backtop


Print 176 comment(s) - last by deadrats.. on Dec 27 at 5:51 PM

Company argues that it has the right to freedom of religion

Former Diskeeper employees Alex Godelman and Marc Le Shay filed suit against their ex-employer earlier this year (PDF), accusing the company of firing them for refusing to sit through thinly-veiled religious indoctrination and join Scientology. Earlier this month, Diskeeper filed its response and, in a move that observers called “unusual” and “inappropriate”, motioned to strike (PDF) sections of the pair’s arguments.

Godelman and Le Shay’s arguments accuse Diskeeper of violating the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and California Labor Law on multiple counts, as well as failing to uphold its legal obligation to maintain a discrimination-free environment.

Diskeeper’s response seeks to black out Godelman and Le Shay’s request that the company “forever refrain from … requiring any employee, as a condition of employment, to study, adopt and/or apply the [Scientology-authored] ‘Hubbard Management Technology’ and/or the related ‘Hubbard Study Technology’ in the workplace.” The unusual request is justified by the company’s First Amendment rights, of which it argues that injunctions prohibiting religious practice in the workplace are unconstitutional.

Motions to strike are “rarely filed,” explains Scott Pilutik of the blog Reality Based Community. “A party will sometimes move to strike language in a pleading which is scandalous and has no relevance to the complaint or relief requested.”

Most notable, says Pilutik, is that Diskeeper’s argument constitutes an “implicit admission” that both of the Hubbard programs are “religious in nature.”

“Why would they advance the argument that Diskeeper has a protected interest in providing religious training to employees?” argues Pilutik. “Diskeeper claims that it in no way concedes that Hubbard Management and Study Technology are religious, but to anyone familiar with both Scientology and Hubbard's supposedly secular ‘technologies,’ the two brands are basically indistinguishable, and indeed, the establishment of supposedly secular fronts was intended by Hubbard to be a recruiting tool.”

The pair’s original complaint chronicles the individual, brief periods of time that both Godelman and Le Shay were employed with Diskeeper, where – despite exhibiting stellar performance at both Diskeeper and their former employers – management continuously forced them to attend Scientology-themed company training seminars and ultimately adopt the religion. Godelman, who practices Judaism, had his employment suddenly terminated after half a year with the company in October 19, 2006, while Le Shay was forced to resign less than a month after joining.

The lawsuit goes on to describe a work environment saturated with Scientology influences: religious art adorns the walls, and all new employees receive a copy of L. Ron Hubbard’s The Way to Happiness – which includes advice on personal life, including sex. The company frequently mentioned or held a massive library of Scientology books offered for sale and loan, and management often used Scientology lexicon in day-to-day work. Ultimately, the lawsuit argues, Diskeeper employees were “constantly bombarded with Scientology imagery and ideology in the work environment,” whether they wanted it or not.

Furthermore, attempts by the pair to seek advice from other members of upper management almost always resulted in an order to conform – for their own good.

Slashdot notes that Diskeeper former CEO and current Chairman Craig Jensen is a “high level, publicly avowed” Scientologist who attributes Diskeeper’s success to Hubbard’s teachings.

A hearing for Diskeeper’s motion to strike will take place on January 27, 2009, and a tentative trial date is set for mid-June.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Private Enterprise
By DtTall on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Private Enterprise
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/22/2008 10:22:08 AM , Rating: 1
Hmmm, I see your point. Doesn't Chick-fil-a employ Christian-based teachings in the workplace? I know they're closed on Sunday due to the teachings of the Bible.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Fanon on 12/22/2008 10:48:50 AM , Rating: 4
I worked at Chick-Fil-A in high school. Since it is a franchise, I cannot speak for other stores and owners. But to answer your question based on my experience, no. I worked at two stores: one owner was a Christian and the other was not.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 10:59:58 AM , Rating: 1
Some stores are corporate-owned, others are franchises: thus the difference.

And to the OP, yes I agree. A private company should be able to set whatever standards they wish for employees. The Constitution restricts what government can and cannot do, not private individuals.


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 11:23:33 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A private company should be able to set whatever standards they wish for employees. The Constitution restricts what government can and cannot do, not private individuals.
Note this is your personal opinion not, the law. It is illegal for a company of over 15 people to discriminate against a certain religion, nor can they force anyone to join a religion.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.htm...

Of course there are exceptions:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html
quote:
Solely with respect to religion, Title VII also requires reasonable accommodation of employees’[3] sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices when requested, unless accommodation would impose an undue hardship on business operations.[4] Undue hardship under Title VII is defined as “more than de minimis” cost or burden -- a substantially lower standard for employers to satisfy than the “undue hardship” defense under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is defined instead as “significant difficulty or expense.”[5]


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
> "Note this is your personal opinion not, the law."

Oh, absolutely. In my opinion, the law itself is unconstitutional.

> "It is illegal for a company of over 15 people to discriminate against a certain religion"

I've always found it curious why small businesses are allowed to discriminate, but larger ones are not.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 11:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, absolutely. In my opinion, the law itself is unconstitutional.
Care to explain this? I'm not trying to start an argument; I'm actually curious what you find unconstitutional about it. Which clause of which amendment does it potentially violate?


RE: Private Enterprise
By DtTall on 12/22/2008 12:17:12 PM , Rating: 3
I believe that the argument against this is that the "Civil Rights Act" - while a great thing to advance equality - directly contradicts an companies right to have freedom of religion (which you may argue doesn't exist). In effect, the Civil Rights Act takes away the right for a private company to have a religion. As valuable as the restriction may be, it is argued that the restriction itself is unconstitutional.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 12:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's essentially the argument.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". A law preventing a company from showing religious materials to its employees is no different than a law preventing me from showing religious materials to my friends and neighbors.

As you can see, the First Amendment relates specifically and only to what Congress can do -- not what private entities are allowed to do.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 3:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
I figured this might have been your point. Congress has passed a law prohibiting the free expression of a religion, in contradiction to the First Amendment. While I personally will agree with you in principle, legislation and numerous ruling would disagree with you in practice.

Nearly every amendment to the Constitution has been infringed upon some way or another by legislation and executive action. Every clause of the First Amendment has legal caveats. Speech, assembly, and press all have government-mandated limitations, as does the right to bear arms.

I will point out that the spirit of these amendments does live on for the most part despite modern interpretation (misinterpretation, perhaps) of them. I do think in a misguided effort to preserve the original Bill of Rights, we have not made further amendments that were clearly necessary. Instead, Congress just passes new laws regardless of contradictions or the court reinterprets the existing ones. I, for one, find their goals usually are agreeable, but the method is not -- especially in the case of judicial activism. They're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. The ends don't justify the means. If it takes layers of judicial bureaucracy and years just to determine the "correct" interpretation of something that should be pretty clear, there are major systemic flaws.

I think we can agree that in modern times that law does not stick to the Constitution strictly enough. I don't agree with you on the law in question, however.

Going by the principle of literal and absolute interpretation of the Constitution, preventing corporations from pushing religion on their employees would not be unconstitutional. Here's the key:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Syntactically and lexically, this is not ambiguous. Congress cannot pass laws respecting or prohibiting the free expression of an establishment of religion. Congress can, however, make laws restricting religion in general, including ones which apply to corporations or other businesses. Diskeeper is not an establishment of religion, nor does the law prohibit the free expression of Scientology.

What should be the First Amendment clause is a different discussion entirely.


RE: Private Enterprise
By DFranch on 12/23/2008 1:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the 1st Amendment is meant to protect an individuals right to exercise the religion of their choice. Not to protect a business and allow them to force employees to join their religion (cult).


RE: Private Enterprise
By NullSubroutine on 12/25/2008 12:19:23 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, only citizens have rights. Not companies, corporations, or the government. Only people.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Grast on 12/22/2008 12:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
The sticking point to your argument is the assumption that a company has rights. A company and/or business is a fictional entity used for the purpose of creating a revenue stream. A company/business is not a person/citizen. Therefore it does not have the same rights and privleges of a real person.

My only sticking point is the same as Masher's. Why are small businesses given a pass. The anwser is simple; Money or the lack their of.

Later...


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 12:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
> " A company and/or business is a fictional entity used for the purpose of creating a revenue stream."

No, not quite. If the company isn't a corporation, then legally it equates to its owners, and its actions are their actions. A corporation, in contrast, is a fictional entity, endowed with certain rights that resemble those of individuals. The law in question here restricts all businesses, whether proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations.

In any case, you've missed the thesis entirely. The issue is not that the Constitution guarantees rights for businesses, but that it bars Congress from creating laws which restrict the free practice of religion.


RE: Private Enterprise
By nah on 12/22/2008 1:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but that it bars Congress from creating laws which restrict the free practice of religion.


So--theoretically, if one were to establish a religion where public expressions of sexual desire were acceptable (and indeed necessary--if one were to work for such a firm which believed in that religion--a la Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, e.g)--it would be OK for that particular firm's employees to have sex with each other because it was 'religious worship'


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 3:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
theoretically, if one were to establish a religion where public expressions of sexual desire were acceptable...it would be OK for that particular firm's employees to have sex with each other because it was 'religious worship'
Why not? If you don't like the rules of employment, don't take the job. Or are you afraid that this would be such a popular option, adopted by so many firms, that abstainers would be unable to find employment elsewhere?


RE: Private Enterprise
By nah on 12/22/2008 7:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why not? If you don't like the rules of employment, don't take the job.


Again--if its clearly mentioned, not if it's not specified in the contract that 'we shall bombard you with religious indoctrination until ye submit, or we are victorious '


RE: Private Enterprise
By King of All Cynics on 12/24/2008 4:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you were hired to be a programmer, but you had to have sex with your manager to fit in with their cult and get a promotion, that would be considered... religious worship.

You don't like it, hit the road I guess.


RE: Private Enterprise
By deadrats on 12/27/2008 5:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe that the argument against this is that the "Civil Rights Act" - while a great thing to advance equality - directly contradicts an companies right to have freedom of religion (which you may argue doesn't exist). In effect, the Civil Rights Act takes away the right for a private company to have a religion. As valuable as the restriction may be, it is argued that the restriction itself is unconstitutional.


here's the problem, a company is not a living thing in and of itself, it is no more capable of espousing religous beliefs than a desk is. a company is composed of people, that are protected by the u.s. constitution, and they are the ones with the freedom of religion.

now i have no problem with a religious organization that has the requirement that any potential employee be of a given faith, i.e. a jewish organization only hiring jews, a catholic church only hiring catholics or a mosque only hiring muslims.

but a business, a company, a collection of individuals working together to sell a product, whether this company is public or private, is not a religious organization, it is ridiculous for them to have a requirement that an employee must be of a given religious faith, that in no way impacts the employees ability to do his/her job.

furthermore, even if we accept the mistaken notion that company in and of itself is also entitled to freedom of religion protections, that still does not mean that the company's freedom of religion does or should take priority over the individuals freedom of religion.

equal protection under the law means just that, we are all treated equally, if the company has the right to believe what it wants, then the employees should have the same right as well.


