1. Language of diplomacy, not the language of the masses, nor the language of everyday use. So a small subset used it for diplomacy -- this has no bearing on the common usage of the language, which is the concern when we're talking about transparency of the church to worshippers in the church.
2. Again, you're conflating a small percentage of people "in the know" with the masses, who are the ones being fleeced. This is even more a parallel with Scientology, since in both cases the wealthy who belong have access to doctrinal scripture. The distinction is that Scientology restricts acess by rule, whereas in Catholocism the restriction existed because of economic background. However, the restriction is no less real just because it arose from different sources.
3. So you agree that the problem existed in the Catholic Church. It actually exists in Scientology, too -- which is why the parallel is valid. How can you use the existence of parallels to counter my argument that there are parallels?
You seem to think that I'm condemning the Catholic Chruch. I'm not -- I'm simply showing the parallels between the earlier Catholic Church and Scientology. Your need to defend the Church says a lot.
I have to address this in a separate section, since it's fundamental to the comparison:
Or is it that you want to put a modern spin of "The Man" keeping "The People" down?
Are you saying that the Church was not used for this purpose? Or rather, to take advantage of "The People" in the interest of "The Man"? Or are you saying that Scientology doesn't do the same with its recruits?
Even going back to the 5th century, the Church was used to secure and maintain hegemony. It was wielded as a political weapon by Constantine and others expressly to consolidate control of people via the destruction of rivals and the persecution of 'heretics'.
I don't know how you could argue that this is not a parallel to Scientology, who use orthodoxism to persecute 'heretics' and use the structure of the church to enrich both the church and themselves.
3.) Do not allow comments to be modded as Over or Underrated until they have received some sort of other moderation first.
I believe over/underrated should be eliminated completely. Allow metamoderation to replace it by having metamoderation affect recent posts.
The only reason I can think of to allow over/under moderation is to counteract karma bonuses... eg an obvious troll by someone with excellent karma starts at +2; this is over-rated, whereas a very informative post by a new user (say one of the authors of a linked article) starts at 0, this could very well be under-rated and fly under the radar of mods )if posted late) unless it's bumped up to a critical threshold.
And yet the right to the pursuit of happiness (even with the contextural definition applied) does not imply that one must exercise that right in order for the right to exist, which drinkypoo implies in the GGP to this post.
Yes I am, since it helps people understand the issues involved wrt Scientology.
For that matter, it's important for people to understand their own history, including the history of the organizations to which they belong.
Oh, and additionally -- it's not ancient history for some Mormon sects, nor is it "ancient practices" for some Christian sects who keep their members in the dark about the inner workings of their church.
Gee, I didn't know latin was in common use from the middle ages onward. Maybe that's because it wasn't?
Not letting the illiterate peasants paw through a hand copied book, probably the only one that priest would ever get to make or have made?
Does the change the fact that the laiety were not allowed access to scripture, or that the leadership of the church controlled all access to the fundamental "truths" of the church?
Church leaders chosen by the church from its educated and learned?
Hah. You mean church leaders chosen by the church for their secular political influence and familial financial contributions to the church, right?
Oppositional speech does not interfere with a person's right to worship freely.
I wasn't talking about dissenting views, I was talking about direct threats, there is a big difference -- sorry if I didn't make it clear.
This is where the Scientologist use of the CA law is abuse of that law.
Are you familiar with the CA law and the climate under which it was passed?
As an example, there are many people whom I allow to speak without trying to injure or confine them, but that doesn't constitute some kind of "implicit approval" of their opinions on my part.
When the state knowingly allows people to threaten others with physical harm for their religious views, then the state is condoning that action, thus tacitly approving the action, thus tacitly denying the freedom of religion guaranteed by the CA Constitution.
Just a note wrt CA law in general -- it tends to be progressive, meaning that the state acts in order to promote well-being, rather than just react to things that harm well-being. The validity of this is outside of the context of this discussion, but it influences the existence of the law in question.
Oppositional speech does not interfere with a person's right to worship freely.
I wasn't talking about dissenting views, I was talking about direct threats, there is a big difference -- sorry if I didn't make it clear.
This is where the Scientologist use of the CA law is abuse of that law.
Are you familiar with the CA law and the climate under which it was passed? As an example, there are many people whom I allow to speak without trying to injure or confine them, but that doesn't constitute some kind of "implicit approval" of their opinions on my part.When the state knowingly allows people to threaten others with physical harm for their religious views, then the state is condoning that action, thus tacitly approving the action, thus tacitly denying the freedom of religion guaranteed by the CA Constitution.
Well, the Spanish Inquisition is given its own name because it differed from the inquisition in general. For one thing, it had more direct support from the political powers (the Crown, who established it in 1480). For another, it was more organized and institutionalized than the inquisition in general. It also lasted much longer than the the inquisition lasted elsewhere -- until 1834!
