Can't you always just do "/bin/ld.so/path/to/executable"
What would this accomplish? Looking at the docs (man page) for ld.so, there is no indication of what giving it a path is intended to do. Normally, it tells where to look for libraries. The issue was preventing execution of programs arriving in a particular directory, for instance, something placed in/tmp by a malicious user or via a hole in someone's scripting.
It sounds to me like you're picking a fight in the wrong context.
Censorship at a school? I don't think so.
He filters content to keep kids from wasting their days looking at porn and other content that their parents would sue the school over.
Yes, that certainly is a problem on several fronts. That we have generations of blindered, cowardly citizens, poorly educated and all too used to the government playing the role of "mommy", and that we have a culture of running to lawyers to keep the system running in that mode, and that experience with the world as it is could be construed as "wasting their days" rather than learning about another corner of it. Not to mention the general repression of sexuality and open-mindedness that is the heritage of many decades of religious backwardness.
He's probably filtering the content to reduce the amount of adware and spyware that the workstations might be exposed to.
Well, best to coddle those kids. It isn't like they might have to learn to deal with that stuff on their own, is it. I mean, it's not like spyware, adware, porn, and "other content" is really out there in the real world. Keep them dumb and keep them controlled and soon we'll have another generation of voters who have no idea what is actually going on and will be good little republicrats. We wouldn't want to change anything, after all; we're perfect as we are.
Of course, even if I accepted the argument that spyware and adware isn't something we want them to learn how to deal with, I'd still be bound to point out that the system could have been designed/chosen to be immune to it without supervision in the first place.
On second thought, don't answer. I don't really want to know.
Yes. I am well aware of this. But you'll have to pull up your grown-up pants and deal with replies to statements you make, or else let them sit there for others to see you couldn't deal with them. Mr censorship-at-school isn't here to help you duck reality, and calling a lawyer won't help.
If you think the Constitution says that the government can't use your tax dollars to fund things that you personally would never, under any circumstances, support or endorse
No, the constitution says: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" and I think that the government has failed to interpret this in the obvious spirit that it was meant. No censorship. None whatsoever. Written or spoken, the two venues they had at the time. Generalizing it today to visual is of course a no-brainer. I find it repellant that the government uses my money to directly and purposefully violate the charter that gives it its only legitimacy that does not come from coercion. And of course, the 1st amendment isn't the only casualty of government malfeasance. The 2nd is almost irrelevant, the commerce clause is a joke, ex post facto is routinely violated... the government is out of control and out of charter. My dismay stems from the observation that I am coerced into paying for its criminal activities.
What a shame you had to have that explained to you. That makes you part of the problem.
There are two references he makes. One is very good contextually, and not disputed as far as I am aware. That's where he says "Ananus... convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." The main one scholars object to is the one where he call Jesus the "messiah" which of course is a very unlikely (or worse, blasphemous) term for a non-Christian jew to use at the time, and also made unlikely by other, contemporaneous reports of Josephus' outlook, which was decidedly non-Christian.
It really is amazing how strongly the thread of presumed "evidence" for Jesus' actuality runs through society. When you go looking, you find basically nothing.
Besides the fact that there is historical proof that a "man" named Jesus lived around the 30
Now, I could be missing some data, and if so, by all means correct me, but my current understanding is that the first actual record that we have is from about 24 years after Jesus was to have died, in an AD 64 letter from Tacitus that mentions the Christian cult (his own words.) Josephus mentions Jesus, but as Josephus wasn't even born until AD 37, and was writing in the AD 80's, I think we can agree he had no direct experience. Then Pliny the Elder mentions Jesus and the cult again in AD 100. Also, Jesus, as I understand it, hasn't been described as having "lived about AD 30", he is purported to have lived from about AD 0 or perhaps BC a few to AD 30.
What all this amounts to is evidence of the cult of Christians in the times following (by 3 decades at the closest) when he was reputed to have lived, but not of Jesus himself, no bill for a cross, no records at court of having to reprimand him, no records of him picking up the whips in the temple; Other than the bible itself, which of course we only have components from about AD 300 onwards and so it isn't a reliable historical source, the mentions of Jesus all seem to be about the cult, not the man. Note that I am not in the least saying that very early Christians aren't real; just that there is no particular evidence that supports Jesus himself. He may, of course, have lived anyway - but the evidence doesn't appear to be there to say so.
Given that I am unaware of any records of Jesus, as opposed to records of the Christians - please, if you are aware of any such records, I would like to know about them. Thank you.
It is important to note that were we to be able to establish that Jesus was real, had followers, and so forth, we still have not in any way established that he was the son of a god, or that there is a god. We've simply gone about finding some guy who said so. I can find the guy who established the FSM meme, too.:)
I would have a lot of experiments to suggest you, that would prove my statement that earth is round.
Yeah? I'll see your "round" and raise you an "oblate spheroid." Your move.
Just one more area where the "common knowledge" is at best an approximation, but more fairly, simply wrong. There's a hint there, for those smart enough to take it.
I hereby revoke your tree-hugging license for use of facts without intention to mislead. Please report to your neighborhood global warming organization for immediate compositing.
Technically, wasn't America founded by the Native Americans?
No. There were people here well before asians (those people typically called "American Indians") crossed from Alaska. We find their remains now and then. Those people would be the founders, if your criteria is simply who was here first.
If your criteria is political (which it should be, as this is a political system we're talking about) simply observing recent history, American Indians didn't "found" anything to do with the US political system, mostly they got in the way, and for that, they were killed or herded into designated land zones and told to stay there, pretty much.
Technically speaking, the people who founded the USA can be identified easily by their signatures on two documents; first, as a matter of separation from England, the Declaration of Independence. Second, and considerably more importantly in terms of legal underpinnings, the Constitution.
The numbers for console software sales don't lie - the PlayStation 2 is still a very vibrant platform with new, hot titles still being developed for it. You cannot count it out, yet.
There's a reverse factor too; because the PS3 will generally run any reasonable PS2 title, there's no huge reason not to continue addressing the PS2 market. The PS2 is really a pretty good platform (I own PS2, PS3, XBox, 360, Wii and the Gamecube... Good PS2 titles are "right in there.") The PS3 has the 720p BlueRay problem, too; that's a real drag and will continue to impact sales unless they fix it. The one thing about it was it was supposed to be a BlueRay player, but it isn't worth spit in that area for most users - you have to have a 1080p or 1080i capable display or else it's no better than a progressive standard 480p DVD player (except that the disks cost $30!)