RE: Private Enterprise
By theapparition on 12/22/2008 11:42:23 AM , Rating: 2
Private companies can set whatever rules they wish for employees, as long as they don't violate the law . The EEOC will be all over this, as not only is it illegal to deny employment based on religion, it is similarly illegal to establish a hostile working enviroment by maintaining a religious theme that a reasonable person of another religion would be discriminated by.


RE: Private Enterprise
By DtTall on 12/22/2008 11:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
I believe that the argument against this is that the "Civil Rights Act" - while a great thing to advance equality - directly contradicts an companies right to have freedom of religion (which you will argue doesn't exist). In effect, the Civil Rights Act takes away the right for a private company to have a religion. As valuable as the restriction may be, it is argued that the restriction itself is unconstitutional.

A similar argument is what surrounds "Affirmative Action". In essence, when you cut through all the politics, you are discriminating - for good or bad - on the basis of race. With the Civil Rights Act in place, this would seem to break the law.


RE: Private Enterprise
By nah on 12/22/2008 1:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A private company should be able to set whatever standards they wish for employees


A pretty broad view--where does the freedom of expression of companies stop,and that of employees start


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 3:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
where does the freedom of expression of companies stop,and that of employees start
The same place as any contractual arrangement -- on the dotted line. Employment is a contract to exchange certain services for money. If you don't want to perform the services requested, then don't take the job. If you take the job then later decide you don't want to perform-- then quit.

What's wrong with freedom? It used to be a pretty good idea.


RE: Private Enterprise
By nah on 12/22/2008 7:28:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What's wrong with freedom? It used to be a pretty good idea.


Nothing at all--except that I'm pretty sure that the company failed to mention that it was going to bombard its employees with religious indoctrination every chance they got


RE: Private Enterprise
By Dabruuzer on 12/23/2008 1:13:04 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly - and that's the problem here. Personally, I find it quite horrific that a company can do this to their employees.


RE: Private Enterprise
By MatthiasF on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Private Enterprise
By Bateluer on 12/22/2008 10:23:45 AM , Rating: 5
I do not believe that even a private company can fire employees over their religious beliefs. It'd be a violation of their rights to not be discriminated against by race,color, or creed.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Bender 123 on 12/22/2008 10:42:32 AM , Rating: 3
I agree, but the discrimination must be based on things not related to the job.

A Catholic school not hiring/firing a Jewish secretary is wrong.

A Catholic School not hiring/firing a Jewish teacher, whose job entails teaching the Catholic Religion, is OK.

I have worked for a Catholic Hospital system that hired anybody, but the benefits were based on Catholic teachings (because the Nuns are in charge). People called discrimination when they found out contraception, vasectomy and non medical necessary hysterectomy were specifically not covered by the health plan...but what do you expect...its run by nuns.

As for the above case...software design has nothing to do with religion and shame on the company for forcing people into their religion.


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 11:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People called discrimination when they found out contraception, vasectomy and non medical necessary hysterectomy were specifically not covered by the health plan...but what do you expect...its run by nuns.
This is different, they have the right to choose which services they wish to provide. They cannot hire or fire someone based on religious beliefs. Of course there are exceptions, for example if the job in question requires a certain religious belief. (such as a priest)

In this case, firing someone after being hired is completely unacceptable.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
The company can claim that the management practices they taught do relate to software quality and are, of themselves, not religious.

For example, Jews don't eat pork or observe Christmas. If your employer forbids these, are they forcing you to practice Judaism, even if they don't mention any spiritual beliefs themselves?

My own opinion is that government has intruded too far into people's lives, and that lawsuits like this enrich only lawyers, to the detriment of us all. If Diskeeper wants to limit their pool of available employees so sharply, more power to them. It's a self-correcting problem that will likely result in their going out of business shortly anyway.


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:40:15 AM , Rating: 3
> "...nobody can make you observe Christmas or eat pork"

Eh? Many companies have formal Christmas parties, celebrations, and activities. At times, employees are even required to participate.

As for being required to eat pork, what if you're an oil worker on location in the Gulf of Mexico, and the only food the company flies in for workers is pork?


RE: Private Enterprise
By Sunrise089 on 12/22/2008 11:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you could fish, eat oil, or fast :)


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 12:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At times, employees are even required to participate.
Since the 1970s, is this still true? My understanding is that mandatory attendance of a Christmas party would be illegal unless it was for business purposes and one's job role was needed.

quote:
As for being required to eat pork, what if you're an oil worker on location in the Gulf of Mexico, and the only food the company flies in for workers is pork?
People will become very, very unhealthy relatively quickly. Everyone will quit their jobs and the company will go out of business because of high turnover. This analogy is too unrealistic to be useful.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 1:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My understanding is that mandatory attendance of a Christmas party would be illegal
Incorrect. Companies can and do mandate attendance at Holiday parties:

http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=18373...

quote:
People will become very, very unhealthy relatively quickly. Everyone will quit their jobs and the company will go out of business because of high turnover. This analogy is too unrealistic to be useful.
Now you're just being silly. I didn't suggest a company would feed its workers nothing but pork continuously for years on end. But the possibility of a company bringing its workers nothing but pork sandwiches for a day or two is very real.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 3:37:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now you're just being silly.
Ambiguous or poor communication on your part does not make me silly.
quote:
I didn't suggest a company would feed its workers nothing but pork continuously for years on end.
Yes, you did. You did not specify a time frame and as such, implied a long period of time. The fact that you were responding to "nobody can make you eat pork" also implies that it is the only food available ever, and as such one must eat it.
quote:
But the possibility of a company bringing its workers nothing but pork sandwiches for a day or two is very real.
People can go a day or two without eating. If eating pork or going hungry is an unacceptable choice, they can complain or quit. That's capitalism and freedom. The company doesn't own the worker, and the worker has no obligation to the company.

quote:
Incorrect. Companies can and do mandate attendance at Holiday parties:
Cutting my quote off made me incorrect. Straw man, much?
quote:
(If attendance is mandatory, non-e[x]empt employees must be paid, but there is nothing that prohibits them from making it mandatory.)

quote:
They can require employees who do not attend to work an extra day.

Of course this would be legal. If you are paid to go to a holiday party or must work the hours separately that does not constitute mandatory attendance of a holiday party. You are being paid to work at that holiday party, even if your work equates to merely being there.

Moreover, attending a holiday party is does not constitute practicing that religion. I personally have have had numerous paid "Christmas" lunches and parties over the last few years, and as a practicing Jew was quite pleased to attend. Free food, Christmas music (religious music =! prayer), and not actually working? Sounds good to me. There is no forced practice of religion at holiday parties. Even if there were, you can choose to work at a different time in lieu of attending the "party," according to the link you provided.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 4:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact that you were responding to "nobody can make you eat pork" also implies that it is the only food available ever, and as such one must eat it.
Err, people eat 3 times a day under normal circumstances. Bring nothing but pork sandwiches for one day and most people will consider themselves as being forced to eat or starve.

> "Cutting my quote off made me incorrect. Straw man, much?"

The portion I excluded was "...unless it was for business purposes and one's job role was needed". But in the example I cited, the mandatory attendance was *not* for business purposes.

Your statement was erroneous. Companies can and do mandate attendance at holiday parties. They may or may not allow extra work time in place of attendance.

> "Moreover, attending a holiday party is does not constitute practicing that religion"

Very true. And watching a management tape does not constitute practicing Scientology. See the connection?


RE: Private Enterprise
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 4:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Your Link to the forum has the lady saying that they either go to the party or must work their normal day. That is called a choice where I am from, meaning it is no longer mandatory. Also they called it a holiday party, meaning it has no set doctrine to even follow. Also it is a friggin' forum!


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 5:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Did you not read the post below that, from the site adminstrator, explaining that many companies mandate Holiday party attendance. Are you disputing this? My own wife's company does as well.

Here's another link, this one from an HR manager:
quote:
Many workplaces will celebrate these holidays with social activities, typically luncheons or after-hours parties. Attendance at these parties often is mandatory...
http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workfor...


RE: Private Enterprise
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 5:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you not read the post below that, from the site adminstrator, explaining that many companies mandate Holiday party attendance. Are you disputing this? My own wife's company does as well. Here's another link, this one from an HR manager:


Yet as I said, they have a choice in the scenario you showed. Also it was called a holiday party, doesn't specify what kind of holiday, just holiday.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 5:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Err, people eat 3 times a day under normal circumstances. Bring nothing but pork sandwiches for one day and most people will consider themselves as being forced to eat or starve.
Starve =! going hungry. I don't see any room for argument. One can reasonably go for a day without food, usually two. It's neither here nor there, since they can still quit.
quote:

Your statement was erroneous. Companies can and do mandate attendance at holiday parties. They may or may not allow extra work time in place of attendance.
My statement began with "My understanding..." I am open to correction, despite my arguments. However, I've not heard or seen legal precedent yet that is in contradiction with my understanding of the law. Regardless, I will need to research this subject further on my own to know the specifics -- and because this conversation has made me curious.
quote:
But in the example I cited, the mandatory attendance was *not* for business purposes.
If one is paid, how is it not for business purposes?

quote:
Very true. And watching a management tape does not constitute practicing Scientology. See the connection?
That depends on the tape contents. A holiday party which had forced prayer on participants -- again, by my understanding of the law -- could be deemed illegal. Likewise, my understanding of Scientology that is that the practice of Scientology does require mandatory viewings of Scientology videos -- some humorously having Tom Cruise, I'll add for no reason. Since Scientologists do not worship a figure (even Hubbard is not a deity in their view) but this is an integral part of their religion, is this not analogous to prayer? I certainly don't see it as analogous to Christmas parties, which are have remarkably little to do with Christmas, Christ, or Christianity.

In any case, you should note that I have never claimed to be in favor of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. I do not know the specifics of what they were required to do beyond what's stated in the article, which certainly doesn't have all the details. If what they were forced should be legally interpreted as religion and as such their dismissals violated US law, then I would hope for them to win.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 6:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
> " Likewise, my understanding of Scientology that is that the practice of Scientology does require mandatory viewings of Scientology videos "

An excellent example of the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. "If A then B" does not equate to "If B, then A. "

In more concrete terms, a Christian church may require members to wear suits. That does not mean that wearing suits is a Christian activity.

> "It's neither here nor there, since they can still quit...If one is paid, how is it not for business purposes?"

