Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Book Reviews

Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:

Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus

Comments: 890 +-   Church of Scientology On Trial In France on Tuesday May 26 2009, @05:54PM

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday May 26 2009, @05:54PM
from the speaking-truth-to-fraud dept.
censorship
government
court
news
An anonymous reader sends word that a trial has opened in Paris that could shut down Scientology in France. The organization stands accused of targeting vulnerable people for commercial gain. Scientology does not have the status of a religion there, as it does in the US, and anti-cult groups have pursued it vigorously over more than 30 years. The current case is based on complaints filed by two women in December 1998 and July 1999. Three other former members who had initially joined the complaint have withdrawn after "reaching a financial arrangement with church officials." If convicted, the seven top Scientologists in France face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of €1M. The Church of Scientology-Celebrity Centre and its Scientology Freedom Space bookshop not only face a much larger fine but also run the risk of being shut down completely.
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by seebs (15766) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @05:55PM (#28102117) Homepage

    I guess the whole "child slavery" thing hasn't been working out so well lately.

  • Hell yeah (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MjDascombe (549226) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @05:57PM (#28102143) Journal
    This evil can't come to an end soon enough.
    • Re:Hell yeah - R2-45 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by yorugua (697900) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:10PM (#28102327)

      After reading about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R2-45 [wikipedia.org] in wikipedia, I can't think how can this be part of the modern, civilized world if that turns out to be a true fact.

      FYI: R2-45 is a Scientology auditing process created by L. Ron Hubbard. The process of R2-45 specifically pertains to shooting the target with a Colt .45 pistol, causing the victim's "thetan" to leave the body (exteriorization). In 1952 during a meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, Hubbard demonstrated the process of R2-45 by firing a shot at the floor.[1][2] In a lecture of 1958, Hubbard comments that "Death is not the same as clearing but there is, remember, R2-45. It's a very valid technique. A lot of people have used it before now." [3]

      • by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:46PM (#28102767)

        Say what you will, but you've got to love the genius of scientology. They take things that are generally considered serious crimes and make them "religious rituals". I can imagine someone coming to Ron in the early years..

        Scientologist: Ron, I've got a problem. I just got angry with my girlfriend and shot her in the chest with my .45.
        Ron: Hmm.. let me think..

        • by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:37PM (#28102647) Journal

          It's pretty clear that he considered it a joke at the beginning, and then he went bat-shit insane.

          -jcr

          • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @07:10PM (#28103035)

            It's pretty clear that he considered it a joke at the beginning, and then he went bat-shit insane.

            Note to self: never make another joke.

            • Re:Hell yeah - R2-45 (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Saysys (976276) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @09:02PM (#28104055)
              Hubbard also used it in apparently non-humorous contexts. On March 6, 1968, Hubbard issued an internal memo titled "RACKET EXPOSED," in which he denounced twelve people as "Enemies of mankind, the planet and all life," and ordered that "Any Sea Org member contacting any of them is to use Auditing Process R2-45."

              Former Scientologist http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/mom/Messiah_or_Madman.txt [slashdot.org] >Bent Corydon wrote that in late 1967 at Saint Hill, he personally received a copy of an order naming four former Scientologists as enemies and "fair game" and ordering any Sea Org member who encountered them to use R2-45.

              -wikipedia
          • by wealthychef (584778) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @07:17PM (#28103123)
            What I'm confused about is this:

            Scientology does not have the status of a religion there, as it does in the US,

            This seems to me to imply that if it were a religion, then a different set of standards for its behaviors would apply. I'm sorry, but why does religion get a pass when it comes to promulgating crazy ideas that suck money out of the unwary? It's just bad policy to go on protecting religions like that. IMHO

            • Re:Hell yeah - R2-45 (Score:5, Informative)

              by mattack2 (1165421) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @07:40PM (#28103357)

              Religion "gets a pass" because of a little something called the First Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment [wikipedia.org]

              Don't get me wrong, I think religion is evil, but even I think that a lot of the "crazy ideas" of one religion over another is what we're accustomed to. (In other words, I think they ALL have crazy ideas, but I too am probably less biased against some than others... though I think we'd be a lot better off if we got rid of all of them. Though once again, South Park has humorously hypothesized that even if everyone became atheist, we'd find something else to fight about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go [wikipedia.org])

              • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @09:16PM (#28104153)

                Wow, that's not even close to correct. No taxation without representation was English law, not US law. In the US, we eliminated the need for such a clause by eliminating the kingship and building the entire system around representation. We also did not put taxation in the hands of the executive (not sure if the English did or not, honestly), and territories of the US get non-voting representation in Congress. The clause is not required because it is built into the system.