It's also not a cut rate UNIX with a GUI mimicking a cut rate Windows...spend some money and get a mature OS.
What? Are you trying to refer to Linux? I'm a HUGE Mac fan, I own four of them, but I'm also very familiar with linux as I admin a bunch of servers with custom software and your characterization is more than a little unfair. Linux as an OS is no more "cut rate" than the Mac's underpinnings; as for the GUI, personally, I hate the fact that linux doesn't have a standard graphics layer that developers can count on, and its got some inherent security problems (like not being able to set a dir to forbid execution without making it a NOEXEC partition) but aside from the issue of many sources and licenses, what it has works pretty darned well. It's just not the same as OSX's underpinnings. And you can't overlook the free nature of linux, either; Apple simply does not address the cost-conscious market. Many people get one heck of a lot more bang for their buck by going with linux, and Apple offers them nothing so it isn't fair at all to say "get a mature OS."
Now windows... application lock-in is the only reason I can think of to stay with that (and even then, you can run parallels if you're not live graphics-intensive.) Now that Vista is out, breaking this and that, maybe more people will move on that basis. OSX and Vista are really attacking the same space, financially speaking. IMHO.
I'm using the Deer Park version of Firefox for the Mac; no spell checking. Normally I use OmniWeb, and the spelling checker kind of spoils me. Sorry.
This this website has a list of some of the functionality that is typically lost.
I'm not going to dispute it - but I did read it, and at least some of that stuff (like "losing several feet of blood vessels) is pure filler. The rest, I can't say, other than to remark that as you noted earlier, I am perfectly well satisfied with my functionality. Very good response, though; you probably should have started with that.:)
My whole argument has been about informed consent and in that context it's hypocritical to advocate for male circumcision while railing against FGC, in whatever form that takes (female circumcision or a complete clitoridectomy).
We both know full well that we do all manner of arbitrary things (ex, vaccinations which leave scars) without the informed consent of infants. So it really isn't about informed consent. It's about the particular thing that is being done. So I don't accept your position; it isn't valid.
You choose to ignore my original point about the hypocrisy in your position
There is no hypocracy in my position. You equated clitoridectomy ("cutting on females", you called it) with circumcision. I never tried to establish any such position. You did, and I called you on it, because it is ludicrous. It isn't about consent, it is about the particular act. The reason that I brought up other things we do to kids without their consent is to demonstrate that consent isn't primary; the well being of the kid is primary. You're resisting the point because without it, you don't have anywhere to stand.
Anyway, we're not going to agree; the last word is yours. Thanks for your time.
So as a circumcised male are you comfortable fucking chicks that you know are HIV positive or whom have chlamydia? Hell no I suspect. Safe sex practices would seem to me to be more appealing then slicing off a functional part of your body.
Why limit yourself to one preventive method, when multiples are available? Each barrier to disease helps. And perhaps it is time for you to define the "function" of the foreskin, if you're going to keep referring to it that way. What function am I missing? What can I not do, as a circumsized male?
In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the United States.
Oh, for goodness sake. From my previous post: "Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000)." I gave you the actual incidence; you give me comparative opinion as if it meant something more. Furthermore, of those 1 per hundred thousand, the hundred thousand contains many, many circumsized males, a number approaching 80%, every one of which serves to increase the risk to uncirsized males, because that's the demographic that gets the disease. If it is one per hundred thousand, but 80,000 will not get it because they are circumsized, you're now sitting at one per the remaining 20,000. Why I have to explain this to you, I can't imagine, the data is right there. That's your risk. Your kids risk. I wasn't hiding the details, I put them right in front of your nose. To me, that risk is unacceptable if it can be eliminated, and it can.
And the appendectomy prevents one from ever having appendicitis, yet I don't see newborns undergoing this procedure as a preventive measure.
It is a deep procedure, one that opens the body cavity and the intestine; that's why. Otherwise, you would, just as you see them being innoculated against various diseases, just as you see the umbilical being removed, just as you see them being cleaned before being brought to the mother's arms. Nature doesn't get everything right. When we can see a problem, or a potential problem, it is perfectly reasonable for us to act decisively.
I also like how you can make the claim that it doesn't bring about reduced function.
Well, again - you're making the claim, I'm not. I addressed it as a claim made by the anti-circumcision block. So I ask you again: What "function" am I missing? I'm agreeably sensitive; I'm fertile; I'm happy; I'm clean; I'm disease-free; I'm at lower risk than you are for a number of disagreeable and in some cases life-threatening conditions; so what is my alleged "problem", according to you?
Isn't it for him to decide if he loses any functionality?
No. Children are, and should be, subject to the parents decisions about health related matters. Newborns in particular are incapable of making decisions in this regard as are some people right into adulthood, and sexual activity will probably be initiated before the person can make the right decision, if indeed it ever does - you, for instance, have elected to remain at higher risk, and to expose your partners to higher risk, and this indicates to me that it would have been better to get it done as an infant - you would not now have the option of raising the risk floor for others, regardless of what you might prefer for yourself. In the meantime, educating people that uncircumcised males present higher risk to them as sexual partners is important.
If you kid gets AIDS then maybe you should have taught him to use condoms. Are you really bold enough to think that being cut lowers your chances of contracting it to the point that you don't protect yourself?
From the AMA on UTI (summary... 12-fold increase of risk of UTI if uncircumcised):
Urinary Tract Infection: There is little doubt that the uncircumcised infant is at higher risk for urinary tract infection (UTI), although the magnitude of this risk is debatable. A meta-analysis of 9 studies published between 1984 and 1992 revealed a 12-fold increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised males.4 Most of the studies analyzed were case-control designs that analyzed the rate of UTI in the first year of life.
From the AMA on Penile cancer (summary... only uncircumcised men get penile cancer):
Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000). Among uncircumcised men the incidence is estimated to be 2.2/100,000.21 Six case series published between 1932 and 1986 found that all penile cancers occurred in uncircumcised individuals.11,22 Results of one case control study provide an exception to this general rule, although circumcision status was determined by self-report.23 Nevertheless, this study also found that the absence of neonatal circumcision increased the risk for penile cancer by a factor of 3.2 Other identified risk factors for penile cancer are phimosis (occurring exclusively in uncircumcised males), genital warts, infection with human papilloma virus, large number of sexual partners, and cigarette smoking.
And of course, circumcision prevents one from ever suffering from phimosis.