Your argument has slipped off the deep end here. The CIO at the heart of this article was paid to watch these instructional tapes, and he could have quit at any time. The insinuation that either of these cases somehow makes the analogy irrelevant is therefore specious.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 8:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
An excellent example of the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. "If A then B" does not equate to "If B, then A. "

In more concrete terms, a Christian church may require members to wear suits. That does not mean that wearing suits is a Christian activity.
Nor do Kosher laws mean that refusing to eat pork is a Jewish activity -- to use your own analogy.

Regardless, you've misrepresented my view once again. My logic is not "Scientologists watch Scientology videos; ergo, watching Scientology videos is a religious act." Certainly, you could take it that way since I didn't comprehensively justify the conclusion that Scientology indoctrination videos are inherently religious. I had hoped you would take that for granted by your own logic.

Ironically, you have used the similar fallacy. Your premise relies on denying the antecedent. "If A implies B, then not B implies not A." By your logic: If an activity required by a religious institution is unique to that religious institution, it is religious. Ergo, if an activity carried out by that religious institution isn't unique to that religious institution, it is not religious.

By your logic, there is no such thing as a religious activity since any traditionally religious activity can potentially be non-religious.

This fallacious logic does not apply to this case, since unlike requiring suits, Scientology indoctrination by definition is unique to Scientology.

Regardless of whether it is unique to Scientology, Scientology indoctrination is inherently religious, as is any religious indoctrination by definition. They were forced to undergo Scientology indoctrination, as Scientologists and only Scientologists do as a dogmatic, absolute tenet of their religion.

Praying to Christ is a Christian activity as is a far more apt comparison. Wearing a suit, conversely, is a cultural requirement of the church's leaders, not a religious one.

One can certainly watch Scientology video for educational purposes or study Christian prayer or the Christian bible, but they are inherently religious activities.

quote:

Your argument has slipped off the deep end here. The CIO at the heart of this article was paid to watch these instructional tapes, and he could have quit at any time. The insinuation that either of these cases somehow makes the analogy irrelevant is therefore specious.

These tapes, according to the defendant, are religious indoctrination, not instructional videos. I do not know this for a fact but my understanding of our discussion is that this is implied. Certainly I'm not assuming this is true (though I highly suspect it is), and as such I do not have an "official" standpoint on this case.

If you want to simply make the point that they could quit at any time if they didn't want to watch the videos, that is valid but not pertinent to existing US employee protection law nor, as such, this conversation. What the law ought to be is a subject on which we would almost certainly be in more agreement.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Bender 123 on 12/22/2008 12:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
A clinic, I worked for several years, went like this...

Year 1: Christmas Party -People got offended by religious name
Year 2: Holiday Party -Somebody got offended because there was no holiday in their religion around that time of the year...
Year 3: Winter Party...Wiccan staff person offended because they celebrated the Winter solstice and it was offensive to her that we would steal this day and belittle its meaning.
Year 4: Annual party...

How far do we want to go? The party stayed the same, but we kept changing the name because of a grand total of six people out of a staff of over 300.


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 12:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
If only more people watched Seinfeld..

FESTIVOUS; FOR THE REST OF US PARTY!!!!

would have solved everything ;)


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 12:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eh? Many companies have formal Christmas parties, celebrations, and activities. At times, employees are even required to participate.
Lets clear a few things up here, you can go to a work Christmas party without observing the holiday. Observing Christmas literally means you celebrate the holiday. In fact before WW2 many jews used to put up Christmas trees and would sing Christmas carols at school.

My grandma (who is orthodox) gives out food at a homeless shelter every christmas, they would say that 'serving/giving is not observing'
quote:
As for being required to eat pork, what if you're an oil worker on location in the Gulf of Mexico, and the only food the company flies in for workers is pork? What if I had diabetes
I think you are stretching a bit, there are many situations where someone can't eat a certain kind of food, and the employer would have to deal with it. What if I was was a Christian allergic to pork? Furthermore Nobody can survive on pork alone, so lets just debunk this one here, unless you are looking to get a case of scurvy or malnourishment, which would be illegal for the employer to do.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 1:30:47 PM , Rating: 1
> "you can go to a work Christmas party without observing the holiday. "

And you can watch a scientology tape without observing the religion. Being forced to attend a religious party vs. being forced to hear a religious text-- the difference, if any, is slight.

> "I think you are stretching a bit..."

I'm not stretching in the least, as any Orthodox Jew realizes. The problem of acquiring kosher food in certain workplaces is very real.


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 2:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you can watch a scientology tape without observing the religion. Being forced to attend a religious party vs. being forced to hear a religious text-- the difference, if any, is slight.
I would tend to agree, but this was not the case here. They attempted to force them to convert religions, not merely attend events on their workplaces time.
quote:
I'm not stretching in the least, as any Orthodox Jew realizes. The problem of acquiring kosher food in certain workplaces is very real.
The situation you named falls under the category of disrupting the business. I don't think your example is very good either, I can go as far as saying nobody can force an oil rig to have a church onboard either, so in this case what would a Christian do if he can't go to church? Is the owner of the oil rig at fault? Or is the worker at fault for putting himself in that position. 9 times out of 10, my bet is the law would side with the oil rig.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 3:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would tend to agree, but this was not the case here. They attempted to force them to convert religions, not merely attend events on their workplaces time.
It's my understanding that Diskeeper disputes that they attempted to force anyone to join Scientology, or that they did anything but require them to watch materials which are, in their opinion, both necessary for work and nonreligious in nature.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 5:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you can watch a scientology tape without observing the religion. Being forced to attend a religious party vs. being forced to hear a religious text-- the difference, if any, is slight.
As I stated elsewhere, I disagree. A holiday party, be it a plain "holiday" party or a Christmas, Hanukkah, Festivus, party, is rarely, if ever, religious in nature. There is usually some sharing of the culture and traditions of the religion or its followers, but almost never of religious practices.

For argument's sake, one could have a "religious party," as you put it, which actually involves practicing the religion. That would, however, be very different from a holiday party, and being fired over not attending would be grounds for suit, as I would understand it.


RE: Private Enterprise
By croc on 12/22/2008 6:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "...nobody can make you observe Christmas or eat pork"

Eh? Many companies have formal Christmas parties, celebrations, and activities. At times, employees are even required to participate.

As for being required to eat pork, what if you're an oil worker on location in the Gulf of Mexico, and the only food the company flies in for workers is pork?

Any oil rig that only supplied one type of food would not produce much oil that day... The workers would 'down tools' until proper food was brought out


RE: Private Enterprise
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 8:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eh? Many companies have formal Christmas parties, celebrations, and activities. At times, employees are even required to participate.


My father's company decided at one point they were going to stop paying overtime. In my state, that is illegal, but they still did it. They ended up with a lawsuit and had to pay everyone back pay overtime. Just cause someone does something and gets away with it, doesn't mean it is legal.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 12:13:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The company can claim that the management practices they taught do relate to software quality and are, of themselves, not religious.

The company can claim that, but if the specifics of the situation prove otherwise they will lose. If they can't reasonably convince the judge that the teachings were completely pertinent to their product, they will not get far with this claim.
quote:
For example, Jews don't eat pork or observe Christmas. If your employer forbids these, are they forcing you to practice Judaism, even if they don't mention any spiritual beliefs themselves?
This example is inherently flawed. Those rules prohibit workers and from eating pork and practicing religion in the workplace. It's logically fallacious from the start. You could replace "Judaism" with Islam in this example, since Muslims also do not eat pork or celebrate Christmas. The tenets of Judaism are far more complicated that merely following Kosher laws, and in fact celebrating Christmas is not a contradiction to Judaism so long as you do not engage in worship of Christ (and to claim that that is what is done on Christmas would be stunningly inaccurate).


RE: Private Enterprise
By PAPutzback on 12/22/2008 10:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
This is about the dumbest thing I have heard. So an Italian restaurant should be able to hire Italians only. A company owned by a white man should be able to hire whites only. Take your racist crap somewhere else DtTall.


RE: Private Enterprise
By kattanna on 12/22/2008 10:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So an Italian restaurant should be able to hire Italians only


funnily enough.. when ever i go to Asian restaurants.. SURPRISE!! its being run by Asians..

though we all know its Hispanics who rule/work in the kitchens


RE: Private Enterprise
By Meinolf on 12/22/2008 10:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. I don't think anyone has the right to force any religion on anyone privately held companies or not. Scientology is the one of dumbest religions out there but I would not force my religion on anyone.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 11:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
Whoa! First, he say religion, not race. There is a big difference.

More importantly, he was clearly bringing it up as a point of discussion, not saying he agreed with the position or disagreed. It is certainly a valid discussion and a relatively innocent post. Your straw man and ad hominem attacks are uncalled for.


RE: Private Enterprise
By CSMR on 12/22/2008 10:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think so too. I am not pro scientology but if you want to support/discriminate against particular religious beliefs you should do so by other means than corporate law. Leave corporate law to promoting economic goals, and leave religious/racial/social/etc issues to direct government policy or personal freedom.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Inkjammer on 12/22/2008 10:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but if you work for the Catholic church you work for the religion. Directly. Promoting Catholicism is their mission statement, so I'm sure that in their defense they could argue Judaism could be a conflict of interest. Would it hold up in court? Probably not, no. But there is an expectation that people working for a religion be of certain faith.

Now, if Diskeeper distributed Dianetics with their software...


RE: Private Enterprise
By bighairycamel on 12/22/2008 10:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
That's a terrible analogy. Religious "businesses" (A catholic church in your example) have tax implications in which they are recognized differently by the government. Even though Diskeeper is a private company, they are at the very least an incorporated company, in which they have to obligate to, and meet, all applicable labor laws.

The irony here, is that Diskeeper claims that this lawsuit would infringe on their right to freedom of religion, yet they FIRED people for conscientiously objecting to the Hubbard lessons because of their own religious beliefs. Hypocrites.


RE: Private Enterprise
By marvdmartian on 12/22/2008 11:09:40 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with this whole argument is that this company argues that the lawsuit violates the COMPANY'S first amendment rights. Um, I'm not a constitutional law scholar or anything, but exactly how does a COMPANY have a religious right?? The individuals within the company have the rights, not the company itself.

The constitution was written to guarantee rights to people, not corporations. Here's what I pulled (quickly) from Wikipedia, to help explain this point:

quote:
The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.


And here's what the Bill of Rights says about freedom of religion (this company's basis for their argument):

quote:
Freedom of religion is the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It is generally recognized to also include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.


Therefore, in my mind, what this says is that these individuals have the right to NOT believe in or practise Scientology, and the subsequent civil rights laws brought into practise in the 60's guarantee that they cannot be fired for doing so.

This company's argument is flawed, imho, and their challenge should be thrown out. I hope these guys get a huge settlement out of this!


