bothers you and you want a more literal translation, try this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:17-31&version=NIV)

Re:Welcome to the club

[Anonymous Coward]

Chances are this will eventually happen. Unfortunately, the example of Mormonism suggests that some nasty aspects of the cult such as "disconnection" will remain even in a sanitised scientology-lite. (Although they have a protestant movement in the form of the Free Zone, which afaik doesn't do such things.)

Re:Welcome to the club

[Risen888]

You are lazy. Lazy, stupid git.

Re:Welcome to the club

[guybrush3pwood]

+1

Scientology is a cult

[hyades1]

It's too bad Slashdot made the (difficult) decision to remove that comment, but at least they went down with guns blazing and provided lots of links to places the content could still be found.

It's always been a mystery to me how an organization that is so clearly a cult managed to get status in the United States as a legitimate religion. I'm willing to argue 'til the cows come home that all religions are cults, but there's another degree of crazy the Branch Davidians, the Peoples' Temple, the Scientologists and others of that ilk have managed to achieve.

A pox on the lot of 'em.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[glwtta]

It's always been a mystery to me how an organization that is so clearly a cult managed to get status in the United States as a legitimate religion.

Can you provide a workable definition of both 'cult' and 'legitimate religion' that allows to differentiate between the two?

Hell, to a lot of people the Branch Davidians are a perfectly legitimate church that was unlawfully attacked, and its members murdered, by the US government. Once we accept that "legitimate religions" get a pass on pretty much anything, it become quite hard to figure out where to draw the line (legally, at least).

Re:Scientology is a cult

[Locke2005]

The most dangerous idea known to man is "The end justifies any means." All cults tend to believe this is true. Most "legitimate religions" tend to frown on using unethical means to achieve their end. For example, the organization Lifespring used to tell adherents that it was okay to lie to people to get them to attend the recruitment events -- that makes them a cult.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[hyades1]

I think I pretty much covered that in the "level of crazy" sentence. My personal belief is close to what you said...that there's not much to choose between organized groups of people who get together periodically to engage in the exercise of self-delusion.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[c6gunner]

It's always been a mystery to me how an organization that is so clearly a cult managed to get status in the United States as a legitimate religion.

I've always wondered how people can use the phrase "legitimate religion" with a straight face.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[blair1q]

Not the first time religions have embargoed their own literature.

It used to be illegal to own a bible that wasn't in Latin. The Priests thought that if people could read it for themselves they'd (a) figure out they were being lied to about what it contains and (b) not need priests even if they told the truth.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[wiredlogic]

Religions are cults practiced by a majority. Cults are religions practiced by a minority.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[wickerprints]

So by your definition, the Catholic Church is a cult, since orders to resist investigations and indictments of pedophile priests were issued by the Holy See itself--all confidential, of course. The Vatican considers its priesthood subject to its own jurisdiction, and not the state(s) in which they operate. The ends justify the means, indeed--for the Church to this day continues to believe that by not taking action to stop child rape by its clergy, it is still able to claim that it remains a force for good in the greater sense.

Throughout history, many organized religions have sanctioned the commission of serious crimes and unethical acts by its members in the name of the greater good. Whether it is the Crusades, the Inquisition, World War II, or the Taleban, it is all the same--religious, dogmatic thinking is a disease of the mind, an affliction that has caused far more human suffering throughout history than it has alleviated. If that isn't the epitome of cult behavior, nothing is.

I should say that the most dangerous idea known to man is not "the ends justifies any means," but rather, "God made the world this way, and it is useless to question why." For the latter is invoked to explain the former--once you are told to not question the world around you in a rational, scientific manner, then anything can be justified.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you provide a workable definition of both 'cult' and 'legitimate religion' that allows to differentiate between the two?

Time.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[jayme0227]

Religion:
      1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
      2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
      3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

Cult: (now this is in my words, but I believe that others would basically agree)
A structured religion in which (1) members are required to pay money to be a member or progress within the religious structure, (2) members are segregated from their family or other outside influences as part of membership, (3) members are forbidden from leaving and harassed if they do manage to leave, or any combination of the above.

Most Christian religions do not require any money whatsoever (although they do encourage charity and giving). They often condemn other beliefs, but, especially in the case of the modern Catholic church, encourage study and exploration of other belief systems as a way for members to reaffirm their own beliefs. And if a member does decide to leave, other members often reach out to them, however the level of contact rarely ever (I sadly cannot say never) even approaches many of the things Scientology has done.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[jav1231]

JW's anyone? One of my college professors was an expert on cults. He particularly spent time exposing Jehovah's Witnesses.He once said, "They haven't been to my door in over 20 years."

Re:Scientology is a cult

[Locke2005]

Agreed, "The ends justifies any means" thinking and the unquestioning acceptance of the statements of a priestly caste are two sides of the same coin. The other aspect of this is that the statement "God told me to do it" has been used to justify more atrocities than any other. Blind acceptance is clearly the dark side of religion. Getting back to CoS, one of the questions they ask on their personality profile is "Do you consider yourself open minded?" I answered this with a "yes", and was told this was the WRONG answer -- Scientology does not want people with open minds, they want people that are absolutely convinced that CoS is right and are not willing to look at evidence to the contrary! Seriously, they actually told me words to that effect.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[glwtta]

Cult: A structured religion in which (1) members are required to pay money to be a member or progress within the religious structure, (2) members are segregated from their family or other outside influences as part of membership, (3) members are forbidden from leaving and harassed if they do manage to leave, or any combination of the above.

1) Tithing. Voluntary in most churches that practice it nowadays, but certainly hasn't been so traditionally.
2) Monasticism. Both Christian and Buddhist (among others).
3) Apostasy is punishable by death in several Islamic countries.

There just isn't a catch-all rule that will describe any cult, but will not apply to any "legitimate" religion.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[corbettw]

Religion, in general, is at best foolish and at worst dangerous (and I say this as a formerly-religious person). Cults are different, in that their beliefs are hidden. So the cut off would be, if someone hides their beliefs from non-practitioners, except in those cases where other authorities have outlawed the religion, it's a cult.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[jack2000]

A legitimate religion's members keep their morals and teachings to themselves. They don't indoctrinate kids from young age. A legitimate religion doesn't tell you what you should do in bed and doesn't judge you based on gender, ethnicity or race. A legitimate religion doesn't proclaim to have the one and only truth and lest you follow exactly its teachings you will suffer for eternity.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[Asic Eng]

As an atheist, I'd say a legitimate religion is one where the leaders also believe in that religion, and where the leaders believe that their religion benefits their followers.

A religious leader being legitimate does not preclude him from being intellectually lazy, full of hate, dumb or ignorant. It just means he'll honestly believe what he says. I think that's a fair and important distinction to make.

Also there are many religious people who are really nice, educated and intelligent - who I genuinely admire. They are honest in their beliefs - I disagree with them, but I respect that they are genuine.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[c6gunner]

As an atheist, I'd say a legitimate religion is one where the leaders also believe in that religion, and where the leaders believe that their religion benefits their followers.

We're talking about different uses of the phrase, apparently. I'm sure that witch-doctors honestly believe that sacrificing a goat, pouring it's blood in a circle, and shaking some rattles will cure a guy dying from dysentery, but I wouldn't consider them to be legitimate medical professionals. You can say that the individual is legitimately expressing his beliefs - not that the beliefs themselves are legitimate.

Also there are many religious people who are really nice, educated and intelligent - who I genuinely admire. They are honest in their beliefs - I disagree with them, but I respect that they are genuine.

Ditto, but that's rather irrelevant.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[Anonymous Coward]

A legitimate religion's members keep their morals and teachings to themselves. They don't indoctrinate kids from young age.

So Richard Dawkins doesn't belong to a religion. Whew!

Re:Scientology is a cult

[on the 8ball]

cult: a small, unpopular religion

religion: a large, popular cult

Re:Scientology is a cult

[metrix007]

1) no. You could always view the dogma of a religion for 3 longer than not. Scientology is unique in that it is secret and they sue people who make it available.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[Asic Eng]

"I wouldn't consider them to be legitimate medical professionals."

Agreed, I'd merely consider them a legitimate witch doctor. I just think there is a difference between those and people like Peter Popoff. It's just terminology, but you asked how people can use the term.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[adam.dorsey]

So there are no legitimate religions?

Re:Scientology is a cult

[guybrush3pwood]

So by your definition, the Catholic Church is a cult...

All religions are cults, but not all cults are religions. The word "cult" has a negative connotation, though, while the world "religion" hasn't.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[Shajenko42]

It's always been a mystery to me how an organization that is so clearly a cult managed to get status in the United States as a legitimate religion.

They infiltrated the IRS and waged a campaign of terror against them until they gave them their tax-free status.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[Anonymous Coward]

Does he have a URL or two?