So clearly, there are health benefits. There are arguments as to whether these health benefits are "sufficient" to justify circumcision due to incidence of these various issues; but no argument as to the health benefits themselves. My position is that the health benefits themselves are sufficent, and so I do not object on that basis.
but in terms of functionality, it's not really a change for most males
Also disputed.
As to function, as a circumcised male, I can assure you that full functionality is present, as is lots and lots of enjoyment. Anecdotal reports speak to an additional ability to control ejaculation, and to that I can only say I've never had a problem holding off until my partner's orgasm and then going with them; so for my part, if indeed this has anything at all to do with being circumcised, I consider it a huge positive. Functionally speaking, I'm one happy camper, as have been my partners. One thing I can definitively say is that the condition itself does not bring lack of function, or reduced function. No question about it. If the operation was botched (as can happen) or the individual develops mental problems, then certainly you could have trouble, as sex is considerably "mental" anyway, certainly the right attitude is as important as is the physical functioning of the hardware, as it were.
But the basic problem is that young male infiants are routinely circumcised without the ability to give informed consent. You don't have a problem with that?
No, I don't. Their umbilical cords are routinely tied off without their consent as well, because we know that such a proceedure is better for them than to leave it leaking all over the place. Obviously, the parent has the responsibility to choose the path for the infant for best chance for health and survival, just aside from what we might argue are parental rights. I was born with a benign tumor on my left side; they burned it offf with dry ice without consulting my infant self, or waiting until I was older and could actually answer. The issue is crystal clear: I
Personally, I've always found it just a little bit hypocritical of the West to criticize this while condoning the routine practice of male circumcision.
I do not critisize female (or male) circumcision. My point was that clititoridectomy is not the same as circumcision; it is outright removal of the clitoris. The removal of the hood of the clitoris is the rough equivalant of a male circumcision, and while I can't say it appeals to me, as it doesn't particularly change the function of the anatomy, I don't see it as mutilation. For male circumcision, the data has long established that circumcised males have fewer health problems, and so that is generally an advantage for the male. Not always; some people get all hung up about it and then you have a new problem, but in terms of functionality, it's not really a change for most males. However - if you were to give a male an operation that is the equivalant of a clititoridectomy, you'd be cutting off the head of the penis; and that, I'm afraid, is unjustified by any reasoning I've ever heard. Likewise the removal of the clitoris - completely unjustified by any rational standard. Savage and primitive and disgusting is more like it.
I don't think that this is an issue that I can give a pass to because it is cross-culture; there are two problems. One, it mutilates the body so that functionality (orgasm, in particular) is almost certain to be lost. Two, it is done without consent of the subject, and that I have a problem with in any culture. Cultures that impose functional mutilation on non-consenting members are, in my opinion, cultures we can do without.
Now, if you want to cut your own goods up, or off, why then by all means, here's a nice sharp knife or the address of a surgeon, and you have fun. I'm all for you doing whatever you like to yourself, or opting, paying or whatever for someone else to do it for you. It's all about informed, intelligent consent when functionality is involved. Doesn't bother me a bit to see someone with a piercing or whatever body mod that messes with functionality unless I learn that this was not voluntary, and then I want to pound someone into the ground. I'm considerably less concerned about involuntary mods that don't affect functionality by design (eg ear piercings, nose piercings, hair removal) or mods that are known to improve health (eg circumcision, prophylactic appendectomies, orthodontics) and which are well meaning and typically have positive outcomes.
Is it somehow better to mutilate infant males who can't consent to the procedure? If it's ok to perform genital modifications on boys who are too young to give informed consent then why is it somehow evil to do it to young girls who are too young to give informed consent?
You're not comparing similar procedures, and that's the problem. Circumcision - of either sex - isn't much of a big deal, unless for personal reasons you find it offensive. Clititoridectomy is not circumcision. Comparing the two isn't valid; until or unless you understand what is different about the procedures, you really can't make an informed judgement.
Then surely you would not object to giving the scientologists greater power over your esteemed self?
Yes indeed, I object to giving any superstitious loony, or organized group of same, power over myself or my family. Is that clear enough for you?
You are comparing between past and present tense. Scientology has never been in the position of influence that pop-christianity has been in the past, so you cannot make an even judgement.
Certainly I can. I don't see Scientologists blowing up any birth control clinics, which they certainly could do, just as modern Christian wackos do. I don't see them assassinating doctors, which they also could do, just as modern Christian wackos do. I don't see them being involved in civil wars, such as the Protestant and Catholic wackos in Northern Ireland have been, though they certainly could be planting bombs if they were so inclined. So as it turns out, looking straight at modern wacko Christianity, the Scientologists are behaving much better than the Christians are.
...and you base this distinction on... what? Please describe the difference between a religion and a cult, such that we can understand how Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism are one, and Scientology the other.
Bullshit crafted during our lifetime with plenty of living witnesses to say so in my opinion makes it invalid.
So... you're saying that if it didn't happen in your lifetime, you'll accept it. But if it did, you won't. Fascinating. Bewildered, backwards and superstitious, but still... fascinating. Me, I look at the story, and if it sounds like bullshit, I assume it is bullshit, until and unless some proof reaches the table. No religion has ever had a non-bullshit sounding story, and no proof has ever reached the table, so I never had to reach for the "but it just happened" as a means of disqualification. Religion is bullshit, as far as I can tell, so that doesn't make Scientology any less or more than any other religion.
Interesting that you threw all of Islam in there with the African practice of mutilating women and the post-revolution Iranian practice of stoning people to death.
What is interesting about it? Various sects of Muslims, Hindus and African tribes all practice clitoridectomy to this day, and worse, though I should note that Muslim scholars consider it haram though it is still practiced by many Muslims. Likewise, stoning isn't a "post-revolution Iranian practice", you'll find it - and advice when to do it - right in your bible. Iran wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye at that point. You're woefully uninformed for someone who is trying to argue about religion.
just becuase(sic) one group does stupid stuff doesn't justify another.
I don't believe you'll find that I was trying to "justify" one group by citing the actions of another. Though I certainly do lump one type of ignorance with another. Jehovah, Zeus, whoever... it's definitely all the same.
No, I think it's quite unfair. The very source that Christianity springs from -- Christ -- explicitly does not sanction visiting wrath upon your enemies. Jesus repeatedly makes the point that you should love your enemies, that you should turn the other cheek, and that you should in general be far more concerned about your own flaws than those of others.
