Slashdot Mirror


Google Aids Scientology-Linked Group CCHR With Pay-Per-Click Ads

An anonymous reader writes "The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a Scientology front group, has received a 'grant from Google in the amount of $10,000 per month worth of Pay Per Click Advertising to be used in our Orange County anti-psych campaigns.' CCHR believes that ALL psychiatrists are evil. They believe that psychiatrists were behind the holocaust, and these shadow men were never brought to justice. CCHR also believes that psychiatrists were behind the 911 attacks. Scientologists believe that psychiatrists have always been evil, and their treachery goes back 75 million years when the psychiatrists assisted XENU in killing countless alien life forms. Thanks Google! We may be able to stop these evil Psychs once and for all!"

186 comments

  1. The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The more these beliefs are discussed and examined, the more they are revealed for what they are.

    1. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by davester666 · · Score: 0

      Completely verifiable and valid.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Plunky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The more these beliefs...

      beliefs, you say? I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..

    3. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More people need to read up on historic con games

      They usually involve getting people to buy into ridiculous mythology with the implied promise that they will receive some treasure (money, sex, immortality) for their belief

      It is also helpful if the mythology includes prohibitions against those forces (religion, psychology, rational thought), that may convince the target that they are being duped

      One early indication to any potential target should be whether or not the person peddling these eternal truths is particularly interested in money

    4. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      PsyOntology. ScientTautology. As American as apple pie!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    5. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      getting people to 'believe' utter rubbish is part of the game plan

      the people most likely to remove them from the con will disparage these beliefs

      this will induce 'cognitive dissonance' in the person who will shrink away from the negative view of their beliefs and back into the arms of the con game

      we see this all around us, and not just religions/cults, just look at the tortured souls who exhibit the same behavior with Obama derangement syndrome or global warming denial. The world behaves differently than their beliefs have led them to expect so they surround themselves with people who believe the same way and bark at anybody who does not think the same way

    6. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by johanw · · Score: 1

      I would hope so. On the other hand, it didn't help much against other superstitions like chrisstianity either.

    7. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by mbone · · Score: 1

      Bad science fiction

    8. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by mbone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The more these beliefs...

      beliefs, you say? I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..

      I don't think you understand how bilking "money out of desparate people" works.

    9. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu..

      It's no more or less believable than any other religion. Do you think people really believe that a dead guy came back to life? How about an entire ocean was suddenly parted so the good guys could get away and then collapsed again on the bad guys? Or that the earth is 6000 years old? Or that the guy who created the entire universe 12 billion years ago and billions of light years large is really really concerned about if human penises wind up in human vaginas before the correct ritual is performed?

      So yes, I really do think some people believe in the Xenu thing. Especially since they don't really tell you about the Xenu thing until you're really into it.

      --
      AccountKiller
    10. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Funny

      "How about an entire ocean was suddenly parted so the good guys could get away and then collapsed again on the bad guys?"

      Actually, that is plausible. I saw the proof of concept at Disneyland.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    11. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by turgid · · Score: 1

      It's no more or less believable than any other religion. Do you think people really believe that a dead guy came back to life? How about an entire ocean was suddenly parted so the good guys could get away and then collapsed again on the bad guys? Or that the earth is 6000 years old? Or that the guy who created the entire universe 12 billion years ago and billions of light years large is really really concerned about if human penises wind up in human vaginas before the correct ritual is performed?

      You can sort-of understand why ancient religions came about and stuck. People in general, without education, before the formulation of the Scientific Method, living in a very uncertain world where starvation and disease were all about (and life was short and harsh) would invent supernatural explanations for things and perhaps like to believe that there was someone looking over them in judgement all the time.

      However, there is absolutely no excuse for Scientology to be as big as it is. It was conceived as a cynical exercise in demonstrating that gullibility, ignorance and superstition, which are fundamental parts of human nature, are every present and easily exploitable (for money) and that society has not advanced to the point that the human race has outgrown its primitive cultural roots.

      You have to hand it to L Ron, it was a dastardly,cynical plan to make money out of the stupid, and it has been a soaring success.

      As they say, a fool and his money are easily parted. There are a lot of Hollywood actors involved...

    12. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. You spend $100k-200k, get progressively more and more brainwashed along the way, have your entire life, friends and support group wrapped up around your belief system, and they could probably make you believe the sky is green. People believe in exceptionally strange things all of the time, when you're on the outside looking in.

    13. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beliefs, you say? I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..

      I believe that what one man wrote is more inerrant and consistent than the Bible, regardless of any intent to bilk money out of people or that a collection of verbal and even written (and copied) histories with good intentions are neverless riddled with the L Ron Hubbards of their day and generally just the mental unstable or generally creative who believe a bit too much in their own works of fiction later in life...

      Where was I going... Oh, yea, if people can believe in Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc, it'd seem a lot easier to believe in Xenu all things considered.

    14. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      How about an entire ocean was suddenly parted so the good guys could get away and then collapsed again on the bad guys?

      1. It was not an entire ocean. I was the Red Sea and a very narrow part in the Gulf of Aqaba.
      2. It could have been a natural phenomenon.
      Please note that I do not believe in most of the things in the Bible but some things might be facts. The social aspects of the Bible are so outdated as to be laughable.

    15. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you have reached the level of OT3 in Scientology, and you profess that you don't believe the story of XENU, you will be sent to "Ethics" to determine what is wrong with you. If you continue to say that you don't believe Xenu existed, you will be sent to the RPF (Scientology's thought reconstruction prison camp) where you could stay for years. Finally after all that, if you state that Xenu doesn't exist after reaching OT3, you will be labeled an SP (suppressive person). All Scientoligists (including brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers) will be forced to disconnect from you. If you speak to the press about Xenu or talk bad about scientology in an unflattering way, you will be targeted for "Fair Game". Hubbard stated that a suppressive person can be destroyed under the "Fair Game" policy.

      I realize it is shocking, but there are many individuals that believe in Xenu. These same individuals believe that discussing Xenu with "Wogs" (non scientologists) is a high crime and a suppressive act. In fact, Hubbard said that Wogs that learn of Xenu without proper counseling risk death (R6 Implant).

    16. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing to keep in mind is that most "preclears" have never heard of Xenu because they actively avoid "out tech" (unsanctioned) discussions of scientology, if not because its heretical then because it will cost them $10k in auditing to get back on track.

      The way this works is that until you "clear" most of the mythology is about self improvement, no aliens, etc its still popsci gobbledygook but of a more palatable type. Once you have cleared what they really want you to do is pay for all of the "OT levels" at once which they call "Charging across the bridge to total freedom" once they have your money then you get to find out about the space aliens and (if wikileaks is to be believed) the final revelation is that the whole mythology is "mocked up" (i.e. fake). In any case they are in to you for at least $250K and you have most likely "disconnected" from your non scientologist friends and family by the time it turns into a sci-fi mystery cult.

    17. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..

      don't the desparate people count?

    18. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Red Sea" isn't even a bad translation, its flat-out incorrect. The actual translation for where the crossing occured is the Sea of Reeds.

    19. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general the religious beliefs of others are ridiculous. I believe I'll have another beer.

    20. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by umafuckit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..

      I wouldn't be so sure. I think the main reason it sounds crazy is because this particular belief is shared by comparatively few people. When few people are involved, such beliefs are called cults and are rejected by wider society. It's when crazy beliefs spread and are shared by many people that they're called a religion. Of course different societies draw the line differently.

      The beliefs of the Christian church are pretty crazy too, when you stop to think about it, but they're widely accepted in our society so they no longer draw incredulity. Think how crazy this sounds: the Catholic church tells us that during communion the bread and wine literally turn into the blood and body of Christ. However, through some mysterious process, they appear to our senses as unchanged. So the Catholic church tells you that what you're seeing and tasting is wrong, and you should ignore the evidence right in front of you. Presumably, millions of people accept and believe this. Then we have the fact that many Christians believe that everything in the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Yet these same people ignore the parts they don't like (Christians choose to eat pork even though their book tells them not to), they ignore the fact that the Bible is often self-contradictory, and they ignore the fact that the Bible we have today is based on copies of copies that include known errors, additions, and omissions. If God is all-powerful, why is He unable to provide "his inerrant word" in an accurate form, and why is it that he never shows his face?

    21. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by gtall · · Score: 0

      He's a funny G-d!! Men pee out of the same organ they use to have sex. Yeah, it might optimize the plumbing but I rather think quite a few Heavenly jokes get cracked about that one. The Universe periodically tries to kill us. Gamma ray bursters, asteroids, comets, Madonna...these are not the acts of a vengeful G-d, this guy has a sense of humor. Tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes, Paris Hilton...c'mon, it's a dead giveaway. Shopping malls AND Karl Marx, the mind boggles, G-d is funny guy.

