Belgium May Prosecute the Church of Scientology

sheean.nl writes "A Belgian prosecutor recommended after a 10-year investigation that the government prosecute the church of Scientology. The church is accused of being a criminal organization involved in extortion, fraud, unfair trading, violation of privacy laws, and unlawfully practicing medicine. Both the Belgian and the European branches of the church should be brought to court, according to the authorities. The investigation was started in 1997 after former Scientologists complained about intimidation and extortion by the church. Other European countries such as Germany have problems with Scientology, but in the US it is officially recognized as a religion. Scientology has 10 million members including high-profile followers such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta." Scientology has long used heavy-handed legal and other tactics to suppress opposition on the Net.

Go On Post, Say all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

We're Watching.

Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged".

His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants.

When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert. The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development.

One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time.

In December 1967 I knew someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but only that given here is needful.

One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body.

One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I. It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing. You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small.

Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error. Good luck.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[VENONA (902751)]

Scientology is so bizarre that I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[David Hume (200499)]

Scientology is so bizarre that I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

He's not. See:

Xenu - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
OT III Scholarship Page [cmu.edu]
Fishman Affidavit - OT3, summary and comments [spaink.net]
DMCA complaint [chillingeffects.org]

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[VENONA (902751)]

OK. I visited your links. Now I have to wonder if he's a fifth-columnist, in which case I'd have to say, "Nicely done!"

But see posts later in the discussion, regarding a Slate post that CoS isn't any weirder than others, just newer.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171416/ [slate.com]

At some level, religion of any stripe disturbs me, as I see it all as both irrational and irrelevant. That said, at least some religions seem able to at least maintain a bit of dignity in their celebrations, and not *completely* insult the intelligence of their followers. I thought lost tribes of Israel present in central America (contrary to genetic evidence, but then we're not speaking of people who would believe in genetics), and wearing underwear that seems to serve the function of a wearable Post It note was a bit odd.

Now I'm trying to quantify the limits of weird, thinking of how reincarnation would rate, etc. At some point, my head will explode. Have you seen Tim Burton's _Mars Attacks_? Yeah, like that.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hes' not. That's part of OT III [xs4all.nl], the OT's are the official scriptures of the Church (/spit) of Scientology. They became public in the US as part of the Fishman affidavits [xs4all.nl]. The files have been closed in the US, Scientology is a sue-happy bunch, but they're completely legal in the Netherlands, our highest court has allready ruled on the matter.

And they've starred in more than one legal case, here's to it starring in another one :)

Reductio ad absurdum

[rumblin'rabbit (711865)]

That's the thing isn't it? Scientology is bizarre and ridiculous, and yet how can one criticize it without casting doubt on all religions? How can one say that stories about volcanoes, space ships, and H bombs are silly, but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not?

Scientology serves as the "Reductio ad absurdum" for all religion. This may explain why so many feel so uncomfortable about it.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Dun Malg (230075)]

That's the thing isn't it? Scientology is bizarre and ridiculous, and yet how can one criticize it without casting doubt on all religions? How can one say that stories about volcanoes, space ships, and H bombs are silly, but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not?

The way I see it, absurd mythology invented by bronze age children surviving into the present day due to the inertia of tradition is religion. Absurd mythology invented 50-odd years ago by a greedy asshole third-rate science fiction writer and compulsive liar with delusions of grandeur in order to enrich himself and elevate him to the position of "prophet", well, in my eyes that's fraud. Most examples of the former were created with the best of intentions. Scientology was not.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[rumblin'rabbit (711865)]

Most examples of the former were created with the best of intentions.

I accept your point about scientology, but how do you know that traditional religions were created with the best of intentions? How do you know that Christ or Mohammad were not con men of the first caliber, the Hubbards of their age?

And at any rate, what does it matter? If one accepts that knowing the truth is a good thing, belief in an absurd mythology is bad no matter where it came from.