So the episode in the temple, with the whips, you simply discount? I mean, that was Christ himself weilding that whip, if you believe the text. We're not talking about Christ anyway, who is probably a mythical figure inasmuch as there are no contemporaneous records of him; we're talking about Christianity, which has a long and consistant record of violence that many of today's adherents would just love to be able to whitewash, but cannot. And still today, we can see the coercive and retributive nature of Christianity in the laws of the land.
The very source that Scientology springs from -- L. Ron Hubbard -- explicitly stated that it was fair to go after enemies of Scientology
You mean like Christ going after those in the temple? Oh. Or do you mean like god turning Lot's wife into salt? Or his angels killing all the men and children? Or drowning every living creature except those who managed to get a seat on the ark? Or mixing up the languages of everyone? It seems to me that Scientology had a very good model for this in Christianity itself, both NT and OT derived.
I'm not being a fundamentalist here; it's the core doctrine of the faith. If you miss out on that, you're not a Christian.
<stares expectantly, waiting for you to actually understand what you just said>
Scientology is quite willing to use intimidation, deceit, and harassment.
So is Christianity. And Islam. And Hinduism. I can give examples all day. This is no distinction. It is religious habit. Buddists excepted, somewhat, though I can even cite examples there in their martial arts traditions.
Christ would have never sanctioned the Inquisition.
No? He's the one who picked up the whip, isn't he? Isn't it his book - the NT - in which the angels fo god come flaming from the skies and wreak havoc, pestilence and so forth? Furthermore, millions - literally millions - of Christians believed that he would have sanctioned the inquisition; witness the results of both the Spanish and the Papal inquisitions. And the numerous crusades. Methinks thou dost protest too much, good sir, and that thy own gentle sensibilities are trying to apply to those thou didst not know, and will never know while thine eyes are blinkered by thine own imagination and not open to the facts of history.
The problem is not Christianity -- the problem is people's lack of ability to follow it.
Ok, fine. I'll stipulate that actual Christianity sucks, but thoeretical Christianity is just dandy, except for the temple parts, and Revelations, and the mysogyny, and the coercion. How's that?
Christianity and Islam both offer very positive examples of how to live (even with the warts here and there) -- be charitable, be kind to strangers, put others before yourself, etc. They at least set a higher bar to strive towards. Where there are warts here and there (e.g. unequal treatment of the sexes), modern society has been able to smooth over things.
Look - really - I don't care what the internal precepts of these systems are. I'm not superstsitious; so they aren't of interest to me. I care when coercion starts to box others into having to follow these people's ideas when they don't agree with them. At that point, we've got a problem. And we do have a problem.
The difference between the Roman Catholic church and Scientology is that one is not required to buy your way into grace in the Roman Catholic church. You don't have to spend thousands of dollars before you are declared in a state of grace by, say, a bishop.
Again, I refer you to the very long history of "indulgance", which is the process of buying - literally - less time in purgatory. You did indeed have to spend very large amounts of money to reach a state of grace. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.
Whereas in the so-called Church of Scientology, to proceed through the OT levels, you have to take course after course after course, costing thousands of dollars. And they don't tell the lowly rank-and-file the whole story.
These are willing participants. I have no particular gripe with the process, as far as anyone knows, all that lies at the end of that road are the secrets of Scientology, whatever those might be. Roman Catholics don't become privvy to the contents of the Vatican library unless they reach exremely rarified levels in the church either; but in that case, the library contains a great deal of cultural and historical value that extends far beyond the limits of the interests of the Catholics. I do have a bit of a problem with that; I'd like to see some of the art, in particular.
It is when people are coerced that I become really disagreeable. Scientologists aren't trying to make me do anything Scientological, as it were. So they can go their own way without any particular static from me. Christians, on the other hand, are a pretty significant pain in my ass, because they have passed a lot of legislation that involves coercing me into behaviors that comply with their belief system, which I do not share.
Imagine that you've been a devout Christian your whole life. And after years of service to the Church, you are taken aside one day and told the secret inner truth of the Christian dogma, and it bears no resemblence to any logical framework of belief. That is what the Church of Scientology hides. They do not tell the beginning members about Xenu, or the space-planes, or any of that crap. The inner documents of Scientology read like bad science fiction for a reason. They were written by a bad science fiction writer.
Why would I imagine this? Why would I even care? Try to imagine my level of "not caring" - it is approximately equivalant to your interest in my rationale for deciding between two different menu items for breakfast on some random day years ago. I am not involved in Scientology, nor do they coerce me to be involved. So I don't care what they and their consenting participants do. Now, if those same consenting participants find they have a gripe when they hear these stories, then I imagine they might have something legitimate to say about it - to the other Scientologists. Again, I don't care in the first place. I wasn't telling them to be Scientologists, now was I? If they had asked me, I'd have simply advised them that my best estimation is that staying clear of all religion is optimum behavior until coercion becomes involved, and then one must weigh compliance against one's ethics, morals, and responsibilities.
Now, yeah, there are parts of the Catholic Bible that make very little sense. Pretty much the entire Old Testament is rife with stuff that is way out in "hallucinated by a hermit"-land (much of Leviticus, for example).
One would not want to leave Revelations, from the NT, out of that characterization. "hallucinated by a hermit" is nice and accurate description of Revalations in the Good Omens sense of the phrase.
But at least if you are a critic of the Bible, and you want to debate with a Christian theologist about it, he's not going to get all in your face and ask what crimes you're guilty of, or consider it "Fair Pl
How about we advocate banning religion (and any other organization or individual) from doing anything that coerces the unwilling and/or uninformed to go along, instead? For example, from first principles, you cannot assault or murder, because you cannot find a willing partner. You cannot tell someone that they cannot marry someone else, if all parties are willing. Etc.
I cannot, in good conscience, go along with telling people what they may not do to, and with, themselves and consenting partners. When we get into the area of non-consent, I have a problem; forcing religion (or lack of religion) on people is in very real terms similar to forcing sex on them. The "forcer" may think it is a faaabulous experience. The other person, however, is thinking "rape!" and they, not the forcer, are correct. Informed consent is the pivot upon which reasonable laws, ethics and morals must turn.
1) You're probably unaware of the offenses of Scientologists. They're relatively obscure.
Probably so. I'm not defending Scientology as a valid worldview. I simply disagree that it is any worse than any other religion, and that in fact, it is extremely similar to other religion.