    22. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I think you needed a "BRB, door" or perhaps a @.;'0 no carrier in there somewhere.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I think he likes beer. Just look at an aardvark, that's a morning-after-the-night-before job if ever I saw one..

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's definite proof he was outsorcing.
      "Ok, what we've got on project Aardwark?"
      "Oh, there's a tech demo..."
      "Tech demo? Tech demo?!?! Did you wankers see the deadline? The customer's expecting it by Day Fifth, can we fucking ship a tech demo?"
      "Well, if we..."
      "Oh, I fucking give up, at least polish it up a bit before shipping, will you?"

    25. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think it was just a sea, not an entire ocean.

    26. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Cinder6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The more these beliefs...

      beliefs, you say? I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..

      I may be able to provide a few insights on this.

      My parents were in Scientology in the 1970s and early 80s. My mom signed up because of her sister and brother, and my dad signed up to meet girls (he was successful, as my parents are still together, so I guess some good can come from the organization!).

      There are a few things you have to realize about Scientology; some of it has already been said. First, the nutso stuff isn't presented early on. It only gets revealed at a certain point, after you have invested years and tens of thousands of dollars. During that time, you are constantly bombarded with Scientologist propaganda and vocabulary, which serves to drive you away from your non-Scientologist friends. When you do "go clear" and learn about Xenu and the other stuff, they have done their hardest to brainwash you into their way of thinking. These days, they even install Internet filters onto your computer to block anti-Scientology websites.

      Leaving Scientology presents its own problems. When my parents left, they lost all their friends. Their Scientologist friends would no longer talk to them, and they had already alienated their non-Scientologist friends. People higher up in the organization face more obstacles, including personal and legal threats. (My parents were never high up--an ex-Scientologist told them what it was all about, and they left. The church later sued him for all he was worth, and he had to publicly apologize and retract his words.)

      Some of my parents' Scientology friends eventually left the church as well, and they've stayed in touch. One couple in particular was high up in the organization (well past OT3x--I think 6 or maybe even 7). Even after all these years, they still have a hard time not believing in Scientology's teachings, even the Xenu stuff. To paraphrase, they say they have a hard time accepting that they spent so much of their lives believing in a lie. It's not a rational thing, but then, faith often asks people to be irrational. When you've spent so much time having one set of beliefs drilled into you, it's hard to just let it go.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    27. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Who would design a recreation area to be shared with a sewage treatment facility?

    28. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by guises · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As the AC pointed out, the actual translations is not "Red Sea," it's "sea of reeds" - i.e., a marsh. This makes sense, as the Israelites were in the delta region of Egypt, a marshy place that is not particularly close to the Red Sea. It's also easy to picture some poor people fleeing on foot through a marsh while the pharaoh and his men, riding chariots, would get bogged down.

    29. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm going to start this post by saying I think they're all crap; $cientology, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, any and all brands of Neo-Paganism; the whole lot of them.

      But there are some pretty clear cultural differences between, say Hinduism and Christianity on one side, and Scientologists on the other. While the former religions may have started out something like the latter ones (though I suspect it was far more complex than some guy sitting down and writing a religion purely out of his imagination), there are literally thousands of years of cultural and theological development behind them. They have had significant a longstanding influences on the civilizations in which they evolved (or were adopted).

      Scientology can be traced no further back than L Ron Hubbard telling some of his far more talented peers he planned to create a religion to prove how easy and profitable it was. Unlike, say, Hinduism, which is a historical evolution of the Proto-Indo-European religion, Scientology has no real antecdent, unless you count the self help movement and Hubbard's fetishistic dislike of psychiatry.

      Even the early Christians took the Jewish Bible, plopped a second part on it and mixed in some Hellenic philosophy into it, and thus has antecedents dating back centuries.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    30. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the AC pointed out, the actual translations is not "Red Sea," it's "sea of reeds" - i.e., a marsh. This makes sense, as the Israelites were in the delta region of Egypt, a marshy place that is not particularly close to the Red Sea. It's also easy to picture some poor people fleeing on foot through a marsh while the pharaoh and his men, riding chariots, would get bogged down.

      The correct translation of "Yam Suph" isn't what is important. What is important is that the rest of the bible uses that name for the eastern arm of the Red Sea. And Pharaoh and his army didn't merely get bogged down, but *drowned*. There's an underwater sand bridge about halfway up the east arm. It was formed from sand washing out from wadis on both sides. The sea took all night for the wind to part it (unlike in the movies).

    31. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu..

      It's no more or less believable than any other religion. Do you think people really believe that a dead guy came back to life?

      Well, Isaiah prayed and the widow's son was raised to life. And Jesus raised Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha. And Peter prayed for Tabitha, who was raised. And Paul prayed for Eutychus, and he was raised.

      How about an entire ocean was suddenly parted so the good guys could get away and then collapsed again on the bad guys? Or that the earth is 6000 years old?

      Except that on the fourth "day" the sun and moon shine their light. How do we have days without the sun? Well, if you study Hebrew, it turns out that the word translated "day" really means "period of time".

      Or that the guy who created the entire universe 12 billion years ago and billions of light years large is really really concerned about if human penises wind up in human vaginas before the correct ritual is performed?

      God is concerned about a human being promising to be faithful to another human being, and then breaking that promise.

      So yes, I really do think some people believe in the Xenu thing. Especially since they don't really tell you about the Xenu thing until you're really into it.

    32. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..

      I wouldn't be so sure. I think the main reason it sounds crazy is because this particular belief is shared by comparatively few people. When few people are involved, such beliefs are called cults and are rejected by wider society. It's when crazy beliefs spread and are shared by many people that they're called a religion. Of course different societies draw the line differently.

      The beliefs of the Christian church are pretty crazy too, when you stop to think about it, but they're widely accepted in our society so they no longer draw incredulity. Think how crazy this sounds: the Catholic church

      That's ROMAN Catholic Church. You know, the last vestige of the Roman Empire.

      tells us that during communion the bread and wine literally turn into the blood and body of Christ. However, through some mysterious process, they appear to our senses as unchanged. So the Catholic church tells you that what you're seeing and tasting is wrong, and you should ignore the evidence right in front of you. Presumably, millions of people accept and believe this.

      If they don't study the bible, then why shouldn't they believe crazy stuff?

      Then we have the fact that many Christians believe that everything in the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Yet these same people ignore the parts they don't like (Christians choose to eat pork even though their book tells them not to), they ignore the fact that the Bible is often self-contradictory, and they ignore the fact that the Bible we have today is based on copies of copies that include known errors, additions, and omissions.

      Yet the books of bible have better attestation than any other works older than 1900 years.

      If God is all-powerful, why is He unable to provide "his inerrant word" in an accurate form,

      Actually the problem is that modern languages are in constant flux. Translations are an ongoing problem.

      and why is it that he never shows his face?

      Actually, he has. Selfish, self-centered liars (ie people) despair in his presence.

    33. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmmmm human vaginas.

    34. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      The more these beliefs are discussed and examined, the more they are revealed for what they are.

      Sure, but do we need to discuss forever? In France, scientology is officially considered as a sect.

    35. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. So, as much as L. Ron Hubbard didn't directly crib from earlier religions, one of the major complaints about Scientology is that L. Ron Hubbard went out of his way to spell out how to make a fake religion to get followers, power, and money. Which means at some level, he used the antecedent of other religions and mixed enough ideas to create a whole religion out of. Ie, it came from other religions along with his imagination inspired by his culture.

      Now, I know what you're really getting at. All the other religions have had centuries (well, not exactly that long for Mormonism) to morph as a byproduct of culture without the original author or followers around to directly contradict the authenticity of what is being prompted. Of course, that resulting contradiction because there is no longer a one, true source is the foundation of most holy wars. So, one could almost say that something isn't a religion until after there's been at least a holy war or two in its name.

      Back to my original point which is, more or less, that it's precisely that Scientology is so much not a religion that isn't more believable. It hasn't had centuries of intentional or unintentional corruption by society and culture. It's able to sufficiently stand alone and be mocked as ridiculous that it doesn't have the property of being entrenched and believe out of a stake in dogma and not in a stake in being convincing. It still has enough people alive who can directly answer questions about the hows and the whys of things as really it's the lack of alive first hand or second hand knowledge that tends to turn just about anything into more rumor than fact.