I'm going to hell for these postings, aren't I?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Brickwall (985910)]

Well, here are my "smell tests":

Does the "religion" make you pay to find their beliefs? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes

If you only pay a little bit, are you told a different truth than if you pay a lot? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes

Does the religion take you to court if you reveal their beliefs? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes

And, for pity's sake, the Jonah/Noah/parting of the sea myths are all thousands of years old, and part of an oral culture that embellishes stories to make them interesting. I seriously doubt that every part of the Iliad (let alone the Odyessy) is factual, but it's still an important part of ancient Greek culture.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[rumblin'rabbit (711865)]

If the tale of Jonah isn't literally true, what else in the Bible isn't true? Perhaps someone could go through with a yellow highlighter and mark off those parts I should believe, and those parts I can dismiss as mythology. Given that the world's largest religion is based on it, I think knowing which bits are true would be rather important.

My point being that if the Bible is the infallible word of God then there is no room to pick and choose. If the tale of Jonah is a myth then the gospels are suspect as well.

I have no such problem with The Iliad because no one is basing a religion on it. It's just a rip-roaring action adventure and the truth of it matters little.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Kyojin (672334)]

It is actually a lot simpler than going through the book with a highlighter. As you have pointed out, there are a number of writing styles in use by the various authors of the Old and New Testaments, sometimes the same author may use different writing styles for different books. In general, however, each book is self-consistent.

For instance, the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the Old Testament, are written in a number of styles. Genesis and Exodus are largely prose narrative with many figures of speech. Leviticus is largely a book of law. Numbers is intended as a historical account of the beginnings of the Jewish civilisation in Israel. The emphasis in Deuteronomy is of a more spiritual nature, outlining the love relationship of the Lord with his people.

Likewise, in the New Testament, we have the Gospel according to Luke, a doctor, which begins:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophillus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

and we have the Gospel according to John, which focuses on signs of Jesus' identity and mission, presenting the facts as he saw them, and explaining further the meanings behind what occurred. Also by John (generally accepted as the same John, but potentially John the Presbyter), we have the book of Revelation, which is the only book in the Christian bible to be composed of entirely apocalyptic literature.

What I am trying to show is that there are sound reasons for not taking every word of the Bible literally. The authors did not intend each book to be taken literally and the writing styles show this. For more information, many recent publications of the Bible include introductions to each book, and some "study" Bibles offer commentaries from biblical scholars. Zondervan publishing usually include such introductions at the beginning of each book, especially in the New International Version (NIV) translation.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Oliver Wendell Jones (158103)]

I personally love how various translations can give you completely different interpretations, as well.

For example, if you quote Psalms 22:21 from the King James Version you get " Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. " and then someone somewhere along the line realizes that there were no unicorns, so to keep the "truth" "truthful" they translated it a little differently in the New International Version " Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen. "

So, if we believe the King James Version, then there were unicorns in biblical times, and since we are reasonably certain there were no unicorns, we'll just sweep that under the rug and change them into 'wild oxen'... that way people will continue to believe the bible is factual and will keep coming to Sunday services and tithing...

Re:The difference is...

[Bemopolis (698691)]

And they're usually OK with it if you "expose" these beliefs. And they're usually fine with it if you want to walk away and no longer believe what they believe.

Ahem.

Romans v. Christian converts
Catholic v. Protestant
Sunni v. Shi'a
Shi'a v. Baha'i
Hundu v. Sikh
Christian v. Mormon
Jew v. (please select one from Column B)
Southern Baptist v. Fossils
Zoroastrians v. (too lazy to Wikipedia it)
Communist v. Other Communist (cults of personality are no different than religions except where their god lives)

Just to point out, I'm not defending Scientology, just making sure that the playing field is level. Makes it easier to set the goddam field on fire and bury it.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Doesn't sound any more bizarre than Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't charge $360,000 for it, nor do they sue people who hand out copies of their scriptures.

It's not the doctrines, it's the ensuing lawsuits, that mark the difference between a religion and a racketeering operation. Why does God need a starship? Same reason he needs a team of copyright lawyers: he doesn't, and anyone claiming he does is a fraud.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[jcr (53032)]

Careful there, Thor's going to smite you with a blow from Mjolnir for pushing those newfangled southern superstitions.

-jcr

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[rtb61 (674572)]

Well actually the author is being facetious. Whilst the scientology executives did pathologically defend the little yarn with copyright and other legal and even illegal threats, it was never meant for public distribution, but only ever intended for the gullible, naive and those suffering from various psychological maladies,and only once they had achieved a specific level of mental suggestibility. So public distribution of it, is basically mocking it and a facetious use of it.

At least Belgium is looking to treat it for what it is a money making corporation and not a religion or even a cult. The cynicism of that corporation is beyond normal reason, they abhor psychiatrists and psychologists because apparently those professions directly threaten their main revenue source, by curing those individuals suffering from mental diseases, the preferred target of the scientology corporation.

Gonna have a Clam Bake!

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

You might just want to know [google.com] what all the noise is about.

Scientology is the 20th Century production of pseudo-religious scientificism in America - much as the LDS church was it's 19th century production. I expect Scientology to be at least as virulent - and ultimately compromised into the mainstream - as its Mormon predecessor. It will even gain them "martyrs" as LDS fallaciously claim for Joseph Smith - beaten to death by a mob he defrauded.

ElRon must be so upset...

[Gorm the DBA (581373)]

Oooooh....L. Ron Hubbard must be spinning in his grave....well...his thetans must be enturbulated around their next body host at least...

Re:ElRon must be so upset...

[Prof.Phreak (584152)]

Oooooh....L. Ron Hubbard must be spinning in his grave....

They should strap magnets to him, and wrap a coil around the casket. Free electricity! ...see what science can accomplish?

Will this cause

[kaufmanmoore (930593)]

Tom Cruise to come out of the closet?

Scientology not a Cult?

[Esteban (54212)]

Here's an article in which it's argued that Scientology is not a cult: http://www.slate.com/id/2171416/ [slate.com]

It doesn't so much make Scientology look better, as make other religions look bad...

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[DavidTC (10147)]

It doesn't matter whether it's a 'cult' or not.

It matters that they use extortion to silence critics. Repeatedly. They accuse them of child porn, they have them arrested on bogus charges, they break into their houses and harass them at work. They've even kidnapped 'errant members' before, and at least such one person has actually disappeared while in their custody.

It has nothing to do with the rather surreal beliefs of their religion.

Incidentally, whether not something is a cult also has nothing to with the beliefs. It is simply a list of things like 'requires members to cut off contact with family' and 'uses sleep/food deprivation as a form of mind control' and stuff like. Scientology uses some of the cult tricks, and not others, so whether or not it actually is a cult is debatable, but that is not why they run into legal trouble, they run into legal trouble because parts of their organization operate illegally in attacking critics.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

All religions are basically cults with a large number of followers.

Oh really? If you want to learn what Baptists believe, go into a Baptist church and ask. They'll give you a Bible and as much denomination-specific literature as you care to leave with. You won't have to give your name, although they might ask for it. You won't have to join. You won't have to pay them anything. You won't have to sign a non-disclosure statement. And should you decide that you like it and wish to join that particular church, you're free to leave at any time. In fact, church membership isn't a requirement of their belief system at all (although it's recommended so that you can continue to learn about it and hang out with like-minded people). No one will tell you where to work or where to live or which doctor to go to or who you can be friends with.

And that, to me, is the difference between a religion and a cult. You may completely disagree with what Baptists believe, but they'll tell you the entire story in advance and let you decide for yourself. The same goes for pretty much every other mainstream religion. On the other hand, if a group requires a donation or commitment before they'll even tell you what you're joining, run screaming. There are enough Open Source religions around that there's not much point in joining a proprietary sect.

Re:Scientology not a Cult?

[p0tat03 (985078)]

While I agree with the gist of what you're saying...

No one will tell you where to work or where to live or which doctor to go to or who you can be friends with.

This simply isn't true for many churches. While the church won't send out their legal hounds, I have personally seen many pastors and religious leaders who DO tell their followers such things. Some jobs are against God's will, some friends should be sidelined, since they do not believe. Heck, aren't Jehovah's Witnesses aren't allowed blood transfusions? That's a pretty big "can't see that doctor" to me.

So yes, the difference between cult and religion is that the former wants compensation for belief, while the latter does not. But both can cause believers to do terrible things.

All churches are guilty of that

[flyingfsck (986395)]

I happen to think that talking unsubstantiated nonsence and practising extortion and fraud is a hallmark of all religion...

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Captain Splendid (673276)]

I happen to think that talking unsubstantiated nonsence and practising extortion and fraud is a hallmark of all religion...

Agreed, but in all fairness to the 'regular' religions, they at least welcome you in and then extort you, whereas Scientology extorts the money up front, over a long period of time, before you're allowed full access to the church's teachings.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Selfbain (624722)]

I was raised in an extremely Christian environment and when I grew up I stopped going to church and rejected their belief system. However, I never once received death threats from the church and for the most part, I believe their intentions were good however misguided I believe them to be. To put it simply, the church I was forced to attend in my childhood never scared me. These people do.

No, the Co$ has some well-established company

[Engineer-Poet (795260)]

The Muslims have been known to attack and kill people who convert out of Islam [orthodoxytoday.org]. This is straight out of the Hadith of Bukhari [usc.edu]:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

This is not just the work of vigilantes, this is the law in many Islamic countries [bbc.co.uk] (for instance, in Malaysia, ethnic Malays are considered Muslims by birth and conversion out is not allowed by law [bbc.co.uk]).

Of course, it is very un-PC to point this out. Watch the replies to this comment for gratuitous attacks.

Scientology is a racket, but they have a ways to go before they catch up to "mainstream" religion.

Seems stupid

[rm999 (775449)]

A religion doesn't become legitimate until the people are persecuted for a little while (see the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc)

Why don't we all just ignore the cult and let it die on it's own? Apparently the 10 million figure is highly exaggerated, which makes people think they are more of a threat than they really are. High up, Scientology WANTS to be persecuted so they can energize their followers and gain the sympathy of others.

Not officially recognized as a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government does not officially recognize any organization as a religion. There is the definition of church under section 501(c)(3) of the US tax code as a simplified tax exempt body. But religious organizations themselves are not regarded as tax exempt, just the complicated definition of church as a non profit body. But there are no officially recognized religions in the US.

European headquarters here too.

[bmcage (785177)]

What is interesting in this is that the European headquarters are also in Belgium, Brussels to be exact. So some very high ranking scientologists can be sued.

In 1998 or so they where already being cataloged as a sect, not a church, which is important here (state money and benefits I suppose). It is estimated that Belgium has 8000 Scientologists, which is pretty lousy on 10 million, but still, with the headquarters, it could be painful for them.

a few more followers

[SethJohnson (112166)]

Scientology has 10 million members including high-profile followers such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

Don't forget

Beck [wikipedia.org]

Jenna Elfman [wikipedia.org]

Leah Remini [cnn.com] (King of Queens, Old School)

Jason Lee [wikipedia.org]

Juliette Lewis [contactmusic.com]

and a bunch of others... [scientology-kills.org]

Seth

Scientology is NOT a religion!

[hoggoth (414195)]

Scientology is NOT a religion!

They believe that absurd fictional super-powered entities are controlling our lives.
They indoctrinate their believers to give up their common sense and rely on the group for 'truth'. They suck money out of their victims and they prosecute anyone who opposes their growth!
How dare they try to be considered a religion!

Umm.. wait a minute.. never mind...

Scientology is so 20th century

[Arcturax (454188)]

No you want a REAL religion, you should be subscribing to Sciencolonogy.

It's the hottest new religion and all the big name Hollywood stars are taking part!

You see, 1,000,000 Jillion years ago, the evil alien overlord Xanus ruled the galaxy and a horrible plague of dysentery broke out among all of the populated planets. To eradicate the plague, he rounded up all sufferers of the plague and piled them into huge toilet bowl shaped vessels (see the Ori from Stargate, they stole the design from us and we will sue in internet court!!) and then dumped them into a huge septic tank he dug here on Earth. They died a horrible death in that pit and their souls came out and now cling to everyone elses souls on earth are all backed up leaving our spirits all gassy and bloated.

But have no fear... Sciencolonogy is here!

With our cutting edge soul plunging tech we can easily measure the brain to bowel flow of the bodies energies. By reading the life changing book Diarrhetics, written by our esteemed founder Elron Chubbard, you will learn how we can help you plunge your soul clear of these obstructive souls and allow your energies to flow freely. For a small fee of course. Your initiation will come with the first five pages of the book free and a free half roll of our patented toilet paper. If you run out, the free pages of the book should tide you over until you can get to one of our study centers to buy some more. Our study centers are fully stocked with everything you need, including newpapers, magazines and books, all for a nominal fee. Act now because we are having a special deal! You can get one hour in a stall with a door for the price of the ones that come without! Hurry, this offer won't last!

Good luck Belgium

[Synchis (191050)]

Speaking from personal accounts, those who take on the $ciclos must be greatly prepared. My good friend Keith Henson [operatingthetan.com] is still serving his sentence for "Interfering with a religion" in Riverside, CA. He's a good example of what the $ciclos can and *will* do to keep those who would oppose them in check.

I personally disagree with the fundamentals of scientology, I'm Wiccan.

In other happy news, Keith Henson is out of jail

[jcr (53032)]

Just saw a message on alt.religion.scientology, Keith reportedly posting from Arel's account:


Hi *****, this is Keith using Arel's email account. I am out, Amber
picked me up and Arel and I have not been followed by cult PIs.

More in a day or two.

Best wishes,
Keith


-jcr

Good news

[ynotds (318243)]

There is something profoundly wrong with societies where somebody like Keith who has lived a productive, generous, pioneering life can have their liberty curtailed because they piss off somebody with greater access to The Law's capacity to pursue single dubious issues against anybody who has really lived.

But we should place more blame on the personal empire builders who are ensuring untrammeled expansion of The Law-Politics-Mass Media axis of evil^Hauthoritarianism than even the criminally motivated cult which has become so good at exploiting our excessive 'authorities'.

Re:Beware the intertubes

[rabidMacBigot() (33310)]

ORLY? [slashdot.org]

Re:Who is next?

[Gorm the DBA (581373)]

The Pope? hard to Sue...

The Catholic Church, on the other hand... No so very hard at all [wikipedia.org]

Re:Who is next?

[ajs (35943)]

I am not defending the scientologists, but.... You could state many of these things for numerous religons.

Sue the Pope? Good luck with that.

You can't sue the Pope. As the Bush administration rightly pointed out (and you have no idea how rare it is for me to agree with that administration), in the U.S. the Pope is considered a foreign head-of-state, with all of the legal protections that that entails. We could invade the Vatican and bomb the Pope, but we could not sue him in a U.S. court of law any more than we could the Prime Minister of the U.K.

That said, Scientology's accused of: "extortion, fraud, unfair trading, violation of privacy laws, and unlawfully practicing medicine." I'm not sure that you can accuse Roman Catholicism (as a whole, discounting fringe groups that aren't practicing core doctrine) of most of those.

Re:Who is next?

[Foobar of Borg (690622)]

That said, Scientology's accused of: "extortion, fraud, unfair trading, violation of privacy laws, and unlawfully practicing medicine." I'm not sure that you can accuse Roman Catholicism (as a whole, discounting fringe groups that aren't practicing core doctrine) of most of those.

This is really the crux of the matter. No matter how bizarre or wacky you find a particular religious group (or philosophical group for that matter), you should only be able to sue for particular acts that the group, or individuals within the group, perform. I have no particular liking for Scientology, but one should focus on the bad and illegal things they have done, not the parts of their religion that are deemed absurd. I mean, American Atheists has claimed that the human race would have gone to the moon by the 3rd century (yes, the 3rd century C.E.) if it hadn't been for those "evil Christians" (this is in "Atheists: The Last Minority"). This is patently absurd, but I don't think anyone should sue them for it. However, if the head of American Atheists commits wire fraud (just for example, I'm not saying he/she has ever done anything unethical or illegal), then drop the legal hammer on the bastard.

Re:Who is next?

[ajs (35943)]

You can't sue the Pope. As the Bush administration rightly pointed out (and you have no idea how rare it is for me to agree with that administration), in the U.S. the Pope is considered a foreign head-of-state, with all of the legal protections that that entails. We could invade the Vatican and bomb the Pope, but we could not sue him in a U.S. court of law any more than we could the Prime Minister of the U.K.

Tell that to Manuel Noriega

Manuel Noriega was not sued in a U.S. court of law. He was deposed by military action. His trial occurred after his deposition.

If you're suggesting that we use military force to depose the Pope and then bring him back to the U.S. to stand trail... well, what you're suggesting is an act of war, just be aware of that.

When it comes to Scientology, however, there's no nation to deal with. They're just a modern, fringe religion. Thus, they have no immunity in a U.S. (nor, I imagine, Belgian) court.

Re:Who is next?

[be-fan (61476)]

I see what you're trying to get at, but I think you have to remember one thing. "Islam" is not an entity, like say the Church of Scientology or the Catholic Church. Like "Protestantism", Islam is decentralized religion with many sects. There are certain entities within the Islamic world that will try to have you killed for what you say, but at the same time, there are lots of non-radical groups of Muslims (encompassing hundreds of millions of people in several countries around the world), in which this sort of thing doesn't happen. This is especially true in Muslim countries where the legal system is not based on Islamic law.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[Gorm the DBA (581373)]

Probably because the Church of Scientology managed to royally piss off a good chunk of the USENET community (remember USENET? Cool, wasn't it?) back in the day by abusing the cancellation system, spamming, and generally making a set of newsgroups more or less unusable.

Geeks have long memories.

Plus, add in the "Scientology uses Technology" angle (debatable, at best...outright laughable more realizstically), and yeah, there's some geek.interest.to.be.had.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[VJ42 (860241)]

It might be something to do with this [slashdot.org]. Scientologists issued a DCMA takedown notice against /. after part of OT III was posted on here by a random user.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[VJ42 (860241)]

Seriously, I'm a Christian (and fan of everything scientific and technological), and I'm asking myself that same question. Why is this on Slashdot? I'm not asking this because I want the story removed or anything, I'm actually indifferent. But I find it funny that this site has more debates on religion then I see anywhere else on the web. What's the deal, why all the interest in all things religious?

Actually, it's not religious discussion on/. but discussion about Christianity, and usually the very specific anti-science American right wing Christianity at that (I'm British hindu, I've never seen a debate about my religion here). And that is why there is so much debate here; we're a scientifically minded site, and when the anti-science version of religion tries to influence the world's most powerful government, there's cause for debate.

On a side note, why would a religion restrict the distribution of their "gospel"? Christianity does not stop people from reproducing pieces of the Bible. Just as long as you are accurate, and properly reference the citation with book, verse, and version (ex. John 3:16 NIV).

Because IMO Scientology is not a religion, it's closer to a pyramid scheme than anything else. Why do I think this? Because as you say, they charge for access to their religious texts. To me, this isn't a very religious thing to do. Indeed, some Scientologists have realised this, and set up an unofficial version [wikipedia.org].

Re:Well...

[kwandar (733439)]

here in Canada we went after the "Church" itself [lermanet2.com] and they were held to be criminally responsible. As I recall, the "church" had an office within it that was set up to spy on government organizations, but the link above explains.

Re:belgium and freedom of religion

[lbbros (900904)]

I'm a Catholic but I deeply dislike the Opus Dei. I happened to be in a school where most staff had unofficial connections with them, and it was hardly bearable, mostly due to their overzealous and fanatical views on religious and related matters.

Re:Co$ abuses the legal system

[narcc (412956)]

An informative post, with the exception of this:

The official definition of a cult is an organization that rejects Jesus Christ, uses their own "scriptures" as superior to the King James Bible, discourages their members from reading the Bible, and then poses as a religion.

I don't know who made this particular definition "official" but I'd reject any such definition that classifies EVERY non-christian religion as a "cult". Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. ALL meet your #1 criteria; they reject Jesus Christ.

Why is "cult" in quotes? Only because you use it in the vulgar (common) sense. Follow this link [wikipedia.org] for a better understanding.

For future reference: Double-check anything else your church/pastor tells you. SEE Matthew 24:11, 2 Peter 2:1, Isaiah 9:16, 1 John 4:1