There are a LOT more Christians and the religion has had a LOT longer time to have offenses committed in its name.
I am aware of this. I have said in this thread that I expect Scientology will, given time, commit more of the excesses that we have already seen in other religions, though I will not be willing to castigate them for such acts until, or unless, they actually commit them. The observation that Christianity is older does not in any way, however, incline me to forgive it for its past excesses, nor dismiss today's as irrelevant.
While there isn't any solid evidence of murders committed in the name of Scientology, there is a long history of intimidation, harassment, and property damage in defense of the religion. (There is evidence for negligent death, but no first-degree murder.) The religion is relatively young, so it's hard to say whether that's a matter of time or not.
Again, I can only hold them up as responsible for what they have done to the unwilling, not what they might do.
Scientology views those who interfere with Scientology to be fair game.
I think it is just as fair to write "Christianity views those who interfere with Christianity to be fair game" or "Islam views those who interfere with Islam to be fair game."
Christianity, at its core, states that you should love your enemy.
Well, I agree that is one tenet that some Christians take as central. Others take the example of Christ whipping the money changers in the temple to heart; still others read from the old testament and derive various pivotal notions of faith from that much more violent and theologically warlike book; others have found all manner of justification for hatred and have used those justifications to commit everything from bombing clinics to invading the holy lands to keeping slaves to burning "witches" to waving signs that say "god hates fags" to making laws that hold non-Christians to Christian tenets which are often quite offensive to them. To use as an underlying presumption that "Christianity = love your enemy" is, in my view, disingenuous. Christianity is demonstrably all over the map when it comes to core moral and ethical beliefs.
As for attempting to force their morality on others, Scientology simply hasn't had the power to enforce its views on outsiders due to a lack of critical mass. What makes you think they'd be different from any other segment of society bound by a common code of behavior?
While being watchful may be called for, given that religion in general has been pretty consistent in comitting these trespasses against the unaffiliated and unwilling, the fact remains that condemning others for thoughtcrime, or even worse, the idea that they might commit thoughtcrime or actual crime, is repellant to me. I cannot codemn anyone for things they have not done to the unwilling; only what they have done. Yes, scientology is young. A child of a murderer, brought up in a murderer's household may also be young, but we do not pre-accuse that child of murder until or unless it actually commits such a crime, regardless of the sins of its parents, neighbors, etc. It is simply unacceptable to castigate Scientology for what it has not done. Guessing doesn't count. Stick to reality here.
Christianity has had more time; and it is worth noting that what it used that time for was, by and large, to do unacceptable things to the unwilling, things of a nature far worse than Scientology has done, including mass m
Slashdot Mirror
What would this accomplish? Looking at the docs (man page) for ld.so, there is no indication of what giving it a path is intended to do. Normally, it tells where to look for libraries. The issue was preventing execution of programs arriving in a particular directory, for instance, something placed in /tmp by a malicious user or via a hole in someone's scripting.
Censorship at a school? I don't think so.
Yes, that certainly is a problem on several fronts. That we have generations of blindered, cowardly citizens, poorly educated and all too used to the government playing the role of "mommy", and that we have a culture of running to lawyers to keep the system running in that mode, and that experience with the world as it is could be construed as "wasting their days" rather than learning about another corner of it. Not to mention the general repression of sexuality and open-mindedness that is the heritage of many decades of religious backwardness.
Well, best to coddle those kids. It isn't like they might have to learn to deal with that stuff on their own, is it. I mean, it's not like spyware, adware, porn, and "other content" is really out there in the real world. Keep them dumb and keep them controlled and soon we'll have another generation of voters who have no idea what is actually going on and will be good little republicrats. We wouldn't want to change anything, after all; we're perfect as we are.
Of course, even if I accepted the argument that spyware and adware isn't something we want them to learn how to deal with, I'd still be bound to point out that the system could have been designed/chosen to be immune to it without supervision in the first place.
Yes. I am well aware of this. But you'll have to pull up your grown-up pants and deal with replies to statements you make, or else let them sit there for others to see you couldn't deal with them. Mr censorship-at-school isn't here to help you duck reality, and calling a lawyer won't help.
No, the constitution says: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" and I think that the government has failed to interpret this in the obvious spirit that it was meant. No censorship. None whatsoever. Written or spoken, the two venues they had at the time. Generalizing it today to visual is of course a no-brainer. I find it repellant that the government uses my money to directly and purposefully violate the charter that gives it its only legitimacy that does not come from coercion. And of course, the 1st amendment isn't the only casualty of government malfeasance. The 2nd is almost irrelevant, the commerce clause is a joke, ex post facto is routinely violated... the government is out of control and out of charter. My dismay stems from the observation that I am coerced into paying for its criminal activities.
What a shame you had to have that explained to you. That makes you part of the problem.
There are two references he makes. One is very good contextually, and not disputed as far as I am aware. That's where he says "Ananus... convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." The main one scholars object to is the one where he call Jesus the "messiah" which of course is a very unlikely (or worse, blasphemous) term for a non-Christian jew to use at the time, and also made unlikely by other, contemporaneous reports of Josephus' outlook, which was decidedly non-Christian.
It really is amazing how strongly the thread of presumed "evidence" for Jesus' actuality runs through society. When you go looking, you find basically nothing.
Constitution: A document too difficult for the government to understand.
Now, I could be missing some data, and if so, by all means correct me, but my current understanding is that the first actual record that we have is from about 24 years after Jesus was to have died, in an AD 64 letter from Tacitus that mentions the Christian cult (his own words.) Josephus mentions Jesus, but as Josephus wasn't even born until AD 37, and was writing in the AD 80's, I think we can agree he had no direct experience. Then Pliny the Elder mentions Jesus and the cult again in AD 100. Also, Jesus, as I understand it, hasn't been described as having "lived about AD 30", he is purported to have lived from about AD 0 or perhaps BC a few to AD 30.
What all this amounts to is evidence of the cult of Christians in the times following (by 3 decades at the closest) when he was reputed to have lived, but not of Jesus himself, no bill for a cross, no records at court of having to reprimand him, no records of him picking up the whips in the temple; Other than the bible itself, which of course we only have components from about AD 300 onwards and so it isn't a reliable historical source, the mentions of Jesus all seem to be about the cult, not the man. Note that I am not in the least saying that very early Christians aren't real; just that there is no particular evidence that supports Jesus himself. He may, of course, have lived anyway - but the evidence doesn't appear to be there to say so.
