Slashdot Mirror


Scientology's Fraud Conviction Upheld In France

schwit1 writes "France's top appeals court has upheld a fraud conviction and fines totaling hundreds of thousands of euros against the Church of Scientology, for taking advantage of vulnerable followers. France regards Scientology as a cult, not a religion, and had prosecuted individual Scientologists before, but the 2009 trial marked the first time the organization as a whole had been convicted. 'The head of a parliamentary group on religious cults in France, lawmaker Georges Fenech, hailed the ruling. 'Far from being a violation of freedom of religion, as this American organization contends, this decision lifts the veil on the illegal and highly detrimental practices' of the group, said Fenech. The court case followed a complaint by two women, one of whom said she was manipulated into handing over 20,000 euros in 1998 for Scientology products including an "electrometer" to measure mental energy. A second woman claimed she was forced by her Scientologist employer to undergo testing and enrol in courses, also in 1998. When she refused she was fired.'"

321 comments

  1. ..everyone remember to post as AC ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i wonder if there are any high level Scientologists in the NSA?

    1. Re:..everyone remember to post as AC ! by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Funny

      i wonder if there are any high level Scientologists in the NSA?

      Of course, they are known as Operating System Thetans.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    2. Re:..everyone remember to post as AC ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      congratulations, I didn't think you could make those leaks even scarier.

      Because that sort of thing definitely happened.

    3. Re:..everyone remember to post as AC ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the lie of OSW is that it ever ended.

    4. Re:..everyone remember to post as AC ! by rvw · · Score: 5, Funny

      i wonder if there are any high level Scientologists in the NSA?

      Of course, they are known as Operating System Thetans.

      They even created the Scientology Operating System (SOS). They don't use terms like "cpu" and "reinstalling" anymore, but use more common terms like "brain" and "brainwashing".

    5. Re: ..everyone remember to post as AC ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for outing yourself as Scientologist.

    6. Re:..everyone remember to post as AC ! by Chatsubo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the "audit log" is something completely different.

      --
      > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
    7. Re: ..everyone remember to post as AC ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      pfft. I don't think scientologists are allowed on the internet... otherwise they might find out about Xenu and that they had mocked up their own past lives (see reading this will cost them $10k).

      PS same AC

    8. Re:..everyone remember to post as AC ! by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Which is worse? Unwilling servitude in sea org or dealing with selinux?

    9. Re:..everyone remember to post as AC ! by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And this isn't just a practice of the distant past either. One of the things that came out of the Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame trial, as a bizarre aside, was that Tom Cruise had actually been meeting with then-Vice-President Dick Cheney to urge him to put sanctions on Germany for banning Scientology. Those are the kind of lengths these people are willing to go to harass anyone that crosses them, even ENTIRE GOVERNMENTS. And that was just ten years ago. Scary shit.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    10. Re:..everyone remember to post as AC ! by foma84 · · Score: 1

      Which makes me wonder, what's their level of clearance?

    11. Re: ..everyone remember to post as AC ! by gwolf · · Score: 1

      Hey! My friend passed the Operating Systems class by disecting XINU, a lesser-know educational Unix-like system. And if he had XINU to learn from, maybe... He took the course on Operating Syscientology instead?

    12. Re:..everyone remember to post as AC ! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      You can turn off selinux...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:..everyone remember to post as AC ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ooh boo .. NSA.... there are probably thousands more people alive today thanks to them, and none thanks to Snowden...

  2. Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Scientology is the truth! Both Tom Cruise _and_ John Travolta are scientologists. Do you believe me now?

    1. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Scientology is the truth! Both Tom Cruise _and_ John Travolta are scientologists. Do you believe me now?

      What, that it's been nothing but a sham and a glorified tax shelter for the elitists of society since inception?

      A societal metric of ignorance by trying to present a known science fiction writer as a source of absolute truth and fact behind the origins of this "religion"? (as if there were a factual purpose behind the story of Xenu)

      Fuck yes I believe you.

    2. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I dunno. You kind of have to respect a messiah who's final message is "I've been fucking with you this whole time".

    3. Re:Scientology is the truth by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Scientology is the truth! Both Tom Cruise _and_ John Travolta are scientologists. Do you believe me now?

      If Scientology is the truth, does that mean that scientologists are truthers? That would make sense, mental disorders never come singly.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It always looked to me like a third-rate science fiction author making up a religion that looks like his third-rate science fiction.

      The amazing thing is that people have swallowed it, even people with lots of money, which might be taken as an indicator that they'd know better.

      P.T. Barnum was right.

      John Doe
      (Son, brother, and father to those who wrote the "Closet" South Park episode.)

    5. Re:Scientology is the truth by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What, that it's been nothing but a sham and a glorified tax shelter for the elitists of society since inception?

      And this differs from other "legitimate" religions ... how?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    6. Re:Scientology is the truth by rvw · · Score: 2

      The amazing thing is that people have swallowed it, even people with lots of money, which might be taken as an indicator that they'd know better.

      I think they have really excellent techniques to focus your mind, and to convince people. I've taken an Avatar course, whose founder was a former Scientology member. I haven't taken any Scientology courses, so I cannot tell from first hand, but I'm quite sure that the Avatar methods are based on what Scientology had to offer back then. I really don't like the Avatar organisation, but I really like their course. I did only the first week.

      What I don't like about them? They want to "enlighten" the world with their view. At the end of the first week they try to convice you to do the master course. The introduction course is to help yourself. The master course helps you to help other people. And if you don't do that, you won't be able to help your family and friends, and that's no good! It sounded like emotional blackmail to me. The problem is that their convincing (selling) techniques are so good, that it's really hard to say no. Their arguments are hard to withstand. Don't you want to be happy? Don't you want your friends to be happy? Well - don't think that this is what they come up with, as that would be much too easy, but you get the idea.

      The good thing is how they teach you to get rid of blocking and limiting thoughts. It was really effective for me, but to tell them that just that introduction was enough was quite difficult. I guess Scientology has similar and probably better techniques.

    7. Re:Scientology is the truth by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He wasn't a third rate science fiction author though. Read his book Final Blackout, about the war in Europe. In 1939, he correctly predicted which country would use the first nuclear bomb in warfare. (Spoiler, it was the US.) Back in the heyday of scifi, he was one of the biggest names.

      Also, if you consider he knew enough about the human mind, as well as society, that he created a really crazy set of beliefs and got people to accept them. There are plenty of crackpot false messiahs out there. Not many build a system like his, and have it survive so well after the messiah's death.

      He built a fictional world, and got others to believe in it. That's what writers do. So, please, don't consider him to be just another third-rate science fiction author.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    8. Re:Scientology is the truth by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apparently a lot of it was plagarised from a mental patient in Chicago who wrote about his dreams in the 1930s and even the Xenu name was from an A.E. Van Voigt short story. So make that second-hand third-rate.

    9. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      forced abortions
      slave labor
      forceful breakups of families
      fraud
      murder

      all as part of institutional doctrine, not some fringe members acting on their own. the list goes on. It would be great if all they were was a money making scam.

    10. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      forced abortions
      slave labor
      forceful breakups of families
      fraud
      murder

      It's funny, 4 of the 5 things you mention are central to one of the world's major religions as well.

    11. Re:Scientology is the truth by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He wasn't a third rate science fiction author though. Read his book Final Blackout, about the war in Europe. In 1939, he correctly predicted which country would use the first nuclear bomb in warfare. (Spoiler, it was the US.) Back in the heyday of scifi, he was one of the biggest names.

      Also, if you consider he knew enough about the human mind, as well as society, that he created a really crazy set of beliefs and got people to accept them. There are plenty of crackpot false messiahs out there. Not many build a system like his, and have it survive so well after the messiah's death.

      He built a fictional world, and got others to believe in it. That's what writers do. So, please, don't consider him to be just another third-rate science fiction author.

      You don't have to be a good author to make an occasional accurate prediction. Some really bad books have done as much. And how much of his fame was due to a talent for self-promotion I don't know; I never considered him one of the "big names" in SF.

      Actually, I've only read one of his works, which was a Battlefield Earth volume I chanced to pick off the library shelf years ago. The main character reminded me of how the power figures often behave in Phillip K. Dick novels: corrupt, venal, self-serving, not very competent and prone to panic when their little worlds fall apart. But usually one can identify with the villains in a PKD story. LRon's nemesis was just an idiot. I don't even remember what the book was about, beyond an alien warlord tasked with softening up the Earth for invasion but actually wasting time feathering his nest.

      So I'd have to call his writing third-rate. Forgettable.

    12. Re:Scientology is the truth by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      It differs in that everyone in the upper levels knows that they get compensated on how much $s they extract from the newbies for their "courses."

    13. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kifflom!

    14. Re:Scientology is the truth by Rhaban · · Score: 1

      The worst thing is that the scientology mytho isn't even his best work.
      He wrote some interesting science fiction, but the Xenu story isn't really SF. It's bad fantasy.

    15. Re:Scientology is the truth by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Which story? I'm a little bit of an A.E. Van Vogt collector. (not dedicated, just as I see them in the used book stores)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    16. Re:Scientology is the truth by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      second-hand third-rate plagiarizer you mean.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    17. Re:Scientology is the truth by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pretty sure it's been central to all of the world's major religions from time to time.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    18. Re:Scientology is the truth by jandersen · · Score: 2

      Just for the record, I've read one or two of his stories, and I thought they were OK - I was, admittedly, about 11 years old at the time. And I can't honestly say that he was anything as good as Heinlein, Asimov or any of the other genuinely big names. Not by a lightyear. No, he was OK, just run-of-the-mill.

      As for creating a religion - have you any idea how easy it is? Just look back at Mormonism, Spiritualism, Christian Science, Tarot, Astrology, etc etc. All you have to do is speak loudly and sound like you mean it. This is not to bash religions or their followers at all, they often contain grains of truth; just take astrology - a retrograde moon is definitely not a good thing, for example.

      Apart from that, I don't think Scientology can be called a religion at all; it is a scam, simply and plainly. With most religions, the leaders do in fact genuinely believe in their teachings, whereas all the evidence seems to suggest that the founders and leaders of Scientology coldly and cynically calculated a way to cheat and/or bully its victims out of money, freedom and dignity.

    19. Re:Scientology is the truth by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      P.T. Barnum was right.

      One of the most slanderous bits of popular lore. Barnum never made the infamous "sucker" remark -- it came from a critic.

      Sure, Barnum peddled all manner of hokum. But he didn't take your life savings, or your Social Security check. He took your fifty cents, and sent you home glad you spent it.

    20. Re:Scientology is the truth by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      I spent fifteen years working with, or near, a roomful of console operators on round-the-clock shifts. They had to man their consoles continuously, but had lots of dead time, so they were allowed to read.

      One guy read one book, over and over, for the whole fifteen years. It was Battlefield Earth.

    21. Re:Scientology is the truth by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cult: A small, unpopular religion.

      Religion: A large, popular cult.

    22. Re:Scientology is the truth by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Hubbard was responsible for the worst movie ever made. Or rather, Travolta was. Battlefield Earth was a disaster as a movie. But not because of the content. Just that it was impossible to portray the book as a movie. Now the book, on the other hand, was incredibly brilliant. And something like 800 pages. But if you're a sci-fi fan... one you just couldn't put down.

      His Dianetics book is probably where scientology came from.

      --
      Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
    23. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they often contain grains of truth; just take astrology - a retrograde moon is definitely not a good thing, for example.

      You are an idiot, for example. In what way does astrology contain any predictive truth at all?

    24. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they have really excellent techniques to focus your mind, and to convince people.

      The phrase you're looking for is "Stockholm Syndrome"

    25. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've only read one of his works, which was a Battlefield Earth volume I chanced to pick off the library shelf years ago.[...]So I'd have to call his writing third-rate. Forgettable.

      That's like rating Christian theology based on whether there are compelling plotlines and character development in Deuteronomy. Religious texts work specifically because they're predictable. If they were surprising, or required thought, then most people would set them aside as confusing. Hack writers are the stuff of mind control.

    26. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same exact thing as Landmark Forums.

        Some of $cientology's techniques are well known brain-washing techniques.

    27. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, just look at the impoverished slums of Vatican City and Mecca.

    28. Re:Scientology is the truth by Calydor · · Score: 2

      A societal metric of ignorance by trying to present a known science fiction writer as a source of absolute truth and fact behind the origins of this "religion"?

      So umm ... Did you mean L. Ron Hubbard or George Lucas? ;-)

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    29. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a general thing, I have not 'duped the world' nor attempted to do so... I have generally given people the worth of their money twice told.