                Churches are tax-exempt because they have charity status. I'm not sure precisely how it is built into the law, but it does not apply to everything the church does, and the assumption is that the church is a net benefit for society.

                The reasons religions don't get persecuted, and are in fact very difficult to prosecute for wrongdoing is because of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In a nutshell, it says Congress can't make a law that prohibits or even negatively influences the free exercise of any religion. Cults in the US are on shaky ground, but once you achieve Religion status - i.e. have your own church and can be considered tax exempt - you are on very solid ground legally.

                In theory, even cults are heavily protected by the first amendment, in practice they don't fare as well as those belief systems that are considered full blown religions.

        • Re:Hell yeah - R2-45 (Score:5, Informative)

          by The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:39PM (#28102671)

          R2-45 may go a long way to allow others to conclude Hubbard thought his religion was a joke.

          Actually it appears that he thought it was a great way to make money.

          http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html [don-lindsay-archive.org]

    • Re:Hell yeah (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:20PM (#28102445)

      I'm not sure if this will have the outcome you're hoping for.
      Prosecuted religions typically thrive as the "community" comes together against the perceived threat, see: Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism.

      But it'll still be fun to watch.

      • Re:Hell yeah (Score:5, Insightful)

        by x2A (858210) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:41PM (#28102707)

        "but leaving these con artists on the street while harassing scientology just seems unfair"

        That's not how civil cases work. You can't just go after anyone and sue for damages based on them doing something not right to someone else. These are personal complaints against scientology by people who feel they've been wronged by the group. If someone else has been conned out of money by another group, it's up to them to try bring it before a court.

  • Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The_mad_linguist (1019680) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @05:59PM (#28102159)

    Well, let's see. Germany declared Scientology unconstitutional in '07... are we seeing a domino effect starting?

  • by Satanboy (253169) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:03PM (#28102223)

    damn you anonymous!!!

  • by BoRegardless (721219) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:47PM (#28102773)

    Lost a couple employees to them. They became involved based on promises of becoming "Auditors", but when they couldn't pay for the lessons (training, etc), they were dumped faster than a hot pan handle.

    Interesting thing is I later made the plastic parts for the e machine auditing. (2 plastic parts, 2 resistors, 2 connector pins and wires). Later ran into the molder who makes the training case for their dvds and printed materials. Once the box was filled with $20 worth of materials, the loser had to pay near $2000 for it as I recall (It has been 5 years or so).

    It is so hokey it is hard to believe people fall for it.

  • by petrus4 (213815) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @07:18PM (#28103133) Homepage Journal

    Supporting those who seek the abolition of Scientology is one thing, and I support such an end goal myself.

    Calling for the end of theism in all forms, however, is something else entirely. I realise that atheism (or at least fashionable agnosticism) is part of the established groupthink here on Slashdot, but as difficult as this may be to comprehend, for some of us, theistic belief is nothing but positive, and it doesn't inspire us to go out and rape, murder, or rob anybody either.

    Most people here support the concept of entirely customisable cognitive environments in terms of shells, window managers, and so on; from the perspective of mechanistic atheism, a form of theistic belief doesn't need to be perceived much differently.

    If you choose to go without one, for whatever reason, that's fine; I'm not evangelical in the slightest, and I endorse the right of anyone to be totally atheistic who wants to be. All I want is recognition of the same right of freedom of belief myself. If people aren't using theism as an excuse to commit crimes, (and I don't) there is no reason why theism should not be permissible.

  • IIRC, when the Church of Scientology International [wikipedia.org]lost a major lawsuit by Steve Fishman [cmu.edu], the church executives turned the CSI into a shell, transferring virtually all capital and IP to the Religious Technology Center [wikipedia.org](which licensed "its" IP back to the CSI), theoretically leaving the plaintiff with nothing from which he could collect.

    I wouldn't be surprised to find that although the Paris center is incorporated independently of the mother church, and that it'll turn out that, like every Hollywood production, they've been "broke" all along.

    • by alexborges (313924) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:07PM (#28102291)

      Nope.

