Scientology Critic Arrested After 6 Years

destinyland writes "Friday police arrested 64-year-old Keith Henson. In 2000 after picketing a Scientology complex, he was arrested as a threat because of a joke Usenet post about "Tom Cruise Missiles." He fled to Canada after being found guilty of "interfering" with a religion, and spent the next 6 years living as a fugitive. Besides being a digital encryption and free speech advocate, he's one of the original Burr-Brown/Texas Instruments researchers and a co-founder of the Space Colony movement."

Tom Cruise Missile

"Other posters joined in the internet discussion, asking whether Tom Cruise missiles are affected by wind. "No way," Keith joked. "Modern weapons are accurate to a matter of a few tens of yards."

So, does that make Tom Cruise a 'straight shooter'?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

Tom Cruise? Straight? I think not.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

I didn't know that interfering with a religion was a crime. Could any lawyers provide some details about this law and what constitutes breaking it?

Thanks.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

California hate crime [la.ca.us] law from the DA's office. ... threatening to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with another person who is exercising his or her constitutional rights.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

I would think that threatening a person with unimaginable torture for all of eternity if they did not deny the existence of their gods would be considered a threat. Shouldn't the police start arresting the door to door Christian recruiters?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

Amen

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

I see the point you are trying to make, but Christians don't have the power to damn someone to Hell. Usually it is said that God will damn you, or something like that. It is more of a warning, as it is not within their control. It is similar to someone telling you that if you lie in the middle of the freeway, you are likely to get hit by a car. They aren't threatening you with a car, but warning you of the car's coming. Whether you believe in what the Christians are saying or not isn't relevant, just that the message they are bringing isn't a threat.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

I see the point you are trying to make, but Christians don't have the power to damn someone to Hell. Usually it is said that God will damn you, or something like that. It is more of a warning, as it is not within their control. It is similar to someone telling you that if you lie in the middle of the freeway, you are likely to get hit by a car. They aren't threatening you with a car, but warning you of the car's coming. Whether you believe in what the Christians are saying or not isn't relevant, just that the message they are bringing isn't a threat.

Oh so it's more something like: "If you don't stop posting here, somebody (who I have no control over) is going to kill you and your family!"

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

I see the point you are trying to make, but Christians don't have the power to damn someone to Hell.

Some do, depending on how you read the Bible. Jesus, after all, told Peter that whatever he said on Earth goes in Heaven. So if the Pope excommunicates someone, he's basically damned the person to Hell. If you believe that the Pope really is the successor to the apostle of the son of God and not just some delusional lunatic in a funny hat, that is.

As for their message not being a threat, it's not a threat in the sense that the law requires. But it's still a threat. They basically come to your door and say, "Gee, that's a nice eternal soul you've got there. It'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it" and imply that unless you pay them protection money (i.e. tithing) and worship their thug of a deity, said thug will send you to Hell for all eternity.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

When it comes to issues of intimidation, don't you think there is a difference between "If you don't adhere to my beliefs, I think you're gonna be running through hell with gasoline drawers on" and "If you don't adhere to my beliefs, I'm going to do my best to disenfranchise you politically, interfere with your job, and quite possibly burn your house down?"

These are all things that religious and "non" religious people have done to each other, and it is usually frowned upon whereas anyone making pronouncements about the hereafter is generally accepted.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

It's the equivalent. In other words, if you get excommunicated, you might as well be damned to Hell.

I would say that the cause flows the other way. If you are excommunicated, you are likely on the path to Hell, not because of the excommunication, but it's a sign of what's on the way.

Any religion whose leaders preach about how terrible materialism is from gigantic churches filled with priceless art doesn't get to claim they're not in it for the money. Some Christians actually take those teachings seriously, but the larger churches obviously do not, especially the Catholic Church. I don't buy this "We build giant churches to glorify God" nonsense for one second. They do it to glorify themselves and skim a little off the top of the donations.

Like I said, not all people who take those vows follow them completely. In my opinion, having things isn't bad, it's the reason for having them that can be malicious. If your goal is to accumulate as many material goods as possible, then that's materialism to the extreme. If your goal is to reach out to others, and you happen to use material goods, then that's totally different. Also, the Church building is there for the people, not the clergy. If it saves souls, then it's worth it.

Evangelism by its very nature is intrusive. It requires that the target make a conscious effort to ignore you.