      -- P.T. Barnum

      (happy now?)

    30. Re:Scientology is the truth by Quila · · Score: 1

      I don't even remember what the book was about, beyond an alien warlord tasked with softening up the Earth for invasion but actually wasting time feathering his nest

      The Earth having been long ago conquered, an alien bureaucrat stuck with the crappy backwater Earth assignment wants to feather his nest using the few remaining humans left to mine gold in areas his people can't get to.

      It was kind of interesting, old-fashioned adventure, humans vs. the aliens, but adding the worst of beaucracy, business and government on top of it.

    31. Re:Scientology is the truth by filthpickle · · Score: 1

      Sarah Silverman said something funny in her interview on the Seinfeld coffee thing...along the lines of 'your Messiah is named L Ron Hubbard because there was already another Ron Hubbard in the screen actors guild...isn't that weird to you'. I am paraphrasing. I just watched the episode again and didn't hear her say it...but I know that she did the first time I watched it. They must have edited it out.

    32. Re:Scientology is the truth by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      (Son, brother, and father to those who wrote the "Closet" South Park episode.)

      Is that like 'I'm my own grandpa?'

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    33. Re:Scientology is the truth by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Van Voght was not a second rate science fiction author. You need tor realize that styles change over the decades. I often have trouble reading stories now that I once thought were superb...and it's not just that I'm older (though that's a factor, too), and it not just that science has advanced (many of them were really fantasy anyway). It's that habit of thought that were reasonable now seem silly. And some things that seemed silly now seem reasonable. But just try to read, e.g., "A Logic Named Joe". Or "The Voyage of the Space Beagle". In contrast "The World of Null-A" has held up rather well.

      Science fiction is often a reflection of current politics. When the politics changes, the fiction often stops working. This doesn't mean the author wasn't good, it means he was (subtly?) topical.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    34. Re:Scientology is the truth by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Lighten up - it was a joke. Think about it: if the moon suddenly started circling the other way, it would probably be something you'd feel. Just like if you observed an opposition between the Sun and Venus.

    35. Re:Scientology is the truth by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Legitimate religions aren't tax dodges. Yes, you can deduct your tithes and alms but many don't (I don't). What a legitimate church collects goes towards paying its bills and other expenses, whatever is left over goes to the poor. The church I attend (on the west side of town where the rich folks live) sent millions to Africa last year, as well as making sure that the poorest kids in town and their families actually got to eat during Christmas vacation (school breakfasts and lunches is often all some of these kids get), and completely redid the two poorest schools, new playground equipment, refurbished and painted the buildings, etc.

      Legitimate religions don't make anyone rich. Sham religions like scientology do.

    36. Re:Scientology is the truth by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think L Ron Hubbard actually believed in it somewhat. He initially avoided medical help after an accient when anyone else would have rushed at the chance for some pain relief. Now maybe he just wanted to keep up appearances but if I had all that money I'd have said "haha, jokes on you, now somebody get me to a hospital".

      It started with Dianetics which was not a religion at the time but a pseudo-science. The psychiatrict community became the enemy over time after they criticized it. Later Dianetics practitioners and leaders diverged and L Ron tried to keep firmer control over it. After bankruptcy of the Dianetics Foundation, L Ron lost control of that word and invented Scientology, which was like Dianetics++ which now encompassed spirituality instead of just mental health. Many earlier Dianetics practioners and teachers split off at this time.

      I do think Hubbard did believe in the Dianetics side of things at least. There are enough eccentricities to suggest maybe he believe a chunk of the rest. He believed he had all the answers to mental health, he believed that the psychiatrists (and communists and others) were part of the oppressors keeping his new ideas "suppressed", so it's not hard to make the leap that he could have been self deluded instead of being a coldly rational charlatan.

      Certainly today however, the current leader, Miscavige, is a True Believer. And much more ruthless and manipulative than Hubbard by many accounts.

    37. Re:Scientology is the truth by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Scientology was an evolution too. At the start it was just Dianetics, which while a little goofy was certainly not a religion.

    38. Re:Scientology is the truth by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There is a strong streak of paranoia in Scientology, that goes back to the early days of Dianetics Foundation, bankruptcy, lawsuits, etc. This doesn't mean they don't believe it. Thus you have paranoid true believers. The current leadership was involved in a lot of manipulation to get there with other true believers being kicked out of the organization and accused of being subsersive.

    39. Re:Scientology is the truth by TroyM · · Score: 1

      You know, if you were clear, you'd be a lot better at detecting sarcasm. Got to get rid of those thetans.

    40. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      forced abortions
      slave labor
      forceful breakups of families
      fraud
      murder

      It's funny, 4 of the 5 things you mention are central to one of the world's major religions as well.

      Wait, which one is the fifth thing that isn't?

    41. Re:Scientology is the truth by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      It was kind of interesting, old-fashioned adventure, humans vs. the aliens, but adding the worst of beaucracy, business and government on top of it.

      Exactly. Anyone can write an alien invasion story. Thousands have done it. This one was about what happens much later. And I thought it was a very good story, if a little slow moving at places. Nothing in it was simply 'just another alien invasion story'.

      Too bad the movie was more-or-less doomed from the start because of the link to Scientology, which is nowhere in the book.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    42. Re:Scientology is the truth by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed the book, but not that much.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    43. Re:Scientology is the truth by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I think it was the short story "Vault of the beast"(1940), but I could be wrong since I last read it in 1982.
      A google search for "xenu voight" turns up all kinds of scientology bullshit and for the story itself there are PDFs for sale but no summary.
      However, single names aside, a vast amount of the plagarised stuff came from "The Urantia Book", collected together in 1955, which was 2097 pages of "sleep writings" from a mental patient in Chicago.

    44. Re:Scientology is the truth by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I did not mean that the stuff he plagarised was third rate, I like A. E. Van Vogt's stories and started reading them more then thirty years ago. Hubbard was described above as third rate and I agree with that, and wished to add that some of his material was also second hand.
      I could see a bit of Vogt coming through in some of the ideas in Babylon 5 - he still appears to be an influence.

    45. Re:Scientology is the truth by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The story I heard was that he and Heinlein made a bet about who could create the best religion. Heinlein wrote Stranger in a Strange Land and as far as I'm concerned won.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    46. Re:Scientology is the truth by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I don't grok what you are saying.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    47. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientology is the truth! Both Tom Cruise _and_ John Travolta are scientologists. Do you believe me now?

      What, that it's been nothing but a sham and a glorified tax shelter for the elitists of society since inception?

      Since Inception?! SHIT, you mean di Caprio is one too?

    48. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, A.E. Van Voigt was also a Scientologist.

    49. Re:Scientology is the truth by Reziac · · Score: 1

      http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html

      Go down to the bit about Ted Sturgeon.

      From what I heard at LASFS, there were other witnesses, too.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    50. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I first encountered the concept that people could perpetuate a bullshit story and build a vast, criminal organization that could exempt itself from various laws, including having to pay taxes on the immense profits from their vast empire, under the protection of the idea that morons would buy into it and that somehow magically validated the bullshit I was pedaling I was flabbergasted. I couldn't believe people bothered with other kinds of fraud that could land you in jail when this one not only could be gotten away with, but indeed the government not only tolerates but indeed encourages!

      LET ME STRESS THIS POINT: I invent a bullshit story about everything having been made an ABSURD amount of time ago, by some weird super-being, no matter how ridiculous it is, how obviously bullshit, and I get a bunch of people to believe in it, often by threatening or scaring them, conning them into it, or because they're just fucking stupid, or some join when they realize they can join up and by paying lip-service to something they don't really believe, put themselves in position to take advantage of all the stupid sheep who get hoodwinked into joining, and on the strength of THEIR belief, MY organization gets to ignore rules that apply to anyone else? I'm not required to prove a damned thing, all I have to do is get enough morons to buy into my galactic FUD campaign?!?

      This is the model the Catholic Church and all its major derivatives have been operating on for MILLENNIA, including the hierarchy of Judaism before it. I was so disgusted I thought I'd invent my own bullshit religion, sucker the stupid into joining, and get high-profile people to join by pointing out they could use it as a tax-shelter and we could do all manner of illegal things all protected by the guise of religion, and told someone about my idea.

      *That* person replied by telling me L. Ron Hubbard had beaten me to the punch by about 30 years.

      Shit.

    51. Re:Scientology is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this differs from other "legitimate" religions ... how? Again?

    52. Re:Scientology is the truth by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      The Pope has a pretty fancy house. Who paid for that?

    53. Re:Scientology is the truth by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      1.2 billion living Catholics, as well as all the Catholics in the last 2000 years. Note that when the present Pope was a Bishop in South America, he refused the large suite the church offered and lived in a small apartment in the poor part of town.

      That said, I disagree with a lot of Catholic teachings and practices. I'm not Catholic, just generic Christian.

    54. Re:Scientology is the truth by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      So it's a religion that is making people rich or not then? A religion whose leader lives in a castle so fantastic that it is even recognised as a separate country? I'm pretty sure Jesus never lived like that... And what fantastic timing, a Catholic priest with a 42 million dollar house: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24638430

    55. Re:Scientology is the truth by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with you about the Catholics. That's one of many things I disagree with them about. To the new Pope's credit, though, at least he evicted the "Bishop of Bling".

      I also say that Pat Robertson has converted more Christians to atheism than Richard Dawkins ever dreamed of.

  3. i get to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    those cult freaks swarm through the streets here, scuttling between the many local 'church' buildings... used to be that they would station young kids (many teenagers) at local flea markets to offer free massages and 'stress tests' to do recruiting...

    lately, that approach has switched to the cult using immigrant and non-English speakers to entice other adherents...

    CoS is a sickening, freakish cult that obfuscates real-estate and business ownerships, such as drug-rehab centers...

    1. Re:i get to watch by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "CoS is a sickening, freakish cult that obfuscates real-estate and business ownerships, such as drug-rehab centers..."

      All over Europe, they are considered an anti-constitutional movement and observed by diverse intelligence services.
      In Germany by the 'Verfassungsschutz', translated literally as the 'Defender of the Constitution'.

    2. Re:i get to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they especially targeted junkies (google Narconon), because those are mentally vulnerable. Easy to do if you have a cover organization that acts as if it is a legit rehab center. Cheap way to brainwash them to get cannon fodder expendable disciples.

    3. Re:i get to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whenever I saw one of those "free stress test" tables they set up near the bus station, wait until they got a victim, and then sidle up and exclaim excitedly and loudly, "Oh man, look, e-meters! I didn't know Scientology still existed! You changed the name of your "audits" to "stress tests", huh? That's interesting!" and things along those lines.

      The victim *always* got this big wide-eyed look when I mentioned Scientology and scampered away quickly after that (and I got nasty glares from the auditors). Eventually they moved to some other location, but I'd like to think I saved some people from a costly mistake with my actions.

      Frankly, I try to be open minded about most religions and I would like to believe that for some people even Scientology may have some benefits, but the Church of Scientology's methods - such as disguising their recruitment behind free "stress tests" - are disgusting and were well worth sabotaging.

    4. Re:i get to watch by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I've never seen one, but I wonder... if you slipped some copper wire against your palms and through your sleeves, what would happen? Their e-meters work on the idea that the presence of 'thetans' impedes electricity. At just a few ohms hand to hand, they might declare you the second coming of Hubbard on the spot.

      And if that doesn't work, stick four 9V batteries in the middle and burn out their meter.

    5. Re:i get to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they especially targeted junkies (google Narconon), because those are mentally vulnerable. Easy to do if you have a cover organization that acts as if it is a legit rehab center. Cheap way to brainwash them to get cannon fodder expendable disciples.

      It also gets them a lot of "underworld" connections which they can then use for everything from money laundering to human trafficking and drug running, shake-downs, protection rackets, etc. They're basically just a slightly modernized version of "The Mob" without the Family background and structure.

  4. Should have read their refunds policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "one of whom said she was manipulated into handing over 20,000 euros in 1998 for Scientology products including an "electrometer" to measure mental energy"

    she obviously wanted a refund because the meter reading was zero.

    1. Re:Should have read their refunds policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what can happen whenever you allow another to do your thinking for you. And if you 'pays that ticket, you takes that ride'.

  5. Hold hands and prey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    To be rid of these silly cults once and for all

    1. Re:Hold hands and prey... by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

      To be rid of these silly cults once and for all

      Was the use of the word 'prey' instead of 'pray' deliberate?