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And here's what the Bill of Rights says about freedom of religion..
Err, no-- that's what some Wikipedia editor says about freedom of religion.

This is what the Bill of Rights says:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In no way does it say that a private company cannot require its employees to take classes which may (or may not) bear pseudo-religious overtones.


RE: Private Enterprise
By clovell on 12/23/2008 12:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point here, Michael. But, when the rubber hits the road, the government is in the cumbersome position of both not legislating religion, while also protecting an individual's right to religious freedom (within the bounds of the law).

So, in these types of situations, where black and white blend nicely into one another, maybe it's best to allow a jury to decide. While American law has many shortcomings, one of the greatest aspects it holds is that it is often self-correcting. This will run its course.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 12:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
You are right on one count and wrong on another. A corporate entity is not entitled to constitution rights applied to individuals. However corporations consist of individuals, so to a limited degree the Bill of Rights can be used to protect their actions, depending on the specifics.

Reading the Wikipedia article has given you a dangerously inaccurate idea of what the constitution says about religion. See Masher's post -- the government simply cannot require an individual to celebrate or not celebrate Scientology. The Constitution does not prevent an employer from doing this. Other laws, however, do.


RE: Private Enterprise
By japlha on 12/22/2008 11:16:30 AM , Rating: 2
I'm leaning to agree with you. Isn't discrimination part of a "free" society? We should be able to choose how we want to operate our own business.
Diskeeper could have just disguised company policy but not stating that it was scientology. In a tacit way the company is promoting the Scientology beliefs.
Now people saying they won't recommend the product? Why?
If the product works who cares if it's made by a bunch of Hubbardites?


RE: Private Enterprise
By BillyAZ1983 on 12/22/2008 1:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
As you like to point out, yes we are in a "free society" and yes, that does come with the potential of discrimination of another based on anything from religion or race. But with that also comes the added benefit of being able to make a responsible,reasonable, and informed decision based on the information presented to you.

I am all for religious freedom but when a religion believes, and I am paraphrasing here, that everyone sucks and has mental issues because someone else's soul has taken over my body, causing all my mental instability, and the only way to rid myself of this is take church "perscribed" therapy which costs me hundreds of thousands of dollars over my lifetime, No I don't see that as being practical nor something that would be appropriate for the workplace. Scientologists are the least accepting group of people I have ever dealt with in my life.

If you have not looked into them before, the internet is a wonderful thing. Trust me when I tell you, you will be absolutely appaled at the things theey pull if you say something they don't like. Putting people outside your home saying you are religious bigot and handing out fliers stating as much to all your neighbors is very appropriate and is something I see all other churches do if I tell them they're "idiots".

I know my opinion of them seems very biased, but I promise you its not. Its something I've spent many hours on and I can honestly say I've made a responsible and logical choice when it comes to not supporting anything that involves scientology including the purchase of any products or materials that may even remotely contribute to that group of radicals.


RE: Private Enterprise
By ZmaxDP on 12/22/2008 12:39:42 PM , Rating: 1
I'm actually with you on this one to an extent. I think the government is here to protect individual's rights, but as far as I'm aware there is no right to employment at a given company. The government has a duty to protect people from discrimination in society at large, but not a private company specifically.

That being said, if it were allowed it would need to be disclosed to potential employees prior to being hired, and it would need to be publicly disclosed on any promotional or sales related information. (Somewhere on their box it would need to say it was a Scientology-only workplace). I think this disclosure would sink any company doing something society at large found displeasing while still keeping the government out of private business.

I'm not sure it would work, but theoretically it fits into my whole minimal government influence shtick. That whole applying theory to reality bit really messes things up though. There might be just enough scientologists to keep the company going, and all of a sudden you are creating a focus for discrimination in the society and there could be some issues with retribution and public dissent, effectively reverse discrimination. It's a vicious cycle once it starts going...

Interesting debate topic at the least though!


RE: Private Enterprise
By Spectator on 12/22/2008 2:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
I like that Reverse stuff Here in the UK we use that also.

Specifically to this case; we would be more subtle. and just have our head hunters get them a job with someone else(avoid pension/severance; as they leave on thier own). then new company fire thier ass 1 month later.

Its simple business/greed logic. both companies work out the deal. And the person ends up shafted its all good. :(


Simple formula
By isorfir on 12/22/2008 10:09:33 AM , Rating: 5
Religion + workplace = fail




RE: Simple formula
By arazok on 12/22/2008 10:15:20 AM , Rating: 5
Religion based on blatantly absurd storyline + crazy people = success


RE: Simple formula
By isorfir on 12/22/2008 10:28:04 AM , Rating: 5
Wait, isn't that every religion?


RE: Simple formula
By nayy on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Simple formula
By PhoenixKnight on 12/22/2008 11:18:16 AM , Rating: 5
What's so crazy about worshipping a carpenter that lived 2000 years ago?


RE: Simple formula
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:23:52 AM , Rating: 2
Or a flying glob of pasta?


RE: Simple formula
By Bender 123 on 12/22/2008 11:47:37 AM , Rating: 5
Its not the worship of a spaghetti monster or a carpenter, its about the lessons and teaching...

Be good to one another, protect life, be a decent human being and avoid giving in to the vices that can destroy your life.

I have never met a Mormon i didnt think was a nice/decent person and I think the base of that religion is a screwed up as they come, but I cant argue with the results. I dont care if it was a half pony/half monkey monster that teaches these lessons. The lesson is worth while to know and live by...


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Simple formula
By Bender 123 on 12/22/2008 12:12:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It is all an act, I think "be yourself" is the proper adage here. People aren't going to love everyone and hold hands in unison because that isn't how any animal is.


That is precisely what most religion tries to overcome (despite some bad examples)...The goal is to be something more than animals. We have abilities to improve ourselves and move forward by ignoring our animal instincts and try to do things better.

Dont confuse the teachings of religion with the bastardization that flawed humans teach terrorists, pedophile priests, fear mongerors stealing money, etc, are not religious people, just people using peoples desire to better against them, like any other con artist...

Or if it suits us we can all beat down the weaker people, kill folks for revenge, shun those different than us...


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 12:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is precisely what most religion tries to overcome (despite some bad examples)...The goal is to be something more than animals. We have abilities to improve ourselves and move forward by ignoring our animal instincts and try to do things better.


Clearly this is not the case. It is a simple formula, you swoop in promising hope and then eventually turn it into a control mechanism. It has happened with every religion we have ever seen.

quote:
Dont confuse the teachings of religion with the bastardization that flawed humans teach terrorists, pedophile priests, fear mongerors stealing money, etc, are not religious people, just people using peoples desire to better against them, like any other con artist...


I'm not, it is the goal of all religion for control over people, not to better them. No matter how cleverly hidden, it is always there.

quote:
Or if it suits us we can all beat down the weaker people, kill folks for revenge, shun those different than us...


Happens all the time, just on a global scale, so we call it by a different name. It is still the same thing and I don't fault anyone for doing it. Society, not religion, is there to try to stop this from happening in communities. If everyone robbed, killed and stole from people in their community, there would be no one to take care of their needs in the end and no one even left to rob or kill. It isn't religion, it is just common sense. Self preservation is the ultimate instinct in every living thing.

As for the shunning, religion is the ultimate example of it. They love to shun those different than them, that is indoctrinated in them. They are not morally superior, they have just convinced you they are.

Empowering the religious by saying they are the ultimate equilibrium of morals is a bad thing to do. You give them the power to judge everyone at that point and slip them into what they see as right.


RE: Simple formula
By AMDJunkie on 12/22/2008 1:28:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
it is the goal of all religion for control over people, not to better them.
Most people define so called "betterment" as control in the first place. 12-step programs give you "control" over a problem, one learns to "control" their impulses to act more acceptably in society. A person who shows restraint is often seen as wise, a person who does not is rash. So control can very well be seen as an improving force.
quote:
Happens all the time, just on a global scale, so we call it by a different name. It is still the same thing and I don't fault anyone for doing it. Society, not religion, is there to try to stop this from happening in communities.
That supposes that societies do not carry with them the prejudices of the religions they were founded/surrounded by. An atheist might see say, eating domestic animals we know as pets, wrong for no reason other than it displeases him or her; or it simply "seems" to be wrong. Likewise, atheist populations are still not free from prejudices against foreigners (Europe comes to mind) simply because they have no god or religion to tell them that a people are unclean or inferior. They may have fewer of them, or less justification for such behavior, but they are not free of them.

So yes, religions are not the "ultimate equilibrium of morals," but they simply are an interpretation of what good behavior is, and I argue that is all any person, group, or society can provide. They will all consider something wrong, regardless of whether they are religious or not, that another group of people, religious or not, may accept.


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 2:14:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Most people define so called "betterment" as control in the first place. 12-step programs give you "control" over a problem, one learns to "control" their impulses to act more acceptably in society. A person who shows restraint is often seen as wise, a person who does not is rash. So control can very well be seen as an improving force.


Self control and controlling others are two different things entirely. If you think someone else controlling you is OK, then I have no argument. I assume you as most everyone hate other people controlling you so you should see the folly in religion.

An interpretation of good behavior can be made without an imaginary force. That is the point of society in general is to make acceptable guidelines to benefit everyone. To think that people require to be lied to and talked to like children is rather insulting to the average person.

Religion is a crutch of the masses. There is a point where you have to get off the crutch and rehabilitate. Learn to do things on your own without the crutch.

This stated, I am fine with people having the right to practice it, but that does not mean it is above scrutiny.


RE: Simple formula
By Bender 123 on 12/22/2008 3:17:13 PM , Rating: 3
I like debating reasoned people!

Religion in its purest sense is a crutch, i will give you that, but it is the traditional carrot and stick that any parent has used with their children.

Teaching a better way to treat yourself and others is nothing without a reward/punishment, and thus, it is a crutch which many people depend on to help them tell right from wrong, good from evil, etc.

Heaven and hell are motivators for people to do good that tells them the cost of stealing/killing is greater than the income or revenge you get. No different than my daughters get chocolate milk before bed if they are good or sent to bed early if they are bad. Whatever helps people be more than animals is fine by me.

My problem is when people abuse the faith of the masses for personal gain. Boil away the Vatican/corrupt imams/Jewish leadership/others i may have missed, and religion is nothing more than guidelines on how to be a good person.


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 3:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I like debating reasoned people!


I have to agree, I thank you for that as well.

quote:
Heaven and hell are motivators for people to do good that tells them the cost of stealing/killing is greater than the income or revenge you get. No different than my daughters get chocolate milk before bed if they are good or sent to bed early if they are bad. Whatever helps people be more than animals is fine by me.