I'd like to know. I've had JWs stalk me at work, social locations, and for the past 10years, on and off at my residence. One of my Mother's associates at a Christian Church back east became one; and I think that picked up the pace of interactions. They wanted to "Save" my Mother - so much for logic. We politely declined, yet they continued to stalk and racketeer.

I once walked over to a JW Hall a few blocks down after I chased away a couple of JW punks who incited a commotion at my Job Site. Right after one of their services. I told them not to come around any more.

Doing some homework, I understand that they had a good number of race-hate/apartheid mongers in their midst.

Thanks for your input.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[jav1231]

One thing he used to tell in class is, "Ask them why the world didn't end in 1942." Give that a try. Get well versed in their history and just ask them questions about it. Eventually you'll likely be marked and ignored. You could also try the Mad TV approach. Tell them to come in, you were just about to start an Amway meeting.

Re:Scientology is a cult

[hyades1]

My grandmother used to know the bible very well. When they started quoting scripture at her, she could throw it right back at 'em...and in more detail. It wasn't long before she was in that "ignore" list.

When I see them coming up the driveway, I just make sure to answer the door naked. Works just as well, and it's quicker.

Too Bad...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

You know, it's too bad that the average, God fearing, America loving, violence glorifying redneck didn't care enough about nuance to pay attention to the Church of Scientology. It would be fun to see the Church of Scientology try to play one of its smear campaigns/depowering operations against a group like the Westboro Baptist church. The ensuing holy war would be a thing of song and poem. Hell, they could probably make an MMO out of it.

Re:Too Bad...

[DigiShaman]

Throw in the Muslims for added entertainment. Just be sure to stand back after lighting that match.

Re:Too Bad...

[spun]

DIgiShaman, are you claiming that ALL Muslims are akin to Westboro Baptist Church and Scientologists?

Re:Too Bad...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

That'll be the expansion pack: Holy Wars: Songs of the Jihad.

Re:Too Bad...

[MisterCIA]

DIgiShaman, are you claiming that ALL Muslims are akin to Westboro Baptist Church and Scientologists?

I kinda doubt it. But they do seem to be really sensitive to criticism.

Re:Too Bad...

[blair1q]

All religions are akin to all religions.

Ghost stories and the irrational human actions they justify.

Re:Too Bad...

[PPH]

It would be fun to see the Church of Scientology try to play one of its smear campaigns/depowering operations against a group like the Westboro Baptist church.

It'll never happen. Honor among thieves and all that implies.

Re:Too Bad...

[spun]

While I am agnostic, and agree that all religions amount to ghost stories, he was not equating all religions with all religions. He was equating all Muslims with violent cultists. He was not making a point about all religions, he was belittling Muslims in particular.

Re:Too Bad...

[DigiShaman]

ALL?? No, that would be just silly now wouldn't it. I mean, It's not like they blow people up and cut their heads off ~ while alive. Oh, and stoning seems to be a popular method of justice. But other then that, certainly not "ALL". Of course not.

I say Muslims are the worst of the bunch. Religion-of-peace my ass!

Re:Too Bad...

[blair1q]

I don't see the word "all" in his post. Just "the".

As we've seen, doing anything that antagonizes "the muslims" will get you targeted by the violent muslims, of whom there is no shortage.

Which, again, makes them like almost all religions. There are a few religions that don't have as much violence to them. But even Buddhists like to kick a little ass from time to time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/buddhist-monks-riot-injures-40-1188655.html

Re:Too Bad...

[cforciea]

Yeah, Christians only bomb abortion clinics, and churches full of people with the wrong skin color. Oh, and committing genocide against Jews.

Good thing we can generalize religions based on a few members' actions.

Re:Too Bad...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

...he was belittling Muslims in particular.

Or, more accurately, he was building on a badly thought out, semi-politically incorrect joke with and even more poorly thought out, even more politically incorrect jest.

Grow a sense of humor. The kind of comment he made isn't worth getting your panties in a bunch, whether you're Muslim or not.

Re:Too Bad...

[spun]

No, ALL Muslims do not blow people up and cut off their heads while alive, I think we would have heard about that. Do you have any statistics showing that a greater percentage of Muslims commit violence than other religions?

Re:Too Bad...

[spun]

I did not see the word "all" either. If I had seen it, I wouldn't have asked. He certainly did not qualify the word "Muslims" one way or the other. If he had meant some, he would have said some, or specified which he means, such as radical muslims or Jihadists or something. But no, he responded and he actually meant ALL Muslims, who he thinks are ALL worse than any Scientologist or fringe Christian.

And it appears that you agree with him, but are willing to tar the approximately 80% of humanity that believes in religion with the same violent brush. Thanks for helping make we atheists and agnostics look bad.

Re:Too Bad...

[spun]

I repsectfully disagree with your assessment of DigiShaman's comment. Read his reply to me. He is a hate filled bigot.

Re:Too Bad...

[cjb658]

Obligatory comic: http://www.rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=1466

Re:Too Bad...

[DigiShaman]

Feel free look through these yearly logs. They're not petty, by a long shot.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Re:Too Bad...

[spun]

Sorry, my workplace uses McAfee Web Gateway which blocks that as a hate site. But I'm sure it is completely accurate and unbiased. Just FYI, here is a list of right-wing terror attacks in the United States:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

Here is an interesting Wikipedia article on Christian Terrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Does it feel good to have something to hate? Does it fill your life with meaning and purpose? Well, here's hoping you don't end up on that first list, m'kay?

Re:Too Bad...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I don't see the word "all" in his post. Just "the".
As we've seen, doing anything that antagonizes "the muslims" will get you targeted by the violent muslims,...

Which, again, makes them like almost all religions. There are a few religions that don't have as much violence to them.

I was about to mod you up for being able to distinguish between the extremists and the regular people. But then I went back and read the original post, the guy may have said "the" but he also capitalised "Muslims" and given the context it sure seems like he wasn't distinguishing between extremists and the regular folk.

Re:Too Bad...

[kheldan]

Who said it can't happen?

1. 1. Obtain Church of Scientology literature package
2. 2. Mail to Fred Phelps
3. 3. ????
4. 4. Lulz!

Re:Too Bad...

[Phaedrus420]

And you are the man. Please accept my +1 commendation for your effort to stick a boot up hate's keister.

Re:Too Bad...

[DigiShaman]

If telling the truth is "hate speech", we need more of it in the world.

I'm sure McAfee doesn't want death threats being that's the only group that's guaranteed these days to deliver them these days. So ya, the cowards block that site I'm sure. Fact remains, there isn't a religion on Earth that comes even close to the heinous and egregious crimes committed in the name of a religion.

Which would you feel more comfortable with? Burning a Bible in the Vatican, or burning a Koran in any densely populated Middle Eastern city? If having to chose between the two, the choice should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80.

Re:Too Bad...

[DigiShaman]

Spun, you're the only one that's hate filled. Somehow, you think the Truth = Hate. Well, the Truth outshines your ignorance and that of everyone else's. Islam is a pathetic religion in that they don't take out their own trash. No, it's America, Australia, Canada, Europe, Russia, Israel, India, and China having to do it for them. Now why is that, hmmm?

Re:Too Bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

why not some Assembly of God and Southern Baptists as well? Oh, let's be fair and include African Methodist Church, etc.

And no one wants to pick on the Mormons? Well, maybe that would cause Utah and Idaho to secede from the Union.

Re:Too Bad...

[kevinNCSU]

From your own link you used to claim Christianity is somehow the main guiding force responsible for Hitler and Nazi Germany:

In 1985 the Austrian author Wilfried Daim published a photograph of an alleged document signed by Hitler in 1943, which proposed the:

"Immediate and unconditional abolition of all religions after the final victory ('Endsieg') not only for the territory of Greater Germany but also for all released, occupied and annexed countries ..., proclaiming at the same time Hitler as the new messiah. Out of political considerations the Muslim, Buddhist and Shintoist religion will be spared for the present. The 'Führer' has to be presented as an intermediate between a redeemer and a liberator, yet surely as one sent by God, who has to get godly honour. The existing churches, chapels, temples and cult places of the different religions have to be changed into 'Adolf-Hitler-consecration places'. The theological faculties of the universities have to be transformed into the new faith. Special emphasis has to be lain on the education of missionaries and wandering preachers, who have to proclaim the teaching in Greater Germany and in the rest of the world and have to form religious bodies, which can be used as centres for further extension. (With this the problems with the abolition of monogamy will disappear, because polygamy can be included into the new teaching as one of the statements of faith.)"[69][70]

Blaming the holocaust on Christianity is more intellectually dishonest then blaming domestic violence on 'love'.

Re:Too Bad...

[Mean Variance]

I don't care what certain religions have done in the past. I do care what's happening now.

With that, I'd say the most dangerous one is that which Trey Parker and Matt Stone are afraid of.

Re:Too Bad...