      The other difference is that you arent CHARGED for reading the bible: try and get an "advanced" scientology text (pure bull, BTW), without forking some serious cash.

      • by senorpoco (1396603) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:24PM (#28102487)
        "try and get an "advanced" scientology text (pure bull, BTW), without forking some serious cash." Done https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Scientology [wikileaks.org]
        • by pwizard2 (920421) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:26PM (#28102507)

          Try attending church regularly and never donating a cent. Watch how the other people treat you.

          It's not like people are required to give regularly. (many people pay monthly or quarterly) People give under the pretense that God has blessed them and they want to give part of that back out of gratitude. Whether you choose to give or not is up to you, and you give what you feel you should give. It's not like you should feel like you're paying dues or have a mentality where you expect to get something back. Most churches only keep track of how much you give if you pay through check (and that's more of a service to you so you know what to declare on your taxes) You always have the option of donating cash if you want to give anonymously.

          • by bobetov (448774) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @07:41PM (#28103365) Homepage

            That's a fine generalization, and may or may not be generally true, but my folks and I attended a presbyterian church for 4 years. We stopped when we were told not to return until we wanted to tithe appropriately.

            It's a tax, enforced by social ostracism and in our case at least, direct pronouncements from the pastor. Calling it anything else is disingenuous.

            That being said, the Xenu guys are way more obvious about it.

        • by SdnSeraphim (679039) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @07:05PM (#28102983)

          I do attend a church regularly, and more than half of the people who attend regularly with me never contribute a cent. They are loved just the same as others who do contribute. The only person who knows how much is actually donated is the treasurer. I'm the council president and former treasurer, so I know of what I speak.

          On the other hand, I have had friends that attend churches where the whole sermon is about giving money to the church. It was disheartening to them. However, just because it is this way in one, some, many or most, does not mean that it is universal. It is important to note that sacrifice is a part of most religions, in some way or another. The Christian New Testament has a parable about the widow and her two mites, and the rich man an his wealth. This is about sacrifice and not about volume. If you belief in something but are not willing to sacrifice for it, do you truly believe? Or are you there for some side benefit. You don't have to frame this solely in religion. Patriotism (whose concept was abused by our previous president), science, public safety and other noble pursuits are often characterized by sacrifice.

          I my church there are many things required of us to be members. Only one of them has to do with money, and all of them have to do with helping humanity (note: not just those of my religion).

        • Horse Hockey (Score:5, Informative)

          by Fished (574624) <(amphigory) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday May 26 2009, @07:32PM (#28103283)

          Disclaimer: I am an ordained Baptist minister, and have pastored churches on a part-time basis. So, on the one hand, I speak from experience. On the other hand, if you follow the usual Slashdot assumptions about ministers, I'm a liar and a cheat. (I'm neither.)

          I can't speak to how other denominations manage it, but in most traditional Baptist churches around here (Virginia) a LOT of effort is taken to prevent this. At the low end, only 2 people count the offering each week, and these people are NOT the pastor. At the high end, many churches outsource the counting of the offering entirely (banks will do this for you, for a fee.) The one constant, in my experience, is that the pastor never has access to the offering figures and that information is always closely held. I've served 4 separate churches, and have never had any idea who gave how much. Nor did I want to know.

            • It's not about nutjobness. By pointing out how ridiculous some story about Xenu (or Jesus) is, you distract people from the crimes that Scientologists are committing. Lying to people by saying they're inhabited by thetans, or that they're going to spend eternity in the lake of fire if they don't accept Jesus, is not the crime we're talking about here. This isn't what Scientology has been accused of.
            • As a seminary graduate with a Doctorate in New Testament from the University of Virginia... and I never had to blow a single goat. Amazing!

              All the source documents for Christian theology are publicly available, and well out of copyright. What are copyrighted is modern translations of documents... which I sort of hate, but then again theology professors have to eat too. If you're willing to take the time and effort to learn Greek and Latin, you can read them more-or-less for free. And if even if you're not, the modern translations are pretty much available from any well-stocked library (sadly, public libraries ignore religion, so public libraries don't help.)

              Shoot... Union Theological Seminary of Virginia in Richmond--which has one of the best theological libraries in the country--will give you a card just for the asking. And they're not alone... many seminary libraries are open to the public.

    • by bonch (38532) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:21PM (#28102455)

      I know it's trendy and hip to bash Christianity on Slashdot (before you ask, I'm agnostic), there are significant differences.