I have to disagree, they are not motivators, they are fear tactics and threats. I would equate this to "I will kill you if you don't do this". Examples would be Judaism, they do not have a belief in hell, yet they are still what most would call decent as a whole. Tribes that still exist to this day that have no real doctrine of faith to speak of are reasonably decent people.

At one point they polled a random tribe with no religion and asked them what kept them from stealing or killing others in the tribe. Somewhere around 75% of them responded by saying that fear of being ostracized and hated was the number one deterrent. In other words a fear of no longer being respected by their peers.

Now, this is still fear, but it is not a fear the other people place into them as a deterrent, it is a fear they have found on their own based on the same way they would respond to it being done to them. This would be a prime example of the Golden Rule (not based in any religion, goes at least as far back as Ancient Greek philosophers).

I will say that being a good person clearly transcends religion, it is realizing that it will benefit you to treat others well in a society. Is it self serving? Of course, but so is everything. When you break it down, no one does anything just to be nice, they do it to get something out of it. Whether that is a feeling of accomplishment, that nice feeling caused by brain chemicals for doing something good, pride, wealth and so on. It all stems from doing something for yourself and self preservation. People are quite a bit more simple when you really get down to it than people like to say.


RE: Simple formula
By Bender 123 on 12/22/2008 4:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I will say that being a good person clearly transcends religion, it is realizing that it will benefit you to treat others well in a society. Is it self serving? Of course, but so is everything. When you break it down, no one does anything just to be nice, they do it to get something out of it. Whether that is a feeling of accomplishment, that nice feeling caused by brain chemicals for doing something good, pride, wealth and so on. It all stems from doing something for yourself and self preservation. People are quite a bit more simple when you really get down to it than people like to say.


Agreed. Take away the religious context and anybody can be a decent person with some effort. I always learned, insurance companies dont build railroad crossing lights to be good...they do it because it costs less than a policy holder getting hit by a train.

Glad there there are still rational people and positions out there, even if we dont agree on everything!


RE: Simple formula
By callmeroy on 12/22/2008 4:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
LOL -- well you are all entertaining in your dribble I'll give you that.

I just love how much swirling hatred for those who believe (in any religion) is in this thread and the broad brushes you are all painting with.

Religion , like nearly anything, is how you take it and/or practice it. Sorry to disappoint you naysayers but I fully believe as does my whole family and extended family, most of my friends (shockingly I do have non-believer friends too). Its no crutch either, the biggest thing I hate with critism of religion is everyone just dramatically generalizes -- there were x amount of cases of priests who did this with little boys -- ok that means they all do, there are x amount of folks who are mind controlled by religion ok that means everyone is....I mean seriously folks...did you ever think how ABSURD you sound while saying those that believe are weak/absurd/mindless/etc.? Hypocrit much?


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 5:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
LOL -- well you are all entertaining in your dribble I'll give you that.


You mean drivel? I find it hilarious that you get mad over scrutiny, then come back and try to scrutinize.

quote:
I just love how much swirling hatred for those who believe (in any religion) is in this thread and the broad brushes you are all painting with.


Most people call it scrutiny, as nothing is above it. But you see what you want to see, that is more than clear by your belief system.

quote:
I mean seriously folks...did you ever think how ABSURD you sound while saying those that believe are weak/absurd/mindless/etc.? Hypocrit much?


I believe you should check the mirror my friend and would you please use the built in spell check?

This entire post of yours offers nothing, which leads me to believe you are one of the brainwashed and intellectually crippled religious types. That is fine, you are what you are, but don't try to argue with people who can put together an argument. I have argued with quite a bit more intelligent a religious person than yourself and had no problems dispatching their arguments, you are doing a disservice to your cause with this joke of an argument.


RE: Simple formula
By KCjoker on 12/22/2008 7:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
And you see what you want to see, touche. Also you sound very tolerant of other's beliefs, grats.


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 7:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you see what you want to see, touche. Also you sound very tolerant of other's beliefs, grats.


Your "argument" (or lack there of) is laughable. If you don't have any solid understanding of what anyone is talking about in the conversation, don't chime in with trite crap to try to make yourself seem important. If you believe in something that shapes your life without proof, you are a fool. In fact, if you believe in anything without at least some proof, I would deem you a fool as well.


RE: Simple formula
By lagomorpha on 12/22/2008 5:26:16 PM , Rating: 3
"Boil away the Vatican/corrupt imams/Jewish leadership/others i may have missed, and religion is nothing more than guidelines on how to be a good person."

Never read the Koran I see? Guidelines for being a good person can be pretty subjective. From a Muslim's point of view killing apostates is mandatory according to the Koran, and makes them a good person. From an outsider's perspective that might not make them such a good person.


RE: Simple formula
By Bender 123 on 12/23/2008 9:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
And the bible and Torah have similar statements. The thing to remember is that those who who choose to abide by the general code, and not the exact wording, will, more than likely, be decent people. According to Catholic Dogma (I am a Catholic) I should be stoning adulterers and slaughtering lambs at passover...I dont really get into that sort of thing...stains the carpets...It isnt hard to believe that there are many statements in the Koran that are similar.

The point being, the ten commandments (minus the sabbith and god ones at the begining), the pillars of Islam, etc...are pretty straightforward guidelines for people to live by and I have never seen an atheist that thought we should all go around stealing killing, disrespecting our parents, getting caught up in material worth and cheating on your wife were good things to do. Islam also teaches that drinking and drugs are sinful because it causes you to disrespect and lose control of yourself...I cant see any problem with those guidelines either.

As a manager in the medical complex, I work with many Muslim doctors, who come from Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Jordan. They are all very well mannered and are strict in their faith. They all read the Koran and we have had discussions about it. They feel the same way I do, they are stories, that attempt to lay down a rule of law for what was a nomadic society that bordered on savagery before Mohammad. The rules and laws are good but they are not always to be interpreted literally. When you do, you get abortion clinic bombers and people that fly airplanes into buildings.


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 10:56:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the bible and Torah have similar statements. The thing to remember is that those who who choose to abide by the general code, and not the exact wording, will, more than likely, be decent people. According to Catholic Dogma (I am a Catholic) I should be stoning adulterers and slaughtering lambs at passover...I dont really get into that sort of thing...stains the carpets...It isnt hard to believe that there are many statements in the Koran that are similar.


I agree, please don't take my scrutiny as saying all religious people are bad or anything of that nature, as I surely never meant that. But what I do say is that you have to see how it is hard to take a book seriously that says terrible horrid things, then in the same breath responds with things that pretty much everyone can agree are reasonable expectations. Once you have to start taking things in the bible or any other religious text and dissecting them and ignoring portions, you have effectively said you don't believe in some of it. This means you can't believe in any of it, cause if an omnipotent "god" made the text, then clearly he would want it clear so as not to confuse people further. To damn people to hell for misconstruing your orders is not omnipotent by anyone's standards, wouldn't you agree?

Most of those laws and commandments are taken from older societies like Greece, Rome, Babylon and China, which leads me to say that people are quite capable of good without religion. Hell, the Golden Rule alone is enough to make a decent society from and that is clearly not from religion.

I don't say that most individuals are not sincere in their faith, but if people truly self reflected I think we can see that people can be decent without religion. My main reason for discounting religion is that it tends to hinder critical thinking. If you say that god made something, that is the easy way out. Once again, this does not encompass every person of faith, but you have to agree it encompasses many.

A fine example: My mother is a bigot, she thinks gay people are bad and says they make a choice to be gay. If I argue it with her, she gets mad and yells. I'm 26 years old, she is a grown woman, why can't we have a normal conversation? She is so ingrained with her silly dogma, she won't even accept that they have shown brain function affects sexuality and the brains of homosexuals are different than normal people. She represents many a religious person, but not all of them of course.

You can fill in the blanks with just about any scientifically proven thing and you will get a religious person to argue with it and discount facts without even understanding them. Literally there are religious people fighting that gravity is only a theory and shouldn't be taught in schools. That is insane, just cause they don't 100% have it figured out yet doesn't mean a theory can be discounted. Theories go through considerable peer scrutiny in the scientific community, so the "just a theory" thing they love to say is a joke and clearly shows they are arguing against something they don't understand.

Once again, these are not directly towards you, just the general religious people who back these silly things. I was once pretty much just like you when I was in my mid teens. I didn't buy into the bible ever, I found church pretty silly most of the time, but I told myself I believed in some form of god. I eventually self reflected and asked myself why. Why would god be needed in this equation? I realized he isn't, I could be as good or bad as I desired, but good usually has better results. I realized I didn't need a god to explain anything or make my life better.

In the end my point is people don't need religion, they are just ingrained with it from a young age most of the time and just roll with it cause it is all they know. It's no coincidence that both I and my brother are atheist with deeply religious family members. My brother and I never talked about it till a bit later in life and were both surprised we shared similar ideologies after years of reflection independently. In the end though, if someone honestly feels they need religion, that is fine, but I would hope they keep an open mind and understand that while their faith may be protected, it is not above scrutiny.


RE: Simple formula
By Bender 123 on 12/23/2008 11:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
Well stated Gzus.

I have no desire to convert others to my direct line of thought, because, if you are a decent person, it doesn't matter what or who you worship or don't worship...

Having a belief in God, it would be arrogant to assume that, if we are all created to have free will, that God would be an absolutist and only provide one path to follow.


RE: Simple formula
By Wierdo on 12/22/2008 2:01:43 PM , Rating: 1
Though I don't always agree with your posts, I'd say based on personal opinion and experience that was nicely said. Ideology is really a problem allover the planet these days, and religion is unfortunately one of the most abused tools for pushing them.


RE: Simple formula
By Quiescent on 12/23/2008 1:15:03 AM , Rating: 2
You've spelt weirdo wrong. Yes, it's a pet-peeve.


RE: Simple formula
By Wierdo on 12/23/2008 12:31:27 PM , Rating: 3
It's on purpose :P


RE: Simple formula
By hlper on 12/22/2008 2:50:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I remember an episode of Gangland showed kids in Utah that were swindled into Mormonism and when not going to church or going on their silly outings, they were killing people and robbing


Right. Because you saw that on television (the ultimate bastion of truth and perspective) it must be true of all Mormons.


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 3:03:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Right. Because you saw that on television (the ultimate bastion of truth and perspective) it must be true of all Mormons.


I didn't realize examples that specify a place means everyone is that same way. You fail to see the point behind the statement, you merely take it at face value and critique. Also, History Channel isn't exactly known for showing falsities.

Either way, you didn't see the point cause you didn't want to. Mormons act the way they do to recruit, not to actually be that way. That is their driving force, I've met my share of them and that is what they are indoctrinated with all their life.