My wording in the previous comment was bad, I apologize for that. What I mean is that evangelization should be done in a way that does not excessively intrude. It should be aimed at helping, not annoying. There's a lot of it going on that isn't that way, and it burns people so much that they refuse to participate in rational dialog. I've been pleasantly surprised with how rational people are being in not flaming me for my beliefs, and I'd like to thank not only you, but the others who are responding rationally.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

The truth is that nobody truly knows without a doubt if God exists until death. That's why it's called faith. Belief without the ability to find absolutely solid proof. On the same token, can you prove that there is no God?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

I would think that threatening a person with unimaginable torture for all of eternity if they did not deny the existence of their gods would be considered a threat.

No, John Travolta's and Tom Cruise's movies just seem like they last for eternity and, as far as I know, denying isn't enough; you aren't forced to watch them unless you actively spread the information that L. Ron wasn't actually God.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
--Annie Dillard, 'Pilgrim at Tinker Creek'

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

What I would like to know is how this discussion [google.com] violates that law. I don't see anything remotely threatening, just a few people having fun talking about a non-existant 'Agent 99' and their fictitious (and humorous!) exploits.

If you can arrested for this, it makes me wonder how many /.ers have been arrested?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

If you look at the original Slashdot article from the time of his conviction (linked in one of the comments here), reportedly he was not allowed to use the context of his quotes in his defense. So all the jury saw were a couple of snippets the Scientologists picked out. He probably ruined his case by going on the run, as I can't believe that a higher court would not have overturned the decision on appeal.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

The trial was in a scientology town, the judge was a scientologist.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

Co$ are master deceivers and masters of half truths, as well as exploiters of the legal system in the most unprecendented damnable manner. They have been rebuked by courts and judges all over the world. Unfortunately the California law enforcement and judicial branches have been infiltrated by Co$ members so it would be no surprise that Hensen faced a partial judge who was symphatetic to Co$. The only reason the IRS recognizes them as a "church" is that the Co$ infiltrated IRS offices and bullied them into submission with thousands of lawsuits.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

Unfortunately the California law enforcement and judicial branches have been infiltrated by Co$ members

Has the infiltration of scientologists risen to the level of the infiltration of Christians, in your estimation?

Or is there some reason you would present to support the idea that the infiltration of one religion is of more concern than of another?

As far as I can see, the problems for society and its citizens are similar in nature, if not in scope, with regard to any religious person who, in your words, "infiltrates" the justice system. But I am curious as to your take on the matter.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

Or is there some reason you would present to support the idea that the infiltration of one religion is of more concern than of another?

I wasn't aware that Scientology was a religion.

There, I said it. Kinda shocked that nobody else had the guts to do so in the first 100 posts.

Tom Cruise won't come out of the closet.....

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

I wasn't aware that Scientology was a religion.

After landing here on Rhene 01-3 (called 'Earth' by the local dominant species), my investigation into this issue led me to the following conclusions:

If the founder of an ideology is still alive, then it's a cult.
If the founder is dead, then it's a religion.

Since the founder L. Ron Hubbard is dead, Scientology is therefore a religion.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

I really don't think so - truly bad SF with the good bits plagerised from the ramblings of someone writing during psychotic episodes in Chicago in the 1930s is still distinguishable from religion. I do however think they must have really good lawyers since they can get a ponzi scam labelled as a religeon.

The way they treat women in childbirth and the mentally ill is truly evil - the most fanatical of religions at least look after their own when they are in trouble.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

Unless you are arguing that age alone somehow imparts validity, a presumption I cannot go along with.

Bullshit crafted during our lifetime with plenty of living witnesses to say so in my opinion makes it invalid.

As for naturopaths and others doing weird and harmful voodoo - just becuase one group does stupid stuff doesn't justify another. Interesting that you threw all of Islam in there with the African practice of mutilating women and the post-revolution Iranian practice of stoning people to death. I don't understand their religeon but I'm not going to throw them all in one boat - not all Christians and agnostics are followers of Jim Jones either.

The arguement that Bobby can punch Sally because Jimmy punched Jane is something that should be left in the playground soon after you learn to talk - but it's amazing how many people try it. Also things that look similar may not be.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

He probably ruined his case by going on the run, as I can't believe that a higher court would not have overturned the decision on appeal.

If the context of his words that could have exhonerated him was thrown out, whos to say that an appeal would be granted? Hell, even a "accident" involving a shiv in the prison shower room while awaiting an appeal is reason enough to get the hell out of dodge. I don't blame him for fleeing. When the game you're playing is rigged against you, theres no use to sticking around to play.