      1.) The Bible is pretty easy to access. In fact, you can often get it for free because its believers want you to read it.
      2.) I submit that believing some creator of the universe manifested its power in the form of a sacrificial holy man long ago is far less wacky then believing an intergalactic overlord imprisoned in a volcano who attached alien ghosts to primitive humans, causing all their problems.
      3.) In spite of all the shit they get, the Christians I've met in life have generally been very friendly and nice to me. Just good folks who believe what they believe. You have your bad apples, but that's true for every group in the world. Scientologists, on the other hand, will ask you if you rape babies and are trained to believe that anyone critical of the religion is a criminal who is hiding dark secrets.

      So, yeah, very little like Christianity, to be perfectly honest. You were just going for a cheap +5 Insightful by bashing the easy target.

      • I don't think it's necessary for anyone to get into a dick-measuring contest with $cientologists. I don't find Christianity's claims any more credible, per se. But you do hit on one key difference. $cientology is basically a shell game where the believer has to keep paying more and more money to get all those deep secrets. For better or for worse, one can go to a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister and get lessons on their branch of Christianity for free. These guys mass produce for free or for very little cost their holy books, and they even let people into their houses of worship for free. Yes, most churches send around the collection plate, but I don't know of any churches that would deprive someone of the Sacraments because they didn't give their church money.

        It's not about qualitative aspects of either religion, it is really about the fact that one is a religion, and one is simply a cult/marketing scam that uses the size of one's pocket book as the only real determinant of salvation.

        • by PCM2 (4486) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @07:47PM (#28103413) Homepage

          For better or for worse, one can go to a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister and get lessons on their branch of Christianity for free.

          Hell, for that matter, one can often go to a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister -- or a Jewish rabbi for that matter -- and get a free meal and a place to sleep along with the lessons. As others have said before me, you ever seen a Scientology soup kitchen?

          A friend of mine recently had a pair of Mormons come to his front door and ask to talk to him about the Bible. He, a confirmed nonbeliever, told them he was willing to talk to them ... for fifty bucks. Completely calmly, they replied that they couldn't give him money, but if he needed some help with something -- say, the garbage taken out, or the dishes cleaned up, or some furniture moved, or something -- then they would happy to help him with that first, and one of them could make coffee to drink during the talk, too. He still declined, but I suggest this to you: Next time you meet a Scientologist and they ask you to take their stupid little "personality test," tell them you'll do it ... for one dollar. See what you get.

    • One thing I've noted is that you don't actually have to pay large sums of money to be a Christian. In fact, I don't know of any mainstream churches that will toss you out or suspend you if you don't put any money in the collection plate.

      So, while the claims of both can be pretty stupid, Christianity actually is a religion, while $cientology is just a scam.

        • But you have an informed choice to believe in Zombie Jesus or not to. In Scientology, by the time you find out what it's really about, you've spent hundreds of thousands, all your friends and contacts are Scientology, and leaving means cutting off contact with all of them (starting an entire new life). Generally, Christians won't shun you if you leave (but they might try and convert you back, which is just persuasion).

          There is also the fact that scientology practices thought reform [rickross.com] (brainwashing) and ericsonian hypnosis, something that does not happen in legitimate religions. The difference, again, is that there is a lack of informed consent. They modify your thinking in ways you do not realize.

        • by x2A (858210) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:58PM (#28102915)

          "Yeah, that whole indoctrination of the young thing is irrelevant, right?"

          Yes. That's what happens when you're young, whether your "indoctrination" is about being christian, vegetarian, not dropping litter in streets, not stealing, learning to write, learning maths... you can be brought up christian, yet drop the religion when you grow up enough to think for yourself. I, many in my family, and many of my friends, are living proof of that. If people believe in their religion, of course they're going to share it with their kids, it's not "evil conspiracy against children", that's a stupid argument, it's just the way things are going to happen. Like people are going to believe their religion is 'The True Way' yet hide it from their children. That's ridiculous. And the religion's ridiculous to begin with... so that's like... ridiculous squared!