RE: Simple formula
By hlper on 12/22/2008 3:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
I am fairly sure you wanted us all to belive that what you saw on the History Channel was somehow indicative of some grand Mormon facade of niceness. I just don't see how a group of youths behaving badly, and outside the tennants of their chosen faith, has anything to do with religion one way or another. The fact is that your example is nothing more than sensational crap designed to support your personal bias.

I too have known a lot of Mormons, and I don't suspect any of them of any murders.

Finally, the History Channel may not lie, but it does need to tell the most exciting stories (and versions of stories) so that they can keep paying their employees. Wouldn't it be boring if they just told you about the millions of nice mormons


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 3:48:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am fairly sure you wanted us all to belive that what you saw on the History Channel was somehow indicative of some grand Mormon facade of niceness


Just an example, I could have used the Catholic molestations or the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or the Salem Witch Burnings to name a few to point out their clear hypocrisy and lies. Could have used the Catholic's consent of slavery or the backing of Hitler. I could use the many "Christian" rappers and street thugs that don't practice as they preach. The example still shows they will recruit anyone just so long as they can pretend to be good.

quote:
I too have known a lot of Mormons, and I don't suspect any of them of any murders.


I was unaware this was the only crime known to man. As stated, they are nice to kill you with kindness till they can be accepted. They were kicked out of most of the east coast (New York being their starting place) with mobs and torches.

So, they switched their tactic, be overly nice everyday. People will eventually accept even the worst of human beings so long as they play nice, that was the major point behind my example. Biker gangs giving presents to kids and playing Santa is a fine example as well. People will accept people if they seem honest and good, no matter what they may do otherwise. Does this mean they are all that bad? No, but it does mean that their main tactic as a church is to scam people into joining, believing and accepting them.


RE: Simple formula
By Myg on 12/22/2008 4:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
You shouldn't be so bothered by such tactics/etc if they are true. They will reap what they sow...

If all they are doing is recruiting people who don't really care about anything more then basic shallow feelings ("I can smile all day, yay"), then those people will probably change to something else that catches their idle whims eventually.


RE: Simple formula
By Vanners on 12/22/2008 4:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's true, being a Mormon doesn't make you a better persons. I should know, I am one. I have a lot of contact with a lot of Mormons and they come in all varieties.

What I can guarantee is that those that live the principals of the religion are better. You see the difference most in those that join as adults. If they live it they become more productive members of society, better fathers and mothers in their homes and better citizens. They remain who they are, but become better versions of themselves.

Those that don't live the principals remain as they were.

I would guess you could say the same for most religions. That is why religious freedom is protected; it benefits society.

...by their fruits you will know them...


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Simple formula
By MamiyaOtaru on 12/22/2008 11:36:12 PM , Rating: 3
Multiple wives? Splinter groups practice polygamy, yes. But doing so as a member of the church based in Salt Lake City will get you excommunicated.

You're either deliberately ignoring how things really are, ignorant, or saying that just to offend. None of those choices paints you as a rational person who might have something to say that I'd like to listen to.

In short: you've implied an untruth, and have pissed away a lot of your credibility.


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 8:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Multiple wives? Splinter groups practice polygamy, yes. But doing so as a member of the church based in Salt Lake City will get you excommunicated.


This was after they were run out of most states and were told by the government it was illegal, suddenly their religion changed, go figure. Just more of their usual game to make themselves seem OK, PR at its best.

All religions do that stuff, Catholics love to do it, so do the rest of them. Their bible condones slavery, tells you how much the slave is worth, how to beat your slave and who to enslave. Oddly enough, they ignore that now that it is considered barbaric, even though it is part of their holy text. It is a PR game they use to keep people around.


RE: Simple formula
By jimbojimbo on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Simple formula
By androticus on 12/22/2008 10:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need a whacked-out mythology to impart rational virtues. I would say that rational ideas that come from religious doctrines do so in spite of the irrational nature of those doctrines, not because of it.

Ayn Rand's moral theory of rational self-interest justifies and advocates many virtues such as honesty, hard work, treating people justly, respecting the rights of others, and so on, without reference to mysticism, irrationalism, or faith (which is basically a demand to surrender one's own mind and simply accept the dogma of others without question -- the basis of all cults and dictatorships.) This demonstrates you can have a practical philosophy and morality without mythology and mysticism.


RE: Simple formula
By teflonbilly on 12/23/2008 2:14:29 AM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting that we require myth and fable to learn to be good people? I have a lot more faith int he human condition. Anybody is capable of being nice and good and decent. Most of us do it as a matter of working with society. Religion does not teach us to be good. It teaches us to be good or else. There is a threat at the end that would cause you to act this way.

Without religion society would go on quite well, since we are predisposed to act in a lawful and generally kind way to each other so that our social structures can hold together. if people act selfishly, as a whole, the community fails and falls apart. if people act selfishly alone, they can get away with it, for a short time. Eventually society tires of these people and they are cast out or reformed. It doesn't take religion to do this. It takes our society to do it.

Belief is ok. faith is accepting ignorance, and religion is greedy.


RE: Simple formula
By TomCorelis on 12/22/2008 12:45:01 PM , Rating: 5
If you're worshiping the carpenter you're doing it wrong...


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Simple formula
By rhuarch on 12/22/2008 4:40:58 PM , Rating: 3
Everybody worships something. It's practically hard wired in us. Just because you don't consider yourself religious doesn't make you immune to the need to worship something. Some of us worship "reason" (or what we believe is reason), or money, or pleasurable sensations. Others choose to worship traits; like kindness, nobility, loyalty. Still others choose a more spiritual path worshiping the Christian God, or Buddha, or or our ancestors. Atheists are just as susceptible to feelings of superiority based on their "beliefs" as the most zealous adherent to any other religion.

So just remember Gzus666; the next time you "condescend" to argue with some poor half mad religious nut, that you're really demonstrating every bit as much blind, faith based, irrational zealotry as you assume they are. Maybe something we should all try instead (remembering that everybody worships something) is showing respect for other people's beliefs (assuming they are not harming you, or threatening your freedom to worship whatever/however you choose).


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Simple formula
By rhuarch on 12/23/2008 11:01:16 AM , Rating: 2
hehehe... Someone feeling a bit prickly about having their faith challenged are they?


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 11:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
What faith would that be?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

I have a feeling you don't understand the term. Math requires no faith as it is there whether or not you acknowledge it or not.


RE: Simple formula
By rhuarch on 12/23/2008 5:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
Just a quick refresher on the rules of logic; perhaps your familiar with a Straw man?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

However incongruous your previous statement was from the actual topic at hand, I will go ahead and address it since it is the one you gave.

So math doesn't require any faith does it? Math exists entirely as an idea. It is not corporeal, not an object, or tangible. Math can only be described, or maybe more accurately, used as a description of things that are tangible and real. Right there a major problem with your argument becomes appearant. Are you suggesting then that math as a concept definitely exists and believing such requires no faith? Because that would be like saying the english language requires no faith because it obviously exists. Math, like English, is a language we use to describe things and therefore can only require (or, as you argue, not require) faith in relation to the claims that we make utilizing it as a language. So according to your argument, all claims made using math to describe them are facts and do not require faith. I think you'll find that even most of your Atheist friends don't even believe all claims made utilizing math are infallible. But since you seem to be making that very claim I will go ahead and provide an argument against it.

There two main ways in which a claim made using math would require faith on your part. The first is the inescapable requirement that a mathematical description must be formulated by a person to exist, and that person could have been wrong. It is relatively easy to make simple mistakes while working through a formula. Therefor because there is an element of uncertainty, one is always taking a gamble when one chooses to believe a claim described mathematically. Meaning that one must then consider the credibility of the person making the claim. The greater the person's credibility the more secure one can feel in believing the claim, but because of that nagging uncertainty factor one still requires at least a small element of faith to believe the claim.

Unless of course you are able to verify the claim for yourself, which leads us to the second main way in which math might require faith. Unless you yourself completely understand both the language used to frame the argument (the math)and the fundamental principles which the math describes (nature), you have to take any claims deduced from those methods on faith. This is a "fact" which affects nearly every aspect of our lives. For instance, how many times a day do you flip a light on? Why is it that you assume the light will come on when you flip the switch? Do you have a complete understanding of the principles of quantum mechanics at work? Do you really know all the mathematical formulas in existence describing how the current is passed along the copper? Or what's going on in the light bulb to cause it to emit light when it is provided electrical current? And I don't mean the electrician's answer; I mean on the atomic level. Do you know why excited electrons pass to an outer orbit in the atom when it absorbs extra energy? or why the electrons eventually pass back into an inner orbit and release the extra energy as a photon which we perceive as light coming from the bulb? If you don't know exactly whats going on and all the principles involved why do you think it will work? I'm sure at some point someone told you that if you flipped the switch the light would come on and demonstrated enough times that you believed it. But as with flicking the switch, almost every action you take on a daily basis is taken because you believe it will work the way it always has, out of faith, because you have no fundamental understanding of why it works and no way to verify for yourself that the explanation you've been given is true.

Hence my original statement that everybody worships something. Everybody has to find some over-arching explanation of why things are the way they are to put their faith in. That's how we motivate ourselves; we have to believe on some level that there is a reason things are the way they are. We also want to believe that 'something' is reliable, predictable. We want to know that a specific action will result in a specific outcome. And weather we choose to put our faith in religion or science or both or something else entirely, what we're really doing is looking for an ideology to put our faith in, something we can build our lives around and give meaning to our goals and ambitions. All the while hoping this will result in some kind of advantage or reward. No matter how many explanations we come up with be they supernatural, scientific, or otherwise, and no matter how logical or illogical the method used to deduce them, and no matter how true or untrue those explanation turn out to be; in the end it all amounts to the same thing. After all these thousands of years we are all still looking for a way to explain away our fear of the unknown. And I say whatever it is you've found to keep the paralyzing fear at bay, that is what you worship.


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 9:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
rhuarch:

I can't believe you spent time writing this, it is amazing that you seriously believe this. Lets start simple. 1+1=2, this can be shown in real world terms with real world proof. I hope you didn't sleep during math class that required you to do proofs, cause I surely remember them.

Pythagorean Theorem can be proven with real life triangles. Same goes for radius, diameter and circumference of a circle.

Also as for something as silly as a light switch argument, someone doesn't need to know how something works if the result happens when it is done. Someone else has run the proofs, designed and made sure it works and you see the results as proof of design. It takes no faith to know that it works, because you have a result that has been proven time and time again. These things require no belief or faith, cause they exist whether you chose to acknowledge them or not. Acknowledgment, not faith is the issue here.

You also seem to confuse an idea with faith or a belief. You are playing a semantics game my friend and it gets silly fast.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Can you explain how math fits this description? Even the first definition of the list, I can prove any formula, so I don't have to have faith in anyone else. It seems like you are trying to play philosophy games (philosophy major maybe?). If you have a different definition of faith, that is fine, just define it before hand please.