Not the usenet posting

I read in TFM that he was tried and convicted based on his picketing activities outside a Scientology film studio. Since then, I have not been able to get to TFM.

You can read about it here [wikipedia.org].

So he was not arrested for that usenet discussion. He has been sued in civil court
for publishing Scientology documents. He defended himself and lost, to the tune
of $75,000. He then declared bankruptcy. At that time, he started repeatedly picketing
a Scientology film studio.

When he was convicted and sentenced to six months in jail (for the picketing),
he chose to flee to Canada because he believed that Scientologists would have him
killed in prison.

He applied for political asylum in Canada. After three years, Canada asked him
to appear in person to hear what the decision was. Fearing deportation, he packed up
and left Canada the night before.

So no, usenet posting, in this case, did not get him arrested.

Re:Not the usenet posting

he chose to flee to Canada because he believed that Scientologists would have him killed in prison.

Given some of their other exploits [wikipedia.org], I can't say that's completely unfounded...

Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery

If I were to start a religion based on the preservation of copyrighted works for when they may eventually enter the public domain, employing any methods necessary to make the copies (similar to the preservation of ancient works through the Dark Ages, sort of like Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery), can I gain similar protection against the likes of the RIAA and MPAA, provided I can afford Scientology's lawyers?

Re:Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

You can marry a person of the same sex all you want in a religious ceremony. The state will just not recognize it as a real marriage, and you won't get tax breaks or spousal benefits.

True, but it should be exactly the opposite. The state should take no particular position on the issue as long as all parties are consenting adults. One man, one woman. Two men. Three of one and two of the other. Whatever. You don't have to like it, I don't have to like it, but as long as they are all happy with it, it ain't none of my business. Or yours. Or the state's. And I don't expect any particular church to condone it.

Quite simply, the conjoining of incomes for tax purposes and the assignment of benefits should be an automatic, simple, and painless event. It is not the state's place to say "Ewww", or "But God says...". It is the state's place to serve its citizens.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

Quite simply, the conjoining of incomes for tax purposes and the assignment of benefits should be an automatic, simple, and painless event. It is not the state's place to say "Ewww"

"Single me out for a benefit, but don't ask what I did to deserve it!"

Either the state derives a benefit from marriage, and in return should allow certain benefits to married couples, or it doesn't. We seem to have made a decision a long time ago that marriage does benefit the state. Does the type of marriage that you want recognized (and you must admit that gay marriage is fundamentally different than traditional marriage) bestow the same benefits on the state?

Personally, I don't give a shit who you want to marry, and if you can get a Priest, a Rabbi, or a homeless guy to marry you, more power to you. The tax code, rules of testate, etc., should be simple and the state should just get out of the marriage business altogether. It' absolutely hipocritical to say that you want the state to butt out of your personal choices, but at the same time to want the state to honor those choices with official recognition.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

Well, the real joke is "The land of the free" bullshit.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

You won't get any real arguments from me; Organized religion is in the business of selling the afterlife to gullible people.

And they've made a mint.

However, consider this when weighing scientology; They believe that millions of years ago, the evil lord Xenu packaged up all the useless cruft of society into giant space planes ( which, coincidentally looked like DC10s ), and flew them to Earth. There, he crashed these jets into volanos. But that wasn't good enough! No, then he built huge soul capturing centers to attract the wandering "thetans" and confuse them. Once released from these spirit reeducation camps, the thetans floated around confused until they found a prehistoric us. In which they found a host, and have been living in us ever since.

Now, the virgin mary, jesus on a stick and moses are pretty spectacular, but this is just plain bonkers. No less for the fact that their prophet was a Sci Fi writer. A very very bad sci fi writer.

So while jesus-centric religions are pretty nutty, you have to account for 2000+ years of history rewriting and folk tale telling to account for the weird shit. This crap is weird right out the gate.

Scary

Have we in the Western world become so enamored by political correctness that we cannot even take a joke for what it is? A similar double standard is happening in Britain right now: racism by the majority is rightfully condemned, but some minorities seem to be able to get away with inciting hatred [guardian.co.uk] (The Observer)

Re:Scary

Have we in the Western world become so enamored by political correctness that we cannot even take a joke for what it is?

We've become so enamored with religion and terrorism that we can't make jokes about anything having to do with either.