    2. Re:Hold hands and prey... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4

      Now I don't know what stopped Jesus Christ
      From turning every hungry stone into bread
      And I don't remember hearing how Moses reacted
      When the innocent first born sons lay dead
      Well, I guess God was a lot more demonstrative
      Back when he flamboyantly parted the sea
      Now everybody's praying
      Don't pray on me

      Bad Religion

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Hold hands and prey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
      Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
      God say, "No." Abe say, "What ?"
      God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
      The next time you see me comin' you better run"
      Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done ?"
      God says. "Out on Highway 61".
            - Bob Dylan, "Highway 61 Revisited"

      Render unto Caesar
      And render unto God
      But both of them, it seems to me,
      Are fronted for by frauds.
            - Me

    4. Re:Hold hands and prey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think so, but the use of the word 'cults' is clearly a typo.

  6. Scientology might be a cult by Lucky_Pierre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But they don't behead unbelievers or crash airliners into buildings. Of course, that's probably why the French feel it's safe to fine Scientology.

    --
    "Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
    1. Re:Scientology might be a cult by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, scientology's mode of murder is to tie someone to a bed until they die of starvation and dehydration. Google for "Lisa MacPherson".

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Scientology might be a cult by meglon · · Score: 0

      Nor do they go around performing exorcisms and letting people die from them, let their kids go without medical treatment for easily curable diseases that can be fatal if untreated, not outright murder doctors.

      If you're trying to make the point all religion can be abused by radicals, yes... otherwise you need to put down the kool-aid and take a look at reality.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    3. Re:Scientology might be a cult by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Apparently you can cause all the social harm you want as long as it isn't in the form of a paramilitary action.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Scientology might be a cult by erikkemperman · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was a really crappy movie called The Profit which was about CoS. Even though the makers denied this, for obvious reasons, it just as obviously really was a biopic about El Ron.

      CoS managed to get it banned because they argued it might influence the pending investigation if MacPherson's death, IIRC. Not sure what the status is now, but it goes to show the extent these people will go.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    5. Re:Scientology might be a cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      yes when are they going to go after Islam and Christianity , Oh and lets not forget the American cult of worshiping the Dollar and the gun.

    6. Re:Scientology might be a cult by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      sssshhhhh! dont say that too loud! you dont want to give them any ideas

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    7. Re: Scientology might be a cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Quote : let their kids go without medical treatment for easily curable diseases

      Actually that's exactly what they do.
      They refuse ANY treatment that's not based on Scientology. (Sauna+excessive amounts of vitamins or e-meter)

    8. Re:Scientology might be a cult by Linzer · · Score: 1

      You comment is indeed a flamebait.

      On the other hand, I just love your username, it's a fairly uncommon reference that's always nice to see mentioned.

      --
      Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
    9. Re: Scientology might be a cult by Sique · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:Scientology might be a cult by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I'm an atheist towards the Dollar. I haven't seen one in so long, I don't believe they exist anymore.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    11. Re:Scientology might be a cult by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think you have to go to The Street of Small Gods now.

    12. Re:Scientology might be a cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't there a rich woman who wanted out, and she was so desperate she killed herself by shooting herself in the back of the head. Twice. Coroner: yep, suicide. Nothing to see here, move along...

    13. Re:Scientology might be a cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet.

    14. Re:Scientology might be a cult by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Then charge the people involved with conspiracy to commit murder and crimes or being an accessory to murder. Don't charge the entire group with being a "cult" and thus illegal.

      The problem with France and Germany is they are making the religion illegal not the crimes illegal.

    15. Re:Scientology might be a cult by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Not sure what the status is now, but it goes to show the extent these people will go.

      It looks like one of the producers got blackmailed by them, put a hold on the distribution and now he's dead (2010).

      Also, apparently 0C94DF875CD9E92D58707E45748C164B4BF7CF5F .

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:Scientology might be a cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I saw that on TV many years ago. Is it the one with the pedophile claiming to be Jesus?

    17. Re:Scientology might be a cult by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to find. During Operation Chanology a bunch of anons spammed links to torrents over half the internet, just because the church tried to hide it.

    18. Re:Scientology might be a cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? CoS gets a fine, jihadists get drone strikes...

    19. Re:Scientology might be a cult by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 1

      When the cult incites or orders members to commit crimes then the cult is also criminally liable. These individuals did not act in a vacuum.

      Read up on some of the shit that the CoS has pulled, Operation Snow White for starters...

    20. Re:Scientology might be a cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0C94DF875CD9E92D58707E45748C164B4BF7CF5F

      COS censoring /. now?

    21. Re:Scientology might be a cult by jbolden · · Score: 1

      A religion cannot be criminally liable under freedom of religion. Are Jews criminal liable for killing Jesus? Are Catholics criminally liable for the crusades?

      People in the CoS have done horrible things. As are people who are members of other religions. That doesn't give France the right to discriminate against all the people who belong to that religion. There are people born March 7, that have done horrible things. If France were holding everyone born March 7 criminally liable for the acts of some of the people born that day that would be similarly wrong.

    22. Re:Scientology might be a cult by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the Hubologists in Fallout 2.

    23. Re:Scientology might be a cult by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I'm agnostic towards the Dollar. If someone hands me a dollar I won't deny its existence.

    24. Re: Scientology might be a cult by meglon · · Score: 1

      Hmm, i knew they refuse psych help, but didn't know they refused normal medical help like the Christian Scientists do. Their website suggests their beliefs vs medical treatment are more mainstream http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-attitudes-and-practices/scientology-view-on-medical-care.html than Christian Scientists, while the CH tend to just let kids die http://www.masskids.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=161&Itemid=165

      That said, the person i was replying to was suggesting that France felt safer conflicting with Scientology than with those Muslims because Muslims are murderous radicals, while my position is, radicals are radicals (and dangerous) regardless of religious affiliation.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    25. Re: Scientology might be a cult by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Why woosh? He was obviously attacking christianity (scientology doesn't do exorcisms) only scientology is also guilty of most of what he listed. Islam is as well, actually.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    26. Re:Scientology might be a cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a really crappy movie called The Profit which was about CoS. Even though the makers denied this, for obvious reasons, it just as obviously really was a biopic about El Ron.

      CoS managed to get it banned because they argued it might influence the pending investigation if MacPherson's death, IIRC. Not sure what the status is now, but it goes to show the extent these people will go.

      Did you mean "The Master"? I don't think you can call that a crappy movie, but I was unable to find any movie called the Profit, or even a reference to it around. You might not have enjoyed "The Master" but it was well made, and an enjoyable and interesting flick. I like that it presents events factually without much obvious bias either toward or against its subject. Objectivity in a movie not meant as a biopic or documentary, at least officially is a pleasant and welcomed departure from the established norm in cinema.

      "The Master" is pretty obviously about 'Elrond' Hubbard (or whatever) and his joke-turned-serious-religion Scientology, (which owes an apology to all of science for the misuse of the "Scien" part of their name, as does the Christian Scientist movement or church or whatever, IF NOTHING ELSE).

      This all does underscore the danger of religion, some people will believe anything.

  7. Fifty Million Frenchmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can't be wrong

    1. Re:Fifty Million Frenchmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes they can, and usually are. :p

  8. Scientology: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Proof that freedom of Religion isn't always a good thing...

    1. Re:Scientology: by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not the religion that's the problem, it's the crime. If the scientologits just got fleeced and only hurt themselves, that's their own business. It's the child abuse, murder, slander, and so on that makes them an issue.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Scientology: by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Freedom of religion is an issue here though, inasmuch that the disinclination to interfere with religious practices has broadened into a more general lack of oversight of the organisation. If it was a particular township or family that had a long history of abuse, it would be investigated very extensively. However the social obligation not to tread on Scientology's religious practices - such as handing over thousands and thousands of dollars - is trumping the social obligation to prosecute it.

      That's a thorny patch because every step you take towards prosecuting them has non-obvious knock-on effects in weakening the protections of the religious freedom of other groups who are acting in good faith.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Scientology: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Proof that freedom of Religion isn't always a good thing...

      Apparently Freedom of Ignorance is more important. It's the very basis of most religions, as so many call for your faith to come forward, and not your educated mind.

    4. Re:Scientology: by bfandreas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Proof that freedom of Religion isn't always a good thing...

      As always you need to judge people and organisations by their actions and not their words.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    5. Re:Scientology: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're free to believe whatever they want, but what they're not allowed to do is harm others. If they harm people (scam them, physically harm them, cause them to die by giving them nonsensical advice on how to cure a disease or illness, etc.), they can be prosecuted for it. It has little to do with freedom of religion.

    6. Re:Scientology: by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Well, exactly. The issue is that well-meaning efforts to protect religious freedom also shelter such harmful acts.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:Scientology: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if their belief system says that people who refuse to be audited should be cleared of their thetans by being shot in the head with a Colt .45? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R2-45

    8. Re:Scientology: by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tolerance means refraining from using coercion to stop people from doing things that piss you off. An enlightened society tolerates religious differences, but not crime.

      Scientology pisses me off, but I am prepared to tolerate its existence. I will speak out against it but I do not want the government (French or my own) to forcibly shut it down or punish people just for following it. What I am not prepared to tolerate is criminal behavior by individual Scientologists. If they defrauded people, lock 'em up like Bernie Madoff. I am not ashamed to be intolerant of fraud.

      So I don't think freedom of religion is a bad thing. The fraud is not a result of religious freedom, it's a result of immoral choices by members of a religious organization.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    9. Re:Scientology: by dbIII · · Score: 1

      99% of their scam is to pretend to be a religion to make it more difficult to stop their scam. They are no more a religion than My Little Pony fandom is. It's not as if we don't have dozens of clues that it's a scam.
      Freedom of Religion is irrelevant in this case since we only have the word of the obvious scammers themselves that it's a "Religion", while we also have their word that it's a good way to dodge tax and that they took up the "Religion" angle late in the game after "Dianetics".

    10. Re:Scientology: by dbIII · · Score: 2

      No, it's the smokescreen. They bring up the "freedom of religion" thing just to try to get fringe pentacostals or similar that see themselves under threat onto their side.

    11. Re:Scientology: by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      And if the leadership is nothing but frauds and criminals, and there are no "true believers" in control?

    12. Re:Scientology: by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

      99% of their scam is to pretend to be a religion to make it more difficult to stop their scam. They are no more a religion than My Little Pony fandom is. It's not as if we don't have dozens of clues that it's a scam.
      Freedom of Religion is irrelevant in this case since we only have the word of the obvious scammers themselves that it's a "Religion", while we also have their word that it's a good way to dodge tax and that they took up the "Religion" angle late in the game after "Dianetics".

      No, using the word "religion" is precisely what makes Freedom of Religion relevant - doesn't matter who says it, doesn't matter who believes it.

      What is wrong, and what is not in the Constitution, is that any religions are tax exempt. They are all in business - might be the business of saving souls, but the only outward sign is that they're in the business of drinking wine, lighting candles and ringing bells for fun and entertainment. They all should be taxed just like any other nightclub.

      Give nobody any perverse incentives to create one, and we'll have a lot fewer of them to deal with.

      --
      John
    13. Re: Scientology: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of religion is fraud:
      You can live forever
      Blow up this building and you can have 50 virgins in the afterlife.
      Etc.
      That people buy into it without demanding evidence shows that people mostly believe what they want to be true.

    14. Re:Scientology: by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

      It is possible that the corruption of the leadership goes so far that the whole institution is basically an organized crime ring. (In fact, I think that is likely true.) In that case, it might be necessary to dismantle the current institution in order to protect society. Nothing, however, should prevent a non-criminal splinter group or successor that preaches Scientologist beliefs from forming and operating.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    15. Re:Scientology: by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      Apparently Freedom of Ignorance is more important.

      If by that you mean freedom to have different values and priorities than you do, then yes, that does seem pretty important. It's fine by me if you disapprove of faith, but do you seriously think people should not be free to have it?

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    16. Re:Scientology: by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, it's the smokescreen. They bring up the "freedom of religion" thing just to try to get fringe pentacostals or similar that see themselves under threat onto their side.

      Freedom of religion is often used as a smokescreen. Indeed, these days, it is most commonly used as such. How often are people's actual religious rights threatened, especially in the USA? It's not like we burned down the complex in Waco because of their religious beliefs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Scientology: by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If the church is a vessel for criminal misdeed then it must be terminated.

      I feel the same way about the Catholics.

      If they can't self-police then they're doing more harm than good. That's their responsibility. If they can't meet it, they clearly don't have a mandate from $DEITY

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Scientology: by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The right to give people nonsensical advice is what freedom of religion is about. I think people who believe you can pray away germs are dead wrong. I also think their opinions deserve 100% legal protections.

    19. Re:Scientology: by jbolden · · Score: 2

      The USA has a rather terrific record on Freedom of Religion. That's one tradition we haven't screwed up yet. France is another story, they have a truly dreadful record. This article is about France.

    20. Re:Scientology: by jbolden · · Score: 0

      That's the very definition of religious persecution. So no, if you support freedom of religion you don't support the right of the state to dismantle religions because they don't like them. They cannot treat religions like you would corrupt companies.

    21. Re:Scientology: by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The power to tax is the power to destroy. Taxation by its very nature requires a degree of oversight which perforce requires the government to have effective regulatory capacity.

      So they aren't a business. They have strict limitations on what they can do with their money that don't apply to businesses. And those limitations don't require the kinds of oversight required for businesses.

    22. Re: Scientology: by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      All of religion is fraud:

      I'm not Catholic, but where I live the Catholic Church does a lot of good works. In the mid-80s the Catholic-run hospital was the only one where the nuns were taking in AIDs patients. When interviewed, they stated that that's what Jesus said to do. The United church runs a lot of good programs to feed the hungry and get runaways off the streets... And on and on - All because of Jesus's teachings.

      I'm not aware of a single 'good work' our local "Church" of Scientology does.

    23. Re:Scientology: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France didn't shut scientology off here, they just upheld a judgement very specifically condemning funds extortion on two persons.
      Indeed (and alas, IMHO) the effect on Scientology is definitely minor, even: mostly symbolical...

    24. Re: Scientology: by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      There wouldn't be as many AIDS patients if the church hadn't condemned condoms as an unnatural perversion of God's law.

    25. Re:Scientology: by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      They cannot treat religions like you would corrupt companies.

      Religious freedom does not imply or require that religious institutions be exempt from fraud and racketeering laws. What you're suggesting is not religious freedom -- it's blanket criminal immunity.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    26. Re:Scientology: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are all in business - might be the business of saving souls, but the only outward sign is that they're in the business of drinking wine, lighting candles and ringing bells for fun and entertainment. They all should be taxed just like any other nightclub.

      Churches are not businesses and are not for profit. Most Christian churches (and probably Bhuddist, Hundu, Islam, Jewish as well) give any money they don't need to the poor. Now, if you see a Christina preacher in a $4000 suit and tie, he probably really worships money and you should not visit his church. There are scammers out there; "beware wolves in sheep's clothing." Sometimes the wolves wear shepherd's clothing.

      "The love of money is the root of all evil."

    27. Re: Scientology: by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      And, if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hopped. Any more strawman arguments to be shot down?

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    28. Re:Scientology: by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      Because they should all be held liable for the actions of a few miscreants. That's how we do things, right? So, let's talk about the atheist Josef Stalin...

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    29. Re:Scientology: by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because there was no religion until the federal government of the US stopped taxing them. Totally true.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    30. Re: Scientology: by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I don't see any straw man. To qualify as a strawman argument, I would need to misrepresent an opponent's argument, then attack that misrepresentation. All I did was point out that while the Catholic church can do good, that doesn't mean it cannot also do harm.

    31. Re:Scientology: by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Of course it implies that. As institutions they aren't subject to the state. Fraud implies the state has the right to evaluate the truth of their claims, under religious freedom they do not. Racketeering implies the state can find the religious institution and not just individuals guilty of crime, the state does not have that right. So you understand the implications perfectly well, that's what religious freedom means.

      All states give religions they like to operate that's not religious freedom.

    32. Re: Scientology: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the the Americas and Europe, only devout Catholics give a shit about the church's stance on birth control - gay communities in the U.S. didn't use condoms for their own reasons (can't get pregnant). Then again, the church opposes all and any unmarried sex. It would be very rare for either of two virgins to give the other AIDS. You would be correct about some parts of Africa, though, where the church's influence is detrimental. However, Africa's biggest AIDS problem right now is this crap going around about how circumcision prevents AIDS, which has caused condom usage to drop.

      captcha: withdraw -- also called onanism by the Catholic Church.

    33. Re:Scientology: by intermodal · · Score: 1

      The USA has a rather terrific record on Freedom of Religion.

          Terrific \Ter*rif"ic\, a. [L. terrificus; fr. terrere to
                frighten + facere to make. See Terror, and Fact.]
                Causing terror; adapted to excite great fear or dread;
                terrible; as, a terrific form; a terrific sight.
                [1913 Webster]

      I would tend to agree. If you disagree, please read up on Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Mormon Extermination Order.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    34. Re:Scientology: by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I didn't say perfect I said, terrific or if you want excellent. The Mormon order was an unfortunate incident involving a group that had been involved in multiple violent confrontations having to do with land. It could have and should have been handled better. It is very bad policy and Missouri has apologized for it. But it wasn't pure religious discrimination it was an overreaction to a criminal organization of a religious character. The Mormon discrimination a few decades later having to do with polygamy is a far better example of pure religious discrimination.

      That being said, I'll stand by what I said. Every country has problems in its history. But the ones in the USA, like that are very rare.

    35. Re:Scientology: by intermodal · · Score: 1

      In that case, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the matter. To call that an excellent record (and this is only getting into the Mormons) is incorrect. There are of course other examples out there unrelated to the Mormons, and far more current. Those were just among the more egrigious ones I could think of off the top of my head.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    36. Re:Scientology: by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I think you have unrealistic expectations for a government. As Joe Biden likes to say, "don't compare me to the all-mighty, compare me to the alternative".

    37. Re:Scientology: by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I insist upon unrealistic expectations for my govenrment. Giving them a pass when they slip up doesn't do anything but make it easier for them to do it again.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    38. Re:Scientology: by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Holding people to unrealistic expectations makes them stop trying.

    39. Re:Scientology: by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I don't believe in people staying in politics or government long enough to reach that point. If a person wants to be in government, I consider that a disqualifier. I seek men with the reluctance of George Washington, and the same man's humility in admitting that he felt that the tasks given him exceeded his abilities. The arrogance of modern politicians disgusts me.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    40. Re:Scientology: by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I imagine lots of things about George Washington would have been disqualifiers if you knew him. You are asking for the impossible. People have to run for office, which means they have to want the office. That's our system. There are one of 3 reasons they want the office:

      for love of power
      to get experience for other office
      for money i.e. they intend to help their friends via. the public trust

      There are no angels that are going to run for office. Politics is about humans ruling humans.

    41. Re:Scientology: by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I'm quite confident our philosophies are irreconcilable.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  9. Lol by RobertoElliott · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Damn Frenchies have more sense.

  10. One Down by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And a few thousand more religions to go.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:One Down by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What about those religions that aren't like Scientologists? For example, would the world really be a worse place off without Quakers or Jains or other strictly non-violent religions? How about those evil Unitarian Universalists, who basically have built their religion around "We may disagree about invisible beings in the sky, but that doesn't mean we should hate each other"? How about the deeply religious people who more-or-less invented philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, genetics, astronomy, and a few other sciences - should we get rid of them too?

      And atheists aren't immune from being the bad guy either: Communist atheists killed off a lot of people for being religious.

      How about this for some morality: Killing people, except in defense of self or someone else, is wrong (and worshiping a different invisible guy or the same invisible guy differently isn't a very good reason). Torturing people is wrong. Raping people is wrong. Hurting people, except in defense of self or someone else, is wrong. Stealing (however done) is wrong, but less wrong than hurting, raping, torturing, or murdering. Groups that break those rules are bad, groups that don't are at worst harmless.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:One Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the deeply religious people who more-or-less invented philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, genetics, astronomy, and a few other sciences - should we get rid of them too?

      We shouldn't get rid of the people, but I wouldn't mind seeing the religions die off.

      Communist atheists killed off a lot of people for being religious.

      That was more for control than anything else, and wasn't truly similar to religious people who kill thousands of people who don't believe in their magical sky daddy.

    3. Re:One Down by geminidomino · · Score: 0

      How about this for some morality: Killing people, except in defense of self or someone else, is wrong (and worshiping a different invisible guy or the same invisible guy differently isn't a very good reason). Torturing people is wrong. Raping people is wrong. Hurting people, except in defense of self or someone else, is wrong. Stealing (however done) is wrong, but less wrong than hurting, raping, torturing, or murdering.

      It's fantastic, if you're six years old.

    4. Re:One Down by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Some religions are strictly non-violent, but not perfect and have still harmed their followers, and families ...

      Some Atheists are violent, just as some people are violent ... and remember most 'Communists' are/were Socialist republics and the atheist dogma was anti-religion mostly because then the only religion was the state, and the leader was the leader of a cult ....(Stalin, Mao ...)

      Most/All religions say that killing is wrong, but almost all of the allow killing of certain people in the right circumstances ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    5. Re:One Down by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      The problem is that simple rules fail to cover a lot of reality. There's a reason why morality is in constant flux and so many books have been written by eminent people on the subject.

      Killing people is wrong, you say. How about killing someone who's murdered people in the past and who COULD (but not necessarily will) murder more? How about killing someone who wants to die, for instance for medical reasons? How about war, where your country may be on the defensive but you may be on the offensive? Heck, how do you even define people to begin with? That last question is the entire reason we're still seeing people oppose abortion in the first place.

      There's a reason why criminal law is so complicated, and that's because of all those cases and scenarios. You can't easily summarize morals because you're usually relying on your own interpretation of the statements to extrapolate to other scenarios (commonly called "common sense", ironically enough). To your mind, perhaps all the questions I have asked have extremely simple, binary answers, and thus are a non-issue. The problem happens when you talk to another person and realize that their answers diverge completely from yours. Who's right?

    6. Re: One Down by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      I think that magical thinking in all it's forms is bad. But I wouldn't really mind too much if religious people kept their religion to themselves. And most do. But there will always be the extremists.

    7. Re:One Down by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      So, geminidomino is claiming that it is ok to torture, steal, rape and murder as long as you wait until you are at least 7 years old?

    8. Re:One Down by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Most societies make the same claim about the allowable circumstances for killing certain people. They may define the circumstances differently but almost all allow it in some form.

    9. Re:One Down by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So, geminidomino is claiming that it is ok to torture, steal, rape and murder as long as you wait until you are at least 7 years old?

      Surprised? You must be new here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:One Down by fazig · · Score: 1

      And atheists aren't immune from being the bad guy either: Communist atheists killed off a lot of people for being religious.

      So this puts all atheists in a bad light, right? Because you know, all atheists are alike. (beware of sarcasm)
      Communist atheists killed a lot of people for being religious because it didn't agree with their communist ideals of society, not because they were atheists and followed a doctrine to exterminate all who believe in any religion.

      A major problem with most religion on the other hand is, that their followers are duty bound to show other humans the way to enlightenment. A good believer doesn't keep to himself, he tries to help other people. You might say people who do this are extremists, lack common sense, but I say: They simply follow their scripture, truly believe what it says.

      In the end it is: And people aren't immune from being the bad guy either: People killed a lot of people for any reason.

    11. Re:One Down by BigZee · · Score: 1
      There are a number of issues with other religions. Fundamentalism often means that there is more likely to be violence. I'm not sure I've heard of fundamentalist Quakers but I suppose it's possible. The issues that normally come about are because of very strict adherence to your own belief and the in inability to tolerate anyone who does not conform.

      With respect to your comment on Communists, this reminds me of something Steven Weinberg said (although I heard it first from Richard Dawkins) - "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion". The point of this is that the communists that killed religious people were not doing so because of a religious belief, they were simply bad people. When a scientologist does something bad, they may or may not be a bad person but its possible that they feel compelled to do something bad as a consequence of their belief.

    12. Re:One Down by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      and the leader was the leader of a cult ....(Stalin, Mao ...)

      That's a very good insight.

      "We can defeat death!"

      "We can defeat scarcity!"

      All evidence points to the contrary in both cases.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    13. Re:One Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And atheists aren't immune from being the bad guy either: Communist atheists killed off a lot of people for being religious.

      No one has ever been killed in the name of the one true religion. His Noodleyness would never allow such a thing to happen!

    14. Re:One Down by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      No. I'm saying a single-digit (or double-digit, for that matter) list of "commandments" doesn't make for any sort of functional morality for an actual grown-up type person.

      And it was modded down, too. Are there actually simpletons out there who thought I was condoning rape, torture, and murder? (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were breaking balls in the finest snarky /. tradition)

    15. Re:One Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would the world really be a worse place off without Quakers or Jains or other strictly non-violent religions?

      Yes, the world would be a better place without the Quakers or Jains or other strictly non-violent religions. The mindset of dogma is a detriment to both fall under its spell and the society that misses out on their rational input. What we need in this world is more informed rational discourse, not faith. Regardless of how deeply religious the people who invented mathematics or science were, we would be better off if we dropped this artifact from our species childhood. Newton, one of those deeply religious people you talk about, also practiced alchemy to the day he died. You don't see anyone running around arguing that alchemy has a place in the modern world.

      And atheists aren't immune from being the bad guy either: Communist atheists killed off a lot of people for being religious.

      The term "atheist" shouldn't exist at all. We don't have words for non-astrologers or people who don't believe in Poseidon. People like to try to say things like "Look at what has been done in the name of Atheism! You people are just as bad!" This is a terrible logical fallacy. The killing done by communists who happened to reject the idea of god, was done in the name of Communism. The problem with these 'isms are you are just trading one irrational dogma (that of god), for another irrational dogma (that of state). What we need is people to be more reasonable, not trade dogmas. As Sam Harris points out, I know of no society that got worse off by being more reasonable.

      Atheism isn't a dogma. Its the noises reasonable people make in the presence of those who claim they know things on insufficient evidence.

    16. Re:One Down by istartedi · · Score: 1

      How about this for some morality: Killing people, except in defense of self or someone else, is wrong (and worshiping a different invisible guy or the same invisible guy differently isn't a very good reason). Torturing people is wrong. Raping people is wrong. Hurting people, except in defense of self or someone else, is wrong. Stealing (however done) is wrong, but less wrong than hurting, raping, torturing, or murdering. Groups that break those rules are bad, groups that don't are at worst harmless.

      That's a good start. You should come up with a few more. To make sure we don't forget them, have them carved on stone tablets and...

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    17. Re:One Down by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      He might think that just one of those actions is okay. Doesn't make the statement less heinous.

    18. Re:One Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both are about control. You are simply prejudiced against one.

    19. Re:One Down by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      So this puts all atheists in a bad light, right? Because you know, all atheists are alike. (beware of sarcasm)

      I've encountered many atheists who claim that all 1.2 billion Muslims in the world are bad based on the actions of a few thousand terrorists. The argument isn't "all atheists are bad", but "some atheists are bad, ergo atheism doesn't automatically lead to good behavior", as some who oppose religion believe.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    20. Re:One Down by fazig · · Score: 1

      Yes, atheism doesn't imply good behaviour, it doesn't even imply education, but neither does it lead to loss of all morals, a claim I've encountered among religious people.

    21. Re:One Down by Xest · · Score: 1

      No he's claiming the world is much more complex than that. The irony of you not getting that is demonstrative of the six year old mentality he's referring to.

      For example, he states that stealing, however done is wrong.

      So if an African warlord forces a village to hand over all it's food leaving the populace starving, it's wrong and immoral if a villagers breaks into the warlord's stores and steals back a loaf of bread?

      He says hurting/killing people except in defence of self is wrong. So if a 5 year old keeps flicking rubber bands at me because that's what kids do, I'm allowed to shoot them dead because it was in self defence and it wouldn't be immoral in the slightest for me to do so?

      The world is way too complex to generalise. Different cases, different levels of proportionality and so forth making it way too complex to define morality in such a simplistic manner, and yes, that's why it's 6 year old type thinking.

  11. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

    20k €? Not that much, considering the sums they manage to snatch off the (albeit more gullible) american cultists.

  12. Scientology is a religion by Yaur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The difference between a cult and a religion is that in a cult the founder is still alive. Since LRH is definitely dead er, has abandoned his meat body, that puts Scientology pretty much on par with the other groups that believe in sky wizards.

    1. Re:Scientology is a religion by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's not a definition I'm familiar with. What about cults without founders? Do the cargo cults automatically, or never, reach status of religion given that John Frum has never existed?

      I prefer the standard "a religion is a cult with an army and a navy". It's an arbitrary definition to do with scale.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Scientology is a religion by Yaur · · Score: 2

      It comes from a friend trying to differentiate between new agey religions and new agey cults.
      Mythical creatures are obviously not founders so the statement applies not to Mr. Frum, but to whoever invented him as an object to be worshiped.
      looking at this I don't think that Sikhs or any of the "medium sized religions" have an army or a navy which makes that definition somewhat problematic.

    3. Re:Scientology is a religion by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Well observed about Frum. I do wonder about cults where there isn't an easily assigned founder, they seem to have arisen spontaneously.

      The point of my definition is to suggest that such a distinction is not as meaningful as it appears to be. In all seriousness, I think the distinction has more to do with age and therefore cultural acceptance and normalisation.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re: Scientology is a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hubbfart (Hubbard) himself said (direct unaltered quote) : "Scientology is no religion"

      It was starter as Dianetics as self-help company to make him a lot of money. The pseudo-religious veneer was invented to protect its business in the 50/60s when the FBI and the IRS chased Hubbfart abs he was prosecuted.

      It was a trick. But it is NOT a religion.

    5. Re:Scientology is a religion by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but not all religions are created equal. It's not the "believe in sky wizards" part that's the problem. It's the "kill/murder/hurt anyone who dares question or refuses to believe in the sky wizards" part that's the problem. And on a scale of 1 to 10 of religions that scare me (1 being Unitarians and 10 being smelly Muslim goat farmers who think that God wants them to strap on explosives and blow themselves up in a mall), Scientology rates an easy 9 (at one time a 9.5, but they seem to be getting weaker these days).

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    6. Re: Scientology is a religion by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      I think it's a pointless distinction.

    7. Re:Scientology is a religion by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The question is whether the state should be using state power to try and destroy a religion. No one is questioning the right of the state to prevent murder. Scientology is openly practiced and quite popular in places like LA and Minneapolis. There are no murders. Certainly there are problems with Scientology and the French state is within their rights to attack illegal behavior on the parts of Scientologists. They are not within their rights to attack Scientology.

      This is rather clear cut.

    8. Re:Scientology is a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the French state is within their rights to attack illegal behavior on the parts of Scientologists. They are not within their rights to attack Scientology.

      Uh, what? They are well within their rights to do so, just like the Germans are well within their rights to attack Neo-Nazism. Whether you personally think they should have such a right is not relevant- their constitutions allow them to do so, and thus it's within their rights.

    9. Re:Scientology is a religion by jbolden · · Score: 1

      When people talk about the rights of states they are speaking morally not legally. Legally states have whatever rights they have the power to do. So George Bush had the power to hold people indefinitely without trial based on calling them "illegal combatants" but he didn't have the right to do so.

    10. Re: Scientology is a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme get this straight. An AC who can't type his name without childishly modifying it asks us to take his word for it that he is quoting someone directly (because he used quotation marks?) with no citation whatsoever. Do you also have stock tips I could follow?

      I agree with your assertion that it is not a religion, but surely you can see how your comment brought no value whatsoever to the discussion.

  13. Good! It's not a religion by Murdoch5 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Scientology is a cult, it's entire story is based off a science fiction novel written by man who wanted to make a religion! All of that would be fine but then to charge your members fees to read from books is kind of messed up, that would be like the library charging you based on every book you took out. I don't see how any logical adult can honestly see Scientology as anything but a joke, it's only slightly more a joke then the Mormon based religion, both of which have near 0 evidence for what they take as fact.

    1. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I don't see how any logical adult can honestly see Scientology as anything but a joke, it's only slightly more a joke then the catholicism based religions, both of which have near 0 evidence for what they take as fact.

      ftfy

    2. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'Church' back in days of yore used to do something similar you had to go and put your contribution on the plate at the mass for the Priest to read out the bible to you because the lay people werent allowed to read it and this was enforced by mandating all the service and bible copies were in latin

    3. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Place the beginnings of Christianity in current times and you would have the same reaction. Scientology just seems silly because it's so recent and easy to disprove. Hard to argue with the founders of Christianity now...

    4. Re:Good! It's not a religion by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All of the Abrahamic religions are based on about the same amount of proof and evidence. If you doubt one, you must doubt them all and for the same reasons. Just because Joseph Smith pulled the same stunt more recently and on this continent doesn't invalidate that the basis, principles and mechanics of the religion. So as you point to one aspect which is wrong with the LDS church, there is an analogue of the same problem in the other Abrahamic religions. And to be clear, they are all Abrahamic religions.

      To me, that's the most ridiculous aspect of religious people. They are quick to point at others and completely miss that it's a huge matter of all the pots calling each other black. "Oh but my religion is different!" Yeah sure it is. If any of them are different, it's Islam and only because it was founded by a frikken murderous warlord.

      My initial reaction to the story was "Good! Now maybe people will begin to see the others as stupid too!" Perhaps not. Religion holds back the potential of the human mind. So long as we can accept two opposing ideas as fact and so long as belief is more powerful than fact, humans will be crippled slaves and will not survive the next mass extinction event. We still can't get beyond our primitive need for monetary exchange because no one does anything "for mankind." Everything requires someone else get paid for something and we will continue to exploit workers until their miserable deaths. Religion is the distraction being used to keep people thinking about something other than reality.

    5. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if Scientology has the legal status of a religion, it's still a cult. Cult just means a new belief system that's not based on the old established ones. What you're probably thinking about is destructive cult.

      Also if you have scientific evidence, it's not a religion or cult, at that point it becomes science.

      Pastafarians Arise! Ramen.

    6. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Christianity. No evidence outside their single reference book, even when the Europe had been documenting everything for several hundred years, no a single Jesus entry has ever been found.

    7. Re: Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientology is only recognised as a "religion" in the USA, Spain and Sweden.

      Everywhere else they either considered a company or a dangerous cult or both.

    8. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Murdoch5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're right, I'm in completely agreement, which is why I don't subscribe to any one theological context. However I mention mormonism because one of it's staple proofs is that the Native Americans will have blood ties back to Israel and this has been tested and totally proven not to exist, hence proving one of the main "proofs" of the church false.

    9. Re:Good! It's not a religion by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Place the beginnings of Christianity in current times and you would have the same reaction. Scientology just seems silly because it's so recent and easy to disprove. Hard to argue with the founders of Christianity now...

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

    10. Re:Good! It's not a religion by LQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Scientology is a cult, it's entire story is based off a science fiction novel written by man who wanted to make a religion! All of that would be fine but then to charge your members fees to read from books is kind of messed up, that would be like the library charging you based on every book you took out. I don't see how any logical adult can honestly see Scientology as anything but a joke, it's only slightly more a joke then the Mormon based religion, both of which have near 0 evidence for what they take as fact.

      And Islam is the "revealed truth" that its prophet made up. And Christianity reveals the "word of God" through the medium of a mystic who thought he was the messiah. And the Buddha came up with his own ideas for a religion. I guess a non-cult religion is one derived millenia ago from various polytheistic myths (Hinduism, Shinto, Paganism) but somebody, somewhere made that stuff up too.

    11. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice lies Mr. Scientologist. Latin was used to prevent errors in translation and copying. Anyone who could read and afford expensive things like a book knew Latin anyway. Also, offerings weren't mandatory and aren't today.

    12. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite Abrahamistic religion is Judasim. At least the Jews can laugh at them selves.

    13. Re:Good! It's not a religion by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      "prevent errors in translation and copying" Nice, except the originals were mostly not written in Latin.

    14. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not using logical adults.

    15. Re:Good! It's not a religion by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I have a very hard time believing anyone who has actually studied the history of the Catholic Church could be so naive.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    16. Re:Good! It's not a religion by evilviper · · Score: 2

      that would be like the library charging you based on every book you took out.

      Congratulations! You've invented the book store... In a few years they won't exist, and you can rediscover them.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    17. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So long as we can accept two opposing ideas as fact and so long as belief is more powerful than fact, humans will be crippled slaves and will not survive the next mass extinction event.

      I don't see how that really follows. Maybe not as fact, but even physicists currently have to accept seemingly opposing ideas and theories till they eventually figure out the truth. And who knows whether they will ever figure it out? So meanwhile the opposing ideas are as close to fact in practice as they can get. What would you have them do reject one completely for the other? That would be foolishness till they knew more.

      Many of the significant advances in science were done by religious people. Would a few more seeming conflicting ideas really be that crippling? I think not. People compartmentalize their thinking all the time. When you play chess you think differently from when you play some other game or do some other thing.

      So what's the big problem with religious folk accepting seemingly opposing ideas till they eventually learn the truth? That's assuming as long as they don't cause more than the average trouble.