RE: Simple formula
By nycromes on 12/23/2008 11:19:46 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I think they equated all people to have beliefs and things they "worship" even if it goes under a different name in certain people's minds. Many people worship social causes as much as religious people worship God. The argument is quite valid and it seems to me that you are the one trying to make one group out to be better than others. Atheism is a belief even if the people who are atheists are unable to identify it. Usually its a lack of religious beliefs but even that ends up being a belief structure in itself. Scroll up and read if you don't believe me.


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 11:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
The lack of something does not constitute a belief. If I lack a jacket, no one can compliment or degrade me on my choice of jacket, as I have none. I can't say there is no "god", as deism is something that can't be proven or disproved in its inherent being. Now, the major 3 religions can and have been torn to pieces based off their respective texts. This means that calling most people atheists is incorrect, but it is done merely to easily label, as we love labels. Any texts or people I have seen that have disproved the major 3 religions have been based in current fact and religious texts they use as proof, which means no belief is involved on the part of the presenter.

Do I concede is is entirely possible there is a deist god? Yes. Is it plausible based on any of the deists ideas? No. This in turn has set me apart from the atheist title, as I believe in nothing. I require proof or I won't accept it. On top of that, if a deist god did exist, would it matter? Also for the other non-god religions, we have seen no proof yet of magic, so why even bother looking into it? Especially when other answers have been found backed by proof.


RE: Simple formula
By callmeroy on 12/22/2008 4:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
And some would agree with you, some wouldn't...and some would think its better to have some more depth about themselves and existence in general and believe in SOMETHING....then to believe in nothing with the spiritual depth of a puddle.


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Simple formula
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 11:53:01 AM , Rating: 5
No, most religions are based on fantastic concepts that require belief in the unlikely and supernatural. Scientology requires belief of humorously ridiculous science fiction that exists well outside the realm of science fact, yet still purports to be scientific.

I'm not saying traditional religion is logical, but Scientology is a whole new kind of silly.


RE: Simple formula
By TomZ on 12/22/2008 3:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
Scientology is so goofy it makes you wonder if it was all started as a big joke by Hubbard, kind of in the spirt of, "let's see if they will believe this..."


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 3:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
The guy has been quoted and his colleagues have said many times that he would rather start a religion than write books to make money.


RE: Simple formula
By TETRONG on 12/22/2008 6:39:06 PM , Rating: 1
That's not even the half of it.

Look up Hubbards connection to Aleister Crowley and Jack Parsons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons

Mormons and Jehovas are even bigger fools.
Please spare us from suffering along in your disgusting faery tales!


RE: Simple formula
By bighairycamel on 12/23/2008 9:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mormons and Jehovas are even bigger fools.

Care to back that up? I know Mormons have a questionable history, but is it really WORSE than scientology? And I'm baffled that you threw Jehovah's Witnesses in there... just because they bug you at your door makes them somehow worse than scientologists? Or is it because they take a literal translation of the Bible against many mainstream beliefs which have been historically proven to be pagan in origin (IE - trinity, hellfire, immortal soul).


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 9:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Care to back that up? I know Mormons have a questionable history, but is it really WORSE than scientology? And I'm baffled that you threw Jehovah's Witnesses in there... just because they bug you at your door makes them somehow worse than scientologists? Or is it because they take a literal translation of the Bible against many mainstream beliefs which have been historically proven to be pagan in origin (IE - trinity, hellfire, immortal soul).


He's right, they are equally as bad, lets be fair.


RE: Simple formula
By bighairycamel on 12/23/2008 11:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
Not even close. I'll concede and give you mormons, but my mother's a Jehovah's Witness and I know many, and they are some of the most logical people I know.

They only get a bad rap from the general public because people don't like being woken up at 10:30AM on saturday; and they only get a bad rap from other mainstream christians because JWs speak out against the racketeering fear mongers that they are. Nothing they believe can't be substantiated by scriptural evidence. I'ld like to see proof of their "fool"ishness because as far as I'm concerned they are on a much higher plane of sanity than any other christian denomination who only believe what their pastor tells them to and have never actually read or studied the bible themselves; which JWs strongly encourage if not demand personal bible study.

Now if you don't believe in the Bible than you can claim they are just as ignorant as any other christian denomination, but to compare them or even say they are worse then scientologists is just outright biased slander. Do your homework before claiming someone is a fool otherwise you are only opening your mouth to prove your own foolishness.


RE: Simple formula
By m1ldslide1 on 12/22/2008 1:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Thought I would chime in and mention that I've had friends who worked for a company whose owners are scientologists, and the discrimination for advancement is rampant. Employees must complete quotas of indoctrination before being considered for advancement, and can be professionally blackmailed because of personal associations. It's all 100% illegal (it's a medium sized company) but somehow its allowed to continue. It's appalling.


This wrong plain and simple
By callmeroy on 12/22/2008 11:01:30 AM , Rating: 3
What this company did is wrong, any way you slice it. I consider myself a Christian, though I am mostly private about my personal religious feelings and I think religion is a highly intimate connetion between the "person" and whoever that person feels is their god.

But this all said, I am strongly against what this story claims as happened here. No employer/company/store WHATEVER should *EVER* use one's belief or refusal to believe in any specific religion as a basis to accept/refuse employment or service.

I just don't understand why in this world people are so thick headed about this type of issue -- its common sense , even if it weren't a law or in the constitution - you would like folks would just have a sense of "well that's not fair..."




RE: This wrong plain and simple
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 12:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
The line is difficult to draw, certainly. What about a company that forbids revealing clothes-- though that ultimately is based on Judeo-Christian ethics? Or one that requires employee attendance at a Christmas party? Or one that, like many religions, ban employees from smoking or drinking, even on off hours? (some do just this, in fact)


RE: This wrong plain and simple
By callmeroy on 12/22/2008 12:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
good points and I agree with you companies that do all that you mentioned are wrong as well.

And actually Christmas, while it eventually (the history of how this happened is far to complicated or long for me to type here or even cut and paste) became the symbolic birth day , for us Christians, of Christ, actually didn't *start* out meaning that at all. (Evidence suggests Christ actually was born in the summer and not December at all.)

Now don't get me wrong -- I do celebrate the holiday mainly for the Christian version of the holiday , but I do find it interesting nonetheless. The second reason , btw, why I like Christmas -- and if you are really young you'll balk at this I'm sure, but who can hate a holiday that is supposed to be about giving, family and just being with those you care about?

The sad part is people mainly just care about the gift part.


RE: This wrong plain and simple
By AMDJunkie on 12/22/2008 1:39:51 PM , Rating: 1
None of those examples would have forced a person to change his or her religion to the same as his or her employer's for continued employment.

Societal and corporate ethics might be based on religious ethics, typically without the religious meaning attached. However, they do not force one to agree, believe as true, and join a religious system. One can go to a Christmas party while being Muslim, Jew or atheist, and still remain a Muslim, a Jew or an atheist.

For hypothetical points, open to all of Dailytech, who would win in a lawsuit: a company that required a no smoking, no drinking policy being sued by a person who is forced to drink for his religious beliefs?


RE: This wrong plain and simple
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 2:02:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What about a company that forbids revealing clothes-- though that ultimately is based on Judeo-Christian ethics?


No it isn't, it is based on distraction. Clearly your male staff will be less likely to work and more likely to commit sexual harassment if you have scantily clad women working there. Covering their ass and making sure productivity is there.

-
quote:
Or one that requires employee attendance at a Christmas party?


Can't say I have seen this happen in the last 20 years at least, but I guess. Christmas is technically a Pagan holiday anyway. Jesus was born sometime in August, assuming he was real.

quote:
Or one that, like many religions, ban employees from smoking or drinking, even on off hours? (some do just this, in fact)


Never seen any company do that, but I can see where they might. For health reasons I could easily see it as many companies provide health coverage. Also I could see them wanting to promote a completely drug free company, alcohol and nicotine are drugs.


RE: This wrong plain and simple
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 2:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"No it isn't, it is based on distraction. Clearly your male staff will be less likely to work and more likely to commit sexual harassment if you have scantily clad women working there"
And Diskeeper can easily claim these instructional tapes lead to better management, less defects, less confusion over spoken or written instructions, etc. See how lines are difficult to draw? The tapes don't explicitly mention any religious practices; they're simply "management and communication" techniques.


RE: This wrong plain and simple
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 2:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And Diskeeper can easily claim these instructional tapes lead to better management, less defects, less confusion over spoken or written instructions, etc. See how lines are difficult to draw? The tapes don't explicitly mention any religious practices; they're simply "management and communication" techniques.


And it will be thrown out the door, cause we know it is an illegal practice to hire/fire for not adhering to a religion. Clearly the doctrine is related to religion. That is like making someone learn the ten commandments but calling it something else. Also the argument could be used that it goes against any belief. Creed is not limited to religion, but beliefs in general. Granted there is room for abuse, but I have yet to see it happen.


RE: This wrong plain and simple
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 3:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "Clearly the doctrine is related to religion"

Explain why, please.


RE: This wrong plain and simple
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 4:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Diskeeper’s response seeks to black out Godelman and Le Shay’s request that the company “forever refrain from … requiring any employee, as a condition of employment, to study, adopt and/or apply the [Scientology-authored] ‘Hubbard Management Technology’ and/or the related ‘Hubbard Study Technology’ in the workplace.” The unusual request is justified by the company’s First Amendment rights, of which it argues that injunctions prohibiting religious practice in the workplace are unconstitutional.


Hubbard was the maker of the religion and these texts. He intertwined them. If you want to pretend their not related, so be it, but we both know they are.


RE: This wrong plain and simple
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 10:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hubbard was also the author of quite a few terrible SF novels-- none of which are religious materials. The simple fact that Hubbard founded a religion doesn't make his entire output religious-related.


RE: This wrong plain and simple
By Spectator on 12/22/2008 2:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
:)

You seem to forget that most ppl are just sheep.

It could be said Religon/baseball/football/polatics as a whole is just a means of ammasing power/wealth by focusing the sheep in one direction.

Its just a (flaw/weakness?) human kind seems to have. We all need to feel our time in this world has contributed to something that will out-live us.

And to make the point. Any totally selfish person who does not conform is rich/outcast/imprisoned/persecuted.

Its just the way we seem to be programmed. But hey I dont give a fook, I have beer/smokes and listening to r.e.m "walk unafraid" :P


WHAT?
By Inkjammer on 12/22/2008 10:12:01 AM , Rating: 5
I suddenly feel horribly violated for having purchased Diskeeper Pro 2008.