Re:Scary

A terrorist, A scientologist, and a donkey walk into a bar....

The terrorist says to the scientologist,"Stay away from the donkey, I've packed him full of explosives."
The scientologist says to the terrorist,"You can't blow up the donkey, I've packed him full of thetans!"
Finally the donkey says,"Actually, I'm fine. You filled each other up, you Asses."

Alternate Scientologist in a Bar Joke

Note: the following joke is subject to final script approval by Mr. Tom Cruise, in accordance with his production company's contract with United Artists.

OK, see, this Scientologist walks into a bar with a frog on his head. And the bartender says, "HEY...what the hell is THAT?!" And the frog says, "Well, I'm not sure exactly, but it started out as a wart on my ass."

* * * * *

The best ideas come as jokes. Make your thinking as funny as possible.
--David Ogilvy

Re:Scary

I've read about his case, and from that I'd say the 'stalking' material would be his picketing their compound. Complete with big-ass sign.

Going by the standards that it takes to get abortion protestors arrested, there's something fishy about the case.

Re:Scary

Odd thing about that jury, since the case, no one has been able to verify that these people actually exist.

Re:Scary

The 12 people on the jury never got to hear Keith's defense. Basically, he was prohibited from even telling them why he was picketing. That so-called "trial" was an absolute farce.

-jcr

Re:Scary

As others have stated, there's numerous questions about what just went on, the judge squashing the defense, for example, not allowing the rest of the transcript of the conversation involving the missile to be presented.

Imagine an organization that has no problems lying to authorities, as a group, rehearsing their stories, etc...

I use abortion protestors as an example because they're frequently the worst behaved protestors out there and have been known to descend into violence.

In order to match them he'd have to do more than some yelling and handing out pamphlets. Even if he did follow some members home, it's still not to the level that abortion protestors will go to. Heck include PETA in that list of out of control protestors that don't get anything near this level of punishment. They've been known to set up in front of people's houses.

Re:Scary

Something like asking thousands of dollars for the religious scriptures?

Oh. You mean like selling of "indulgences", a common Christian practice over most of the time Christianity has been extant, until just recently? Or do you mean like getting a blessing because you put something in the collection plate, or contributed to the build-a-cathedral fund? Or do you mean like the money one pays when one purchases any Christian book at the bookstore? Or do you mean when one pays to be educated at a Christian univeristy? Or do you mean when one donates at a tent revival? What about when a religion keeps art from the masses, as per the Catholic repository of great artworks? Does that count?

What about when certain behaviors - compliance with the religious tenets - are rewarded with the concept that the individual who does not so comply will have extracted from them the payment of eternal suffering?

What about when Christianity gets into the legal system and manages to prevent citizens from going about their business according to Christian notions; for instance, you can't marry more than one person, you can't perform this or that sexual activity, you can't open your store on Sunday... are these costs, or payments, extracted from the manifestly unwilling, of the same nature as those the Scientologists extract from the willing participants in their operations? Or are they actually worse, as they certainly seem on close examination?

I mean, if you are a Christian, and you accept that one spouse is the norm, and you willingly comply with this, isn't this the same as a sscientology adherent who willingly pays the cost for the documents you refer to? Isn't it more critical that those who are not Christian are being forced to adhere to Christian ideas? No scientologist has ever tried to force me into any scientology-related mode of thinking or behavior that has a real cost in terms of life experience; yet I am constantly faced with such costs emanating from the Christian ethos.

It appears to me, at least, that while I am not prepared to give either system of thinking a pass as even slightly rational, that Christianity is far more guilty of interfering with people than Scientology is, at least, to date.

Re:Scary

Scientology is not just a bunch of wacky walking wallets providing money to their leaders, some are criminals

Some Christians are criminals as well. You know, blowing up abortion clinics, burying newborns in walls, molesting children. So one could just as easily, and correctly, say: "Christianity is not just a bunch of wacky walking wallets providing money to their leaders, some are criminals."

Your point then, being?

I'm not in the least contesting the idea that Scientologists aren't loony to their very core; I'm just curious why you seem to think that Scientologists are worse than Christians somehow. Most of the differences I can think of leave the Christians as the worse offenders. Don't recall any scientologists blowing up any abortion clinics, for instance, nor can I think of them trying to tell me, a non-believer - or worse, getting a law put in place that coerces me - such that I can't marry two willing people.