      So, to that end, it's inherently more preposterous to trust a two thousand year old text about a man walking on water than your neighbor saying he witnessed it first hand. It might not be that much of a absolute margin given how unbelievable it all is. Still there's a lot more percentage margin to doubt and actually test instead of relying wholly on a text itself to test itself against. This is, btw, one reason science is so great. It's founded on reproducability through a serious of methods. Of course, realistically you'd not test it all to believe in it, but a random sampling should hopefully fill you with sufficient confidence. That's the real reason the medical arts seem like such a joke and why the whole "dislike of psychiatry" has a ring of truth to it. :(

    36. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Well, it's certain that someone at Google needs their head examined... not that they would show up for the appointment...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    37. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by billstewart · · Score: 1

      You're the first person I've heard of who's gotten something positive out of Scientology (your existence :-). Hope you and your family can recover from the rest of it.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    38. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Some of my parents' Scientology friends eventually left the church as well, and they've stayed in touch. One couple in particular was high up in the organization (well past OT3x--I think 6 or maybe even 7). Even after all these years, they still have a hard time not believing in Scientology's teachings, even the Xenu stuff.

      Why did they leave, then?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    39. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..

      Does anybody actually believe it? Given the tenacity of the Co$, sadly I'd have to say the answer is yes. Not everyone involved in that group is exchanging winks off-stage. Some have actually drunk the kool-aid.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    40. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      wasn't that at Ken Hams museum in Kentucky? if not, it should have been...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    41. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Barsteward · · Score: 0

      you've just made a good case for it all being a load of bollocks (which it is)

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    42. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Seems to me the only person in a religion who knows it's bullshit is the one who made it up. When he croaks without admitting it's bollocks, well, that's probably how these things get started. I don't see anything very different about scientology other than we've seen its creation out of whole cloth. We don't get that kind of view with ancient religions.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    43. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Maritz · · Score: 0

      They truly are great stories. Such imagination.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    44. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2

      Yet these same people ignore the parts they don't like (Christians choose to eat pork even though their book tells them not to),

      Acts 10 9-16 repeals the unclean animal laws that the Mosaic Law brought in to keep nasty diseases out of the population. Both the prohibition and the repealing are couched in "Orders from God" terms, but are actually based on prevailing understanding of health and hygiene at the time of each event. And which got unfortunately ritualized.

      In a primitive civilization, pork and other meats can be severe risks if they don't know how to cook it properly. A lot of early civilizations had pork prohibitions, but as soon as they realized that a long, hot cooking process rendered the meat harmless, they were dropped. Long before the early Roman Empire times, it was common knowledge and only those adhering to the old Mosaic laws kept up the prohibition as tradition.

      The repealing was done as a direct instruction from God because that was probably the only way to get the traditionalists to accept the change and was likely initiated as the early Jewish Christians interacted more with the Romans and Greeks and the knowledge that pork and related "unclean" meats were now safe to eat. And that the gentiles who were becoming more and more of the Christian base weren't going to accept archaic traditions.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    45. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Scientology organization is abusive enough even if their teachings were true; peoples' disillusionment can be with the organization while still keeping their brainwashing with regard to their beliefs.

      There's even a non-CoS scientology organization, I think it's called "free zone" or "free zoners" or something.

    46. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even *more* believable than some of the claims of the Abrahamic religions because most of them do not propose that the Holy Spirit or its equivalent directly *control* human physiology and behaviour in the way that the Thetans do. Sure, there's speaking in tongues and the amusing things that a jinn may do to a man, but very few branches of that family of religions objects to the idea that the brain and the central nervous system house the personality and drive the body. Scientology by contrast postulates that Thetans are discrete beings that "handle" (and live in) the body.

      That is, Scientology postulates mind/body duality; that a wide range of disease and dysfunction arise when multiple Thetans fight for control over a single body; and that the cure for that is to learn to chase these other ("body") Thetans out ("become clear").

      Now, the analogue of a lifecycle of a Thetan is laid out in conflicting and Byzantine ways by Scientologists, and some of the things Hubbard proposed would seem nonsensical to practically anyone, but then early on he did try to be vaguely compatible with the lifecycle of souls in Abrahamic religions, substituting planetary bodies for things like heaven and hell. The Xenu stuff is mostly just to explain body thetans, and is one of the very few examples of superhuman (if not outright supernatural) beings engaging in miraculous activity.

      By comparison, the Abrahamic religious family's scriptures are replete with miracles with few witnesses and less direct permanent impact on the environment (which is handy since those that are alleged to have dramatically altered the environment, like The Flood, are contradicted by an awful lot of evidence, much like Xenu's volcanos).

      Incidentally, a large dose of niacin produces symptoms extremely similar to the sorts of tingling and pressure that OT III Scientologists are taught to recognize as clusters of body thetans infecting themselves. That would be a neat "sacramental" device for scamatologists, since it's safer than wine and the symptoms will fade with time no matter what sort of meditative state the participant engages in.

    47. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu..

      It's no more or less believable than any other religion. Do you think people really believe that a dead guy came back to life? How about an entire ocean was suddenly parted so the good guys could get away and then collapsed again on the bad guys? Or that the earth is 6000 years old? Or that the guy who created the entire universe 12 billion years ago and billions of light years large is really really concerned about if human penises wind up in human vaginas before the correct ritual is performed?

      So yes, I really do think some people believe in the Xenu thing. Especially since they don't really tell you about the Xenu thing until you're really into it.

      Why should it be implausible for a "guy who created the entire universe" to concern himself with human actions? If he created the universe, then he probably cares about what's in it. And if he is able to create a universe, then he is without limits so far as we know them, and is entirely capable of being concerned with the smallest details that we know of.

    48. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 2

      The scientologist view on psychiatry is not an accident, or a fetish. They utilize brainwashing techniques when acquiring converts, and exposure to a trained psychologist would risk deprogramming. How better to protect your brainwashed followers than to train them to hate and fear the cure?

    49. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should it be implausible for a "guy who created the entire universe" to concern himself with human actions? If he created the universe, then he probably cares about what's in it. And if he is able to create a universe, then he is without limits so far as we know them, and is entirely capable of being concerned with the smallest details that we know of.

      The Minecraft guy created a whole world, and can do anything he wants to it, but I bet he doesn't give two shits about any of the sheep roaming it. Being all-powerful relative to a universe does not imply being interested in every minute detail of that universe.

    50. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no more or less believable that Motorola PowerPC chips were more powerful than their Intel rivals because Apple used the PowerPC ones whereas the Intel ones were the basis for Windows.

    51. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      I think he likes beer. Just look at an aardvark, that's a morning-after-the-night-before job if ever I saw one.

      Hey, I'm an aardvark,you insensitive clod. (ok,you saw that one coming. So maybe god's real joke was inventing beer?)

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    52. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the other ways in which Scientology is cult like: isolation from family and friends, conversion of any means of escape to the group, heavy mystique about the actual nature of your cult, etc. Never the less, at least some of the points Scientologist bring up about psychologists and psychiatrists are valid: over-subjective and heavily manipulative (another form of brainwashing) that doesn't necessarily lead to any better situation* and over-medication. But, then, that likely has more to do with (1) the sort of people who go to psychologists long-term have so many issues that really nothing would be a permanent fix** and (2) a broken clock is at least right once a day. So, don't mistake me to think that psychology or psychiatry is evil; quite the contrary, it's quite worthwhile for a lot of people. It's just frustrating when you find out medicine turns out to be placebos or there's way over medication in some cases. :(

      *It is, after all, the case that a psychologist is more than just a mirror to try to help you reflect upon your issues to resolve them. At some level, they step in and try to do what's "right". Well, at one time it was "wrong" to be homosexual. And why most psychologists would try their best to respect their patients and never directly manipulate them towards self-hatred, suicide, or turning them into some authority, there are those who have and do and it's not clear there are enough consequences for betraying that trust.

      **It's mostly a chicken and egg problem. Some people just need regular help and not simply short-term counseling. Others need heavy medication even when it appears to be over medication. It's not an easy situation to deal with and there doesn't seem to be a good system in place for review. It is, after all, the paradox of needing to be so close to a person they can trust you but far enough away that you can maintain an objective view of the situation such that you don't let your own personal feelings interfere. And an outside reviewer of the situation would invariably break the trust bond, there's no simple way to revoke a license that doesn't potentially out a patient or otherwise put them in harm, etc. Certainly, trying to make it something dealt directly with in a court would be a mess. Still, it's the best that can be done at a societal level given no one unpaid is likely to stick with such people long-term to help them deal with their problems.