Given that I am unaware of any records of Jesus, as opposed to records of the Christians - please, if you are aware of any such records, I would like to know about them. Thank you.
It is important to note that were we to be able to establish that Jesus was real, had followers, and so forth, we still have not in any way established that he was the son of a god, or that there is a god. We've simply gone about finding some guy who said so. I can find the guy who established the FSM meme, too. :)
Yeah? I'll see your "round" and raise you an "oblate spheroid." Your move.
Just one more area where the "common knowledge" is at best an approximation, but more fairly, simply wrong. There's a hint there, for those smart enough to take it.
I hereby revoke your tree-hugging license for use of facts without intention to mislead. Please report to your neighborhood global warming organization for immediate compositing.
Just think how tired a meme Christianity is, then, and you're beginning to get at least one of the points of the whole FSM thing.
No. There were people here well before asians (those people typically called "American Indians") crossed from Alaska. We find their remains now and then. Those people would be the founders, if your criteria is simply who was here first.
If your criteria is political (which it should be, as this is a political system we're talking about) simply observing recent history, American Indians didn't "found" anything to do with the US political system, mostly they got in the way, and for that, they were killed or herded into designated land zones and told to stay there, pretty much.
Technically speaking, the people who founded the USA can be identified easily by their signatures on two documents; first, as a matter of separation from England, the Declaration of Independence. Second, and considerably more importantly in terms of legal underpinnings, the Constitution.
There's a reverse factor too; because the PS3 will generally run any reasonable PS2 title, there's no huge reason not to continue addressing the PS2 market. The PS2 is really a pretty good platform (I own PS2, PS3, XBox, 360, Wii and the Gamecube... Good PS2 titles are "right in there.") The PS3 has the 720p BlueRay problem, too; that's a real drag and will continue to impact sales unless they fix it. The one thing about it was it was supposed to be a BlueRay player, but it isn't worth spit in that area for most users - you have to have a 1080p or 1080i capable display or else it's no better than a progressive standard 480p DVD player (except that the disks cost $30!)
What? Are you trying to refer to Linux? I'm a HUGE Mac fan, I own four of them, but I'm also very familiar with linux as I admin a bunch of servers with custom software and your characterization is more than a little unfair. Linux as an OS is no more "cut rate" than the Mac's underpinnings; as for the GUI, personally, I hate the fact that linux doesn't have a standard graphics layer that developers can count on, and its got some inherent security problems (like not being able to set a dir to forbid execution without making it a NOEXEC partition) but aside from the issue of many sources and licenses, what it has works pretty darned well. It's just not the same as OSX's underpinnings. And you can't overlook the free nature of linux, either; Apple simply does not address the cost-conscious market. Many people get one heck of a lot more bang for their buck by going with linux, and Apple offers them nothing so it isn't fair at all to say "get a mature OS."
Now windows... application lock-in is the only reason I can think of to stay with that (and even then, you can run parallels if you're not live graphics-intensive.) Now that Vista is out, breaking this and that, maybe more people will move on that basis. OSX and Vista are really attacking the same space, financially speaking. IMHO.
I'm using the Deer Park version of Firefox for the Mac; no spell checking. Normally I use OmniWeb, and the spelling checker kind of spoils me. Sorry.
I'm not going to dispute it - but I did read it, and at least some of that stuff (like "losing several feet of blood vessels) is pure filler. The rest, I can't say, other than to remark that as you noted earlier, I am perfectly well satisfied with my functionality. Very good response, though; you probably should have started with that. :)
We both know full well that we do all manner of arbitrary things (ex, vaccinations which leave scars) without the informed consent of infants. So it really isn't about informed consent. It's about the particular thing that is being done. So I don't accept your position; it isn't valid.
There is no hypocracy in my position. You equated clitoridectomy ("cutting on females", you called it) with circumcision. I never tried to establish any such position. You did, and I called you on it, because it is ludicrous. It isn't about consent, it is about the particular act. The reason that I brought up other things we do to kids without their consent is to demonstrate that consent isn't primary; the well being of the kid is primary. You're resisting the point because without it, you don't have anywhere to stand.
Anyway, we're not going to agree; the last word is yours. Thanks for your time.
Why limit yourself to one preventive method, when multiples are available? Each barrier to disease helps. And perhaps it is time for you to define the "function" of the foreskin, if you're going to keep referring to it that way. What function am I missing? What can I not do, as a circumsized male?
Oh, for goodness sake. From my previous post: "Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000)." I gave you the actual incidence; you give me comparative opinion as if it meant something more. Furthermore, of those 1 per hundred thousand, the hundred thousand contains many, many circumsized males, a number approaching 80%, every one of which serves to increase the risk to uncirsized males, because that's the demographic that gets the disease. If it is one per hundred thousand, but 80,000 will not get it because they are circumsized, you're now sitting at one per the remaining 20,000. Why I have to explain this to you, I can't imagine, the data is right there. That's your risk. Your kids risk. I wasn't hiding the details, I put them right in front of your nose. To me, that risk is unacceptable if it can be eliminated, and it can.
It is a deep procedure, one that opens the body cavity and the intestine; that's why. Otherwise, you would, just as you see them being innoculated against various diseases, just as you see the umbilical being removed, just as you see them being cleaned before being brought to the mother's arms. Nature doesn't get everything right. When we can see a problem, or a potential problem, it is perfectly reasonable for us to act decisively.
Well, again - you're making the claim, I'm not. I addressed it as a claim made by the anti-circumcision block. So I ask you again: What "function" am I missing? I'm agreeably sensitive; I'm fertile; I'm happy; I'm clean; I'm disease-free; I'm at lower risk than you are for a number of disagreeable and in some cases life-threatening conditions; so what is my alleged "problem", according to you?
No. Children are, and should be, subject to the parents decisions about health related matters. Newborns in particular are incapable of making decisions in this regard as are some people right into adulthood, and sexual activity will probably be initiated before the person can make the right decision, if indeed it ever does - you, for instance, have elected to remain at higher risk, and to expose your partners to higher risk, and this indicates to me that it would have been better to get it done as an infant - you would not now have the option of raising the risk floor for others, regardless of what you might prefer for yourself. In the meantime, educating people that uncircumcised males present higher risk to them as sexual partners is important.
No. Please don
Reduces aids (this story is from the BBC, but the reference is from "Lancet."
Reduces chlamidia (Oxford Journal.)