Re:Scary

I'm not in the least contesting the idea that Scientologists aren't loony to their very core; I'm just curious why you seem to think that Scientologists are worse than Christians somehow. Most of the differences I can think of leave the Christians as the worse offenders.

Two points.

1) You're probably unaware of the offenses of Scientologists. They're relatively obscure.
2) There are a LOT more Christians and the religion has had a LOT longer time to have offenses committed in its name.

Combining these two means that you don't really have a good concept of the relative densities of craziness in the two religions. The larger a population is, the greater the violent fringe that can exist. Every major religion in existence has had its share of bloodshed, but that's not the fault of religion per se so much as the natural human tendency to form groups and to think less of people not in your group. Since Christianity is larger and more established, it has a greater capacity to harbor a lunatic fringe. That does not reflect necessarily on the relative merits of the core beliefs of the two faiths.

Don't recall any Scientologists blowing up any abortion clinics, for instance, nor can I think of them trying to tell me, a non-believer - or worse, getting a law put in place that coerces me - such that I can't marry two willing people.

While there isn't any solid evidence of murders committed in the name of Scientology, there is a long history of intimidation, harassment, and property damage in defense of the religion. (There is evidence for negligent death, but no first-degree murder.) The religion is relatively young, so it's hard to say whether that's a matter of time or not.

However, there is a marked difference in the canonical stance on violence towards outsiders between mainstream Christianity and mainstream Scientology. Scientology views those who interfere with Scientology to be fair game. [xenu.net] That is to say that there's no moral laws protecting the enemies of Scientology and no sanction of any activities taken to harm them. Christianity, at its core, states that you should love your enemy. [biblegateway.com] Few Christians are capable of holding themselves to that standard, but the difference in what you're supposed to do is marked.

As for attempting to force their morality on others, Scientology simply hasn't had the power to enforce its views on outsiders due to a lack of critical mass. What makes you think they'd be different from any other segment of society bound by a common code of behavior?

They have, however, lobbied for broad government powers to enforce copyright because they protect their inner secrets with copyright law and have been responsible for a number of DMCA takedown notices. They were notable advocates for the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA itself.

Re:Scary

I think it is just as fair to write "Christianity views those who interfere with Christianity to be fair game" or "Islam views those who interfere with Islam to be fair game."

No, I think it's quite unfair. The very source that Christianity springs from -- Christ -- explicitly does not sanction visiting wrath upon your enemies. Jesus repeatedly makes the point that you should love your enemies, that you should turn the other cheek, and that you should in general be far more concerned about your own flaws than those of others.

The very source that Scientology springs from -- L. Ron Hubbard -- explicitly stated that it was fair to go after enemies of Scientology, and his retraction of said policy is suspect because of both the way it was worded (mostly reflecting on the negative PR of the policy) and the fact that he stated that it was okay to lie to non-Scientologists. (Also, the fact that the policy was in effect into the 80s when a more public repudation came out belies the fact that it may not be retracted).

The fact that Christians rarely live up to the standards of their own religion does not imply that the religion itself is harmful and actively sanctions the persecution of non-believers. Every major human institution fails because of the petty self-interests of men who are willing to twist their people's beliefs for self-gain. From Christians vowing to never forgive and never forget to Buddhists supporting samurai to Muslims turning on Muslims to Communist leaders hording wealth for themselves to anti-drug officers taking and dealing drugs on the side, there have always been people willing to compromise the prinicples of their culture or organization for personal gain. The failure of leaders and followers to stick to the spirit of their avowed beliefs does not make said beliefs hollow and valueless in and of themselves.

To use as an underlying presumption that "Christianity = love your enemy" is, in my view, disingenuous. Christianity is demonstrably all over the map when it comes to core moral and ethical beliefs.

The Bible is very clear on the matter. The Sermon on the Mount is the most central sermon in all of the New Testament on how Christians are supposed to live. It's the central thesis that binds everything else. Furthermore, when asked what the most important commandments are, Jesus replied, "Love God," and "Love your neighbor as yourself." From "judge not" to "turn the other cheek," Christianity is fundamentally about foregiveness and love. Anyone who misses that is quite simply an off-shoot from the faith. I'm not being a fundamentalist here; it's the core doctrine of the faith. If you miss out on that, you're not a Christian.