    • by Psyborgue (699890) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:10PM (#28102329) Homepage Journal
      Read Margaret Singer, Richard Ofshe, or many others if you want a good comparison of religion and cults. The key thing is that cults deceive people into joining so there is no real informed consent. People join under false pretenses and are conned out of their money (basically by false advertising / fradulent misrepresentation). No cults are ever upfront about all their beliefs because nobody would ever join if they knew about the wacky shit higher up the ladder. You have to be good and brainwashed before you even find out about the space alien stuff.
    • An interesting question, but they're not in court because of their beliefs, but because of their alleged actions: "The organisation, he [the magistrate] argued, is 'first and foremost a commercial business' whose actions reveal 'a real obsession for financial remuneration'."

    • by PCM2 (4486) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:16PM (#28102405) Homepage

      If you're dumb enough to spend thousands of dollars on something called a 'Thetin meter' then it's your fault.. not the seller's, then again it's France :P..

      So there should be no laws against fraud? Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, Madoff ... all that should be completely legal, because it's the victim's fault?

    • by camperdave (969942) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @06:17PM (#28102407) Journal
      If you're dumb enough to spend thousands of dollars on something called a 'Thetin meter' then it's your fault.. not the seller's.

      In many places, there are laws regarding the safety of a product and its fitness to perform the function for which it was purchased. They had better be able to demonstrate that a Thetin meter definitely measures whatever it measures properly.
    • by PCM2 (4486) on Tuesday May 26 2009, @09:28PM (#28104239) Homepage

      What does Scientology do ... that the Catholic church doesn't?

      Many things. Many, many things. DISCLAIMER: I am not a Catholic, and my interpretation of their beliefs is meant only as a guideline and can probably be waved away as fatally inept by any real Catholic. Furthermore I think recent stories about Catholic abuse of children are abhorrent and are probably the greatest crisis the Church has faced since Martin Luther.

      That said... here's just one example.

      The Catholic church requires believers to confess their sins. Similarly, the so-called Church of Scientology requires believers to undergo a process that it calls "auditing," in which the believer talks frankly about past events. What's the difference?

      Well, when the Scientologists do it, I am told, the subject is asked a series of questions, called a "process." The answers to your questions are written down in the form of notes, which are then compiled and permanently retained in a "preclear folder." You can only move on to a new process -- a new set of questions -- when the objective of the previous set of questions has been achieved (to the interviewer's satisfaction). No other guidance or evaluation of the subject is supposedly given, and the auditing process as a whole takes as long as is necessary, i.e. the subject may have to go home, come back later, and continue the same specific process until the interviewer (with the help of a religious object called an "E-meter") says it's time to move on to the next stage. The goal of auditing is said to be to identify memories of the subject's "thetan," both from the present and past lives, which are inhibiting the subject's full abilities (in other words, those things that make the subject a bad and ineffective person). The subject is told that only ongoing and successful practice of Scientology can free them from those bad qualities which oppress them. And furthermore, practicing costs money.

      Compare now to how the Catholics do it. You go into a Catholic church and you sit down in a space nearby to the priest. Generally, the priest is partially concealed from you so you do not have to look him in the eye. He might ask you a couple of simple questions about whether you've been practicing Catholic ritual, and then he tells you to begin. That is, he asks you nothing specific -- you just say what you personally feel you need to say. He might ask you to clarify. But generally, the process should take five minutes or less, if you've been doing it regularly. Then he may give you some advice about penance -- something realistic that you can do to make up for your sins, which might just be observance of some ritual -- and then he says, essentially: "If you do these things I have said, and you've been honest about your confession, then God is going to pretty much forget about everything you've said here for the rest of your life and all of eternity. There may be some Purgatory stuff to deal with, but it could have been a lot worse. Do those things and your burden is lifted, effective today; now go home to your family." Total monetary charges incurred: Zero.

      Kinda different, don't you think? Can you see the difference in psychological impact, the subtle manipulation that the Scientologist undergoes? People talk about "Catholic guilt," but that's nothing compared to what the Scientologists put you through.

      That's what's so insidious about Scientology -- the way they can manipulate nonbelievers as well as believers. Superficially, all ritual looks the same to a nonbeliever -- that is, it just seems ridiculous -- which is why Scientologists get away with their brainwashing and other manipulative practices. People look at them and say "they're a bunch of kooks, just like all the others." And the Scientologists smile and say, "That's right. See? We're just like all the others." But it ain't true. Diss Catholics if you must, but don't make the mistake of using Catholicism as an excuse to turn a blind eye to the abuses of Scientology.

Recent investments will yield a slight profit.