    53. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by amicusNYCL · · Score: 0

      Well, Isaiah prayed and the widow's son was raised to life. And Jesus raised Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha. And Peter prayed for Tabitha, who was raised. And Paul prayed for Eutychus, and he was raised.

      When was the last time that someone was resurrected days after they died because of the power of prayer? Surely such a thing would be well documented if it happened within the last several hundred years.

      God is concerned about a human being promising to be faithful to another human being, and then breaking that promise.

      How come he doesn't come down on people who get divorced? Is everyone sentenced to an eternity of suffering who has ever fallen out of love with another and then moved on?

      Also, how the hell do you know what God is concerned about? Do you have a direct line? Can you suggest that, if he is actually an omnipotent omnipresent ruler, then maybe it would be a good idea to show up every now and then where we can actually see him, hear him, speak to him, and receive answers? If you were living in a city, and everyone told you that there is this set of laws that you need to live by, but the government that made the laws hasn't been around for the past several thousand years, and if someone breaks a law then the government doesn't come in and punish them and apparently nothing happens, are you really going to be concerned with following all of the laws? Or would you make your own set of laws that make sense to you and actually enforce them?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    54. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yay for moving the goalposts!

    55. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by cusco · · Score: 0

      Yet the books of bible have better attestation than any other works older than 1900 years.

      Actually there are Buddhist and Hindu works of considerably older antiquity for which much better documentation. IIRC, Shinto as well. Of course Christians don't know about those.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    56. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet the books of bible have better attestation than any other works older than 1900 years.

      Actually there are Buddhist and Hindu works of considerably older antiquity for which much better documentation. IIRC, Shinto as well. Of course Christians don't know about those.

      The Buddhist texts are less than 1500 years old. Shintoism wasn't even named until after Buddhism was introduced to Japan, and Japanese texts before 700 CE are extremely rare. I'm not familiar with Hindu texts, but the oldest were composed around 1500 BCE. I couldn't (quickly) find the dates of the physical texts.

    57. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Think how crazy this sounds: the Catholic church tells us that during communion the bread and wine literally turn into the blood and body of Christ. However, through some mysterious process, they appear to our senses as unchanged. So the Catholic church tells you that what you're seeing and tasting is wrong, and you should ignore the evidence right in front of you.

      Ah, but you forget that Jesus was not of this world, and who are you to say that the bodies of the residents of Heaven are not, in fact, made of substances that to our limited senses are indistiguishable from bread and wine?

    58. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's really my place to tell, sorry. It was something highly abusive; there's a book called Going Clear which details similar circumstances to what they experienced.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    59. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      It really is a terrible organization. There are actually some positive aspects to their teachings, but there are so many subtle, subversive elements that it's a net negative (to put it very mildly). To this day, my parents sometimes have a hard time getting out of the mindset that if something bad happens--no matter how unavoidable or random--it was somehow their fault. That kind of thinking is just plain toxic.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    60. Re:The Harsh Light of Day by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      I was going to argue with you, until I realized you were claiming the Heavenly Host was actually made up of something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike bread and wine. I for one welcome our animated bread-and-wine overlords!

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  2. It's not Psychs ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's Psychlos.

    1. Re:It's not Psychs ... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Khronos was just the front man?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:It's not Psychs ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Psychlops: the one-eyed mutant psychologist.

    3. Re:It's not Psychs ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Psychlopsops - the art of using them for military propaganda.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Belief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is no belief so stupid, so crazy, so totally deranged that it won't speak to someone.

  4. 19 days late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can't make this shit up.

  5. Messed up organizations with happy names. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just based on their name, you would think that it is a good group of people. They might as well be called the 'Children's Safety Council', while they barbecue infants.

    1. Re:Messed up organizations with happy names. by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll have you know that the Children's Food Safety and Quality Control Council cannot endorse the barbecuing of infants. The harsh smoke is too strong for the tender meat. We recommend braising or low-temperature smoking

    2. Re:Messed up organizations with happy names. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      My favorite are "Peoples' Republics", which obviously aren't. At least "Islamic Republics" are honest about what they are.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Messed up organizations with happy names. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for that pesky "republic" part.

    4. Re:Messed up organizations with happy names. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might as well be called the 'Children's Safety Council' while they barbecue infants.

      I bet most of the proposals from that council would be quite modest.

    5. Re:Messed up organizations with happy names. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      sounds great but i don't think i can eat a whole one

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  6. Credible Source? by Thruen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know Slashdot editors like to sleep on the job, but where does this story even come from? Is it really all based on a blog some supposed letter with no explanation behind it? Is this even true? Searching for it turns up some other articles (blogs) from sources I've never heard of, and nothing seems to point to this being real. Can somebody help me out here? Is the future of Slashdot fictional stories and Bennett's Blog?

    1. Re:Credible Source? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, interesting. It's an unsourced statement from somebody's blog. But it has two of the Slashdot keywords - 'Google' and 'Scientology' so, as someone mentioned in the last thread about some other Slashdot keywords (Guns, 3D printing, drugs and The Feds), grab your popcorn and super size your Mountain Dew.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Credible Source? by Thruen · · Score: 5, Informative
      A commenter on the linked blog sums up how, even if this is true, it's not news in the way the headline makes it seem.

      FOTF2012 says
      April 18, 2014 at 11:26 am

      The Boris letter is misleading. Makes it sound like CCHR applied for and got a grant from Google in the sense of a monetary gift.

      Pretty much anyone can set up a Google ad words account (https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/1704354?hl=en) and then learn how to manage the details (https://www.google.com/grants/details.html). Here are the basic qualifications: https://www.google.com/grants/....

      One requirement is to be a 501(c)3, which CCHR is. You can search for them on GuideStar (http://www.guidestar.org/?gclid=CKDF0e2q6r0CFVKFfgodPrMAHA) and you get 38 results. Apparently CCHR sets up separate entities in each state — maybe they have to as a charity.

      One of the Google Ads program restrictions is that you can only link to one legitimate website. So I imagine they will link to http://www.cchr.org/.

      Anyway, this “grant” is something that any “non-profit” can use. It is nothing significant Google has given CCHR specifically. It is part of a program that no doubt profits Google while they can say they are helping non-profits. Further, given the eligibility criteria (which CCHR meet), if Google were to deny CCHR use of the program, they would be in a lawsuit and would probably lose.

    3. Re:Credible Source? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Ah, thank you.

      These are not the Evils you are looking for.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Erm, it is precisely as newsworthy as the headline makes it seem. "Non-profit" does not mean ethical or even not-very-evil - there are some horrific non-profits in the US. If you give a blanket allowance to them - and it is, after all, for your own benefit as it makes you look like a "good corporate citizen" (heh) - you share the blame for the results of that promotion.

    5. Re:Credible Source? by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      if Google were to deny CCHR use of the program, they would be in a lawsuit and would probably lose.

      Google is under no obligation to provide free services fairly and without bias.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    6. Re:Credible Source? by yakatz · · Score: 1

      I am involved with several organizations that are members of Google Grants. As long as you meet the eligibility guidelines (when we applied, you were not automatically accepted if you were a 501(c)(3), but it could have changed), they give you the same benefits.

      Google recently renamed the program: It used to be called "Google Grants" and you would get all the benefits at once. It appears that you now need to request each one only if you plan to use it.

    7. Re:Credible Source? by Thruen · · Score: 1

      In that case, they deserve as much credit for supporting every other organization that doesn't agree with this view. Google's program would be just as helpful to a non-profit that advocates for psychiatrists, should we run a story about that and act like it makes them heroes to the community? How about we dig up a list of everyone they support so we can all blame them for supporting and opposing every controversial subject there is?

      For that matter, why don't why all take the blame for allowing these organizations to exist? After all, we aren't stopping them, and we're funding a government that gives them tax breaks and benefits just for being non profits.

    8. Re:Credible Source? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Mod parent "+1 informative and no further discussion required".

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    9. Re:Credible Source? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One word: Dice and page views.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    10. Re:Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So denying services based on a protected class (religion) is perfectly legal?

      Time to make those blacks sit back in the alley, like they deserve. Nothing worse than trying to eat in the same room as one of Those People (tm).

    11. Re:Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tony Ortega's blog, he used to be editor for Village Voice and is now executive editor for Raw Story, his posts on Scientology tend to be 100% fact.

      { Thuen ... oh hai OSA :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Affairs }

    12. Re:Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if Google were to deny CCHR use of the program, they would be in a lawsuit and would probably lose.