RE: WHAT?
By AntiM on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: WHAT?
By Inkjammer on 12/23/2008 11:42:59 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I guess my point is that you should buy a product based on its merit, not whether or not the company that makes it promotes one religion over another, that is unless you don't support freedom of religion.
I could buy cheap, affordable shoes made by sweatshops in China. The shoes would be comfortable and relaxing to wear... but what about how they're made? I could buy DRM laden games from EA (known for copious unpaid overtime, crunch and more). The game would be fun to play and enjoyable... but what of the DRM and the employee mistreatment? Soylent Green is a delicious, somwhat nutricious, life sustaining food and the end product feeds millions.

"The end result" and "how it got there" can be equally as important merits.


RE: WHAT?
By The0ne on 12/22/2008 12:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. I've been using it because the program is fantastic. With the company acting like this I'll not support them for 2009 release. I'm Catholic/Buddhist but I certainly don't go around trying to "teach" everyone about the little things I pick/choose from both.


RE: WHAT?
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 12:38:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm Catholic/Buddhist but I certainly don't go around trying to "teach" everyone about the little things I pick/choose from both.


Why don't you just say you are a deist and quit pretending? If you don't completely subscribe to either faith, you are neither. You can't pick and chose what you believe in something, otherwise how do you know whether any of it is true beyond you just cherry picking?

That is like saying, "well, I think some of the Greek gods are real and I believe in some of Islam", that is even more insane than believing in one doctrine of faith, at least then the guidelines are laid out for you to follow.


RE: WHAT?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2008 1:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm Catholic/Buddhist


Huh ? How does that work ?


RE: WHAT?
By Aloonatic on 12/23/2008 6:16:17 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe he feels extremely guilty about his fat belly but knows that god will forgive him on his death bed if he repents for all the ice-cream he's craved and eaten all his life and the endless suffering he's given to his belt buckle?


RE: WHAT?
By Quiescent on 12/22/2008 12:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
I suddenly feel horribly violated too, except minus the purchasing part. I don't feel I can trust the stability in such software if there is this going on! You really spoke of what I was thinking.


RE: WHAT?
By DPigs on 12/22/2008 3:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations! You are now part of L. Ron's BotNet, performing DDoS attacks on Xenu.


This is why
By jlanders646 on 12/22/2008 10:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
I use Perfect Disk. :D




RE: This is why
By Bateluer on 12/22/2008 10:25:01 AM , Rating: 1
I just use the Defragger built into Vista. Or Linux, which doesn't require defragmenting because it doesn't get fragmented to begin with.

Commercial defraggers are a waste of money.


RE: This is why
By amanojaku on 12/22/2008 12:27:48 PM , Rating: 1
There are holes in both of your statements. Maybe you should check your facts first, my good sir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_Defragmenter_(Wi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4#Online_defragmen...


RE: This is why
By UNHchabo on 12/22/2008 1:01:44 PM , Rating: 4
I had been voting in this article, but you prompted me to reply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3#Defragmentation
quote:
That being said, as the Linux System Administrator Guide states, "Modern Linux filesystem(s) keep fragmentation at a minimum by keeping all blocks in a file close together, even if they can't be stored in consecutive sectors. Some filesystems, like ext3, effectively allocate the free block that is nearest to other blocks in a file. Therefore it is not necessary to worry about fragmentation in a Linux system."

And from the article you quoted:
quote:
Even with the various techniques used to avoid it, a long lived file system does tend to become fragmented over time. ext4 will have a tool which can defragment individual files or entire file systems.

This all means that the average Linux system would not reap a noticeable benefit from defragmentation, unlike most Windows systems.

It's one thing to point out that someone's wrong, but you were being a jerk about it.


RE: This is why
By UNHchabo on 12/22/2008 1:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Also, what's wrong with the Vista defragger? You pointed out some of the downsides with it, but none of them are really a big enough deal to warrant purchasing a defragging program, if you've already decided that you're going to be running Windows.


RE: This is why
By MavisPuford on 12/22/2008 12:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about the Vista defragger but if you open up the one in XP and go to "About", you'll find that "Executive Software International, Inc" is listed as the creator, which is the creator of Diskeeper. I'm assuming Vista's is the same.

Look under the History section:
http://www.diskeeper.com/aboutus/aboutus.aspx


RE: This is why
By Meinolf on 12/22/2008 1:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
The disk defrag program and it is free.

http://www.download.com/Auslogics-Disk-Defrag/3000...


Private Enterprise
By mem555 on 12/22/2008 12:39:17 PM , Rating: 1
I am a Scientologist and I have two comments: (1) This is not a Scientology issue. It is an issue between the Corporation and the 2 former employees; (2) I have studied both the Management Series and the Study Tech and neither have anything to do with religious doctrine.

The Management Series basically takes the student through an Organizational Flow Chart (Marketing Sales, Product Delivery, Quality Control, Employee Production, etc.) that is broken up into 9 divisions. Many Scientologists adopt this management style as their own because, if done properly, the health of the organization and the efficiency of each division can be immediately ascertained.
The Study Tech are simply techniques that allow a person to be aware of certain physciological phenomena that occur when one has a misunderstood word. When these phsycal conditions occur one simply follows the steps outlined in the Tech or if he is still having trouble, he can get someone to help him. This assist people in paying attention, following orders and issuing orders of their own, etc.
The course material, in my opinion, do not have anything to do with the Scientology religion, other than the fact that they were developed by LRH and that they are used universially in the Scientology world -- that doesn't mean that they are religious doctrine.

Also as I mentioned earlier, this case has nothing to do with the Church of Scientology. If as in the plaintiffs opinion, they were discharged for not becoming Scientologists, then they may have a case against the company. If however, they were discharged for objecting to the company's organizantional policies such as the Management Series volumes, then, in my opinion, they do not have a case.




RE: Private Enterprise
By BillyAZ1983 on 12/22/2008 2:00:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Many Scientologists adopt this management style as their own because, if done properly, the health of the organization and the efficiency of each division can be immediately ascertained.


Yet you reference absolutely no other type of person using this management style of outside of many scientologists. The fact that you even reference this tell me that in fact that it as, as the article states, a thinly veiled attempt at bringing your "religion" into the workplace where it is not appropriate to do so.

The workplace should realisitcally one of the few places in the world were it should not matter what religion, race, gender, etc. should not be an issue but is.

I am not trying to be confrintational in the least so please take no offence to what I have said. I applaud you as a Scientologist for actually responding to this issue. I will say your response does have a little bias in it, but thats my interpritation.


RE: Private Enterprise
By BillyAZ1983 on 12/22/2008 2:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yet you reference absolutely no other type of person using this management style of outside of many scientologists.


Sorry, mis-typed what I meant. You know what you want to say but sometimes doing multiple things at once doesn't work out so well lol.

Yet you reference absolutely no other type of person using this management style other then many scientologists.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 3:08:11 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I am a Scientologist and I have two comments


Did anyone else laugh at this? I've heard they exist, but to actually see one in the wild, well this is the find of a lifetime.

I can say with complete honesty here, you are probably one of the dumbest people to grace this site. That says a lot considering that PLAYSTATION THREE comes here. How someone believes in some guy who wrote science fiction books and is quoted as saying the best way to make money is to start a religion is just pathetic, even more so than your usual religious people.


RE: Private Enterprise
By whiskerwill on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Private Enterprise
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 4:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
Really? I equate them as equally wacky. The only difference is the people who wrote the bible aren't quoted as saying they would create a religion just to get money or mess with people. No different than believing in Greek or Roman gods or anything else, but at least they don't let you know they are full of it before they made it. It takes a special kind of moron to believe something with that lingering over it. The guy wrote sci-fi, how can people be that dumb?


RE: Private Enterprise
By Quiescent on 12/22/2008 6:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. Pirks should be added to that list. Even though I think he ran out of troll juice, because I rarely see him comment. But I might have fed the troll, so you might see him comment sometime later.


DT Readers will have a field day with this one
By Bateluer on 12/22/2008 10:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
Oy




By elessar1 on 12/22/2008 10:11:05 AM , Rating: 2
i for one, welcome our new "Diskeeper’s Upper Management" overlords...

All Praise the migthy Hubbard.


By tirminyl on 12/22/2008 10:19:24 AM , Rating: 2
Ha, I love the SouthPark picture with the story.


Invisible Fire
By sundwnr on 12/22/2008 10:18:06 AM , Rating: 4
Help my company Tom Cruise!!!




Please help to spread the story out
By adlep on 12/22/2008 10:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
Digg It here:

http://digg.com/tech_news/Diskeeper_CIO_Was_Fired_...

The story has actually shaken me quite a bit. I used to recommend this product to my clients and now they may be using profits to build an underground temple of doom or something...
Run away!




By Xenoterranos on 12/22/2008 10:36:00 AM , Rating: 2
You know though, if someone used profits from something I bought to build, say, a Temple of Nod...I don't think I'd feel to bad about that.


Christianity...
By wingless on 12/22/2008 12:45:55 PM , Rating: 1
Christianity: The True Faith

(Disclaimer: If people actually bothered to study it, understand it and practice the teachings of Jesus instead of claiming too and causing 2000 years of misinformation.)




RE: Christianity...
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 3:11:45 PM , Rating: 3
That depends. If you are a gullible moron, studying any religion will lead you to believe it. Now if you are reasonably intelligent and a critical thinker, the greatest reason not to believe in Christianity is the bible (same goes for any other faith doctrine).

I find it hilarious that the minute any of their beliefs are shot down, they instantly go into denial mode and shutdown to protect the belief. The ultimate self preservation.


Chairman Craig Jensen's web page
By nayy on 12/22/2008 10:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.craigjensen.com/humanitarian.html

Pretty much confirms everything.




Ummm...
By FaceTheSlayer on 12/22/2008 11:15:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hail satan!!!




monies, greed, religions
By 2bdetermine on 12/22/2008 2:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
As long as money, greed and religion rules the world, humanity advancement will be hindered.




Call in the X-COM
By mooncancook on 12/22/2008 2:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
The government need to call in the X-COM to investigate the Scientology Headquarter. I'm sure they'll capture a few alien species there and bring them back to their alien containment facility to study. Might open a whole new research tree to better mankind.




Well
By toyotabedzrock on 12/23/2008 4:11:40 AM , Rating: 2
Now i know why there defrag products became useless since late 2006. And it almost sounds like he wants to keep his lil congregation more than protect his business,




Scientology a religion?
By nidomus on 12/25/2008 4:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
I think we might be looking at context here. Scientologists can be very pushy in spreading their ideals. Pushing a service which REQUIRES payment for "SALVATION". Scientology is more of a business than a religion, because simply, they require monetary donations for their so called treatment and what have you. Also, it is not as if Scientology has not had bad dealings with the government before.




Sociology of Religon
By Joz on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki