backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 383 comment(s) - last by ThePooBurner.. on Feb 20 at 3:53 PM


Scientology's website was Google bombed, bringing it to the top of search results for "dangerous cult."
Scientologist wage war on a digital battle field

The Church of Scientology rarely sees a lot of respect from the press and general public.  Critics – a group that scales from individual citizens all the way up to entire nations – label it as a cult and unscrupulous enterprise, preying on the minds and pocketbooks of its followers. 

In the United States, however, the controversial religion has, for the most part, avoided outright attack; aside from the occasional tell-all website and snarky TV commentary, it enjoys considerable support from Hollywood and the its followers amongst the public. 

That is, until now. What started with a simple video has now stretched deep into the digital domain, and if the critics are to be believed then the War on Scientology has just begun.

The video, which stars a crazed Tom Cruise, appeared on YouTube late last month.  Intended for internal distribution and leaked by unknown sources, the Cruise video was created by the Church of Scientology to honor Cruise with its “Freedom Medal of Valor,” for his work in exposing a billion people to the Church’s beliefs.  

In the eight-minute clip, Cruise explains his faith in a crazed fervor, interspersing brief statements with fidgeting, maniacal laughter, and wild hand motions. “We are the authorities on getting people off drugs...we can rehabilitate criminals’ way to happiness (sic) … we can bring peace and unite cultures,” he says in one part. “I won't hesitate to put ethics on someone else as I put it ruthlessly on myself … [Scientology is] rough and tumble, it’s wild and wooly.”

Understandably displeased, the Church of Scientology allegedly forced YouTube to remove the video, threatening to sue if it refused.  Not wanting to start a fight with a group known for its penchant for lawsuits, YouTube caved and took the video offline.

Since then, the Cruise video has been parodied several times.

The move earned the ire of hackers and protestors, furious over for what they feel is the Church's suppression of free speech. Protestors claim the YouTube incident is merely the latest chapter in a long history of frivolous lawsuits and copyright/trademark disputes, designed specifically to suppress the proliferation of material that the Church finds embarrassing.

Online, hackers took their own revenge, with the Church’s web presence suffering a series of crippling attacks:  its international website was temporarily taken down, and its U.K. website remained crippled for days.  On a different front, computer guerillas “Google bombed” the Church of Scientology’s official website, bringing it to the top of search results for “dangerous cult.”

Back on YouTube, an activist group calling itself “Anonymous” posted its first online threat against Scientology two weeks ago, citing the Church’s alleged “campaigns of misinformation, suppression of dissent, and litigious nature.” Two more videos have been posted since, all of them featuring stock video of cities, clouds, and landscapes, with the group’s mysterious vendetta read by a computerized voice-over.

In Anonymous’ first video, titled “Message to Scientology” and speaking directly to the Church, the group pledges that it will “expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form.”

Whoever Anonymous is – the group claims its members include “lawyers, parents, IT professionals, members of law enforcement, college students, veterinary technicians and more” – it appears serious; Anonymous acknowledges the Church as a serious opponent and notes that “we are prepared for a long, long campaign.” A later video warns Scientologists to beware of February 10th, a date on which Anonymous will launch several protests at Scientology facilities around the world, coordinated by groups on Facebook and YouTube.

Anonymous’ organizers claim they wish to stay incognito for ethical reasons. One protester, explaining the campaign to the The Guardian, stated that he “[didn’t] want them to get a foothold in the UK the same way as they have in other countries. [The Church of Scientology claims] to be a church and a religion but they charge people to attend their sessions and they are a registered trademark – that doesn't strike anyone as a religion.  At the start this was a hacker operation but it is more than that now. Scientologists say it's just a bunch of hacker geeks but that's going to be proved wrong on February 10."

According to organizers, Anonymous started with a “youth movement” among online communities but is now drawing protesters from all walks of life.  It distributes Leaflets throughout the United States, questioning the true nature of Scientology and its tactics.

The Church of Scientology is trying to both downplay the movement and fight back.  It dismisses the protesters and hackers as a “pathetic” collection of “computer geeks.”  Janet Laveau, a spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology in Britain, says that “we don't get into responding to such threats on the internet, particularly anonymous ones.”

According to Laveau, the surge of negative publicity actually created a “surge of interest” in the Scientology, which she hopes will bring many new converts, although it denies forcing YouTube to take down the Cruise video despite numerous reports to the contrary. “These selective and out-of-context excerpts … nevertheless resulted in people searching for and visiting Church of Scientology websites,” says Laveau. “Those wishing to find out the Church of Scientology's views and to gain context of the video have the right to search official Church websites."

In the United States, Scientologists hired an unnamed internet company to defend its sites from attacks and fight back against the hackers. The move was financed in part by a $10 million donation from actress Nancy Cartwright, who voices Bart Simpson.

The Church of Scientology has a long history of waging expensive legal battles to suppress public criticism.  In 2005, the Church lost a 10-year battle in the Netherlands against a number of internet service providers as well as Dutch writer Karin Spaink, who posted numerous revealing documents online revealing alarming, secret teachings of the Church. 

Invented in 1952, The Church of Scientology is the brainchild of science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Based around 18 central religious books, Scientology believes that humans came to earth via an all-powerful alien being named “Xenu,” who stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Many accuse Hubbard of maintaining a religious façade for tax and legal purposes, and Hubbard once told Reader’s Digest that "if a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."  Together, the religion’s exotic believes, questionable history, and penchant for secrecy has made for excellent fodder from the Church’s many critics.

Andreas Heldal-Lund, a Norwegian free speech advocate applauds the grassroots movement and says they've “won” the war against scientology.  However, she denounces the internet attacks, stating that “one of the biggest arguments against Scientology is they are a threat to free speech and here they can say people are hitting back at their free speech. It ruins our argument.”



Comments     Threshold


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

Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/6/2008 1:48:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The religion is based around 18 central religious books, include one which states that 75 million years ago an all powerful alien being Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs
Put that way, it almost sounds as ridiculous as gigantic arks filled with all the animals on earth, or men parting the ocean with their bare hands, eh?




RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/6/2008 1:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They claim to be a church and a religion but they charge people to attend their sessions and they are a registered trademark...
By the way, most churches, including Catholics, Mormons, and many traditional Protestant religions, maintain trademarks-- and often sue other organizations for infringing upon them:

http://examiner.net/stories/080107/new_174057100.s...

"Tithing" -- or charging people to attend services -- is usually optional these days (though strongly enforced by peer prressure), but as any student of history knows, such charges were mandatory throughout much of the history of the Roman Catholic Church.


RE: Total nonsense
By alifbaa on 2/7/2008 9:27:26 AM , Rating: 5
You're absolutely correct on the trademarks issue. Every organization has one, and has the absolute right to defend its use.

As for tithing, there is a difference between the Mormons asking for donations to sustain the operation of a church that is run almost exclusively by volunteers and the scientologists demanding money before "helping" someone in their sessions. This practice is especially disturbing when so much of that money goes not to the ongoing operation of the church or helping people but to spying on opponents of the church, suing those you don't agree with for frivolous reasons, expensive vacations and massive salaries for church leaders, etc.

Go read the wiki for scientology, it'll blow your mind. My favorite part is when it talks about Hubbard living out his days on a yacht in the Mediteranean while being served by teenage girls in short shorts. If they didn't obey his "every wish," they would be locked in a small, dark, damp room. If they still refused, he'd dump these teenage girls off at the next port with no money and no one to help them. All this while he was married to a woman living in California.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By Rob Pintwala on 2/7/2008 10:43:09 AM , Rating: 5
I don't think that $100 or less for a wedding is comparable to the $360,000 you have to spend over time to be taught the story of Emperor Xenu.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By Rob Pintwala on 2/7/2008 11:01:34 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not talking about what happened hundreds of years ago. What I'm concerned with is the state of affairs currently. I realize that Scientology is in its infancy, but other religions should take a cue from, let's say, the Roman Catholics. Yes, the Catholic Church was rife with corruption in centuries past, but they eventually came to their senses and cleaned up their ranks. It's difficult to compare the ethical failings of the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago to Scientology now; times have changed.

My point is - just because the Roman Catholic Church purportrated crimes against the common man hundreds of years ago does not excuse Scientology's crimes.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By blowfish on 2/7/2008 11:49:34 AM , Rating: 3
Woohoo! Sounds like Masher, AKA I must always have the last word - is a Scientologist!


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 12:02:47 PM , Rating: 4
Who was it that said (paraphrasing):

"It has been said that we could give a million monkeys a million typewriters and eventually they'd reproduce all the works of Shakepeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now know that isn't true."

Sometimes I sadly find that to be a most accurate statement.


RE: Total nonsense
By rcc on 2/7/2008 12:45:07 PM , Rating: 3
I do believe the original version was an infinite number of monkeys, etc.


RE: Total nonsense
By littlebitstrouds on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By littlebitstrouds on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By Ryanman on 2/11/2008 3:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
Because the whole point is that we ARE arguing against religion. It's a form of power-grabbing and corruption, and you all know it.
On an individual level, I guess, you can take it as a way to live your life in a way that benefits humanity. The organization of Religion, however, has caused nothing but evil or at the very least good for its own good. And anyone who finds Scientology's tactics more repressive then Catholicism's needs a serious wake up call.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 1:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, my guess is athiest...


RE: Total nonsense
By jeff834 on 2/7/2008 10:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
As an atheist I'm moderately offended by that thought. My guess would be he thinks God tells him what to post.


RE: Total nonsense
By treehugger87 on 2/7/2008 11:50:24 PM , Rating: 3
Definately, Assholism.


RE: Total nonsense
By typo101 on 2/8/2008 3:40:09 AM , Rating: 5
Oh lets be fair. masher always uses facts and rationality in his posts, but he can have a rather extremist perspective with more than a touch of arrogance.

I really don't know what his religion is, and I don't care.

By the way, I thought one of the perks of being an atheist is we don't belong to a group. Each atheist can develop their own philosophies so their actions would not reflect other atheists actions/beliefs.


RE: Total nonsense
By maverick85wd on 2/9/2008 9:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh lets be fair. masher always uses facts and rationality in his posts, but he can have a rather extremist perspective with more than a touch of arrogance.


I can agree with that, one of the only things I disagree with potato-masher on is mp3 sharing... the religion thing I don't touch on public forums, I think it's a conversation reserved for having in person


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/8/2008 10:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but when it comes to these things there do seem to be some accurate stereo types involved... For instance:

Rabbid Southern Baptist: "Jesus is the only way to salvation, if you beleive anything at all you will burn in hell. In fact, if you beleive anything other than what I tell you to beleive you will burn in hell, there is no grey area, there is no margin for error, think what I tell you to think or burn" (actually pulling some of this from my very fustrated group of southern baptist friends who I got to listen to ranting for an hour last wed, throwing in the case of the S. Baptist minister/public school teacher).

Rabbid Athiest: "All religion is stupid, so I'm going to latch onto some serious bad mis-information about christianity to try and prove my point that there's no god. yes, I'll ignore the realities of the faith to make my point, because there's no god and everyone should beleive what I beleive or they're completely stupid". (this attitude is visible in this group).

Rabbid Catholic: "The church and pope are always correct. Everyone should always live their lives strictly by church doctrine, because that is how you get into heaven".

Personally I fall middle of the road. I am a roman cathlic, I do have deep faith in god. I don't however beleive everything the church teaches, and I even beleive that god hasn't given us all the answers in the bible like many seem to think because I don't think we're owed all the answers. For instance I beleive that there is intelligent life on other planets, and I think that such life would also be considered "gods childeren", and they probably think the same things about them selves that we think about our selves (created in image of god yada yada). I do even beleive in evolution, I see the creation of earth in this light. Was god planning to bring humanity to life in the same sense as parents trying to have a child, or were we an "accident" so to speak. Think that we may well be an accident, and I think that's fine, because in the end. Here we are. The "accident" would be evolution.


RE: Total nonsense
By ThePooBurner on 2/20/2008 3:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
The Bible makes it clear that God created worlds without end. So for anyone who calls themselves a Christian to not believe that there is life out there and that they are also God's children, as you do, isn't understanding the Bible. However, i would part with you on evolution. I'm a pretty strict creationist. From the sound of your post, though, you may want to check out www.mormon.org It sounds as though you have very common beliefs.


RE: Total nonsense
By AlphaVirus on 2/7/2008 11:23:53 AM , Rating: 1
*Imitates Catholic church*
*Sits down*
*Pays the church*
*Stands up*
*kneels down*
*Stands up*
*kneels down*
*Stands up*
*Sits down*
*Pays the church*
*Leave after 1 hour*

All joking aside I dont think its right for any religion to put its followers into a death grip. Whether they take their money, their freedom, or voice, religions should allow its followers to have some sort of their own personal opinion.


RE: Total nonsense
By sinjinx on 2/7/2008 12:48:59 PM , Rating: 5
I've spent quite a long time poking fun at various religions in the past. Fact is, they're pretty easy targets. And, as an athiest/agnostic, most of the stories that are supposed to explain the various religions seem far-fetched at best.

But, at some point I realized that there are people out there that need something that the church can provide. Some need a support network around them, some need to feel that there will be something for them in the afterlife. Some need contacts for business ventures. Some just want a feeling of belonging.

I know that when I lived in Northwest Florida, heart of the bible belt, that I felt tremendous pressure to attend a church. In fact, being somewhat athletic, I actually attended the baptist church on the corner because it had the best facility for miles. They even came to my house and asked me questions that made me a bit uncomfortable.

My opinion now continues to be that if someone can meet their needs (and yes, even at a cost) and gain some happiness by being a member of church, then who am I to judge? Just don't push it on me and I have no problem with it.


RE: Total nonsense
By FITCamaro on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 4:21:27 PM , Rating: 5
I hope you realize you pretty much described yourself as the definition of agnostic - you "don't know" or "can't know" if there is a god.


RE: Total nonsense
By Malhavoc on 2/7/2008 4:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I like the way that vampire in 30days of Night says, "no god". Gives me shivers of delight and fear at the same time, woot!


RE: Total nonsense
By Spyvie on 2/7/2008 7:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
For whatever reason, religious people are generally both healthier and happier than non religious people.

I'm sorry I don't have a link to post, but I clearly recall more than one legitimate study that reaches this conclusion. My own personal observations would also support this.


RE: Total nonsense
By 3v1lkr0w on 2/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 1:58:50 PM , Rating: 5
Call me a bad catholic, but I actually "pay the church", or more accuratly donate money durring collection very rarely actually. Something that I'm personally trying to work on because I do personally do look very favorably upon how the church (Disosis of Raleigh and my local church) are using donations.

The point is, you don't have to pay the Catholic church to learn about Christiantiy, attend services or do 99% of anything you could want to do. The few things where you do have to pay is more due to the fact that there are very real clerical duties associated with what it is you want done. I.e. marriage (which you have to pay no matter how you get married), burrial (you have to pay no matter what) and a host of other such things like this.


RE: Total nonsense
By redeem4god on 2/8/2008 2:39:16 AM , Rating: 1
Ok first of all both you and Masher are erroneously wrong on all of what you "think" are facts. Therefore, here is a little education.

Tithing is nothing like being charged and "entrance" or "attendance" fee. That is the equivalent of being charged for your presence at college. You pay for a seat there same difference. Tithing is written in the bible and states that 10% of everything you earn is rightfully gods. Whether you give it up is between you and him. A true non-denomination church only asks, never demands.

Second, not every religion and defiantly not the physical churches themselves have trademarks or copyrights. Go ahead Google cornerstone church and see how many churches show up with that name in different states with no relation to each other. Christian churches interweave their names without care and without suing each other. Third being a former catholic, I know for a fact, they do NOT have trademarks. People who write catholic books, design catholic cloths and items used in a church, possibly yes but not the Roman Catholic Church itself. They buy their items from private vendors just like any other business. THOSE are the ones with trademarks and copyrights. Furthermore, having written extensively on Martin Luther who originally exposed the Catholic Church for its iniquities, I can tell you that the same corruption is still there. They still put more faith in sacraments then in god and they allow the pope to be worshiped like a king among men. He even wears a crown out in public. I am continuously amazed at how people try to argue on a subject they no nothing about because they refuse to actually read the bible for themselves. Instead they have a biased one sided view. Athiests and Agnostics want christians to debate god, while we chose to declare him. Do your homework.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 5:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "Third being a former catholic, I know for a fact, they do NOT have trademarks..."

Oops -- the individual dicoese do most certainly maintain both copyrights and trademarks, and enforce them on occasion via lawsuit. See Archdiocese of St. Louis vs. Internet Entertainment Group for just such a suit.

Here's the specific legal verbiage on the Archdiocese of Detroit's site:
quote:
The Site and all audio and visual information, images, photographs, video, text, documents, products and other materials contained or displayed in, or made available through, the Site (the "Content") are owned by Archdiocese of Detroit, its affiliates and/or its third party licensors and are protected by U.S. and international copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws .


RE: Total nonsense
By Hoser McMoose on 2/7/2008 10:05:19 PM , Rating: 5
Yup, it was total crap when the pre-reformation Roman Catholics did it then and it's total crap when Scientology does it now.

The immoral behavior of one religion is no excuse for immoral behavior by another in my books.


RE: Total nonsense
By andyjary on 2/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By treehugger87 on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/8/2008 8:35:23 AM , Rating: 1
If you don't like his comments, simply don't read them.


RE: Total nonsense
By SavagePotato on 2/8/2008 10:22:15 AM , Rating: 1
A different kind of volunteer, one that has actually payed to be there in cash dollars.

I don't think the local catholic church charges it's parishioners thousands of dollars to man the church barbecue.

All religions are scary in their own way, Scientology is just the scariest freak show of the bunch. Why? the money and power they have. It's a rational fear that an organization with that much money behind it could come to even more power, power over governments etc.

I'm not particularly worried about the crazy Christian wife swap lady on youtube gaining the ear of presidents anytime soon. Something like Scientology though, makes me hope someone puts them down soon before they get the power to start forcing their perspective on others.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 8:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why? the money and power they have...I'm not particularly worried about the crazy Christian wife swap lady on youtube gaining the ear of presidents anytime soon."

I can promise you that Pope Benedict -- or Billy Graham for that matter -- gets far more ear time from Presidents than any Scientologist will this century.

Will Scientology one day become a major world religion? Possibly so...but it will be several hundred years away, if ever.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/8/2008 1:06:16 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, there's a big difference between having folks tell you to that paying tithing is a part of choosing between heaven and the alternatives, and what the Scientologists say to get their dollars. Mormons make billions of dollars. They're also the ones responsible for starting the drug war. A lot of these organizations are big on this war in Iraq, the propaganda campaign around Iran, create problems with nipple slips and paranoia around sexuality (it's ok that children learn how to kill with guns in games, but it's the end of the world should they see a naked breast!), discriminate openly against homosexuals, cry out whenever their rights are violated but are the first to come out against other people's rights. Did you know students at BYU aren't even allowed to have sex unless it's their spouse? How insane is that? The US allows such organizations to pull this kind of BS? Mormons are as big a part of the problem in the world as any organization. Some have said that Scientologists reject those who've been under psychiatric care. Did you know that Mormons will reject you for being homosexual, or having an abortion? I happen to know a bit more about that cult than others, having once been associated with them.

All religions cause problems. All religions discriminate. I don't see how Scientology stands out in the crowd in this regard. I remember awhile ago Tom Cruise got shot down for recommending that an actress - I forget her name - take vitamins instead of drugs (prescribed by a doctor). Looking at the girl you could see she was malnourished and probably hadn't seen a proper meal in ages. The vitamins probably would have helped her a lot more than those drugs.

Now, speaking of wild and wacky celebs and their religions, did anyone hear about what Mel Gibson was up to a year or two ago? Isn't he Catholic? I think he's gone Mad!


RE: Total nonsense
By skroh on 2/7/2008 9:37:20 AM , Rating: 4
I knew it was inevitable that someone would make a comment equating all religious belief with Scientology and implying that, since any belief in the spiritual or supernatural must be false, all religions are essentially cults. I just find it disapponting that such low-rent philosophy is posted by someone who represents DailyTech.

Whether or not one prefers an entirely naturalistic, materialist worldview, surely we can draw some distinction between a belief system that represents the shared experiences of millions of people over thousands of years who claim to have had meaningful encounters with an active, self-revealing deity, and a belief system created from whole cloth by a hack pulp sci fi author 50 years ago.


RE: Total nonsense
By Proteusza on 2/7/2008 9:49:20 AM , Rating: 3
Frankly, if we declare all religions as having unlikely, implausible and downright strange, that doesnt improve things for Scientologists.

It could be argued that people believe in the Abrahmic religions due to societal pressure to conform, and thus what we see as strange seems quite normal to those whose family and friends all accept such truths as true.

However, in the case of Scientology, because it is so new, there is no precedent, and therefore no societal pressure to conform. Anyone who therefore decides to believe in Scientology has either been brainwashed (we know that the "Church" of Scientology uses a form of hypnosis) or is simply lacking in grey matter.


RE: Total nonsense
By skroh on 2/7/2008 10:18:49 AM , Rating: 5
Well-said. I think another useful way to distinguish a cult from a religion is that, while representatives of religions may engage in criminal behavior from time to time, cults usually include criminal behavior--fraud, extortion, unlawful imprisonment, etc.--in their regular practices, something that Scientology certainly stands accused of.

By extension, a classical religion that turns to such behavior on an organized scale (such as the Spanish Inquisition and other episodes in Christian history) is choosing to become a cult, although they can clean up their act and regain their legitimacy (as in the Reformation).


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By geddarkstorm on 2/7/2008 12:27:24 PM , Rating: 5
They don't teach that doing that is right. In fact it's wrong by their own beliefs (but of course laws and belief cannot alone stop crime). That's the difference.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 12:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
They covered up - and, in fact, aided in the continuance of - these crimes. If your best friend molested a kid and you helped him intimidate the witnesses and got him another job with accessible children, you would be able to discuss your beliefs with him in a jail cell.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 12:59:25 PM , Rating: 4
They were all acts committed by man. We are all sinners. That is what it means. They did not do those things in the name of God, but in the sins of man.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 2:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They were all acts committed by man. We are all sinners. That is what it means. They did not do those things in the name of God, but in the sins of man.
How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? A bunch of people at high levels in a religious organization knowingly allowed child molestation to occur. Why does "because they didn't say it was for God" give the organization a free pass?

Should Enron have been allowed to say, "But that wasn't in our mission statement" and gotten off with a wag of the finger?


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 3:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's entirely relevant. Only the people involved in the scandal at Enron were prosecuted. Maybe you'd like to imprison the janitor as well? What kind of logic is that?


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
>Whereas none of the enablers in the church were.

Never said that, did I?

>Straw man, I believe.

Likewise.


RE: Total nonsense
By VashHT on 2/8/2008 11:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
The point is the even though the church opposes molestation they did nothing to prosecute those in their ranks, in fact they helped them and protected them. If they put their own priests above their own laws then that leaves the floor open to anything, if they don't even have to follow the religion they preach how than even claim to be teaching anything that is belief based. Yes the catholic church officially opposes molestation of children, but they should have thrown the priests that did it out of the church and left them at the full mercy of the law. I come from a catholic family, and all of the catholics I know refuse to accept that those priests were actually molesting children. They all claim that the people who came out were lying and just hated the church. When people can't admit faults in their church then they can be lead to believe terrible things.


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/8/2008 11:44:32 AM , Rating: 2
That's incredible. Most of the Catholics I know were outraged and ashamed. Certain appeals now have to be clearly labelled as not to be used for the defense of preists charged with sex crimes in order to gain any traction.

That people would go to such lengths to deny that these things happened is damned scary.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 4:30:57 PM , Rating: 3
If it's so wrong and they acknowledge it, then why cover it up? Why not expose it and denounce it?

Then there's the case of the minister in Colorado last year who was a homophobe in his sermons that had a secret gay relationship.

We're all sinners, but people seem to be presenting the churches and organized religions of the world in a more respectable light than those of the cults. And really a religion is just a socially accepted cult. They both have systems of beliefs that are unprovable, they both have dirty little secrets and questionable practices, they both have legions of followers who maniacally follow their leaders, they both preach the way to "salvation" is through them and non-believers are at a disadvantage, etc. The only difference is that over time and by developing more followers, a religion has become socially accepted where a cult has not achieved that status.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:10:17 AM , Rating: 4
> "surely we can draw some distinction between a belief system...over thousands of years..., and a belief system created from whole cloth by a hack pulp sci fi author 50 years ago. "

That's just the point. At one point, Islam, Christianity, etc, were all newly "created from whole cloth". The primary difference between a cult and a major religion is in its age and number of adherents. The line between the two is not only extremely fuzzy, its erased automatically by time. Is Chondogyo -- the Korean religion founded 200 years ago -- a cult? How about Sikhism, founded 500 years ago, and with tens of millions of followers today? What about Rastafarianism, only a mere 70 years old?

I'm sure you realize from the early history of the Christian Church, it was widely considered a cult, and its members treated as such.

Did Hubbard fabricate "divine revelations" in order to gain fame and fortune? Almost certainly...but the same was said of Jesus Christ, Mohammed, and even Siddharta Gautama.

By the way, I don't represent DT. The views and opinions expressed herein are my own, and do not reflect those of DT, nor its owners or management.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 10:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, I was just about to post a similar statement. Then Firefox crashed.

To add to the idea that time transitions cults into religions is the number of followers. The more people that follow that system of beliefs, the more mainstream they become, and the more accepted they become by wider society.

And all religions/cults instruct their followers that theirs is the only "true" way to salvation (terminology varies, the idea is the same).


RE: Total nonsense
By Yawgm0th on 2/7/2008 1:01:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And all religions/cults instruct their followers that theirs is the only "true" way to salvation (terminology varies, the idea is the same).


Not all religions profess that their way is the only way to "salvation" -- in fact most don't. It is extremely ignorant to claim otherwise.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 1:24:33 PM , Rating: 1
Pretty much all monotheistic religions do-- Islam, Catholicism, all the various Protestant faiths.

You can find a little more slack in the Vedic and Far East religions, but still the central tenet is that those who don't adhere to the belief system are going to suffer additionally in some manner.


RE: Total nonsense
By Janooo on 2/7/2008 3:10:18 PM , Rating: 3
You are wrong about Catholicism. They do not comment on other religion's way of 'salvation'.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 3:23:29 PM , Rating: 3
Except the whole "no-one can get to God except through me" bit sure...


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, don't forget the whole 'I came not to change the law, but to fufill it' bit, either.


RE: Total nonsense
By Janooo on 2/7/2008 5:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
And how is that related to other religions?


RE: Total nonsense
By damncrackmonkey on 2/7/2008 10:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
If someone speaks of gods other than God, they are to be stoned to death. That relates to other religions, right?


RE: Total nonsense
By feraltoad on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By Iliketofrolic666 on 2/7/2008 7:30:32 PM , Rating: 4
You are incorrect as is much of the media. The popes statements were taken out of context. BTW I am an atheist, so no ad hominem attack for you.

The document said the Catholic Church alone has "the fullness of the means of salvation."

The Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches separated in the schism of 1054, and since then the Orthodox community does not recognize the pope's primacy - a defect, according to the document. Protestant denominations, meanwhile, lack "apostolic succession," the ability to trace their bishops back to the 12 Apostles, it said.

At the same time, the Vatican "would not deny that Lutherans or Methodists or Evangelicals ... have elements of the faith but do not constitute a church in the technical sense," Cunningham said.

Still, "not everyone's going to love this clarity," he said.

George Weigel, who has written biographies of Pope Benedict and his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, said the document contains nothing new, and questioned why it had been issued now.

It "does not deny the presence of God's grace in other Christian communions, but the Catholic Church is never going to say ... that it is anything other than the most properly ordered expression of the will of Christ for his church," he said.

--http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/bal-te.pope...


RE: Total nonsense
By feraltoad on 2/8/2008 4:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the better citation, the Catholic church states it is THE TRUE CHURCH of GOD, but they aren't going to say God can't give out grace as he so chooses to whomever he chooses, as is his wont. Just like everyone else they are saying, "we are the authority". They are all selling a product, and all claim their's is the soley unadulterated.


RE: Total nonsense
By Mojo the Monkey on 2/7/2008 2:28:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Funny, I was just about to post a similar statement. Then Firefox crashed .


Lies planted by Church of Scientology to confuse the issue.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 3:22:23 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe firefox decided it wanted feedback. Then crashed...


RE: Total nonsense
By exanimas on 2/7/2008 7:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, before I read your post I was about to make a joke about Firefox crashing being one of the signs of the Apocalypse... But yours is much better.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/8/2008 7:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
Its funny because it true...


RE: Total nonsense
By skroh on 2/7/2008 10:39:06 AM , Rating: 5
My contention is that such a depiction of all major religions is simplistic. Even a person of faith would consider most, if not all, belief systems other than his own to be incorrect. That is why he believes what he does rather than what they do. But not all truth claims are equally robust or equally sincere. It isn't just time and popularity that distinguishes them.

Let's take one example--Judaism--and contrast it to Scientology. The authors of Hebrew scripture are spread over hundreds of years, many if not most of them claiming that their accounts are based on recurrent personal encounters with the deity they describe. Those accounts, in most cases, describe events that were witnessed by thousands if not millions of people. Does anyone, even Hubbard, claim to have spoken with Xenu or seen (or even ridden aboard) the craft that brought humanity to Earth?

We have on the one hand a faith built upon experiences of many people, in many places, over many years; on the other hand a faith built on one book written by one man with no experiential evidence (as far as my limited knowledge of Scientology can say) to back it up. That is what I meant by whole cloth, and while we may not be able to make precise distinctions between more or less convincing beliefs, surely we can agree there is a spectrum and Scientology is near the bottom of that spectrum?


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:47:23 AM , Rating: 2
> "Those accounts, in most cases, describe events that were witnessed by thousands if not millions of people"

Barring purely secular events like the reign of Kings, and who begat whom, there are no events in the Judeo-Christian mythos that were "witnessed by thousands if not millions".

There are claims to such in certain points in the Talmud and particularly the Christian bible. However, those claims occurred long after the supposed events themselves.

That's the benefit of being an ancient religion. You can make up whatever you like about the early history, and no one can dispute it. In fact, if one traces the evolution of Judeo-Christian thought, you can see just this occurring many times throughout the ages. The early conception of "Sheol" (hell) was far different than what we believe today, for instance. The Judaic belief in an afterlife was fabricated from whole cloth after the Diaspora, for another...primarily because the original belief (that one received the rewards of a just life while still on Earth) were incompatible with a people that were getting their **** handed to them on the regular basis.


RE: Total nonsense
By murphyslabrat on 2/7/2008 3:06:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
That's the benefit of being an ancient religion. You can make up whatever you like about the early history, and no one can dispute it.

However, the Torah (the first five books in the traditional Christian bible) have the God-card: God guided the writers-through visions, dreams, or direct communication-in the writing of what happened. If you don't believe in God/a god, it is ridiculous; but otherwise, it makes sense. Not to mention, the facts were often in story already, and the writings were compilations of these oral/written traditions.

After that, the writings are either progressive and generational, such as the Kings and Chronicles, or the writings of prophets. Whether made up or not, the facts contained were experienced by most of the people of Israel, and are mostly relevant in terms of provability.

quote:
...primarily because the original belief (that one received the rewards of a just life while still on Earth) were incompatible with a people that were getting their **** handed to them on the regular basis.

In the very beginning, while not spoken of directly as "where you might go when you die," the scriptures do talk about Lucifer (the nice guy we know as Satan) being ejected from the presence of God. This is most likely a reference to the place, referred to throughout even the Jewish cannon, where God manifests himself in a special way.

The idea that the "rewards of a just life are experienced here on earth", is not one that was ever incompatible with the Jewish state. The scriptures are full of stories about good men being prosecuted wrongly, and they are not always vindicated. Stories like Joseph and Moses are there, but more often it plays out more like with Jezebel: quickly and brutally killed, and mostly because of here own affluence.

Despite that, this idea of earthly rewards for "good living" are expressed in peace and contentment. For instance, a proverb from Solomon: "better is the corner of a rooftop than a household with squabbling." This idea of contentment is directly the product of righteousness and wisdom, and often precludes expression of earthly wealth. Of course, this is not at all to detract from the promises of earthly wealth with the practice of wise business, just sometimes these rewards come in the form of realizing the wealth already possessed.

Basically, the promise of reward for a just life is as follows: righteousness brings peace with God, and anyone who is wise (not to be confused with intelligence) can see that as being worth far more than the riches of the greatest king.


RE: Total nonsense
By damncrackmonkey on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By LTG on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By TomZ on 2/7/2008 10:53:33 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know what Scientology has been up to lately, but in the 1970's they were a seriously scary organization. Kind of like a church/cult/mob/terrorist group combined into one.

And, as you probably know, top Scientology members were convicted of a number of very serious crimes in the 1970's and did jail time.

Reading about L. Ron Hubbard, he was also a seriously messed up guy. I would say he ranked right up there with Hitler and people like that. He could have been even more seriously dangerous had he been more successful. To base a "religion" on the "teachings" of such a person is unbelievable.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 12:07:10 PM , Rating: 1
Which is similar to how the Pharisees and Saducees (sp?) approached Jesus. You can draw all sorts of parallels to Scientology and any of the major religions in the world. Of course, the followers of any religion will tell you that theirs is different from the rest because it's what they believe.