      Most certainly not, since - and that should really surprise no one - the eligibility guidlines state explicitly:

      Google reserves the right to grant or deny an organization's application or participation at any time, for any reason, and to supplement or amend these eligibility guidelines at any time. Selections are made at Google's sole discretion, and are not subject to external review.

    13. Re:Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's from the CONservatives that now run this site. They're simply not logical. Just look at the Beta. Their kind is anti-education, and it shows in their insane rants. Of course, today is the worst of their xtian rituals where they celebrate a zombie on Hitler's birthday.

    14. Re:Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, denying free services based on a protected class (religion) is almost perfectly legal.

      It's funny, btw, how in the US one group wants to use their religion to deny paying for a service--abortion and/or birth control--yet you want to claim that any free service must specifically never exclude them for their religion. Talk about trying to have their cake and eat it too.

      Now, of course, whether it *should* be illegal is another issue. But then if we want to play that game, I think we should expanded the protected classes to include the specifically non-religious, age, sexual orientation, etc. That way we can have 18yo gay bishops who spend the required time giving the required sermon and spend 2 hours rallying about the insanity of Catholicism, Christianity, heterosexuality, and the general way in which people are such hypocrites.

      But then I don't see it happening any time soon that we demand that preachers and bishops be hired regardless of theme being Muslim or Atheist or whatever if they're the otherwise most qualified candidate--and plenty of die-hard anti-Christianity folk know the Bible a lot better than the preachers and bishops do.

    15. Re:Credible Source? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      No matter what someone puts on a web site it is still illegal to discriminate based on a protected aspect such as race or religion. Policy statements do not override law. Denying the Scientologists would be the same issue as denying the NAACP.

    16. Re:Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which law would that be? You seem confident, you probably could tell me at least which act(s) applies to this case, if not specific sections/paragraphs.

    17. Re:Credible Source? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      This kind of misleading crap posted as front page news is the reason I read Slashdot less and less these days.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    18. Re:Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: Dice and page views.

      That's four words.

      And a period.

    19. Re:Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This info is not coming from just some random-guy's blog; this was sourced from Mike Rinder's blog. Mike Rinder was the head of OSA (Operation of Special Affairs) for Scientology. OSA is the dirty-tricks wing of Scientology. They are behind the lawsuits, spying, government infiltration, harassment, and "fair game" enforcement.

      Mike Rinder fell out of favor with the leader of Scientology and was sent to the Hole (an infamous Scientology Prison camp), where he spent more than a year starving, tortured, and living off of left-overs.

      Mike Rinder now is trying to make a difference by releasing information about the evils of Scientology Inc. He has many sources, and that makes him one of the top targets for the Church. The church forced his wife and children to disconnect from him. They forced his own mother to disconnect from him, and she passed away. They continue to harass him with private detectives to this day.

      Scientology Inc has a billion dollar war chest (tax info for CSI, one of the many front groups). There is a reason why individuals wish to remain "Anonymous" while criticizing scientology. They WILL try to destroy your life if you become an issue.

    20. Re: Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II.

    21. Re: Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Grants is neither a shop, a hotel, a restaurant or a cinema. Try again.

    22. Re:Credible Source? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Hilariously, we didn't know about these nutjobs before. Now we do. Looks like Google just elevated the idiot campaign to the public mind, and probably did more than $10,000 of damage with this little PR slip.

      You would be surprised how easy it is to get somebody attacked by helping them, if you can handle the heat from the splash damage.

    23. Re:Credible Source? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except that giving everybody the ability to say "We're a religious group, you have to give us what we want" isn't what equal rights and protected classes are about. There are certain specific circumstances under which you can't discriminate on religious grounds, and even asking questions relating to religion (and some other things) can lead to problems. Grant programs aren't one of them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:Credible Source? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      If Google is giving grants to all charities, and it looks like they are, and they deny a specific religion that there could be in a problem.

      We're a religious group, you have to give us what we want

      True but it does give the ability to say "We are a registered charity and your are required to treat us like all other registered charity regardless of our religion".

      The key question is "has Google ever turned down a registered charity?"

    25. Re:Credible Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHOOOOOOOOSH! Seriously.

  7. Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet again Google is used to promote utter bollocks alongside homeopathy...

  8. The answer to bad speech by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    is more good speech. However preposterous their ideas trying to silence any cult will just end in their views being discussed in secret and away from the bright light of open debate.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:The answer to bad speech by seebs · · Score: 2

      That doesn't mean they need to be actively funded by others.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    2. Re:The answer to bad speech by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      This isn't "free speech", it's advertising. Google needs to be more selective about who it gives free advertising to. That's certainly not silencing anyone.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:The answer to bad speech by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Well, imagine if Google supplied a $25,000 public grant to the National Coalition for the Advancement of Marriage Rights in America, a group with a fancy name whose primary goal is to make it a capital crime to be a nigger-lover.

      Oh sure Google might take some heat on that. But then everyone would know that there is a group out there lobbying to make it illegal to marry, impregnate, or hook up with a black chick if you're white. Possibly if you're black, too.

  9. Entertaining, but dated by Shadoefax · · Score: 1

    I think you're a little slow to post ... April Fools was three weeks ago. Just say'n...

    --
    All my signatures are stolen from other people. Including this one.
  10. So what's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the point here? Do you claim that we should stop any group to express themselves when you consider that what they think if wrong?
    If so, then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    Let them talk. And then, say why they are wrong.

    (I admit, I started to RTFA but then stopped when I saw that there actually was 6 articles!)

  11. Non event... by openfrog · · Score: 2

    After reading Slashdot for many years, I am coming back after two months of not visiting and what do I see? Another anti-Google posting using all the power of the anecdotal... This is a non-event, and Google will change track in this case as soon as they are pointed out their mistake.

    I am not sure if I will have the courage to go through today's list. I remember this place as one where I could read intelligent comments, but those who used to make this place what it was have now almost all left...

    1. Re:Non event... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sorry froggy, they've been on an anti-google kick for years. I'll tell exactly when since... since Jobs declared nuclear war on Android!

      Most of the old-timers are on soylentnews dot org

    2. Re:Non event... by theskipper · · Score: 1

      Dice Dice Baby, Dice Dice Baby
      All right stop, collaborate and listen
      Dice is back with my brand new invention
      Something grabs a hold of me tightly
      Flow like a harpoon daily and nightly
      Will it ever stop? Yo – I don't know...

    3. Re:Non event... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A growing portion of the intelligent users left for a fork after Dice started to push the disastrous beta on everyone.

    4. Re:Non event... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      A growing portion of the intelligent users left for a fork after Dice started to push the disastrous beta on everyone.

      Well, 10 stories on front page, averaging 15 comments per story... growing slowly!

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  12. Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks /. for the heads up. I'll be on the lookout for them and click away there monies.

  13. CCHR has made some valid points... by SubtleArray · · Score: 2

    If you can look past the weird conspiracy theories and Xenu stuff. Late last year I saw a documentary called "The Marketing of Madness." It makes a compelling case about how over-medicated we're becoming, and how simple quirks are now being labeled as illnesses to turn a profit. There might be some truth to this. CCHR might not be an entirely awful group.

    1. Re:CCHR has made some valid points... by sjames · · Score: 2

      I would say the field of psychiatry is long overdue for an overhaul. It has a great deal of baggage that it refuses to put down. It's unfortunate that Scieentology has gotten involved. They do have a few good points here, but bring a lot of baggage of their own and then muddy the water by WAY overreaching and injecting the crazy Xenu stuff into the discussion.

    2. Re:CCHR has made some valid points... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is precisely how crazies work. They take a perfectly reasonable statement - The practice of psychiatry has problems / Vaccines CAN cause harm, etc and then push their agenda far and beyond any rationale discussion. Yes, the practice of psychiatry is primitive and has been subject to considerable abuse in the past (lobotomies, insulin shocks to name a few). Yes, this country is overmedicated - but not just with psychoactive drugs - and this isn't just the 'fault' of psychiatrists but instead involves doctors, patients, drug companies, government and bog knows who else.

      But the victrolic, angry and anti intellectual approach of CCHR and Scientology in general should continue to be exposed for what it is - a scam. They should be allowed to express their opinions and, if the IRS says they are a 501C3 corp and Google gives something extra to non profits, well then, let'em at it. But it's still a scam. Along with quite an number of other 'non profits'.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:CCHR has made some valid points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the large scale, it's drug companies and society, not doctors. You tell people there's something wrong with them (and here's the cure!) for long enough and they will really believe it.

      While there are some instances of doctors doing inappropriate or harmful things, those instances are fairly few and far between. Doctors do not directly benefit from prescribing drugs, and the more ethical among them will refuse to accept the various 'gifts' drug companies tend to push. Of course this 'gifts' aspect of things can be a major concern in some cases, but the solution is not to get rid of doctors -- the solution is to get rid of the other side of the problem.

    4. Re:CCHR has made some valid points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is part the fault of doctors, thought more often not because of them being pushy with drugs, but being lazy and/or spineless. A lot of patients demand pills for their problems and don't want to do any other work or followup. Then you have a person always on some antidepressant or other drug, with no followup to see if they actually need to stay on it or to see if something could be done to see to take them off of it (just cold turkey quitting reminds them of "needing" it), or even not checking in the first place if something else could have been done instead.

    5. Re:CCHR has made some valid points... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Before we absolve the sainted American people of medication, who's taking the illegal drugs, binge drinking, etc.? A good segment of the American people is predisposed to self-medication for whatever they think ails them.

    6. Re:CCHR has made some valid points... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Every crazy person has a few valid points. Black people have sickle cell anemia much of the time, as this prevents malaria--a worse problem than clots caused by anemia. A highly racist group could advocate cleansing this damaging disease from our genetic assets by cleansing ourselves of every drop of nigger blood.

  14. But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    They are a weird "religion", and the parts about Xenu are, ahem, interesting. But most of their criticism about psychiatry is rather accurate.

    Psychiatry is the least scientific and most pretentious part of medicine. No real disorders have been detected yet, the DSM is a political document and not a medical one. The drugs do not perform much better than placebo, the level of fraud and misrepresentation in psychiatric drug trials is very high and the side effects are often pretty bad. Psychiatric drugs are often given freely for solving administrative problems (Ritalin or Adderall for "ADHD").

    But let's be honest, the only reason the theology of Scientology is bizzare to us is that is it new. Catholic dogma is not much better.

    1. Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by linearz69 · · Score: 1

      Who cares about their take on psychotherapy or weather or not they believe in Xenu or if they are run by Tom Cruise. Heck, sometime I'll dress like a Pirate and discuss Flying Spaghetti.

      The parts of Scientology that are concern me are the reports of abuse and indenturing of children and the mentally ill. Take that, along with the fact the Hubbard explicitly stated he made up Scientology as a tax dodge for profit, and you have what looks like a creepy mafia outfit.

    2. Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by seebs · · Score: 1

      I think there may have been a true statement somewhere in there, but it was too subtle for me to find. The anti-ADHD stuff is pure Scientology spin, promoted aggressively precisely because the benefit of ADHD medication for most people is so very, very, obvious. Similarly, the "not much better than placebo" claim is a massive overclaim. There's some specific drugs that are pretty unreliable, but the key is that that's averaging over a general population; if you look only at the people who react well to them, and you move other people to something else, it actually works pretty well.

      The claim that "no real disorders have been detected yet" is just plain stupid. Talk to people who are doing neuropsych, there is a ton of very nice, concrete, research being done on various cognitive abnormalities.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    3. Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Scientology's beliefs are idiotic, but not much more idiotic than believing in some guy walking up a hill and coming back down with slates with "commandments" apparently handed to him by some deity.

      The problem with scientology is the frequent intimidation, their extremely litigious habits, the abusive behaviour towards members, the rampant commercialism, the indocrtination techniques and a bunch of other things that are decidedly evil and beyond the comprehension of any decent human being.

      Scientology isn't a church, nor is it a cult. Scientology is a corporation. And whereas most corporations are just greedy and soulless, scientology doesn't stop at mere ruthless money grabbing; scientology seems to want to actively hurt it's victims as well.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientology's beliefs are idiotic, but not much more idiotic than believing in some guy walking up a hill and coming back down with slates with "commandments" apparently handed to him by some deity.

      The Bible claims he went to the hills, and came back with stone tablets, carved with rules. For all we know, he carved them himself, and lied to keep the people in line. Sounds like something a politician would do, and that's what Moses was. Also, it's been said that the burning bush was a volcanic vent, and the toxic gases triggered hallucinations.

    5. Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Gotta love these statements. What have you been reading? I would prefer my life experience as proof. I have taken antidepressants and after finding the right one I can attest that some do work.

      Psychiatric drugs are often given freely for solving administrative problems (Ritalin or Adderall for "ADHD").

      Autism and ADHD is not an "administrative problem". I have Aspergers Syndrome (a form of Autism) and I know how it feels during an episode. To put it simply my cognitive mind would recede and my lizard brain would take over. The problem with the lizard brain is that it only knows fight or flight. Too often it chooses fight. It is quite an interesting feeling when my lizard brain is yelling "MUST FIX PROBLEM NOW" while my cognitive brain is a voice in the distance saying "chill out". I found a med that actually reduced the frequency and severity of these episodes.

      I lived with an autistic kid and we knew when he missed a dose. On the meds he was a quirky kid , Off his meds he was a kid who could not control himself no matter how hard he tried. He would usually apologize for his bad behaviors once he was medicated again. Please note that the medication did not make him a zombie. It just slowed things down so he could handle it.

      Are some kids over medicated? Yes. are Ritalin or Adderall useful in some cases? Yes.

    6. Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientology's beliefs are idiotic, but not much more idiotic than believing in some guy walking up a hill and coming back down with slates with "commandments" apparently handed to him by some deity.

      The Bible claims he went to the hills, and came back with stone tablets, carved with rules. For all we know, he carved them himself, and lied to keep the people in line. Sounds like something a politician would do, and that's what Moses was.

      God spoke the words of the 10 commandments to the whole nation, prior to writing them in stone.

    7. Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      I usually refer to it as an organized crime syndicate, myself. The main difference that comes to mind is that instead of selling psychoactive drugs, they prohibit their people from buying psychoactives - even ones that they desperately need - from anybody.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    8. Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Scientology's believers are far more ignorant because L Ron Hubbard said 'if you want to make a bunch of money, start a religion and charge for it' ... and then he did ... and its a pay for play religion ... and people like Tom Cruise and John Travolta actually pay ridiculous amounts of money to 'move up' the chain of 'believers'.

      Its one thing to believe in what you believe is fantasy (God) ... its an entirely different thing to have some guy tell you he's going to rip you off ... and then you let him rip you off.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by meglon · · Score: 0

      ....and "God" speaking to someone is a sure sign we need more psychiatrists in the world not less.... and lots more lithium... lots, lots more lithium.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    10. Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Patently false.

      A guy walking up a hill and coming back with stone tablets handed to him by the creator of the universe is somewhat believable. Failing that he actually encountered a weird deity, we can at least accept that the tablets contain good advice, and he may be hearing voices.

      The whole alien conspiracy theory thing that Scientology pushes is a huge ball of weirdness, and any rational person would look at this and go, "None of this is good advice, and you're all looney." Nobody is going to look at a list "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not fucketh thy neighbor's wife while thy neighbor doth haveth a tavern run with thine drinking buddies," etc, and say, "Okay, all of this shit is insane, this is all terrible advice, and I don't want to live in a society built on this lunacy."

    11. Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      LIZARD!

      I'm hyperplastic or something; the rules don't work on me. What is called the "lizard brain" (basal ganglia) does not strongly activate the amygdala (emotional center) in times of conflict. Usually people face conflicting facts by shutting off the analytical mind (prefrontal cortex) and activating the amygdala--your basal ganglia does not like hearing facts it disagrees with, and your prefrontal cortex takes a lot more energy than anything else, so you throw a cheap tantrum to avoid spending energy on thinking.

      With me, I'm constantly re-evaluating my position. I don't have strong emotional reactions. This means I quickly re-form my mode of thinking, a lot. People are different by the day and the world changes around a lot; it's energy-intensive, but I constantly re-assess everything.

      I'm unsure if this was a contributing factor in what happened when I started taking phenotropil, but I'm off it now and I no longer have ADHD! ... this isn't as cool as you think. A lot of mental aberrations are gone, but I'm not suddenly the world's most articulate man (that would be Winston Churchill), and I'm more emotional (that got fixed--amygdala works now, anger REALLY SUCKS and the first time you really feel it you will want to know how to make it NEVER happen again), and for the most part just as socially inept as before. But I can think clearly now.

      Yes, it's permanent. No, I haven't learned how to be normal yet. Methylphenedate didn't do that either.

  15. How is this different than christianity? by Thantik · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't understand, how is this any different than any other religion that someone doesn't believe in? There are plenty of christian churches, etc that pay for advertisements against equal rights for homosexuals. This doesn't seem any more crazy.