From the AMA on UTI (summary... 12-fold increase of risk of UTI if uncircumcised):
Urinary Tract Infection: There is little doubt that the uncircumcised infant is at higher risk for urinary tract infection (UTI), although the magnitude of this risk is debatable. A meta-analysis of 9 studies published between 1984 and 1992 revealed a 12-fold increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised males.4 Most of the studies analyzed were case-control designs that analyzed the rate of UTI in the first year of life.
From the AMA on Penile cancer (summary... only uncircumcised men get penile cancer):
Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000). Among uncircumcised men the incidence is estimated to be 2.2/100,000.21 Six case series published between 1932 and 1986 found that all penile cancers occurred in uncircumcised individuals.11,22 Results of one case control study provide an exception to this general rule, although circumcision status was determined by self-report.23 Nevertheless, this study also found that the absence of neonatal circumcision increased the risk for penile cancer by a factor of 3.2 Other identified risk factors for penile cancer are phimosis (occurring exclusively in uncircumcised males), genital warts, infection with human papilloma virus, large number of sexual partners, and cigarette smoking.
And of course, circumcision prevents one from ever suffering from phimosis.
So clearly, there are health benefits. There are arguments as to whether these health benefits are "sufficient" to justify circumcision due to incidence of these various issues; but no argument as to the health benefits themselves. My position is that the health benefits themselves are sufficent, and so I do not object on that basis.
As to function, as a circumcised male, I can assure you that full functionality is present, as is lots and lots of enjoyment. Anecdotal reports speak to an additional ability to control ejaculation, and to that I can only say I've never had a problem holding off until my partner's orgasm and then going with them; so for my part, if indeed this has anything at all to do with being circumcised, I consider it a huge positive. Functionally speaking, I'm one happy camper, as have been my partners. One thing I can definitively say is that the condition itself does not bring lack of function, or reduced function. No question about it. If the operation was botched (as can happen) or the individual develops mental problems, then certainly you could have trouble, as sex is considerably "mental" anyway, certainly the right attitude is as important as is the physical functioning of the hardware, as it were.
No, I don't. Their umbilical cords are routinely tied off without their consent as well, because we know that such a proceedure is better for them than to leave it leaking all over the place. Obviously, the parent has the responsibility to choose the path for the infant for best chance for health and survival, just aside from what we might argue are parental rights. I was born with a benign tumor on my left side; they burned it offf with dry ice without consulting my infant self, or waiting until I was older and could actually answer. The issue is crystal clear: I
I do not critisize female (or male) circumcision. My point was that clititoridectomy is not the same as circumcision; it is outright removal of the clitoris. The removal of the hood of the clitoris is the rough equivalant of a male circumcision, and while I can't say it appeals to me, as it doesn't particularly change the function of the anatomy, I don't see it as mutilation. For male circumcision, the data has long established that circumcised males have fewer health problems, and so that is generally an advantage for the male. Not always; some people get all hung up about it and then you have a new problem, but in terms of functionality, it's not really a change for most males. However - if you were to give a male an operation that is the equivalant of a clititoridectomy, you'd be cutting off the head of the penis; and that, I'm afraid, is unjustified by any reasoning I've ever heard. Likewise the removal of the clitoris - completely unjustified by any rational standard. Savage and primitive and disgusting is more like it.
I don't think that this is an issue that I can give a pass to because it is cross-culture; there are two problems. One, it mutilates the body so that functionality (orgasm, in particular) is almost certain to be lost. Two, it is done without consent of the subject, and that I have a problem with in any culture. Cultures that impose functional mutilation on non-consenting members are, in my opinion, cultures we can do without.
Now, if you want to cut your own goods up, or off, why then by all means, here's a nice sharp knife or the address of a surgeon, and you have fun. I'm all for you doing whatever you like to yourself, or opting, paying or whatever for someone else to do it for you. It's all about informed, intelligent consent when functionality is involved. Doesn't bother me a bit to see someone with a piercing or whatever body mod that messes with functionality unless I learn that this was not voluntary, and then I want to pound someone into the ground. I'm considerably less concerned about involuntary mods that don't affect functionality by design (eg ear piercings, nose piercings, hair removal) or mods that are known to improve health (eg circumcision, prophylactic appendectomies, orthodontics) and which are well meaning and typically have positive outcomes.
You're not comparing similar procedures, and that's the problem. Circumcision - of either sex - isn't much of a big deal, unless for personal reasons you find it offensive. Clititoridectomy is not circumcision. Comparing the two isn't valid; until or unless you understand what is different about the procedures, you really can't make an informed judgement.
No, clearly, you don't.
Yes indeed, I object to giving any superstitious loony, or organized group of same, power over myself or my family. Is that clear enough for you?
Certainly I can. I don't see Scientologists blowing up any birth control clinics, which they certainly could do, just as modern Christian wackos do. I don't see them assassinating doctors, which they also could do, just as modern Christian wackos do. I don't see them being involved in civil wars, such as the Protestant and Catholic wackos in Northern Ireland have been, though they certainly could be planting bombs if they were so inclined. So as it turns out, looking straight at modern wacko Christianity, the Scientologists are behaving much better than the Christians are.
So... you're saying that if it didn't happen in your lifetime, you'll accept it. But if it did, you won't. Fascinating. Bewildered, backwards and superstitious, but still... fascinating. Me, I look at the story, and if it sounds like bullshit, I assume it is bullshit, until and unless some proof reaches the table. No religion has ever had a non-bullshit sounding story, and no proof has ever reached the table, so I never had to reach for the "but it just happened" as a means of disqualification. Religion is bullshit, as far as I can tell, so that doesn't make Scientology any less or more than any other religion.
What is interesting about it? Various sects of Muslims, Hindus and African tribes all practice clitoridectomy to this day, and worse, though I should note that Muslim scholars consider it haram though it is still practiced by many Muslims. Likewise, stoning isn't a "post-revolution Iranian practice", you'll find it - and advice when to do it - right in your bible. Iran wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye at that point. You're woefully uninformed for someone who is trying to argue about religion.
I don't believe you'll find that I was trying to "justify" one group by citing the actions of another. Though I certainly do lump one type of ignorance with another. Jehovah, Zeus, whoever... it's definitely all the same.
So the episode in the temple, with the whips, you simply discount? I mean, that was Christ himself weilding that whip, if you believe the text. We're not talking about Christ anyway, who is probably a mythical figure inasmuch as there are no contemporaneous records of him; we're talking about Christianity, which has a long and consistant record of violence that many of today's adherents would just love to be able to whitewash, but cannot. And still today, we can see the coercive and retributive nature of Christianity in the laws of the land.