      I don't see the atheists as being superior to the religious. In fact too many atheists seem guilty of what they accuse the religious people of being. Delusional, irrational, prone to "holier/better than thou", Us vs Them thinking. Atheist or religious most people would just be as easy for the next Mao or Stalin to whip up into a frenzy of anti-Them hate.

      Take away religion and many people will still find something to fight over - whether it's Hutu or Tutsi, whether it's R or D, whether it's eating animals or not, whether it's wearing fur or not, whether is this sports team or some other.

    18. Re:Good! It's not a religion by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      "Good! Now maybe people will begin to see the others as stupid too!"

      The odds are stacked against you - about 47% of the human population lacks a paracingulate sulcus, the brain structure most responsible for differentiating reality from imagined reality (as a consequence of memory processing). Somewhere over 90% of schizophrenics lack this structure, which lends credence to the theory of an evolution of consciousness and a natural origin of religions.

      There appears to be a moderate evolutionary advantage to having the sulcus - we'd expect the presence of one to be lower in antiquity, but if we figure a halving in 10,000 years, you're going to be waiting a long time until it's a tiny minority.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    19. Re:Good! It's not a religion by jbolden · · Score: 1

      How is that relevant? Most religions are stupid. So what? This is about a state deciding to go after a religion with full on state religious persecution and the encouragement of private discrimination. Either you support state persecution of religions or you don't.

      I do Yoga regularly. I find the New Agey quasi Hindu religion parts ridiculous. I still get good exercise, lose weight and tone as a result of the practice. Things like auditing can be quite helpful in helping people get past psychological trauma. In a free state you don't harm people because you disagree with how they spend their leisure time.

    20. Re:Good! It's not a religion by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. The New Testament is written in Greek, but Jesus didn't speak in Greek. He would have spoken in Aramaic, and perhaps occasionally in Hebrew when talking about religion. So the only surviving record of what he said is already a translation. The latin bible is a translation of a translation. And as modern english bibles draw heavily from the latin bible...

    21. Re:Good! It's not a religion by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The Buddah really came up with more of a philosophy and moral system. It just mutated very quickly into a religion with the usual compliment of traditional rules and rituals.

    22. Re:Good! It's not a religion by erroneus · · Score: 1

      The difference is that in science, they say things like "working theory" and never claim that something is the absolute truth and nothing can challenge or dispute it. Science is all about finding new facts and updating our understanding. Politics and religion are the ones who respond to new facts with ... well, death and killing often enough.

    23. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primary difference between Scientology and other religions is the guy who we KNOW for a FACT wrote their book flat out said it was fiction.

    24. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that relevant? Most religions are stupid. So what? This is about a state deciding to go after a religion with full on state religious persecution and the encouragement of private discrimination. Either you support state persecution of religions or you don't.

      There's a difference between a belief system and an organization. The Church of Scientology is an Organization, which got caught lying, cheating, and stealing and as an organization has been proven to be nothing more than a Sham to dodge taxes.
      It has nothing to do with Religion, any more than holding a sign which says "Hi, I'm Jesus!" while robbing a bank makes it Religious persecution when the cops show up to arrest you.

    25. Re:Good! It's not a religion by rwise2112 · · Score: 2

      Sounds like Christianity. No evidence outside their single reference book, even when the Europe had been documenting everything for several hundred years, no a single Jesus entry has ever been found.

      Simply not true

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    26. Re:Good! It's not a religion by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Scientology is a cult, it's entire story is based off a science fiction novel written by man who wanted to make a religion!

      I believe his stated desire was to make money. The religion part was only a means to that end.

      I don't see how any logical adult can honestly see Scientology as anything but a joke, it's only slightly more a joke then the Mormon based religion, both of which have near 0 evidence for what they take as fact.

      The difference is derived from legitimacy. If billions of people happen to believe in a joke it is a religion otherwise it is something less.

    27. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you so cute? I could just eat you up with your backhanded adhominemnomnomnom.

    28. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But "the Bible" didn't exist until most Christians were speaking Latin (and learned Christians reading and writing Latin as their primary language). That Latin eventually became a dead language doesn't detract from the clergy's desire that further translations be prevented, especially since learned men/women through 1960's were still learning Latin and Greek. The printing press helped out a lot because the copy errors were mostly taken care of, allowing monks to spend their time on careful translations instead. And they're still translating.

    29. Re:Good! It's not a religion by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Religious freedom disallows the persecution of religious organizations. It allows the persecution of religious individuals. As for a "sham to dodge taxes" that's just you saying you don't like them.

    30. Re:Good! It's not a religion by smugfunt · · Score: 1

      no a single Jesus entry has ever been found.

      Simply not true

      There are only five references believed by some to be about Jesus in ancient non-Christian texts. None of them are from within several decades of Jesus' putative lifetime. All of them are slight and ambiguous. Most of them have had their authenticity questioned by scholars.
      No historical record of Jesus from his lifetime exists, even in Christian writing. Wikipedia does not contradict this fact.

    31. Re:Good! It's not a religion by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      For mormon adherents, the staple proof is the witness of the spirit, and the personal fruits of faith. Critics and materialists contend otherwise, and have so far found nothing that would constitute proof either for or against.

      There's no shortage of reading on this topic, but this article is a good start.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    32. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because Joseph Smith pulled the same stunt more recently

      Joseph Smith was a documented scammer just like L Ron Hubbard. The older religions we don't have any documentation on their founders so best to assume they are innocent until proven guilty. Religious founders might be mad, have strange beliefs, be misinterpreted by their followers etc. and not fraudsters at all. In previous times this is more likely because they didn't have the advantage of scientific understanding that we do.

      You can't disprove that any one religion is not perfectly correct - scientifically we simply don't know enough about the universe to make that judgment. Can you explain where the universe came from? Our present scientific understanding is that you can't get something from nothing. And that's not even considering things like consciousness and infinity.

      Personally, based on my scientific knowledge of the universe, I suspect all organized religions are highly unlikely to be right but that doesn't make them impossible - particularly given their propensity for interpreting holy books figuratively and the "god of the gaps".

      Religion is the distraction being used to keep people thinking about something other than reality.

      True, magical thinking can be a problem. For both religious and non-religious people. Problem is, we have only an incomplete understanding of reality so all human reasoning has some amount of faith involved. Science is the best method we've found for understanding the universe but that doesn't mean it's perfect.

    33. Re:Good! It's not a religion by mrprogrammerman · · Score: 1

      Read Psalms 96:4, Exodus 20:4-5, Rev. 4:11. The God of the Bible clearly doesn't believe that all religions/gods are the same. If you feel that is simply the words of men, think about 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21. Accurate prophecy in particular is one thing that would require superhuman ability. All religions tend to try to explain where we came from and where were going. However if they all disagree they can't all be right. At the same thing it wouldn't necessarily mean that there isn't a correct explanation for those questions. Psalms 65:2 says the God hears prayers and 1 Timothy 2:3-4 shows that it's God's will for all people to come to a knowledge of the truth. If you seek to know religious truth God will help you do that.

    34. Re:Good! It's not a religion by erroneus · · Score: 1

      You are suggesting that I read the words written by the hand of man, translated and edited numerous times, and are asking me to believe it's the word of a god?

      I know you must believe what you are saying, but if you were talking about anything else, let's say Roman mythology, would you be able to say "Perseus 3:12 contains the word of Zeus and if you don't believe that, look over Oedipus 6:9."

      Sorry. I just can't give myself over to that line of thinking. I'm sorry you have. If it weren't for the fact that your belief is shared by so many others, you might be otherwise considered to be delusional and emotionally unstable. If you were the last Christian on earth, you most definitely would be considered as such. And then ask yourself why that would be. The only thing that keeps you from being labelled as such (delusional and unstable) is because there are many like you. And that's the ONLY reason.

    35. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If any of them are different, it's Islam and only because it was founded by a frikken murderous warlord.

      Actually, from what I've read, he probably had a brain tumour that caused him to hear voices.

    36. Re:Good! It's not a religion by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that part's unlikely in the extreme, but... I knew someone who did American Indian genealogies for a living. She'd found that the Book of Mormon was surprisingly accurate (correlated well with other records). Going back to a lost tribe of Israel, tho... no. Back to escaped slaves and occasional stolen white children, yes.

      As to the other reply's link and the stuff about steel ... well then, why have no prehistoric steel artifacts been found in North America? they're not unknown elsewhere in the world, and we've had fewer upheavals here to destroy stuff.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  14. The only difference between a cult and a religion by the_B0fh · · Score: 4, Informative

    is the number of followers...

  15. Regarded as a cult? by pablo_max · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nothing about regarding, it is a fact. Scientology IS a cult.
    How could anyone possible think otherwise considering what the founder said?

    "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

    1. Re:Regarded as a cult? by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Interesting

      France distinguishes between "legitimate" religious activity and predatory cults, and therefore how France regards Scientology is absolutely relevant to this news item.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Regarded as a cult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cults tend to have large followings despite what people running them say, for example Micro$oft.

      "There's nobody getting rich (by) writing software" - Bill Gates

      http://wayback.archive.org/web/20120605103241/http://www.msversus.org/

    3. Re:Regarded as a cult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why discriminate against religions invented in this century vs the ones created prior? They're either all religions or they're all cults. The latter term is more apt in most cases. Take Catholicism. Excommunication: Come out as an atheist and the whole community, even ones family will shun you... 10% of your income in tithes, that's fucking expensive 'eh? In some cases moreso than CoS fees. The whole "you're unclean unless you do these rituals" and guilt trips... Same as CoS body thetans. Influencing governments in the name of furthering their ideology, denouncing contraceptives and indoctrinating kids before they have the cognitive skills to question the beliefs, etc. etc.

      Yet Catholicism is a "legitimate" religion where Scientology is not? They both regularly make up bogus shite, and are purposefully deceptive. The Vatican knows the "virgin birth" was a mistranslation error, and yet they don't dare correct the public version they interpreted of their "holy" book.

      Of course it's a cult. It's members are religious...

    4. Re:Regarded as a cult? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Exactly! That's the problem. That the French state basically reserves to itself the right to make a list of good religions and bad religions and use that list to deploy state power against the followers as well as encourage private discrimination. That's fundamentally a state that simply doesn't believe in freedom of religion. All states allow freedom of religion for religions they like.

    5. Re:Regarded as a cult? by ColdCat · · Score: 1

      No France can't choose which is religion and which isn't
      It's one of the main point of the law of 1905 "Separation of the Churches and the State". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_Separation_of_the_Churches_and_the_State

    6. Re:Regarded as a cult? by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      In France the line is very easy to draw between a religion and a cult. A cult is an organization which engages in brainwashing, isolates individuals from their peers, then take advantage of their vulnerability to collect huge amounts of money from them. The fact that they make up things or not, or that they are founded on sound facts or not are totally irrelevant to the matter. It's actually written in the summary... Scientology was convicted because it took advantage of vulnerable followers, not because they invented a religion. Nobody is going to go against pastafaris in France.

  16. And yet on their wikipedia page... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    4th paragraph:

    The church is often characterized as a cult and it has faced harsh scrutiny for many of its practices which, critics contend, include brainwashing and routinely defrauding its members

    As if being convicted in a court of law for organised fraud is just an opinion of an unspecified number of critics...

    How about this get added in the 2nd paragraph:

    ... the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion.[26] In contrast, Scientology has been convicted of organized fraud in France, is considered a commercial enterprise in Switzerland, a cult (secte) in Chile ...

    1. Re:And yet on their wikipedia page... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Religions shouldn't be able to be convicted of fraud, they don't engage in commerce.

    2. Re:And yet on their wikipedia page... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      It's wikipedia. If you want to add it go ahead and do it. Don't forget tp provide a citation.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    3. Re:And yet on their wikipedia page... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CoS does. You pay $$$, you get the books that tell you about Xenu.

    4. Re:And yet on their wikipedia page... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do, do so from a user name that cannot be tied to you. The CoS have a team that is dedicated to tracking down vocal critics and digging up all the dirt they possibly can to through every legitimate means possible (and illegitimate as long as they get away with it). There is a lot of evidence that they planted kiddie porn on a dissenters computer in Sweden but not enough evidence to prove that the CoS did it.

    5. Re:And yet on their wikipedia page... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Keep going. What can they do with the money once they get it? That's where the differences start to come in. Commercial entities are free to do what they want with the money.

    6. Re:And yet on their wikipedia page... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All existing critics of Scientology were banned from editing wikipedia articles about Scientology at the same time Scientologists were. So NO U!

    7. Re:And yet on their wikipedia page... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Commerce is simply defined as buying and selling goods and services. CoS do exactly that.

      As for their profits, they do what every other organisation does, pay it out to their "staff" as wages, or reinvest it in property and so forth.

      The only thing they don't have is a stock exchange listing and shareholders.

    8. Re:And yet on their wikipedia page... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      No CoS is not free to do what commercial entities do with their profits. There are much stricter regulations on how they pay their staff wages and stricter regulations on how they reinvest. Essentially the money has to be kept within the church system or used to pay reasonable wages.

      The no stock is a big one, that means there are no owners pulling huge profits out (at least legally). That is what it means to be a church vs. say a for profit training center.

    9. Re:And yet on their wikipedia page... by Xest · · Score: 1

      But now you're just changing the parameters of the discussion to a different and largely unrelated issue.

      You stated, and I quote:

      "Religions shouldn't be able to be convicted of fraud, they don't engage in commerce."

      That is wrong. They can and often do engage in commerce. This is a different thing to being a registered charity (or a non-profit in general also) vs. being a registered business and the differing legislation surrounding the two.

      Perhaps you weren't explicit enough in your original statement, though I'm not sure how being more explicit would help as I think your statement is pretty clear. Charities can and do engage in commerce and should be able to be and can be convicted of fraud.

      But that's a different thing from what they can and can't do with any profits they make. How you may and may not use your profits in this case has no relationship to commerce - the very fact they have profits in the first place is evidence of commercial activity and it has really no relevance to the resultant fact that charities can therefore commit fraud through actions related to their commercial activities.

  17. I used to be a Scientologist by 12WTF$ · · Score: 5, Funny

    but I ran out of money.

    --
    Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
    1. Re:I used to be a Scientologist by ArcadeMan · · Score: 0

      but then I took an arrow to the knee.

  18. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I almost wish I hadn't posted so i could mod this up, it's friggin hilarious.

    2. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also a load of bollocks.

    3. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also a load of bollocks.

      Four loads of overlapping bollocks, actually.

    4. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's missing The Exodus.

  19. Re: Still by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 0

    Regardless of the truth of your statement, stating that religion A is better than religion B on this site is normally considered trolling.

  20. Operation Snow White is a Goofey name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But as I understand, L. Ron was bastard son of Old Mother Hubbard.

    He was raised in a shoe.

  21. Re:Still by Grench · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh, piss off. If you're too stupid to differentiate between the religion and the extremist interpretation of the religion, then I really pity you. I'm also shocked that this has been modded *UP* rather than down as "troll" or "flamebait".

    Scientology is, as has already been pointed out, a cult started by a Sci-Fi author who wanted to make a lot of money. Islam is a religion, and there are millions of truly faithful Muslims out there who are every bit as peaceful in their daily life as the millions of truly faithful Christians (or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Sikhs, or followers of x y or z other faiths).

    Just in the same way most Irish weren't involved in blowing up each other / the British during the height of the Troubles (note this was a war about the difference between the two main groups of Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism) and about occupation/independence, and *nobody* was saying shit back then about "all Christians are terrorists".

    Those who blow themselves and other people up while claiming they're doing it in the name of Islam are idiots, and are delusional. The average suicide bomber has been brainwashed into it by the sorts of horrific people (i.e. Osama Bin Laden / Al Qaeda and other like-minded organizations) who recognize the power of religious belief and exploit that to their own ends - i.e. money and power. That's what it comes down to, not religion. If they can recruit young and impressionable enough people, and present themselves to these people as priests and clerics, and preach to them that God will reward them if they commit these acts, then it's far more likely to succeed then just placing a wanted ad for soldiers.

    TL:DR version - I think you're an idiot - "terrorist" and "muslim" are not interchangeable terms.

    --
    He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
  22. Re:Still by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    for really morbid laugh search up buddhist deathsquads.

    wackos are in every religion or rather wackos use every religion to further their agenda. that doesn't make every religion totally harmful.

    scientology on the other hand is just about taking your money and selling you bullshit.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  23. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering Scientology is not a religion but a scam to steal money, this is the first step. Next it would be great if the power of real religions could be broken, cause they are just as harmful. Finally people should use some common sense and realize that all that religous fantasy has nothing to do with reality, but that will never happen...

  24. When one door closes.. by undulato · · Score: 1
    1. Re:When one door closes.. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.

      -- Nigel Powers.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  25. Re:The only difference between a cult and a religi by dltaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I have just as much authority as the Pope, but fewer people believe it."

    George Carlin

  26. Re:The only difference between a cult and a religi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > is the number of followers...

    Indeed.

    A cult is a religion with few followers.
    A religion is a cult with many followers.

  27. Slippery Slope by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

    I HOPE this is a slippery slope that exposes all religions as cults. Scientology is just one or the more ridiculous and exploitive ones. Any organization that uses unprovable assertions without any reasonable scientific framework to exploit its gullible members should be shut down.

  28. CommentInSubjectAreBetter by fredan · · Score: 1

    comment not available.

  29. Scientology is a religion? Reeeeally? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I think that's just shorthand for "we can see what the guy is up to and it's most definitely a scam". That doesn't stop just because the initial perpetrator is dead.

  30. Cult vs. Religion by jouassou · · Score: 2

    France regards Scientology as a cult, not a religion

    A second woman claimed she was forced by her Scientologist employer to undergo testing and enroll in courses, also in 1998. When she refused she was fired.

    It shouldn't matter whether it's a cult or a religion; if someone got fired for not undergoing religious courses and testing, that should be treated the same way by the law.

    1. Re:Cult vs. Religion by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      It shouldn't matter whether it's a cult or a religion; if someone got fired for not undergoing religious courses and testing, that should be treated the same way by the law.

      Agreed. The only exception I can see that should be allowed is where a position would be concerned with ministering. e.g. fine if x religion doesn't want to employ a gay black woman as a priest, but not so acceptable if they require the janitor to sign a statement of faith.

      To some extent, people need to be aware of the roles in to which they are going. If I were black, it'd be disingenuous to claim discrimination if I were applying to be a Mormon elder prior to the "Hey guys! God told me that he changed his mind on the blacks!" revelation of 1978. I would however have a good complaint if I were applying for a secular role in the business.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    2. Re:Cult vs. Religion by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Considering that being an elder doesn't get you paid, why would you apply to be one?

    3. Re:Cult vs. Religion by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't apply - even if it were a paid position.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    4. Re:Cult vs. Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fine if x religion doesn't want to employ a gay black woman as a priest, but not so acceptable if they require the janitor to sign a statement of faith

      What on earth makes the first part of this "fine"? Why does society allow people to get away with being sexist, racist homophobes by simply claiming "religion"? "God told me to hate these people" should never be accepted as an excuse.

    5. Re:Cult vs. Religion by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      I feel there should be a sense of pragmatism, and understanding that people have to accept limitations of a job. If casting for someone to play the role of Lord Nelson, does it make sense to enforce equality to require a Chinese girl be seriously considered for the role?

      For ministerial roles it should be pretty open. Of course such roles should not receive tax breaks.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    6. Re:Cult vs. Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously some roles have inbuilt limitations. You can't be a sperm donor if you're female, and you can't donate eggs if you're male. But why do most religions require a priest or minister to have testicles? Or more specificaly, why do we as a society still allow them to do so, for no legitimate reason. Religion is treated with too much deference. If, for example, a political party insisted on these requirements, they would be treated with contempt, and probably prosecuted for breaking various equal rights laws, but if a church does it it's "Oh no, we can't interfere with their religion". My point is, why can't we interfere? What makes them different? Why shouldn't they be questioned, and subject to the same need to modernise as everyone else? Tax them, and make the churches and their followers obey the same laws as the rest of us.
      Equal in the eyes of the law.....unless you can claim religion that is. To hell with it, stop treating them as if they're any different from the rest of us. (Apart from their believers being more gullible.)

  31. Magic water is costly too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "one of whom said she was manipulated into handing over 20,000 euros in 1998 for Scientology products including an "electrometer" to measure mental energy"

    Is it any different than manipulating christians in to buying magic water at a 99.99% profit margin?

    1. Re:Magic water is costly too by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      The same reason why alcohol is legally permissible while some less harmless drugs are illegal - cultural entrenchment.

      The substantial difference I can see is in how Scientology is more up-front about charging for its services than some of the more established religions. Most mainstream Christian churches I've seen are more about optional donations (with obvious peer pressure) than offering a price-list. I'd give Scientology the benefit of the doubt if the services they offer to paying customers would be available at no cost to everyone - with no need to sign-up for a billion years of servitude in exchange for the services.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
  32. He is the messiah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And I should know, I've followed a few.

  33. Religion = Toxic Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine there's no countries
    It isn't hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace...

    John Lennon...
    The Voice of Reason

  34. Freedom of religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    There will be no state mandated religion. That is all.

    Your acts must still obey the law.

  35. Re:The only difference between a cult and a religi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's an error of use-and-mention.

  36. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that mean that CoS should not be fined after proven guilty as charged in a court of law because they're jusst a small religion?

    No.

    Though large religions are getting away with child porn rings, when it is foiund out by the state, it IS prosecuted. Even though they have a shitload of followers.

    CoS said "You can't do that, we're a religion". If religion == cult and cult == religion, then France are right to call them a cult and say "Nope, we CAN do that because you're a cult". Since cult == religion == cult.

  37. Environment for Bottom-feeders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    i wonder if there are any high level Scientologists in the NSA?

    There are people in the Netherlands, who sink old fishing nets with attached bits to the bottom of the Oosterschelde estuary (it's a natural reserve, so it doesn't bother boats). Then they wait a few year, put on their diving suits, and go looking at those old fishing nets underwater.

    You may wonder why people have this as a hobby.

    They do it, because they fully expect that the extremely elusive and rare (in NL) Sepia squids have found those fishing nets as a useful habitat, and found a mate in those murky waters, and have begun a family.

    In a similar vein, your question seems really stupid and weird.

    But I wonder what you get, if you create a habitat for extremely paranoid people, who like to sit in Captain Picard's chair, swim the murky waters of the Internet all day, unobserved by anyone else, give them the opportunity to meet and work with like-minded individuals, and take pride in manufacturing lies targetted for effect in the broader population. What would happen if you left such a habitat abandoned to the ebb & flow of the normal HR process of a large and rich organization for, say, 20 years. What kind of fascinating creatures would come floating to the top of the food chain?

    Who knows. You're not allowed to find out. You'll never find out.

    1. Re:Environment for Bottom-feeders by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      i wonder if there are any high level Scientologists in the NSA?

      There are people in the Netherlands, who sink old fishing nets with attached bits to the bottom of the Oosterschelde estuary (it's a natural reserve, so it doesn't bother boats). Then they wait a few year, put on their diving suits, and go looking at those old fishing nets underwater.

      You may wonder why people have this as a hobby.

      They do it, because they fully expect that the extremely elusive and rare (in NL) Sepia squids have found those fishing nets as a useful habitat, and found a mate in those murky waters, and have begun a family.

      In a similar vein, your question seems really stupid and weird.

      But I wonder what you get, if you create a habitat for extremely paranoid people, who like to sit in Captain Picard's chair, swim the murky waters of the Internet all day, unobserved by anyone else, give them the opportunity to meet and work with like-minded individuals, and take pride in manufacturing lies targetted for effect in the broader population. What would happen if you left such a habitat abandoned to the ebb & flow of the normal HR process of a large and rich organization for, say, 20 years. What kind of fascinating creatures would come floating to the top of the food chain?

      Who knows. You're not allowed to find out. You'll never find out.

      Er, what was the middle bit?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  38. Mormons? by wb8nbs · · Score: 1

    What do the french say about Mormonism?

    1. Re:Mormons? by crazyaxemaniac · · Score: 1

      What do the french say about Mormonism?

      I don't know if the French government took a stand again against the Mormons but they were singling out Jehovah's Witness.

      In 1998, the government of France imposed a 60% tax on religious offerings given by Jehovah's Witnesses to their organization, the local branch of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (WTS). A lien has also been established against their headquarters and printing plant. The intent appears to be to bankrupt the group. The Interior Ministry has refused to register the Temoins de Jehovah as an "association cultuelle" or "association culte." Thus they assert that member's contributions are taxable at the normal 60% rate for gifts in that country, under a 1992 law. The government has calculated that 303 million in French Francs ($50 million in US funds) is owed to the government. This represents 150 million in tax plus 60% in penalty charges and interest). This represents taxes not collected for the past 5 years. The Minister of Finance has refused to confirm this assessment, citing the confidential nature of the information. They do acknowledge that negotiations continue with the WTS.

      source:
      http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_franc1.htm#witness

    2. Re:Mormons? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      During 1905, laws were passed in France for the separation of Church and State. France was Catholic and had gone to war in the 16th century with protestants and before 1905 there were periods where France was more and less tolerant of other religious groups. In 1995 however there was a cultural shock when the suicides of the Order of the Solar Temple occurred. After this, France set up a Parliamentary Commissionto study religious groups, especially what are considered cults in France and to issue a report annually to prevent what happened from happening again.