[failedlogic]

I was so looking forward to this idea, that I was searching on Youtube for a video. Alas, there is nothing. I would welcome a talk radio or TV show to do such an interview.

"Hell, they could probably make an MMA event out of it."

There fixed it for you.

Re:Too Bad...

[masterwit]

Now that is one dungeon that could take a while...

Re:Too Bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it's too bad that the average, God fearing, America loving, violence glorifying redneck didn't care enough about nuance to pay attention to the Church of Scientology. It would be fun to see the Church of Scientology try to play one of its smear campaigns/depowering operations against a group like the Westboro Baptist church. The ensuing holy war would be a thing of song and poem. Hell, they could probably make an MMO out of it.

Bible Thumpers vs Tom Cruiser, Round 1, FIGHT!

Re:Too Bad...

[L4t3r4lu5]

They're not scared of any religion. Their network is petrified of both Scientology and Islam.

Re:Too Bad...

[Mean Variance]

Here's the Scientology episode.

There's a reason I cannot find the Islam episode.

Re:Too Bad...

[spun]

Christianity is a pathetic religion that won't take out their own trash. Did you read my list? Oh so many Christian terrorists, and the rest of them do nothing.

Re:Too Bad...

[cforciea]

I'd say it is roughly as intellectually dishonest as blaming Islam as a whole for "[blowing] people up" and "[cutting] their heads off ~ while alive" actually. That was kinda the whole point.

Re:Too Bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

bonch, the antidote to dishonesty is not more dishonesty.

Re:Too Bad...

[spun]

You replied to the wrong guy.

Re:Too Bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I didn't.

Re:Too Bad...

[spun]

Is "bonch" your pet name for me then? How cute! I shall call you "sminch," my darling.

Re:Too Bad...

[rhakka]

I'll take burning a koran in turkey over burning a flag in rural alabama.

"CULT" is just hate speech

[slshwtw]

Here is the definition of a cult according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1. 1: formal religious veneration : worship
2. 2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3. 3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4. 4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5. • 5a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
   • 5b: the object of such devotion
   • 5c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Note that all of the above could easily apply to first-century Christianity; indeed it is difficult to think of *any* definition for a cult that wouldn't (and yes I'm well aware there is an abundance of /. users who don't particularly care for Christianity, or any other religion). Here is the definition of a cult as people really use it: "A religion I don't like" I don't personally have any warm fuzzies about scientology, but to label it "a cult" doesn't describe anything substantive about the organisation except your opinion of it.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[slshwtw]

OK, obviously my first time using HTML list tags in slashdot. When I previewed the submission there was no auto-numbering, hence the repetition above. I guess I should have known better than to think the preview would actually render accurately.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[maxume]

I think most people that distinguish between cults and religions actually use "cult" to mean a worship group that seems to have a negative impact on the members lives.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I happened to be taking a course called "Sociology of Religion" at the time the Jonestown mass suicide/murder occurred. The professor of that course gave a pretty good working definition of cult vs. established religion. Basically, a cult gains a majority of it's adherents through conversion, while an established religion gains most of its followers through childbirth and parenting in a family of followers.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[zhilla2]

To call scientology a cult is OK, if you consider (as I do) all major religions "supercults". And yes, IMHO no difference except for size and date of founding.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Scientology isn't a religion.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, people use 'cult' to refer to a religion that, in addition to #3 above, uses unlawful/immoral/unethical/violent means of supressing dissent. Yes, Christianity was very much a cult at its start. It has grown up (arguable point). Scientology has not, as is very apparent to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention.

There are two additional definitions you didn't list
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

Its almost as if the meaning of a word changes over time. I'm pretty sure this is the first time that's happened. Yep...

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[dkleinsc]

Yes and no. There is such a thing as a dangerous cult, and there's also such a thing as a totally harmless new and/or tiny religious group. Many researchers have done work on how to tell the difference, and created tools like this questionnaire to tell the difference (Disclaimer: The author of that questionnaire, the late Isaac Bonewits, was a close friend of many people I'm acquainted with). And yes, the official Church of Scientology rates very badly in nearly all of those measurements.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Zorque]

Scientology is entirely and utterly deserving of all the hate speech we can muster. This organization drains people of their entire livelihoods, forces them into human bondage, and ends in their untimely deaths.

These are documented facts.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

My own personal way of distinguishing between them is this; how "sticky" is the organization? I.e. can the "church" in question afford to help out a lonely soul who comes in one evening for the first time in his life and then just leaves in the morning? To me a cult will never let go once they get a chance. One of our established churches, despite their many other flaws, actually don't mind to just helping someone out while knowing that the person in question just might never come back. So basically it's a question of scale, no more no less.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[HeckRuler]

Well duh, early Christianity WAS a cult. One charismatic leader with 12 in his inner circle and who knows how many followers. He preached radical ideas contrary to the establishment. It eventually turned into an established religion, mostly thanks to Paul, but it certainly had more humble origins.

Likewise, Ron Hubbard founded Scientology, somehow got some people to believe in it and him, and had ideas contrary to established psychiatry.

The difference being that the established views weren't all that good in Jesus's day, and the radical ideas like "love thy neighbor" and "forgive and forget" resounded with people and arguably lead to a better living conditions. (Or arguably lead to the fall of Rome and the end of Pax Romana). Meanwhile in 20th century, while the field wasn't exactly "hard", psychiatry was trying to be build off of science, and Hubbards dianetics was full of quakery.

I see what you're saying. Most people, *cough* the media *cough* use the term "cult" when they want to denounce something. But you can't simply wave it away as hate speech because there are real substantial reason why it's being called a cult.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[cfulton]

In point of fact. All religions all cults. All religions are in fact as odd, strange, mystical and perverse as Scientology. The only reason we split the two into separate groups is that "cults" are new and obviously a scam. Religions are old and have history to make them real. If I told you there was an all powerful otter who lived in the sky and that the otter would send you to the bottom of the ocean where you would writhe in terrible agony for eternity if you didn't love and obey the all powerful otter, you would laugh at me. Just exchange "god" for "otter" and "hell" for "bottom of the ocean" and you have Christianity. If you believed in the otter you would be part of a cult. If you believe in god you are part of a tax free religion.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[dwarfsoft]

I would say that "Christianity", "Islam" or whatever does not constitute a cult, but that the Church of said religion may. In that instance the Catholic Church could be considered a Cult in the same way that the Church of Scientology could be considered a cult. I believe it all comes down to the degree of harm that is caused to individuals and the hostility that these churches display toward those both within and outside their organisations. They could both be considered culpable as a cult IMHO.

Disclaimer: I am a lapsed Catholic. Agnostic. Though I still believe some of the founding tenets of religion (about how we should treat each other in the most purest form) are the correct tenets to live by.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the definition of a cult according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1. 1: formal religious veneration : worship
2. 2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3. 3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4. 4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5. • 5a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
   • 5b: the object of such devotion
   • 5c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Here is the definition of a cult as people really use it:
"A religion I don't like"

No, that's the definition of cult you use. the rest of the world generally means #3 when they say it.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most people are using it in the 3rd sense from above. The Scilons found that definition persuasive enough that they spent considerable resources acquiring Cult Action Network (an organization previously devoted to deprogramming cult members) and made it into a front group.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Cult often implies that people are stuck in it. It is difficult to leave, and they do everything they can to smear and isolate you if you do. You get cut off completely.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Culture20]

Actually, people use 'cult' to refer to a religion that, in addition to #3 above, uses unlawful/immoral/unethical/violent means of supressing dissent. Yes, Christianity was very much a cult at its start.

No, Christianity was very much a cult (per your definition) in its middle. The Christians in 30-ish AD weren't bloodthirsty killers bent on murdering non-believers. They were a sect of Judaism for a while, and viewed as a cannibal-sex-cult by the Romans (They eat flesh and drink blood at "orgies" [love feasts]). It wasn't until well after establishment as a state religion that violence was used to suppress dissent (by the state first, not the religion itself, although the papacy eventually did start using its own immoral/unethical/violent means).

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you are saying we shouldn't call Scientology a cult, even if it is one based on every definition you list? It doesn't work like that you know: It isn't "hate speech" to present an opinion... I think Scientology is indeed a cult with most of the negative connotations implied -- there's nothing personal or even passionate about that, just my (hopefully informed) opinion.

And yeah, Christianity was a cult (in some meanings of the word) in the first centuries, isn't that blindingly obvious to everyone?

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Thing 1]

It is a cult because it talks about DC-10s flying people from one planet to another. DC-10s, because that was the most advanced airship we had created at the time of the writing of the fiction.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Thing 1]

So I would say Judaism is also a cult; they took away my piece of flesh, even if my father's decision was only due to his discomfort and had nothing to do with those fucking Jews.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Locke2005]

One of my problems with Scientology is that it claims it is a business when it benefits it to do so, but also claims it is a religion whenever it benefits it to do so. It seems to want to have it both ways and be a profit-making religion.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Locke2005]

Sure, but on the bright side, it gets rid of their engrams!

I wonder if you can get auditing for the new engrams you've acquired while being beat up by David Miscavige...

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[geekpowa]

Here is a better definition

Cult: A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control . . . designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.

I accept your broad point about the word "cult" being a heavily emotionally loaded word; and as such it is difficult to have a rational discussion of this nature with the "c" word being dropped. But I disagree that the word to be sufficiently powerful/tainted enough to implicate any notion of "hate speech". Personally, I have no emotional reaction to the word; it is a neutral, useful adjective to me and when I use it my intent is to convey a factual, rational description (at least factual from my understanding of whatever issue is under scrutiny). Probably because I have been hanging around the issue of Scientology for years now; on account of my peer group 10 years ago falling into Scientology and the ensuing excitement as I with an open yet skeptical mindset, grasped for a basis of opinion on this particular organization; I am desensitised to the emotional impact of this particular word. In my estimation, the word, "cult" as I define it above is appropriate description of Scientology.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[dbIII]

We call them that because "organised crime" and "fraud" is not specific enough. There is no point comparing it to Christianity or even calling it a religion, that is just falling for their tax fraud. Many of the people that saw this scam emerge into daylight are still alive. There is no "mystery" and no chance whatsoever that it is really a religion. They just play with definitions until they run out the clock and others give up (eg. vs the IRS), then claim that proves they are right.
Just look at their actions instead of what they argue. You or I would go to jail if we pulled the e-meter scam to con people out of money but this organised crime group has enough influence to get away with it.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so every religion is a cult. Thanks for clarifying.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Most religions are cults.

Christianity is a messianic death cult. Judeism is a messianic cult. Islam is a personality death cult.

Scientology is a pseudo-scientific personality cult.

What religions but not cults? Probably Unitarianism and The Church of England. In those it doesn't really matter what you believe they are more social clubs. No one is going to kick you out and ostracize you for declaring your non-belief. Instead they might make you the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[williamhb]

The distinction that gets used in practice (eg on campus for regulating which groups are banned) is that a cult pressures new members to separate themselves from their families and only to associate with other members of the group. This is a usefully impartial distinction as it is not an issue of what organisations believe but how they behave.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[shadowofwind]

So what other word would a person use besides cult? Calling something an 'organization' is much less descriptive. A chess club is an organization. 'Campus Christians' is a religious organization with some mild cult-like characteristics, but its not a cult. The Rajneeshees were a cult. The Branch Davidians were a cult. Even if you've never heard of the Rajneeshees, you get a lot of accurate information about what they were just from that one word, information that is not simply pejorative.

Its true that religions start off as cults. But if religious people use the world hypocritically, and are uncomfortable when it is applied to the roots of their own religion, that says something about their own lack of objectivity, not so much about the meaning of the word. Likewise for cult members.

I don't think that the Merriam-Webster definition captures the common meaning of the word very well. The reason Campus Christians aren't a cult isn't because we like them better than Scientologists. Its because they don't have anything like the same degree of control over their members. A cult is more gang-like, more totalitarian. A cult is usually relatively small, because the degree of psychological manipulation that characterizes a cult doesn't scale very easily. Also, it usually takes a while for a cult to become large, and later leaders usually lack the charisma of the founder.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Hatta]

Negative impact according to who? Most members would say that the cult has a positive impact, most former members would say that the cult has a negative impact. You observe the exact same pattern with religions.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[maxume]

There is a distinguish up there.

But answering you more directly, I think there is a sliding scale, people who castrate themselves and give their life savings to some yahoo are pretty clearly harming themselves. I suppose you could compare that to tithing.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[FlashBIOS]

A dictionary is a responsive collection of definitions to the popular usage of the term. As english is "living" and evolves over times, there will be instances where the popular definition doesn't match the dictionary's.

I think it easy to say "cult" is one of those words as, I believe, the majority of people view that word with a negative slant.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

In most religions there isn't quite so obvious an attempt to take advantage of its adherents. What religion, for example, expects you to pay a LOT of money (many thousands of dollars) for access to its most important religious teachings? There are religions that ask you to donate, ask you to tithe, perhaps, maybe even try to persuade or obligate you to make a donation for questionable products (special this week on a piece of the true cross!), but out-and-out buy the main teachings of the religion? I can't think of many examples of that. I wouldn't even dignify Scientology by calling it a "cult". It's simply a scam.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[AlgUSF]

Too bad we didn't crucify L. Ron Hubbard...

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Deadstick]

Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Religion: A large, popular cult.

rj

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. You could ask the followers of Reverend Jim Jones ... if there were any left.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on what you wrote, the odds of you actually being circumcised -- much less Jewish -- are infinitesimal. I've yet to meet anyone who's been circumcised who actually gave a shit about it. (I'm circumcised myself, and have never considered it anything other than so normal as to be unremarkable.)

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[goodmanj]

Scientology is entirely and utterly deserving of all the hate speech we can muster. This organization drains people of their entire livelihoods, forces them into human bondage, and ends in their untimely deaths.

Then let's call them racketeers, slavers, and killers. Calling them cultists means we only object to their *belief system*, which allows them to play the religious persecution card.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Changa_MC]

I agree that my circumcision is no big deal and I don't particularly care if other people do it or not. That said, the few cases of serious infection or nerve damage made me think twice before genitally altering my own children unnecessarily. Now, if that was genetically altering, I'd be intrigued...
There also the fact that circumcised men everywhere hate condom use, while uncircumcised do not, which seems to confirm the "loss of sensitivity" claim. So much for the pro-circ groups claiming it magically prevents AIDS - condoms do that for real.
And Jewish circumcision involves far less actual cutting than American circumcision, so I'd go with that first, if I was going to put in the effort. But it's like piercing your baby girl's ears - why bother?

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[goodmanj]

a cult pressures new members to separate themselves from their families and only to associate with other members of the group.

Speaking only as devil's advocate, I could use that definition to argue that my campus varsity sports teams, LGBT group, Green Party and Young Republicans should all be banned.

All groups encourage their members to associate with the like-minded, and to distance themselves from family when the family is seen as abusive or misguided. Whether that pressure rises to true cult status is largely a matter of degree.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Thing 1]

You're an AC, but read my fucking history if you doubt how strongly I feel over being forcibly removed from a part of my body that GOD INTENDED TO BE PRESENT (if you're into mythology).

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Thing 1]

Yup, after reading your second-to-last sentence, I now wish I was Jewish. Or some other fucking cult that doesn't cut up their children; only 60% of Americans do this.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Thing 1]

NORMAL? It's "normal" to have a protective piece of flesh removed? What if we removed your eyelids, would that seem "normal" if it was done in your society? Fuck.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always wondered why 'proselytizing' was a mark of a cult. If you feel you have knowledge that benefits neighbors/friends/family, but hold back such information...

Honestly, what is wrong with sharing something that you feel is beneficial?

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Rollgunner]

Cult : A religion with less members than yours. (Ambrose Bierce)

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Decrying the use of the word "cult" as "hate speech," while insisting that they aren't Scientologists and dislike the CoS, is typical of Scientologists online trying to attack critics.

Trying to discuss the matter is unlikely to change his or her view.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

This ties in with three rules I once read you can use to spot a Cult.

1. A cult will encourage people to separate themselves from family, friends and other non-members.
2. Cults are secretive. Most religions are very public about their beliefs, teaching and values, but a cult will reveal its secrets only to its members.
3. Cults cost money. Religions will encourage you to donate but this is not mandatory; a cult will insist on regular payments from its members.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

CULT: A religion without political power. ;)

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[geekzealot1982]

I define a cult as a group of people to which one belongs that seeks seeks to control one's access to persons outside of that group. Groups that raise themselves above one's family tend to fit this characterization quite easily. Of course, this just shows the bias I have towards the importance of family, others may not share this view.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

My personal definition of a cult, based just one what I've seen and read over the years, is a religion that is somewhat-to-extremely isolationist, often dehumanizes its members and gets them to give up basic freedoms as a way of controlling them, and goes to extraordinary measures to prevent members from leaving. In the past, the word "brainwashing" was usually used to describe what a cult does to its members, because members' families consistently reported large changes in members' personalities, actions and priorities upon becoming involved with the cult.

True, a lot of what are normally recognized as legitimate religions fall under much of this definition. But the "extraordinary measures to prevent members from leaving" bit absolutely applies to CoS, and sends up an enormous red flag for me.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused...why shouldn't we refer to them as a cult, even though they fit all five definitions you posted from Webster?

Also, your suggestion of the term 'cult' being used inaccurately as a perjorative term is false. The word cult implies 'weird', which of course, has a mildly or strongly negative connotation (depending upon the person using the term), but from your own definitions, #3 encapsulates that perfectly.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

If your definition cult == religion I don't like would be true why does nobody refer to Islam as a "cult"?

See...

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[dbet]

Except many of us consider Christianity a cult as well.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Gorphrim]

Also, cults tend to keep their inner workings and beliefs secret. Unlike a "real" religion, which will take every opportunity to teach you all about their ways.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[dkleinsc]

If your faith is encouraging you to make your religious convictions known and be willing to provide information for those who ask for it, that's one thing. If your faith is telling you that in order to remaining in good standing with the group you need to go out and find 10 more members, that's something else entirely. And yes, by that definition the Church of Latter Day Saints has a more dangerous level of proselytizing (by sending out its youth to go door-to-door soliciting membership) than does your friendly neighborhood Voudoun priestess.

On reason I like that questionnaire is it focuses on behavior more than size or beliefs. If you focused more on beliefs, you might think the Branch Davidians were ok because they were a particular kind of Christian and you were a Christian, or that the People's Temple was fine because it was socialist and you were a socialist. If you were focused on size, you might think the Church of Scientology was a safer organization than a local Wiccan coven when the exact opposite is true.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[williamhb]

Speaking only as devil's advocate, I could use that definition to argue that my campus varsity sports teams, LGBT group, Green Party and Young Republicans should all be banned.

All groups encourage their members to associate with the like-minded, and to distance themselves from family when the family is seen as abusive or misguided. Whether that pressure rises to true cult status is largely a matter of degree.

Not at all. "Your family are not members of OurCult therefore you must move out, move in with other members of OurCult and have no further contact with your family". I'm yet to hear of a rugby club telling someone to drop all contact with their parents because they don't play rugby.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[goodmanj]

Yes, the athletics team isn't perfect, it's more for humor value. But the LGBT society is the meat of my argument:

"We're glad you've come out as gay and joined our group, but your family does not approve of the gay lifestyle, and is being abusive toward you and your new friends. If you can't convince them to accept you as gay, you should get out of the house, live your own life with your new gay friends, and don't let your asshole parents tell you what your sexual identity is."

Don't get me wrong: I *don't* think LGBT groups are cults, and I have nothing but respect for the people who face terrible choices like this in the face of verbal and physical abuse from their families. But the point is that a variety of social groups do encourage members to seek independence and sometimes separation from their parents, often for good reasons, and so that can't be our sole criterion for defining a cult.

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I had my earlier late-night post as AC deleted by "Deny/Suppress Free Speech at a SECULAR SITE 4 JEEZUS" people. I decided to make another post regarding the "Cultness" of modern religions like Christianity. In short, there are too many shoddy/BS'd/Fake/unprovable issues involving the Gospel and its follow on stories. No Secular Sources can verify that if ever occurred. The Romans considered it as "Superstitio" (if I remember the right phonetic spelling).

Religion can be a social/spiritual medium for individual and congregational expression (and many ethical monotheists deal with our conscience and the "knowledge of good and evil"); but oftentimes has been abused to control, oppress, and enslave/brainwash nations.

Once I realized that the "Gospel" story never happened as described with the people involved - and more or less was an Compilation of various religious lore and text - I rejected the Roman Christ Jesus(Iyesu for a more correct phonetical spelling) as the "Messiah" called for in the Jewish Bible.

Instead of hoping and "having faith" in someone/thing that most likely may have not have existed, we're better off knowing the truth and being truly accountable for our actions. Besides, the persecutions have appeared to be carried out by clergy and proselytizers who would lose out the most when the truth (or in this case, the shear absence of it) is revealed.

1) There's hardly any - as in zero - recorded secular history that can validate the Gospel Stories. Pilate and Ceasar Augustus(?) were recorded and verified. Only New Testament documents that can be veried mostly date in the 3rd / 4th Centuries - earliest documents claims are in the 2nd CE. There should be a lot more from the early 1stCE, considering that most of the activities involving the Lead Character took place around 30-35CE. Writings of big events should spike in popularity and plateau/die off/become standardized within a generation of actual eyewitnesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

1a) Numerous Scholars/Archaeologists determined Josephus' entries regarding "Jesus as the Messiah" as anachronistic (prose used from time period different from main text), making it a forgery.

1b) There Christian New Testament was compiled from dozens of "source documents", which I'll refer to as "Gnostics Scriptures". There were several other versions of the Gospel, yet NO TRUE SOURCE GOSPEL DOCUMENT - (like Source "Q") IT ONLY EXISTS AS A IMAGINARY/WISHFUL POINT OF REFERENCE FOR CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS.

1c) I haven't come across any Gospel Documents written in Hebrew. Though Greek was spoken, there should be Hebrew used by religious authorities, since the Jerusalem and Babylonian Tamuldim (plural), compiled years after the destruction of Y'rushalim/Jerusalem(stab at more accurate phonetic sp) - used Hebrew and Aramaic...absent is Greek. So the "breakaway sect" of Judaism actually prayed and conducted their affairs in Greek?

1d) The Messianc/Jews4Jesus(J4J) Chruches' contention that Y'Shua (God is my Salvation) in Hebrew is the Jewish wast to say "Jesus" is ERRONEOUS. If it were so, the Hellenized Y'Shua should be "Joshua". Again, No factual basis. Iyesu (phonetic "Jesus" in Greek) was reported to have been Circumsized in the Main Temple after he was born. Why doesn't he have a Jewish Name? The claims that Christianity began as a "breakaway" sect of Judaism continue to diminish...

1e) Dead Sea Scrolls - Christian Claims (IIRC, from the 70s), of New Testament Documents being included are FALSE.

1f) Too many historical gaps filled by wishful thinking. Even the Japanese Public Television (NHK) has broadcasted a Scholar's study claiming that "Organized" Christianity most likely had its origins in Syria (explains Antioch - since that's where the first church was founded IIRC) around the 2-4th(leaning on the latter, don't recall the details) Centuries CE.

1g) Other Scholars point out that the Gospels could be a discussion of

Re:"CULT" is just hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

This test does not seem to be scientific or objective enough. I know plenty of countries alone that would be considered a "Dangerous" cult. The idea of needing a simple evaluation tool is still valid however.

Caldera per seat licensing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did Scientologist force a comment about Caldera per seat licensing off of slashdot?

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=274&sid=01&tid=88

Re:You know what else is a cult?

[Quiet_Desperation]

And I equally don't understand how people can adhere to this Church of insanity.

Because the world sucks ass many other unsavory things.

People look for something to make sense of it, to figure out why bad things happen to good people, and why evil often lives comfortably in fine homes full of Bugattis and supermodels.

So, many latch on to belief systems that claim to put a filter over the random, horrific bullshit of the universe, and reveal The Truth behind it.

Demons. Thetans. Imps. Sprites. Bogeymen. Aliens. Jinxes. Genetic predispositions. Whatever.

Giggle

[Anonymous Coward]

Simultaneously, the planted charges erupted. Atomic blasts ballooned from the craters of Loa, Vesuvius, Shasta, Washington, Fujiyama, Etna, and many, many others. Arching higher and higher, up and outwards, towering clouds mushroomed, shot through with flashes of flame, waste and fission. Great winds raced tumultuously across the face of Earth, spreading tales of destruction...

Attention all Scientologists!

[Anonymous Coward]

For sale:

Ocean front Condo in Oklahoma.

12 Story Building

400 units

Built in 2002 and being forclosed on! Only $4,200!
Please call 555-555-5555 for more info!

DCMA?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious...It is corrupt sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit and has its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard... It is sinister because it indulges in infamous practices both to its adherents who do not toe the line unquestionly and to those who criticize it or oppose it. It is dangerous because it is out to capture people and to indoctrinate and brainwash them so they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn from ordinary thought, living, and relationships with others."
--Justice Latey, ruling in the High Court of London

Re:You know what else is a cult?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a kook. How many times do you have to drag space nutters into unrelated articles?

Once and for all

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientology is NOT a church. Never was, never will be. It's a twisted parody and abomination.
Outside the US it is hardly recognised by anyone else. It's not even a cult. It's a greedy cooperation disguised as whatever it takes to get a new victim. A company that sells lies and extorts it's customers.

Re:You know what else is a cult?

[Thud457]

ah, but it's well-worn wisdom that if it walks like a kook and it squawks like a kook, it must be a shill

So it comes to question, who would benefit by convincing science-minded forum-board members that space exploration is a waste of time?
obviously mr space nutter is a alien real-estate agent sub-parceling teh moon.
my reasoning is incontrovertible.

Re:How to spot a cult ..err...goverment

[Anonymous Coward]

Same properties.

Comedy Gold

[Steauengeglase]

For those who have been reading up on CoS, most of this is stuff you've known for years (though some of the perks that Haggis alleges Mr. Cruise has received over the years were news to me).

The best bit comes in the last few paragraphs. A CoS rep says that everything in their church doctrine was 100% pure from the horses mouth, the words of Hubbard. Then Wright asks about the church's views on homosexuality. Suddenly the rep responds that some bigot must have, while dictating it from Hubbard, added bigoted comments to the text, all a conspiracy to bring down the church.

Clearly, if these are the folks who are dealing with the public (who appear to know so little about their own "faith"), Scientology's ship is sinking and within a few years it will be nothing but pool of trademarks/copyrights managed by a handful of lawyers and a large collection of dated internet memes.

Re:Comedy Gold

[Culture20]

The biggest news is the "L.Ron was never blind" news. The FOIA release of L.Ron's military records don't match Scientology's, and Scientology's records had obvious false information (wrong purple hearts, anachronistic medals), which makes theirs more suspect of being the incorrect version. If L.Ron was never blind, then dianetics doesn't work.

Re:Comedy Gold

[jack2000]

My what a surprise, who could have thought!

Re:Comedy Gold

[jwlidtnet]

But we've also known this for years...from Omar Garrison on down. Even those early, unauthorized biographies of Hubbard make much of the fact that his history--military and otherwise--is extraordinarily embellished. I recall reading an "annotated" version of the What Is Scientology? intro piece that neatly debunked almost every claim (blood brother, nuclear physicist, etc.).

A dying way for people to network?

[sdguero]

Scientology seems to be a weird combination of smart people like Haggis who want to better themselves, and "good old boys" that keep things running. In the end, its really just a group of people networking themselves into careers. It reminds me of the stories about the Masons but it is the entertainment industry rather than politics.

Anyway, I think that the church is losing relevance now that stories like this have become so common. Everyone knows Scientology is a stupid sue-happy cult. While the membership may continue to grow, I think the prestige of the average new members has declined over the last decade. Like the Masons, I expect Scientology to continue on but to lose relevance over time. And like the Masons, it has become a favorite topic of conspiracy theorists...

Re:A dying way for people to network?

[MemoryDragon]

Main difference the masons never were a religion it was more a debate club which was quite popular in the 18th century with some weird 18th century esoteric customs which also were popular at that time. The COS is an entire league. I knew it was evil but I did not know how evil.

Re:A dying way for people to network?

[MemoryDragon]

Also I have to remind for one haggis who manages to pull out without damage you have about 1000 people who feed the system and in the end are bankrupt have lost their families or even worse have given their children away who will then also have a dreadful fate within the organisation. For one smiling celebrity you have 1000 people being ripped off being harassed or even worse sent to the correctional institutions.

Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

The Scientology planetbuster bomb inches closer and closer to completion.

So the Roman Catholic Church is a cult?

[Anonymous Coward]

The most dangerous idea known to man is "The end justifies any means." All cults tend to believe this is true. Most "legitimate religions" tend to frown on using unethical means to achieve their end.

By your definition, the Inquisitions makes the Roman Catholic Churck a cult, correct?

Re:So the Roman Catholic Church is a cult?

[Locke2005]

By my definition, yes, the Catholic Church has at many times acted as a cult. They have also been rightfully criticized by many for doing so, even by those withing the Catholic Church, e.g. Martin Luther and the priests currently objecting to the Church's protection of known pedophile priests.

Ironic humor....

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul Haggis gets stewed. After 34 years he realizes he was fleeced, so he says...sheepishly.

Just another lamb to the slaughter...

Scientology ...

[tudorl]

is disturbing

RIP Dave Bird:

[Hartree]

One of whose sigs was: "Woof woof glug glug, who drowned the judge's dog?"

Ah, the days of atrocity tourism watching the forever flamewars on alt.religion.scientology. :)

Re:RIP Dave Bird:

[Anonymous Coward]

He was a hake monger!

There's an idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring that the two parties you've just named don't work similarly at all - why not try to put both at each other's throats? Should be fun..

Well, not quite...

[unitron]

...but only the Church of Scientology has forced comments out of existence.

Not entirely true.

Go look at this post

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11125&cid=359434

from that 2001 story.

Then load the entire story and try to find the post by Multics to which Hemos was replying. Even if you've got your threshold set to -1, you won't see it, because those old archived threads never load anything with a 0 or -1 score, which means you can come across highly rated replies that make little or no sense because you can't see the low-rated post to which they are replying.

I also seem to remember something about some posts that were modded below -1, which meant that, although technically they were still there, you couldn't see them, and I also remember something about an entire thread that got "disappeared".

Re:Well, not quite...

[nedlohs]

But those are not "forced". That's slashdot deleting/making inaccessible stuff they want to.

Re:Well, not quite...

[Thing 1]

I also seem to remember something about some posts that were modded below -1, which meant that, although technically they were still there, you couldn't see them, and I also remember something about an entire thread that got "disappeared".

I "participated" (somehow, those fucking losers running the site didn't read what I wrote, or something) in one of those "disappeared" threads. I lost mod points for several years; got them back a couple years ago. Why? I don't fucking know, I didn't say anything as negative about Slashdot back then as I'm saying in this comment.

So What?

[ac7xc]

In a world where 50 million children are malnourished who cares if Scientologist read strange books and use E-meters to read their souls? I don't know why this is a subject for Slashdot in the first place.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out clambake.org and scratch the surface on how they treat their adherents. Additionally, research how they sink their claws into the survivors of natural disasters by sending out Volunteer Ministers to New Orleans and more recently Haiti.

It has been a Slashdot topic for years because the CoS sued Slashdot back in the day for publishing secret Church of Scientology documents. They have been avowed enemies since, so you will continue to see critical Scientology coverage as it comes to light.

Re:So What?

[goodmanj]

In a world where 50 million children are malnourished, who cares if ...
"Paul Venezia offers a field guide to understanding your resident Unix veteran,"
"Google Goes After Content Farms"
"Ethernet switch and adapter makers are making Fibre Channel available for free."
"Motorola is Adopting 3 Laws of Robotics For Android"
"Harvard Professor Creates Paper Accelerometer"

We live in a world where it's possible to care about more than one thing at a time. Slashdot is mostly about those things that aren't mass starvation.

Re:So What?

[Culture20]

In a world where 50 million children are malnourished who cares if Scientologist read strange books and use E-meters to read their souls? I don't know why this is a subject for Slashdot in the first place.

Read the F'n article. These people operate in the supposed 1st world nations (predominately USA), but according to the article, they practice slavery and brainwashing, and according to other sources actually advocate lying, murder, and emotional cauterization as healthy actions for their adherents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R2-45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)

OT Level III

[damn_registrars]

(taken from the Fishman affidavit)

The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged". His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants. When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert. The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development. One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time. In December 1967 I knew someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but only that given here is needful. One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body. One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I. It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing. You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small. Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error. Good luck.

The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged".

Incident I Occurs at start of track (4 quadrillion years ago). LOUD SNAP WAVES OF LIGHT CHARIOT COMES OUT, TURNS RIGHT AND LEFT CHERUB COMES OUT BLOWS HORN, COMES CLOSE SHATTERING SERIES OF SNAPS CHERUB FADES BACK (RETREATS) BLACKNESS DUMPED ON THETAN

Incident II is over 36 days long. Capture on other planets was weeks or months before the implant. Those on Teegeeack (Earth) were just blown up except for Loyal officers who were (shortly before the explosion on Earth) rounded up.

H-BOMB DROPPED ON VOLCANO EXPLOSION TERRIFIC WINDS THETAN CARRIED OVER PEAK ELECTRONIC RIBBON CAME UP HE STUCK TO IT IT WAS THEN PULLED DOWN AND HE WAS (AS PART OF A GROUP) IMPLANTED WITH R6 PICTURE OF PILOT SAYING HE IS MOCKING IT UP

(1) capture (being shot), (2) freezing, (3) transport to Teegeeack (sometimes via a relay point), (4) being placed near a volcano, (5) beginning implant up to "the pilot", (6) various picture sequences, (7) the 7s and C.C. and OT II materials, (8) 36 days of picture implants which give a vast array of materials and three explanations for the bombing, (9) transport to Hawaii or Las Palmas for packaging up into clusters. The pictures contain God, the Devil, angels, space opera, theaters, helicopters, a constant spinning, a spinning dancer, trains and various scenes very like modern England. You name it, it's in this implant we call in its entirely "R6".

Re:OT Level III

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt they bother pulling it this time. Anonymous smeared this shit all over the net back in '08. They also have had Scientology hiding behind sheets during major meetings for the last 3 years.

Re:OT Level III

[masterwit]

My little sister told better tales when I was younger.

Re:You know what else is a cult?

[Anonymous Coward]

Space exploration by machines, which amounts to sending out rocket cameras, is fine. It doesn't require any magical technologies, infinite energy sources, fantasy materials. Machines keep getting better; we don't.

Space *Nuttery* is the collection of absurd, delusional and childish sci-fi fueled fantasies along the lines of space colonies, space mining and "manifest destiny" among the stars.

Sorry, having pilots circle around the globe in the upper atmosphere is not exploring, it's not science.

Voyager Launches the Third Age of Discovery

Of course, you won't listen to this, having already made up your mind.

OT Level III, more text

[damn_registrars]

(the end text from The Fishman Affidavit, straight from Hubbard's book):

OT III

1. Check for any BTs (E-meter, theta perceptics, intention, pressure areas, telepathy is HOW) on and in:

1. Body surface (WHERE)
2. Body inside
3. In thetan's space (Approx. 40' X 60')
4. On thetan

2. Run Incident 2, then Incident 1, until BT(s) have gone and are released. Then, check for additional Incidents 1's and 2's until dry (on the meter).

3. Return to Step 2, to find new ones to run. Use ruds while running if necessary. There is an effort to stop and hurry on Incident 1.

4. When complete, exact date and run both of the incidents on self.

5. If a bog, do Millazo Pack. Write down some 'mutual associations'. Re each one on this list, FIND THE INCIDENT THAT MADE THEM ONE, and run that. Then, run OT III, Incident 2 and 1 after that cluster is broken up. Occasionally, BTs will have an incident that made them one other then Incident 2, thus this action.

INCIDENT 2: Dates approx. 75 million years ago, earth years, location, Earth, named TEEGEEACK at that time (meaning planet of sorrow), involved 33 planets of this sector, each with populations of 80 - 200 BILLION PER PLANET. XENU, the ruler, and 'Renegades' decided to solve overpopulation as follows, but was halted and XENU placed in a mountain trap after over 5 years of war.

Incident 2 Patter: DETERMINE IF A LOYAL OFFICER, RESIDENT OF EARTH, or FROM ANOTHER PLANET. If the latter two, start at their being picked up and shot and if from another planet, frozen in an ice cube, transported (flying saucer), taken to mountain, a volcano always, H BOMB EXPLOSION, TERRIFIC WINDS, EFFORT TO ORIENT, MAGNETIC STRIP UP FROM CENTER OF VOLCANO OR DOWN FROM AN AIRPLANE, EFFORT TO GET OFF AND FIND REST OF SELF, PROTEST, BEING PULLED ON STRIP, VISUAL DISPLAY OF INSTRUCTION BY A 'GO TO THE PILOT', WHO SAYS 'HE'S MOCKING IT UP'. There are 26 - 29 days of implanting (the CC and OT II, God and Devil material, reasons for this being done, helicopters, etc.) that need not be run. SOME WERE PACKAGED INTO CLUSTERS in the HAWAII and LOS PALMAS ISLANDS (8 to a cluster). If a loyal officer, the sequence is SURPRISE at being shot, placed at the volcano. Use meter to determine and determine volcano. Watch for earlier beginning (pulled in for a tax audit), run only up to the 'HE'S MOCKING IT UP' as BTs can go into 'free fall', spin and get sick from the 29 days implanting, with pneumonia and death the implanted phenomena of free fall in addition to insomnia. Coltus, the Reigning planet, Hubbard a part of the 'rescuing force that put an end to it'. Don't force or push them off, and answer the BTs questions. There were probably not any good or bad guys in this incident, although Hubbard insists the sector to have been a cultural desert since. Very SP BTs can usually be brought around with adept 2WC, Charm, Ruds, but if not use Power Processing on the rare hard core.

Incident 1: Dates 4 QUADRILLION YEARS AGO (which is 15 zeros or 4,000 trillion years ago).

Incident 1 Patter: LOUD SNAP, WAVES OF LIGHT, HORSES DRAWING CHARIOT RIGHT TO LEFT, CHERUB COMES OUT, BLOWS HORN, COMES CLOSE, SHATTERING SERIES OF SNAPS, CHERUB FADES, RETREATS, BLACK MASS IS DUMPED ON THE THETAN.

Volcano List

HAWAII Pacific Ocean
MT HOOD Pacific NW
MT BAYER Pacific NW
MT RAINIER Washington
MT ETNA Mediterranean
MT ST. HELENS Washington
MT EREBUS Antarctica
MT FUJI Japan
MT EVEREST Himalayas - Nepal & Tibet
MT KILIMANJARO Northeastern Africa
LAS PALMAS Canary Islands off NE
Africa MT SHASTA California
MT VESUVIUS Italy
MT KRAKATOA Indonesia
MT PELEE Martinique
MT MCKINLEY Alaska
Volcanoes existed New Zealand
at these locations Philippines
then, but no Mexico
longer South America
North Dakota
Vermont
Scotland
Iceland

Note: These were the most common locations. 600 other volcanoes did and

not quite sure

[Anonymous Coward]

how is this technical or scientific news

Re:not quite sure

[Anonymous Coward]

how is this technical or scientific news

Scientology once got a comment on /. removed. That was a cardinal sin, and /. readership has been fighting back ever since. Add also that it's got "Scien" and "ology" in the name, and that it's an evil group whose tenets attempt to turn people into sociopaths, and it's ripe for parody and vitriol. When one takes a serious look at the illegal things Scientology espouses (kill/frame SPs, enslave children), let alone does, it changes from a mockery to an evil that must be stopped.

Remnant Fellowship Church

[denzacar]

Gwen Shamblin's Remnant Fellowship Church fits the libel condition rather adequately.

Libel Suits Against Remnant Fellowship Critics

There have been two cases where Shamblin and other Remnant Fellowship church members have filed libel suits against critics. The first [45] was a libel suit filed by 67 members of Remnant Fellowship, including Gwen Shamblin, against an anonymous blogger, who posted private information about the members on his website, and Rafael Martinez, a vocal critic of Remnant Fellowship, who claimed Gwen was leading a cult.[46] The blogger recanted and posted an apology on his site [47] resulting in the church retracting the lawsuit.

Martinez, however, had continued in his claims which had precipitated a second suit against him.[48] On March 22, 2010 this 2nd lawsuit was heard in Williamson County Circuit Court in TN. The judge granted the defense's motion for summary judgement ruling against Gwen Shamblin and Tedd Anger's case and dropping the case against Rafael.

Then again, you can also simply google church libel suit.

Chuck Lorre too...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

FWIW, another big hollywood name dropped out of the CoS a few years back. He's the writer/producer for shows like "The Big Bang Theory" (and "Two and a Half Men", "Dharma & Greg", "Cybill", "Grace Under Fire", "Roseanne") and if you pay close attention to the dialog in that show, you'll notice that he occasionally slips in a veiled reference to scientology craziness.

Re:Chuck Lorre too...

[erroneus]

Do tell! I love easter egg hunting in TV shows. In The Big Bang Theory, give me an example of a scientology reference?

Re:Chuck Lorre too...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Sorry, I haven't bothered to memorize any of them, just laughed when I noticed.
But here's one of his vanity cards that air after the credit of every episode that mentions it:

http://www.chucklorre.com/index-mnm.php?p=293

Re:Chuck Lorre too...

[KingAlanI]

Yeah, I watch Big Bang Theory all the time (one of the few TV shows I watch any more), and yet I haven't noticed any of this...well, maybe now that I'm looking for it...

R2-45

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't seem to do measured responses very well.

R2-45

'Nuff said.

Of course he didn't know he was in a cult!

[erroneus]

Most Christians and Muslims don't realize it either. It is completely integrated into their brains and in their cultures and in their home lives, everywhere. It feels perfectly normal to them and for anyone to tell them they are wrong or stupid or crazy would represent a challenge to their very identity and the concept of reality. That's kind of how it works.

I'm In a Cult!

[Greyfox]

'I was in a cult for thirty-four years. Everyone else could see it. I don't know why I couldn't.'

Because people will do almost anything to be able to continue believing in something they want to believe in. Kind of like why you believe in God.

Oh, not so much fun when it's your guy, eh? Is their evil Darth Vader guy really much less plausible than your nebulous guy who arbitrarily torments his faithful in the old testament or your zombie dead guy in the new one? Should he not stand next to Zeus, or Vishnu, or Allah, or Quezecotwhathal? Are soul catchers in the sky really that much harder to believe than Coyote coming back to life again and again, or the Great Father making humanity out of corn? Are flying space DC-9s much less plausible than Joseph Smith reading a new testament out of a hat?

Only one of them can be right, but it's just as likely that all of them are wrong, so pick your poison well, because at the end of the day someone had to put all that order there, and that person was you.

Re:I'm In a Cult!

[JustNiz]

No, I think the reason he couldn't see that it was a cult was because he'd already put in 34 years and donated well over half a mill. Its human nature that the more you invest your life in something the less prepared you are to accept any criticism of it.

Its just the same as that guy who over time sent his whole life's savings to a 411 scam. Even though the police and all his friends told him, he refused to believe them and was even trying to get more money to send the scammer, because he simply couldn't accept the loss of that much into his universe.

Re:I'm In a Cult!

[asdf7890]

Are soul catchers in the sky really that much harder to believe than Coyote coming back to life again and again, or the Great Father making humanity out of corn?

Or Atum getting bored one day and creating the universe as we know it by cranking one off... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_creation_myths#Heliopolis)

I'm reminded of the quote:
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other Gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts.
(I have no idea who Mr Roberts is, but he way of thinking strikes a chord with me)

A/V

[Anonymous Coward]

Article video collected here:

http://appendixa.net/2011/02/13/buzzbait-paul-haggis-vs-the-church-of-scientology/

Paul Haggis vs Scientology

[bayankaran]

A simpler explanation for Paul Haggis out of the closet...it seems Paul Haggis used Scientology and the connections they provide to advance his career in Hollywood all these years. Looks like he does not need the group anymore. Now he is 'Paul Haggis'!!!

Re:Paul Haggis vs Scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

And thus it begins...

Super Powers!

[AlgUSF]

Holy Xenu!

Jump on a rocket from the super power building in Clearwater, and catch a comet! Go scientology, the religion of science.

Re:Super Powers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heres the Xenu opening text.. Do not read your will get sick with Pnemonia according to the all knowing L con Huggard!

The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet - 178 billion on average) by mass implanting..

            He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken - in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged".

            His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc was placed in the unplants. When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert.

            The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development. One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time.

            In December 1967 1 know someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but only that given here is needful.

            One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body.

            One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I. It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing.

            You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small.

            Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error.

            Good luck.

       

Are you sure that PH *ISN'T* Part of Anon

[BBF_BBF]

Paul Haggis may be part of Anon's efforts. You never know. ;-) And we'll probably never find out.

Great interview about the article on Fresh Air

[DusterBar]

On February 8th, there was a great Fresh Air with Terry Gross interview about this article in The New Yorker.

Terry Gross has this way to get really interesting information from her guests and to do it in a very engaging way. And this episode is no exception.

Cults engage in harmful and/or unlawful conduct

[Anonymous Coward]

...and correctly used in this case.

Modern Religions, like Christianity and its sects/spinoffs (refered to as Xians henceforth) can be qualified as such - due to the conduct of its adherents and from any "shoddy/BS-filled/non-existent history", precepts, and/or "reason for being". 1st Century Xianity that you refer to, doesn't have any historically verifiable existence. It's a very dangerous assumption to make.

-No text is ever recovered dated that far back. (Wiki the reported dates of Christian Bible (NewTestament) Books - two are allegedly in dated 150ce and 190ce. Most are 3rd, 4th, 5th Century CE).
-No dialogue or history debating the Movement.
-Romans brushed them aside for Centuries as "Superstition" (i.e., Cult)
-Josephus' (who was born after the alleged resurrection) simple comment of Jesus appears to be anachronistic by many scholars.
-Jesus, or Iyesu, isn't a Hebrew Name. Hebrew Xians and Jewish Wannabe Cults coin the term "Y'shua"; but if that were used, it should have been Hellenized to Joshua.
-Dead Sea Scrolls didn't contain Xian New Testament Books.
-I haven't seen a Hebrew Xian Bible written in Hebrew of that time frame. Have you?
-Iyesu never sailed to the Americas (too bad Mormons)
-Note that the turncoat villain was named Judas (Judah - or Jew).
-December 25th was the Winter Solstice on the Julian Calendar in "Europe" until the "Pope Gregorian" System was adopted 'round 1598ce. Surprisingly, John the Baptist's B-day was proposed to be celebrated on the Summer Solstice

Xianity was never a reformation of Judaism - it's more like "Judaic(and Mesopotamian, to be fair to Abraham and Job) Spiritual Worldview and Philosophy - merged with Dionysus(note wine/vine reference) and Tammuz-like Messianic figures - and the "moral way and religious expressions" attempted by people who don't get it. (e.g., Praying/Speaking in Tongues? It's Daven-ing.)

Like Xianity SpinOffs like Mormonism(w/apartheid agenda - comments made by Founders' quotes), and JWs(similar), it's something manufactured and designed to manipulate and assimilate others. There may be plenty of good intentions expressed and practiced; but History records many a coercive and bloody conflict. To be fair, other religions did engage in something similar over the ages. There are many Xian movements which qualify as Cults or Harmful Religions (which imply "thought policing, condoning of unlawful conduct (e.g. child molestation), and suppression of dissenting lawful conduct") in today's definition.

If there were some movements (some Jewish, some "God Fearer", some gnostic, for the sake of argument) during that time frame, it's all assimilated or have died off.

As an ex-Xian and an ex-student of Judaism (too ethnically biased/exclusive, or maybe it's just by the askenazim, mitzrahim, Chabad, and the Haredim - wait a minute, that's almost everybody save the Sephardim and the the Native Israeli sects - ROTFL!), I have to say that I'm glad to have kept an "arm's length" from the treacherous and the venomous; and hope these harmful entities that use religious freedom, ethnic solidarity, or free speech to shield their criminally fraudulent behavior be rooted out judicially.

Unstoppable force meets immovable object :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be fun to see the Church of Scientology try to play one of its smear campaigns/depowering operations against a group like the Westboro Baptist church.

WOW !
Unstoppable force meets immovable object :-)
You sir, are a genius!

tl;dr

[ThatsNotPudding]

Executive Summary: sooner or later, all religions kill.

i could have sworn bitchslap was a perl script

[decora]

that was used by slashdot moderators in the early days of the site.

slashdot used to be pretty wild and wooly.

Haggis

[Anonymous Coward]

While far from a defender of the Church of Scn, being listed as an enemy and "suppressive person" myself after having been in charge of some of their publishing for a period of several years, I find that Haggis himself should really have nothing to bitch about. If a major part of his problem is the church stance on homosexuality, he should have looked before he got involved: the church and its founder have been very publicly anoti-homosexual since its first published Work, Hubbard's "Dianetics" in 1950, and there was no let-up of retraction or anything even remotely resembling a step away from that in all the decades since. If you were gay, their only thought was to "cure" you of the problem by mind alteration and peer pressure. There were two or three friends who were gay, who attempted to join the Se Org and were promptly washed out. Rightly, because if you held views dissimilar to the church, you did not belong in that organization. Or even if you disagreed with the political bosses, such as Miscavige, who had pulled themselves to power over others. It is no different from any other political organization or organized religion: it is there to promote its own survival and force its beliefs on others.

Who cares?

[tehcyder]

I don't see how you can logically differentiate between scientology and Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism, except that it's not been going as long.

They're all about controlling people through fear of the unknown.

Re:Who cares?

[Skuld-Chan]

Most churches will simply let you walk away if you like - not the CoS...

Re:Who cares?

[MemoryDragon]

Well neither christianity nor hinduism Harasses their ex members nor does any of those religions currently run private prisons/concentration camps for the punishment of ill behaving members, and even in times when those things did occur it never was part of the official doctrine of the religions founder. What irks me most after reading that article, all the child labor the correction institutions harrasment all this had been going on now for decades, why have had the authorities never had a serious investigation. This is clearly illegal what is going on there.

Re:Who cares?

[snookerhog]

... nor does any of those religions currently run private prisons/concentration camps for the punishment of ill behaving members...

You clearly did not go to Catholic school.

Good artical

[zippy590]

The source material is well worth a read. The public image they try to project is kind of a mixture of common sense and pop psychology. But, when you dig a little deeper these people are nuts. Its' kind of like that Jesus cult that keeps resurfacing. The whole forgiveness and absolution of your sins thing is pretty healthy, but that resurrection thing sounds like the plot from a 60s horror film

regarding Bieber

[KingAlanI]

I agree; Bieber seems mostly harmless, with the behavior of some of his superfans being the main irritant with the enterprise.
As a fan of some other pop stars, I'm trying to stay away from "flame other pop stars" and other such bad habits.
Many pop fans don't fit the stereotype, but you can however see where it comes from.

Scientology and EnlightenNext

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawrence Wright highlights a type of social pathology that, far from being confined to Scientologists, is a ubiquitous feature of many contemporary so-called “religious” or “spiritual” organizations. Yet public discourse about the relative merits of any particular such group usually seems oblivious to this pathology. Why?

Though this is a phenomenon endemic to groups that use mystical traditions and founding myths to justify their authority over individual members, each time they produce results consistent with their authoritarian blueprints there is public outrage—AFTER a lot of people have gotten hurt and their bizarre ordeals have become the object of gawking and controversy.

American Guru, my book about the organization EnlightenNext and its founder Andrew Cohen, tracks the history and development of this phenomenon in yet another such “idealistic” group. To demonstrate how much EnlightenNext has in common with the Church of Scientology, I've written an article showing parallels which these two groups have in common, and which in fact a great number of authoritarian spiritual groups share.

You will find the article here: http://americanguru.net/news-and-reviews/cut-from-the-same-cloth/