    1. Re:How is this different than christianity? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Motive comes into question. Imagine if the christian church charged admission for services.

    2. Re:How is this different than christianity? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Imagine if the christian church charged admission for services.

      Mormonism doesn't outright force a 10% income "tithing", but you are pretty much ostracized if you don't pay up.

    3. Re:How is this different than christianity? by seebs · · Score: 2

      There's a lot of very good material already written on the topic. Quick summary:

      1. The people who founded Scientology explicitly stated that was not a religion, but a scientific practice. They changed to calling it a "religion" solely for tax/legal purposes. That's an official statement from Hubbard himself, not speculation.
      2. Fairly dangerous and abusive. Look up Lisa McPherson, or Paulette Cooper.
      3. Lots of very shady practices, like pressuring members to have abortions so they won't be wasting money on kids that they could be donating to the organization. Yes, really.

      Plenty of stuff here you could look up. It's not so much about the specific beliefs as about the organizational structure and practice.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    4. Re:How is this different than christianity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10% is a lot less than 100%.
      Mormonism still cares that it's members have a decent life.

    5. Re:How is this different than christianity? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Imagine if the christian church charged admission for services.

      Imagine if a christian church ran a vast real estate and financial empire, built palaces with 15,000€ bathtubs for Bishops of Bling, and systemically obstructed justice in cases of sexual abuse of minors.

      Oh, yeah . . . no need to imagine. They should be hit with RICO charges.

      I can't see any difference between political action committees and churches. The NRA spends money supporting a pro-gun political platform. Churches spend money promoting their own religious beliefs in political platforms.

      Like it or not, those Tea Party folks could probably register themselves as a religion. All those Ayn Rand Objectivism rants, like, "Altruism is evil" sounds like religious beliefs to me.

      I think all folks should be free to practice whatever religion they choose, or not choose. However, when their religion is organized into something that walks, talks and acts like a business . . . they have no right to escape the taxman than any other folks.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:How is this different than christianity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I don't think my parents ever payed anything near a 10% tithe, and they were never ostracized for that. Since all the financial records are private, I don't see how they could be. I guess I could see that happening in Utah (all sorts of nasty things start happening when your "religion" becomes the official social group because 99% of the people in your neighborhood belong to it).

    7. Re:How is this different than christianity? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I divide the world of churches into two groups.....those who get paid, and those who don't. I've met a lot of good people in the churches where people are all volunteering, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, even Catholic. Good people who actually care about the community and try to make the world a better place.

      On the other hand I've never met a pastor who got paid for his preaching that I felt i could trust. As soon as those preachers are motivated to get more people in church because they will make more money, things go very wrong.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:How is this different than christianity? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, those Tea Party folks could probably register themselves as a religion. All those Ayn Rand Objectivism rants, like, "Altruism is evil" sounds like religious beliefs to me.

      Have you ever heard a tea-partier say "altruism is evil?" Serious question.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:How is this different than christianity? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You don't get a temple "pass" unless you fully pay 10%. If you don't have one, word gets around. Maybe your parents just accepted the fact that they were not entirely "in".

    10. Re:How is this different than christianity? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard a tea-partier say "altruism is evil?" Serious question.

      Yes, in a TV interview a Tea Party spokesman who identified himself as John Galt said it. Serious answer.

      The Tea Party seems to have a lot of folks named "John". Other Tea Party rally folks said their names were:

      John Whorfin
      John Bigboote
      John Ya Ya
      John Small Berries
      John Fledgling
      John Milton
      John Nephew
      John Two Horns
      John O'Connor
      John Grim
      John Many Jars
      John Coyote
      John Chief Crier
      John Littlejohn
      John Mud Head

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    11. Re:How is this different than christianity? by meglon · · Score: 1

      There's the rub.... actions speak louder than words, as long a you don't have your head buried so far up your six you can't see their actions. However, if you need words to appease your brain:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    12. Re:How is this different than christianity? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      BLACKS ARE HERE IN NEW JERSEY TO DESTROY US!

      Bring me my overthruster! John Bigboote I swear!!

    13. Re:How is this different than christianity? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I thought you were making stuff up.

      You're making stuff up when you talk about their actions, too. Try doing research to find how much tea-partiers actually give to charity. You will be surprised (assuming you ever actually thought they hate altruism, and weren't just trolling).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:How is this different than christianity? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      See, here's the thing, you can like the Fountainhead and still favor charity. Think of it as wearing a Guy Fawkes mask even though they don't fight for Catholicism, or even have an opinion on the protestant divide.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:How is this different than christianity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do.

  16. Scientology wins! by snemiro · · Score: 4, Funny

    If there were a race about which "religion" is getting more members with the most insane ideas, yep, they would take the 1st place!... In your face, resurrected Jesus.

    1. Re:Scientology wins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno.. expecting 72 virgins after becoming a "martyr" is pretty whacko too

    2. Re:Scientology wins! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      In your face, resurrected Jesus.

      That's zombie Jesus to you.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Scientology wins! by Walter+Bishop · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to most scientology watchers estimates, the number of scientology members left, world-wide, would be around 50 000, tops. This is based on IAS (International Association of Scientologists) membership, of which all scientologist must be members, and on numbers in attendance at certain events. There are more people who declared "Jedi Knight" to be their religion on census than there are scientologists. Scientology however would probably win in the highest real estate net worth per member category, with its current (visible) assets totaling over 6 billion dollars. It also wins the "costliest, ridiculous and most dangerous cosplay ever" with its fake-navy/paramilitary clergy dedicated to "clear the planet" (to which you can sign away your kids in indentured servitude for a billion years), the Sea Org.

    4. Re:Scientology wins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that would be ISLAM, but then, you know nothing about it, do you.

      www.prophetofdoom.net

      Anything to say?

      With Judaism a close second. What is shechitah? What is kapporot? What is bris? Why are these things legal?

    5. Re:Scientology wins! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      They won't be virgins for very long.

  17. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh boy. I suppose the honest headline that "Google offers 10k in free ads to ALL NON PROFITS" didn't fit the meme-of-the-day that Google is evil? (http://www.google.com/grants/)
    CCHR is a non-profit, Google offers aid to all non-profits, therefore Google offers aid to CCHR. Two uterrly inocuous facts from which Slashdot manages to draw the most dramatic and misleading headline possible.

  18. At least this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it isn't about the jews. Thumbs up for scientology

  19. Getting the hang of the GoogleWay(tm) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $100K/mo for 'this', $0 contribution to OpenSSL, and Google Voice is "still in beta".

    I think I'm getting the Google-Hang of this!

  20. Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1. And you care because? All churches operate that way.

    2. All religions are abusive and dangerous. That is why they are evil. Two people harmed by Scientology? Awesome! Judeo- Chrisitainity and Islam hace harmed millions.

    3. Again, ALL religions can be accused of those things.

    I don't get this particular hatred to some cult that affects only a few thousand people when Judeo-Christianity has caused the suffering of millions for thousands of years - greatly outweighing any good that has been done in its name.

    Oh, Buddhists! - see SE Asia for their assholishness.

    In 3,000 years, mankind hasn't progressed emotionally and we won't until we give up these primitive ideas of God and Gods and the supernatural.

    When we can embrace our humanity and acheive humility (Being "made" in God's image is the most arrogant thing ever said.), we can progress beyond being blad super smart apes.

    1. Re:Not your problem by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Such pessimism and loathing as this truly is the ranitng of a primitive mind. No progress will grow from persons such as this.

    2. Re:Not your problem by seebs · · Score: 1

      No, not all churches operate that way. Many churches are religious organizations that may or may not even be structured enough to need a legal existence. Only one "church" I've ever heard of specifically claimed not to be religious until the tax consequences showed up.

      Your other points are, well. You didn't do any research and you didn't say anything coherent. Try again?

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  21. It's all about the dosage level by Animats · · Score: 1

    Trouble from religion seems to be associated more with dosage level than theology. Once a week seems to be a safe dose for most people, while several times a day is an overdose. The nuttier religions tend towards the overdose end of the scale. Islam and the haredi branch of Judaism go for All Religion All the Time. Scientology goes in that direction, but more through intermittent intense experiences rather than constant daily obsession.

    Fortunately, Scientology is stuck, by policy, with Hubbard's 1930s technology and their skin-resistance meter. If they were keeping up with technology, they'd have mobile apps tied to wristband sensors reporting to HQ in Clearwater, FL, auditing using functional MRI machines, and big data systems analyzing all member communications.