You mean like Christ going after those in the temple? Oh. Or do you mean like god turning Lot's wife into salt? Or his angels killing all the men and children? Or drowning every living creature except those who managed to get a seat on the ark? Or mixing up the languages of everyone? It seems to me that Scientology had a very good model for this in Christianity itself, both NT and OT derived.
<stares expectantly, waiting for you to actually understand what you just said>
So is Christianity. And Islam. And Hinduism. I can give examples all day. This is no distinction. It is religious habit. Buddists excepted, somewhat, though I can even cite examples there in their martial arts traditions.
No? He's the one who picked up the whip, isn't he? Isn't it his book - the NT - in which the angels fo god come flaming from the skies and wreak havoc, pestilence and so forth? Furthermore, millions - literally millions - of Christians believed that he would have sanctioned the inquisition; witness the results of both the Spanish and the Papal inquisitions. And the numerous crusades. Methinks thou dost protest too much, good sir, and that thy own gentle sensibilities are trying to apply to those thou didst not know, and will never know while thine eyes are blinkered by thine own imagination and not open to the facts of history.
Ok, fine. I'll stipulate that actual Christianity sucks, but thoeretical Christianity is just dandy, except for the temple parts, and Revelations, and the mysogyny, and the coercion. How's that?
Look - really - I don't care what the internal precepts of these systems are. I'm not superstsitious; so they aren't of interest to me. I care when coercion starts to box others into having to follow these people's ideas when they don't agree with them. At that point, we've got a problem. And we do have a problem.
Again, I refer you to the very long history of "indulgance", which is the process of buying - literally - less time in purgatory. You did indeed have to spend very large amounts of money to reach a state of grace. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.
These are willing participants. I have no particular gripe with the process, as far as anyone knows, all that lies at the end of that road are the secrets of Scientology, whatever those might be. Roman Catholics don't become privvy to the contents of the Vatican library unless they reach exremely rarified levels in the church either; but in that case, the library contains a great deal of cultural and historical value that extends far beyond the limits of the interests of the Catholics. I do have a bit of a problem with that; I'd like to see some of the art, in particular.
It is when people are coerced that I become really disagreeable. Scientologists aren't trying to make me do anything Scientological, as it were. So they can go their own way without any particular static from me. Christians, on the other hand, are a pretty significant pain in my ass, because they have passed a lot of legislation that involves coercing me into behaviors that comply with their belief system, which I do not share.
Why would I imagine this? Why would I even care? Try to imagine my level of "not caring" - it is approximately equivalant to your interest in my rationale for deciding between two different menu items for breakfast on some random day years ago. I am not involved in Scientology, nor do they coerce me to be involved. So I don't care what they and their consenting participants do. Now, if those same consenting participants find they have a gripe when they hear these stories, then I imagine they might have something legitimate to say about it - to the other Scientologists. Again, I don't care in the first place. I wasn't telling them to be Scientologists, now was I? If they had asked me, I'd have simply advised them that my best estimation is that staying clear of all religion is optimum behavior until coercion becomes involved, and then one must weigh compliance against one's ethics, morals, and responsibilities.
One would not want to leave Revelations, from the NT, out of that characterization. "hallucinated by a hermit" is nice and accurate description of Revalations in the Good Omens sense of the phrase.
How about we advocate banning religion (and any other organization or individual) from doing anything that coerces the unwilling and/or uninformed to go along, instead? For example, from first principles, you cannot assault or murder, because you cannot find a willing partner. You cannot tell someone that they cannot marry someone else, if all parties are willing. Etc.
I cannot, in good conscience, go along with telling people what they may not do to, and with, themselves and consenting partners. When we get into the area of non-consent, I have a problem; forcing religion (or lack of religion) on people is in very real terms similar to forcing sex on them. The "forcer" may think it is a faaabulous experience. The other person, however, is thinking "rape!" and they, not the forcer, are correct. Informed consent is the pivot upon which reasonable laws, ethics and morals must turn.
Explain yourself. We have the paper trail for Christianity and Islam as well. Does that make Chistianity and Islam not religions?
I have no argument with this, generally speaking, and I'm not sure why you feel you should be telling me this. Please elaborate.
Probably so. I'm not defending Scientology as a valid worldview. I simply disagree that it is any worse than any other religion, and that in fact, it is extremely similar to other religion.
I am aware of this. I have said in this thread that I expect Scientology will, given time, commit more of the excesses that we have already seen in other religions, though I will not be willing to castigate them for such acts until, or unless, they actually commit them. The observation that Christianity is older does not in any way, however, incline me to forgive it for its past excesses, nor dismiss today's as irrelevant.
Again, I can only hold them up as responsible for what they have done to the unwilling, not what they might do.
I think it is just as fair to write "Christianity views those who interfere with Christianity to be fair game" or "Islam views those who interfere with Islam to be fair game."
Well, I agree that is one tenet that some Christians take as central. Others take the example of Christ whipping the money changers in the temple to heart; still others read from the old testament and derive various pivotal notions of faith from that much more violent and theologically warlike book; others have found all manner of justification for hatred and have used those justifications to commit everything from bombing clinics to invading the holy lands to keeping slaves to burning "witches" to waving signs that say "god hates fags" to making laws that hold non-Christians to Christian tenets which are often quite offensive to them. To use as an underlying presumption that "Christianity = love your enemy" is, in my view, disingenuous. Christianity is demonstrably all over the map when it comes to core moral and ethical beliefs.
While being watchful may be called for, given that religion in general has been pretty consistent in comitting these trespasses against the unaffiliated and unwilling, the fact remains that condemning others for thoughtcrime, or even worse, the idea that they might commit thoughtcrime or actual crime, is repellant to me. I cannot codemn anyone for things they have not done to the unwilling; only what they have done. Yes, scientology is young. A child of a murderer, brought up in a murderer's household may also be young, but we do not pre-accuse that child of murder until or unless it actually commits such a crime, regardless of the sins of its parents, neighbors, etc. It is simply unacceptable to castigate Scientology for what it has not done. Guessing doesn't count. Stick to reality here.
Christianity has had more time; and it is worth noting that what it used that time for was, by and large, to do unacceptable things to the unwilling, things of a nature far worse than Scientology has done, including mass m