Another note about the Spanish Inquisition is that it was especially known for the use of torture and other cruelties, moreso than the inquisition elsewhere.
As for executions in
German states being 100 times greater than those under the Spanish Inquisition -- do you have a source for this? The S.I. is estimated to have killed between 3000 and 5000 people (plus hundreds of thousands displaced); are you seriously suggesting that the inquisition in German states was responsible for the deaths of 300,000 people via inquisition?
Correct. They are not inviolable. A right is inalienable, which is far different. It's a simple mistake, really, but it taints your entire discussion since it puts your argument on a false track.
You do not understand what a right is, please stop discussing rights until you understand the meaning that everyone else uses.
Now, you may well ask, how come the IRS has the authority to overrule the Supreme Court? That is an extremely good question that I would really, really love to see answered.
Duh.
IRS == Treasury Department == Executive Branch.
Supreme Court == Judicial Branch.
Didn't you know that the Executive Branch now supercedes the other two branches?
Imagine a world where your senator voted for what your STATE really wanted, and not for what their party line said they should.
Well, the job of a Senator is not to vote for what his or her state really wants, but instead to vote for what they believe would be best for their state. It's an important distinction, because the tyranny of the majority is a real danger.
magine a president who made decisions for what was really best for the county, and not for how to get his party's line promoted.
I'm fully in agreement, but we can see what that did to the last President who attempted it (Carter).
The problem with party politics, as I see it, is not with parties per se -- it's with the stratification of issues between two parties. This is a problem with the winner-take-all vote system we have. I'd much prefer a parliamentary system, where minority parties actually have input into policy.
is it still a religion at that point? Or is it a cult? Or, hey, perhaps more like organized crime?
Or perhaps all three? The Catholic Church, during certain periods of history, could easily have fallen under the modern definition of organized crime. The same is true for many religions, such as certain sects of Mormonism.
The question is where (and how!) do you separate an organized crime syndicate from a religion? Is the crime syndicate equivalent to religious organization, or is it comprised of individuals within, but separate from, the organization?
The only way to answer that is to have knowledge of the organization, which is why I suspect Scientology clamps down so hard on public availability of their written materials.
How exactly does standing outside with a sign on violate someone's right to worship freely?
That's not the kind of expression that is covered by the law.
I can see if I'm attacking people to keep them from worshipping however they see fit, but how in the world does your supposed "right" to not be offended trump my right to free speech?
How about someone stating that they will firebomb a church, with the intention of keeping people from attending that church and organizing in re: a social movement (such as the civil rights movement)? This is the kind of threat that the law is supposed to cover, not someone picketing.
Isn't it my state-given right to work to destroy unfavorable institutions so long as I work within the confines of the law?
A law against "threatening" a religion is a violation of my right to freedom of speech.
Your parent to this post:
"Rights" are a meaningless, bullshit concept. You very much do not have a right to life. So far as I know, no one lives forever. You don't have a right to liberty - even the government will take that away from you. I guess you have a right to the pursuit of happiness, but some people are chemically imbalanced to the point where they may never be able to be happy.
It seems you are talking out both sides of your mouth. On one hand, you claim rights and use that claim as justification for disagreeing with something; on the other hand, you say that there are no such things as rights.
I'm confused, which is it?
I like the idea of Rights, but stating that you have a right doesn't actually make anything happen, or change anything. So I don't believe in them.
It's semantics, but "Rights" describes a set of values... whether or not they are capable of being trespassed upon. Not believing in Rights simply because they aren't immutable is akin to not believing in the concept of variables, because they have no value outside of the context they are discussed in.
Well, the flip side of it is that a lot of people have no understanding of the plight of the poor in the US. To be sure, it's nothing like the plight of the poor in say, Somalia, or even in India. It's mistaken to believe that equitable opportunity exists for all, because it doesn't. As for whether the tax system abuses the poor, that's ancillary to the non-tax-related hardships of the poor, IMO.
Isn't it my state-given right to work to destroy unfavorable institutions
The state cannot grant rights; it can only restrict them. To say that any right is granted at the pleasure of the state is a recipe for disaster.
As to whether that law restricts your free speech, the claim is that "hate speech" is not protected by the Constitution, particularly when it interferes with the right of others to worship freely. The logic is that allowing people to threaten religions is implicit State approval of those threats.
I believe Scientology abuses the law; but I also believe the law is necessary to protect people's right to worship freely.
Doesn't enable useful information to be transmitted FTL, because by itself quantum states mean nothing -- eg, entangled objects must be coupled to a classic information channel, which is the rate-limiting step.
However, information itself that is limited to the status of the entangled objects can indeed be transmitted FTL. This is partly semantic, since such data is not always considered information per se, since it cannot have meaning outside of the entangled objects.
Go ahead and read the articles linked to in the summary, then go back and read the one from January. Same supernova, completely different articles with new information based on new research. Oh, but that would mean you'd have to RTFA, right?
Except that the articles were about the research done by the guys at UCal Berkeley who presented some of their findings yesterday.
If the articles had been about the discovery of a supernova, then I'd agree with you -- but they are about the type of supernova it is, and the implications of that -- which was discovered by the UCal Berkeley guys.
Please tell me you just misclicked. This shit isn't funny anymore.
You're right, it's not funny. It's serious. We the people have the right to alter our government -- from a philosophical standpoint, a DUTY to reofrm our government.
I'm not sure if you meant "It's not funny anymore because it's become serious" or "It's not funny anymore because talking about government overthrow is too scary".
I sure as hell hope it's the first one, because if we can't talk about fixing the problems with our government by whatever means necessary, then we truly live in a non-free state.
Ah, yes, obviously the ones you observe are the only ones in existence. Your sampling is way off, since by default it eliminates those without the resources to get to a library.
Just goes to show you the arrogance of physicists- they claim answers and grandiose Standard Theories, but are frequently revising them because they mis things like accelerating expansion and 150SM supernova.
Right. So we should not put blind faith in any theory, because it's open to being falsified. That's basic scientific method stuff.
Isn't this what academic research is (in theory) all about? The search for better understanding, enabling us to revise our theories of how the universe (or some small subset of it) works?
Find the simplest theory that fits all the observations. New data may mean you need a new theory, or that you need to revise your current theory. I don't understand the problem you have, unless it's just with the arrogance of some theorists who claim to have found the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. I say, let them be arrogant -- when they are disproved, they'll fall harder for it.
Slashdot Mirror
2. Again, you're conflating a small percentage of people "in the know" with the masses, who are the ones being fleeced. This is even more a parallel with Scientology, since in both cases the wealthy who belong have access to doctrinal scripture. The distinction is that Scientology restricts acess by rule, whereas in Catholocism the restriction existed because of economic background. However, the restriction is no less real just because it arose from different sources.
3. So you agree that the problem existed in the Catholic Church. It actually exists in Scientology, too -- which is why the parallel is valid. How can you use the existence of parallels to counter my argument that there are parallels?
You seem to think that I'm condemning the Catholic Chruch. I'm not -- I'm simply showing the parallels between the earlier Catholic Church and Scientology. Your need to defend the Church says a lot.
I have to address this in a separate section, since it's fundamental to the comparison:Are you saying that the Church was not used for this purpose? Or rather, to take advantage of "The People" in the interest of "The Man"? Or are you saying that Scientology doesn't do the same with its recruits?
Even going back to the 5th century, the Church was used to secure and maintain hegemony. It was wielded as a political weapon by Constantine and others expressly to consolidate control of people via the destruction of rivals and the persecution of 'heretics'.
I don't know how you could argue that this is not a parallel to Scientology, who use orthodoxism to persecute 'heretics' and use the structure of the church to enrich both the church and themselves.
The only reason I can think of to allow over/under moderation is to counteract karma bonuses... eg an obvious troll by someone with excellent karma starts at +2; this is over-rated, whereas a very informative post by a new user (say one of the authors of a linked article) starts at 0, this could very well be under-rated and fly under the radar of mods )if posted late) unless it's bumped up to a critical threshold.
And yet the right to the pursuit of happiness (even with the contextural definition applied) does not imply that one must exercise that right in order for the right to exist, which drinkypoo implies in the GGP to this post.
As such, the GP's point still stands.
Yes I am, since it helps people understand the issues involved wrt Scientology.
For that matter, it's important for people to understand their own history, including the history of the organizations to which they belong.
Oh, and additionally -- it's not ancient history for some Mormon sects, nor is it "ancient practices" for some Christian sects who keep their members in the dark about the inner workings of their church.
Does the change the fact that the laiety were not allowed access to scripture, or that the leadership of the church controlled all access to the fundamental "truths" of the church?
Hah. You mean church leaders chosen by the church for their secular political influence and familial financial contributions to the church, right?
Yes, just like Scientology.
I wasn't talking about dissenting views, I was talking about direct threats, there is a big difference -- sorry if I didn't make it clear.
This is where the Scientologist use of the CA law is abuse of that law.
Are you familiar with the CA law and the climate under which it was passed?When the state knowingly allows people to threaten others with physical harm for their religious views, then the state is condoning that action, thus tacitly approving the action, thus tacitly denying the freedom of religion guaranteed by the CA Constitution.
Just a note wrt CA law in general -- it tends to be progressive, meaning that the state acts in order to promote well-being, rather than just react to things that harm well-being. The validity of this is outside of the context of this discussion, but it influences the existence of the law in question.