  22. I am a Scientologist. Hail Xenu. I come in Peace t by LarryMoore · · Score: 1

    I am a Scientologist. Hail Xenu. I come in Peace to save humanity from the earthlings that have gone astray. Praise Ron Hubbard (and the L. in his name). Listen children, the evil psychiatrists on your planet earth have been stealing your hard earned money from you for years and years on end. They make up stuff and then sell it to you for extremely high prices . This is against the intergalactic code of this sector of this galaxy (see the Oscar award winning movie: 'Battlefield Earth' for details). Which I know for the simple reason we have had a cosmic-patent on such transfers of wealth from peasants and fools to masters of con for nearly 700 million years. And what's fair is fair. I will share the secrets of the entire universe with you today. In fact, your timing is perfect as we are offering a special one time discount at this very moment. Below is our current price sheet. Read it well as you consider the fact that the entire destiny of earth and the foreseeable future of this entire universe depends on how much you can spend (i.e. give to us) right here and right now! The REAL meaning of being HUMAN: $ 5,000.00 The REAL meaning of TRUTH: $ 10.000.00 The REAL reason your life SUCKS: $ 25,000.00 The REAL purpose for your life: $ 100,000.00 The WAY you can have POWER: $ 1/2 million bucks. Another WAY you can have POWER: 5 million bucks. The list goes on and on, but hurry as this offer won't last. Much Love, Xenaluthanian All Praise to Scientology

  23. Free speech? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    Where are all the Freedom of speech proponents? .... Oh, I forgot, it's freedom of speech for things I agree with. Sorry.

    1. Re:Free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

    2. Re:Free speech? by meglon · · Score: 1

      I do not think that means what you think that means. Wait, no, i know it doesn't mean what you think it means.

      The first amendment is a restriction on THE GOVERNMENT from abridging a persons right to free speech. Google is NOT the government. Why is it that people who want to bring up the constitution, bill of rights, liberty and freedom and such almost never have a clue what they're talking about?

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  24. Re:Red Sea tsunami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw a documentary once where it was explained that the parting of the Red Sea could have been caused by a tsunami (the water retreats before the actual tsunami), which was caused by the Minoan eruption

  25. Well... by aevan · · Score: 3, Funny

    I dated a psychology student once. Now i'm not saying I agree with scientology...

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... But?

  26. Only the mindless believe this stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, only the mindless and desperate would believe anything these people preach. This stuff is akin the the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and other cults that lure needy people into their control. And they do try and control their adherents. All of them. Here's the rub, kids: stay *far* away from anyone who wants to control you, ask you for money for their stupid causes, you name it. Follow the money. That's where the truth lies. Follow the money.

  27. Re:Red Sea tsunami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such an event may have inspired whoever originally came up with the story, but to say it happened as it has been told is just madness...

  28. CCHR not doing it's job: Narconon violating rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From THe Montreal Gazette:

    Rights of drug addiction patients violated: ruling

    Scientology-linked Narconon exploited and abused those it purported to be treating: Human Rights Commission

    By Catherine Solyom, THE GAZETTEApril 15, 2014

    “It’s more important for me to get Narconon exposed as one of the most dangerous, quasi rehab centres in the world,” says David Love, who won a Quebec Human Rights Commission case against the drug rehab centre linked to the Church of Scientology.

    Four years after he left Narconon Trois-Rivières, and two years after the so-called drug rehabilitation centre was shut down by the public health agency, David Love has been vindicated by the Quebec Human Rights Commission, which concluded the centre exploited and abused him — financially, physically and mentally — along with two other complainants.

    Love, who was first a patient then an employee at Narconon until he realized it was closely linked to the Church of Scientology, said the commission’s recent decision was a “global win” against Narconon, which continues to run drug rehabilitation centres in several countries — putting patients’ lives at risk.

    “Some say I’m in it for the money, but it’s not true — I want to help the addicts,” said Love, a native of B.C. who has stayed in Montreal to fight Narconon, first before the Quebec Labour Tribunal, then before the Human Rights Commission.

    Both agencies mediated in his favour and against Narconon, an organization vaunted by Scientologists like actors Kirstie Alley and John Travolta.

    “This isn’t just about criticizing Narconon and Scientology,” Love said. “It’s about saving lives. Drug addiction is an epidemic and I want to help addicts avoid the pitfalls of these pseudo treatment centres.”

    Love wouldn’t disclose the amount the commission has proposed Narconon pay Love and the two other plaintiffs, also former patients, in moral and punitive damages. But he confirmed the total amount is in the “six figures.”

    Michel Ménard, a lawyer for Narconon Trois-Rivières, said he couldn’t comment on the decision other than to say it was merely a recommendation — and not binding.

    Citing confidentiality, Patricia Poirier, a spokesperson for the commission, said she couldn’t comment, either. The commission is still studying the case and has not yet decided whether to take the matter further and present it before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, she said.

    Based on a three-year investigation of the facility in Trois-Rivières, the written document obtained by the Gazette says Narconon submitted Love to “degrading and humiliating practices,” “controversial teaching methods not based on any scientific study,” “poor living and food conditions” and “coercion and forcible confinement.”

    Following the lead of the Supreme Court of Canada, the commission categorized drug addiction as a disability, and concluded that Love and others were discriminated against and financially exploited because of their disability.

    Narconon patients — considered “students” by the facility — were charged $23,000 for the treatment, which typically lasted three to five months and included high doses of vitamins such as niacin combined with four- to five-hour sessions in a sauna — known as the “Purification Rundown.”

    Following the teachings of Scientology founder and science fiction writer Ron L. Hubbard, patients were also deprived of any prescribed medication for mental illness, and had to undergo personality and IQ tests as well as training routines, which Love said were designed to make them accept to be under someone else’s control — and teach them how to control others.

    Sittin

  29. Psychiatry IS totally evil .. by DTentilhao · · Score: 0

    They happen to be totally right on this one, psychiatry under the guise of a science, has done more harm than Scientology ever did. Currently the psychiatrists are poisoning your children with know psychoactive toxic drugs, kids reduced to shambling zombies. The main pushers for these drugs being the pharmacology companies.

  30. What Scientologists believe .. by DTentilhao · · Score: 1

    'Scientologists believe that psychiatrists have always been evil, and their treachery goes back 75 million years when the psychiatrists assisted XENU in killing countless alien life forms. Thanks Google! We may be able to stop these evil Psychs once and for all!"'

    How is this any less believable than, we killed our deity, and once a year he comes back to life and we consume of his flesh?

  31. Re:What Scientologists believe .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this any less believable than, we killed our deity, and once a year he comes back to life and we consume of his flesh?

    Actually, most Christian sects do that on something more like a weekly basis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist

  32. Obligatory Picard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > One word: Dice and page views.

    There are FOUR words!

    1. Re:Obligatory Picard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOOOOOOOOSH! Seriously, dude.

  33. The Anti-Psychiatry Part is Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not like there's not a lot of other evil and stupidity in Scientology, but the anti-psychotherapy part is evil. They're doing it because they don't like competition (and after all, they're mostly in the bogus-psychiatry business.)

    I've known a few people whose lives have been saved by modern psychiatric medicine, without which they would have spent a lot of time being delusional and in deep emotional pain, and some of them would have committed suicide, and when you've got a chemical imbalance in your brain, bogus auditing by people who think an ohm-meter can measure your spiritual condition so you can get rid of billion-year-old space alien engrams just isn't going to help.

  34. Re:I am a Scientologist. Hail Xenu. I come in Peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientologists dont hail Xenu. He trapped all those alien souls, after all!

  35. Google AIDS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that the new name for Google Wave?

  36. they've always hated psychology by meglon · · Score: 1

    ....because L Ron was a delusional narcissistic paranoid and pathological liar, and he was scared of the doctors.

    Great read if you want to learn about the sociopath: http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/b...

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  37. Rather like 'civil rights', isn't it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ""The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a Scientology front group"

    LOL. Just like 'civil rights', is the right of non-whites to FORCE themselves into the living space of whites...

    Why are non-whites so desperate to live around white people?

    Why don't they want to live around their own kind, free from all those dreadfully 'racist' white people, who they keep telling us are ruining their lives?

  38. CCHR is an old concept ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    ... it has usually been referred to as "putting the inmates in charge of the asylum".

  39. Not too surprising by TheRoss · · Score: 1

    This is almost certainly because they applied to Google's Adwords grants program:

    http://www.google.com/grants/e...

    There seem to be no ideological criteria (imagine the shitshow if there were?)