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!"

109 of 186 comments (clear)

  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 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..

    2. 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..."
    3. 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

    4. 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.

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

      Bad science fiction

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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/
    9. 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...

    10. 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.

    11. 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).

    12. 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?

    13. 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."
    14. 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."
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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.
    18. 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.

    19. 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
    20. 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
    21. 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."
    22. 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.
    23. 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)
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.

    27. 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?

    28. 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
    29. 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?

    30. 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.
    31. 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.
    32. 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 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 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.

    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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?"

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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 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...
  10. 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 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.

    4. 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.

  11. 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 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!
    5. 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."
    6. 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."
    7. 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".

    8. 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!
    9. 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
    10. 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!!

    11. 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."
    12. 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."
  12. 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 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.

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

      They won't be virgins for very long.

  13. 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.

  14. 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/
  15. 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?
  16. 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/
  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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 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
  21. Well... by aevan · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  22. 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?

  23. 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...
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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."

  27. 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".

  28. 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.

  29. 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?)