This is where the Scientologist use of the CA law is abuse of that law.
Are you familiar with the CA law and the climate under which it was passed? As an example, there are many people whom I allow to speak without trying to injure or confine them, but that doesn't constitute some kind of "implicit approval" of their opinions on my part.When the state knowingly allows people to threaten others with physical harm for their religious views, then the state is condoning that action, thus tacitly approving the action, thus tacitly denying the freedom of religion guaranteed by the CA Constitution.
Well, the Spanish Inquisition is given its own name because it differed from the inquisition in general. For one thing, it had more direct support from the political powers (the Crown, who established it in 1480). For another, it was more organized and institutionalized than the inquisition in general. It also lasted much longer than the the inquisition lasted elsewhere -- until 1834!
Another note about the Spanish Inquisition is that it was especially known for the use of torture and other cruelties, moreso than the inquisition elsewhere.
As for executions in German states being 100 times greater than those under the Spanish Inquisition -- do you have a source for this? The S.I. is estimated to have killed between 3000 and 5000 people (plus hundreds of thousands displaced); are you seriously suggesting that the inquisition in German states was responsible for the deaths of 300,000 people via inquisition?
You do not understand what a right is, please stop discussing rights until you understand the meaning that everyone else uses.
IRS == Treasury Department == Executive Branch.
Supreme Court == Judicial Branch.
Didn't you know that the Executive Branch now supercedes the other two branches?
I have HUGE problems with Scientology, but they are no different than a lot of religions.
I'm fully in agreement, but we can see what that did to the last President who attempted it (Carter).
The problem with party politics, as I see it, is not with parties per se -- it's with the stratification of issues between two parties. This is a problem with the winner-take-all vote system we have. I'd much prefer a parliamentary system, where minority parties actually have input into policy.
The question is where (and how!) do you separate an organized crime syndicate from a religion? Is the crime syndicate equivalent to religious organization, or is it comprised of individuals within, but separate from, the organization?
The only way to answer that is to have knowledge of the organization, which is why I suspect Scientology clamps down so hard on public availability of their written materials.
How about someone stating that they will firebomb a church, with the intention of keeping people from attending that church and organizing in re: a social movement (such as the civil rights movement)? This is the kind of threat that the law is supposed to cover, not someone picketing.
I'm confused, which is it?
It's semantics, but "Rights" describes a set of values... whether or not they are capable of being trespassed upon. Not believing in Rights simply because they aren't immutable is akin to not believing in the concept of variables, because they have no value outside of the context they are discussed in.
Well, the flip side of it is that a lot of people have no understanding of the plight of the poor in the US. To be sure, it's nothing like the plight of the poor in say, Somalia, or even in India. It's mistaken to believe that equitable opportunity exists for all, because it doesn't. As for whether the tax system abuses the poor, that's ancillary to the non-tax-related hardships of the poor, IMO.
As to whether that law restricts your free speech, the claim is that "hate speech" is not protected by the Constitution, particularly when it interferes with the right of others to worship freely. The logic is that allowing people to threaten religions is implicit State approval of those threats.
I believe Scientology abuses the law; but I also believe the law is necessary to protect people's right to worship freely.
Doesn't enable useful information to be transmitted FTL, because by itself quantum states mean nothing -- eg, entangled objects must be coupled to a classic information channel, which is the rate-limiting step.
However, information itself that is limited to the status of the entangled objects can indeed be transmitted FTL. This is partly semantic, since such data is not always considered information per se, since it cannot have meaning outside of the entangled objects.
Go ahead and read the articles linked to in the summary, then go back and read the one from January. Same supernova, completely different articles with new information based on new research. Oh, but that would mean you'd have to RTFA, right?
Except that the articles were about the research done by the guys at UCal Berkeley who presented some of their findings yesterday.
If the articles had been about the discovery of a supernova, then I'd agree with you -- but they are about the type of supernova it is, and the implications of that -- which was discovered by the UCal Berkeley guys.
I'm not sure if you meant "It's not funny anymore because it's become serious" or "It's not funny anymore because talking about government overthrow is too scary".
I sure as hell hope it's the first one, because if we can't talk about fixing the problems with our government by whatever means necessary, then we truly live in a non-free state.
Ah, yes, obviously the ones you observe are the only ones in existence. Your sampling is way off, since by default it eliminates those without the resources to get to a library.
Isn't this what academic research is (in theory) all about? The search for better understanding, enabling us to revise our theories of how the universe (or some small subset of it) works?
Find the simplest theory that fits all the observations. New data may mean you need a new theory, or that you need to revise your current theory. I don't understand the problem you have, unless it's just with the arrogance of some theorists who claim to have found the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. I say, let them be arrogant -- when they are disproved, they'll fall harder for it.