      I think what you're seeing here is a direct result of that Parliamentary Commission and the laws enacted back in 1995 to go after cult organizations. Now as to Mormons, that's an interesting thought however I don't think I've seen Mormons coerce people out of their money or commit mass suicides so I guess if they just work and act like other religions in France there won't be an issue.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:Mormons? by clarkn0va · · Score: 2

      http://atheisme.free.fr/Religion/Sectes_liste.htm

      It's not really a "singling out", but yeah, Les Témoins de Jéhovah are on there.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
  39. Re:Still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius - Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain"

    "While discussions were still going on with the barons about the release of those in the city who were deemed to be Catholics, the servants and other persons of low rank and unarmed attacked the city without waiting for orders from their leaders. To our amazement, crying "to arms, to arms!", within the space of two or three hours they crossed the ditches and the walls and Béziers was taken. Our men spared no one, irrespective of rank, sex or age, and put to the sword almost 20,000 people. After this great slaughter the whole city was despoiled and burnt.."

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Béziers

    That sounds like terrorism at a large scale, and even worse committed against people of their exact own faith. And you can't claim they were extremists, because they were following the law as it was written:

    Deuteronomy 13:12-18:

    13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
    13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
    13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
    13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. (13:15) "Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword."
    What the Bible says about Genocide
    13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.
    13:17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; (13:17) "That the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger."
    13:18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God

    So yes, is a direct command from God and they followed it. All Abrahamic religions are just bronze age barbarism disguised as mysticism, their modern versions have survived only because most of their followers learned to pick and chose what they want to believe (and more importantly what to ignore) and most societies have evolved past that point.

  40. The didn't kill them because they were atheists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were killed because the army is told who to kill by those in power and those in power didn't use religion to say that they were RIGHT to be in charge and therefore did not have to share power with them.

    Other countries whose leaders use religion to show how they are RIGHT to be in charge do not want to share power with the religion, but cannot remove it without removing their reason for saying you must obey them.

    So, no, they were not killed by atheists. You can damn well be certain that many of those doing the shooting were religious. They were told what to do and faced death themselves (or thought that they weren't the TRUE religion, just heretics, and therefore a valid target).

    Then again, the Alerginian Heresies were not stamped out because they were the wrong christians, they were stamped out because the christians in power did not want them to remove the power by saying "Hey, you don't have to tithe the Holy Roman Empire any more", moreover those following heard "You don't have to tithe" and thought "Brilliant! I can keep my money!".

    HOWEVER, the justification for the killings was religion.

    The purges of stalinist russia was not justified by atheism.

  41. Re:The only difference between a cult and a religi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only difference between a cult and religion is a religion has survived the death of its founders and their immediate successors.

    Mormon's are considered a religion. If Scientology survives David Miscavage (yea my spelling sucks!), maybe they will be considered a religion.

  42. Explanaton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone give me an explanation of how the beliefs of Scientology are any less credible than those of Mormons or Catholics for that matter?

    1. Re:Explanaton by DrXym · · Score: 1

      It's not about credibility but adherence to the law. I expect France has dozens if not hundreds of religions, sects and possibly even cults operating within its borders in a completely lawful fashion. Scientology clearly wasn't and had the book thrown at it.

  43. I dunno by goffster · · Score: 1

    Fleecing morons. If I could do it, I probably would.

  44. Exact oposite in the Netherlands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the Netherlands, they just have been given a tax exemption, for being a religious non-profit organisation, for the common good.
    Another fine example of European politics.

  45. It's about time by echtertyp · · Score: 2

    Religion is bad but scientology is even worse.

  46. Scientology is a scam, plain and simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no more, to say, i have been there, i tested.. and when they tried on me, the use of their electrometer, saying electrometer cost tenth of thousand of euros, hence the price you have to pay for an hour, with such "tool". the word "SCAM" blew up in my mind. Looking at the device, i just noted, i could take a voltmeter for less then 10 bucks, and do the same thing.
    They also tried they prostitute like trap, wanted one of their colleague be very friend with me. Happily i was not looking nice enough for her, to do such a thing, and she started to say, she started to be fed up to do it for sci.
    The only to take benefits of this, is high ranking people and those like Cruise, and Travolta, whom are used like advertisers, and have hardly ever faced the bad side of sci. Nonetheless to say, everybody like to be treated like kings. The sad thing, is they very much appreciate being treated like that, but don't bother, living conditions of the slaves working for them.
    Scientology is a SCAM, plain and simple, and i've been there and tested it, as a french citizen, in the 80's. By the time, i didn't expect that organization to last that long. But been folder robbery and more, to destroy evidence of their fellony, that may explain why it has lasted that much in my country.

  47. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    France regards Scientology as a cult, not a religion,

    france did something right. i guess there's some hope left after all.

  48. Re:Still by jbolden · · Score: 0

    I don't see much difference between Islam and Christianity.

    That being said, terrorist organizations have moderate widespread support in the muslim communities, particularly during the Iraq war: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/EXTREM15.png

  49. So by g0bshiTe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can see how the woman bilked out of money could file a case against the church but how in the hell does the lady who was fired have a case? Shouldn't that be a suit between her and her former employer?

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  50. How do you tell the difference by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    between a legitimate religion and a tax shelter? We can't use the old "They interfere in politics" because pastors of all the major churches do all the time...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  51. Celebrity Centre by quarnap · · Score: 1

    The first time I drove down Franklin Avenue in Los Angeles and saw the sign in front of their building that says "Church Of Scientology Celebrity Centre International" I was pretty sure this wasn't really a religion.

  52. US has freedom of religion by peter303 · · Score: 0

    France has only had it intermitterantly and has not developed a strong culture of tolerance. The drawback of this freedom is you have put up with a fiar number of marginal kooks. Once you start drawing lines, who knows when they'll draw one around you.

    1. Re:US has freedom of religion by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      France has only had it intermittently and has not developed a strong culture of tolerance.

      I think the French are more proud of their culture and heritage than a lot of people give them credit for. When people
      from the outside come in and try to change things that's when you get into trouble. That gives them that certain je ne sais quoi that makes others respect and others hate them. If I could, I'd probably move to France but then again their a bunch of socialist pinko commie bastards anyway but they do have nice museums.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  53. Governmental Authority by srobert · · Score: 1

    Apparently, in France the government has the authority to distinguish between a cult and a religion. The U.S. government (and its states) would be expressly prohibited from having this authority by the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution. I think the U.S. Constitution is correct in this regard. Government shouldn't have the authority to declare whether any religion is legitimate or not.

    1. Re: Governmental Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Its a weakness of the US constitution not a strength. And exactly this weakness is exploited by Scientology Inc. to get a tax break and special protection despite being just a predatory and criminal company.

      Receiving a tax break affects the government financial balance, thus is should be the government who is eligible for a tax break. Declaring yourself a religion should not be sufficient.

    2. Re:Governmental Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having criminals hiding behind the word religion is a bit annoying though.

    3. Re: Governmental Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *thus it should be the government who decides who is eligible for.....

      Sorry. Grammar failed me.

  54. Re:The only difference between a cult and a religi by bob_super · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In France, the difference between a cult and a religion is whether they preach being open to the rest of society, versus hiding what you're doing from others.
    From a society standpoint, this is the only important criteria.

    By that definition, CoS is a cult.

  55. Re:Still by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

    Please explain to me why your particular skyfairy is more credible than the next guy's, without resorting to authority, antiquity, or cultural predominance, which are all invalid forms of evidence. I've yet to see anyone pull this off. That's why nearly every modern religion has a "There is no god but [X]" rule. Those universalists which don't do so generally claim something like "All gods are effectively the same, we just know better than the guy down the street what He wants". Go on, pile it deeper.

    --
    Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
  56. Re:Still by Quila · · Score: 1

    Big difference: Christianity has pretty much grown up. The number of recent incidents of people killing in the name of Christianity are rather few, and of small scale.

    Islam is where Christianity was several hundred years ago, with a rather large amount of religious violence associated, and a shockingly large percentage of adherents agreeing with intolerance towards other religions. A majority of Muslims in many Muslim countries still call for the death penalty for apostates, and in Britain that's still one third among younger Muslims. Further statistics involving implementation of Sharia (and enforcing it on the non-Muslim population) and others are scary.

    What's worse is Muslims lying to themselves. Take Pakistan, where three quarters of Muslims think those of other religions are very free to practice their faith, but Pakistan is one of the worst countries for non-Muslim religious freedom. They don't see their own oppression. They don't even see the death penalty for leaving Islam as being a violation of religious freedom.

  57. If only... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    ... we could prosecute the fraudsters raking in big bucks in America posing as faith healers and mediums.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  58. Re:Still by Grench · · Score: 1

    Who said I had a skyfairy at all?

    I get fed up of all the idiots crawling out of the woodwork and talking crap. I strongly suspect the troll I replied to has never been out of his/her home country, to anywhere there is a different culture, meeting people, or seeing how anyone else but them lives. I've been through the Middle East (can't claim to have visited the UAE or Kuwait, but have been through the airports in both countries) and have spent a combined period of several months visiting Indonesia, not the tourist areas, or staying in hotels, but living in normal folks' houses as a guest and spending time with them.

    Anyone is entitled to believe in any God (or pantheon of Gods) they want. They can believe their religion is the only true religion if they want; religion is about faith, after all. I'm just sick of people who put down other people based on their ill-informed, prejudiced view of things. You want to write about someone's culture/religion in a critical manner, you'd better actually see how those people live or practise their religions first.

    --
    He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
  59. The Amendments to the Constitution by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    The government has complete power over corporations like an OS over apps. Our problem is the root kits and privilege escalation... and our "I.T. people" are morons or corrupt.

    Scientology exploits corporate powers AND religious powers together; both which go too far. The government HAD the power to define corporations and all their limitations. A religion which incorporates (non-profit or for-profit) has no special rights; if they want religious freedom, they can have it-- WITHOUT incorporating. Just as they can have schools that teach the world is flat and receive 0 tax dollars.

    You can fix the problem without touching religious freedom (unless your religion is corporatism... arguably, a major religion in the USA today.)

    1. Re:The Amendments to the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to the point, requiring all non-profit organizations to fully disclose their finances in great detail (including receipts, and the names of contributors, and disallowing all anonymous contributions), to the public, to provide for public oversight of the non-profit status, would do a lot to fix the financial and other abuses of such operations.

      With modern computers this sort of thing should be trivial and no great burden to place on these organizations in return for the privilege of non-profit status. I'd imagine the required software could easy be open source and written using a cross-platform language or build environment, and possibly the development could be funded by the government. We already have open source databases, so this is really just a question of adding a nice front end, with appropriate import and export tools.

      Similar disclosure could be required of all businesses, over the long term, thus allowing them to keep things secret for short periods of time for competitive advantage, while allowing long term monitoring and public oversight, in return for the privilege of being allowed to conduct business.

      None of this will ever happen in the USA, as the political parties in control of the country would be scared that somebody might want to apply the same rules to their finances.

  60. Re:The only difference between a cult and a religi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I have just as much authority as the Pope, but fewer people believe it." -- dltaylor

    "I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it." -- George Carlin

    It's not a quote if you paraphrase it.

  61. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now when do we start this with Christianity and Islam?

  62. Re:The only difference between a cult and a religi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mormon's

    I'm considered a religion?

    Hint: Using unnecessary apostrophes causes you to say things you did not mean to say - and as a bonus, makes you look dumb.

  63. Re: Still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The absence of condemnation of the Muslim community may have you believing otherwise. When the Muslim community shuns the extremists, I'll change my view - but not before.
    And ... Scientology is a cult.

  64. Their in it for... by xbytor · · Score: 1

    The CoS is concerned with a profit not the Prophet.

  65. He avoided medical help because he was paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that once he was in hospital the psychs would get him.

  66. You say that like it isn't standard CoS policy to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    commit fraud.

  67. Scientology uses trademark law to prevent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all splinter groups, which they label as Squirrel groups, trying to preach Scientologist beliefs from forming and operating. In fact Scientology has gone after these drains on their revenue harder than they have against critics.

  68. Re:Still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The troubles in norn iron are purely sectarian.