Instead, you're a member of a human tribe that ritualizes Christianity as cultural binding without actually practicing the faith. You're free to hate and clash with all other cultures outside of yours, but you'd be doing this anyway without Christianity -- there would just be some other excuse to divide and hate. Maybe you'd be a Muslim. Maybe you'd be a polytheist. Maybe you'd be a militant atheist. It doesn't really matter -- you'd probably just be militantly xenophobic no matter what you were. There are biological reasons for this, after all. Anyone who doesn't appreciate that has neither and appreciation of world history nor of evolutionary sociobiology. Again, you should not blame Christianity for the unwillingness of people to actually practice what it preaches.

It is simply unacceptable to castigate Scientology for what it has not done. Guessing doesn't count. Stick to reality here.

I'm sorry, but the cold hard reality is that every single group in human history has at some point demonized outsiders and acted on it. Most of the successful ones got there by acting violently on those impulses. It's human nature. We're a pack animal. For better or for worse, that means that it's wired into our psychology to smooth over the flaws of the groups we identify

Re:Scary

Comforting to see it's not just the US. Here what is percieved as the majority have to watch every word but minority groups are largely allowed to say what they want so long as it's about the majority. There is some condemnation if they insult other minorities. Intolerance and hatred is pretty color blind and virtually all groups have issues. Offhand the only major religion that doesn't condemn anyone or anything is Buddism. Most factions have some issue with some one or some thing. Even most racial conflicts tend to be more ethnic or social than racial. In the US we even have a north south division that is a hold over from the civil war. It isn't spoken of very often but there's still tension. Intolerance should never be tolerated by any group and people need to take intent into account. I remember a fuss made about a town called Fish Kil. An animal rights group was demanding they change the name of the town to something fish friendly. When locals pointed out it meant Fish River in Gaelic the group wasn't impressed and still wanted it changed. Intent is everything and sometimes the insult is in the eye of the beholder.

Re:Scary

"In the US we even have a north south division that is a hold over from the civil war."

Did you mean to say "the war of northern aggression"?

:-)

Buddhism and War

Offhand the only major religion that doesn't condemn anyone or anything is Buddism.

Actually, militant Zen Buddhism [racematters.org] was a unifying force in WWII Japan. Much like promises of eternal reward after death helps assuage fears for believers in Judeo-Christian teachings, the beliefs in impermanence and reincarnation assuage the fears of death for Buddhists. Soto Zen has also been criticized for racial discrimination [thezensite.com] [PDF] in the treatment of the former Japanese lower caste members. You can read a long list of essays about Buddhism going wrong (particularly Japanese Buddhism) here. [thezensite.com]

Then, of course, there was the White Lotus Revolution which overthrew the Mongol Yuan dynasty and established the Ming dynasty. That was basically a Buddhist nationalist secret society. The ethnic struggles in Sri Lanka are between the Buddhist Sinhalese and the Hindu Tamils, so Buddhists aren't all innocent either.

The problem is not the religion -- it's the people that practice it.

Re:Scary

In the seventh conversation... the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion" ... Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Pope's a professor at heart. He's talking to a bunch of students at a university. He's giving a lecture on Christian-Muslim relations. Historical context is exceedingly relevant, and this brings us to the heart of the matter. And the Pope criticizes the emperor's statement in the very sentence that he quotes it and he still gets flack. Hey, I'll take a rational criticism of the Catholic Church any day of the week, but this is just Pope-hating mixed with spin mixed with the ill-informed.

hm

And yet they couldn't arrest Kyle and Cartman....

Re:hm

One of the things that makes Scientology dangerous is not that they believe in odd things, it's that they are very well organized and equipped to muzzle detractors. South Park attacked the fundamentals of belief in a way that's obvious. Nobody except Keith and that church branch really know what happened during his protest. The original trial where he wasn't able to even counter Scientology's accusations is a travesty of justice. Beleving in Xenu, thetans, and paying gobs of money for the privilage of memorizing word lists aren't in themselves dangerous, illegal, or even wrong. What IS dangerous is how much legal protection they are granted by being recognized as a religion and their willingness to exploit the law in their favor. Other religious organizations (Roman Catholic for the best example) dumped influencing governments centuries ago. Like a badly behaved child, this new religion is trying to do exactly what a lot of the old world religions did at one time and no longer consider fashionable.

Re:hm

The "religious right" is an oxymoron. Religion is only a tool to them, as far as they're concerned it's their ticket to wealth and power. Pat Robertson is NOT a Christian in any meaniful way at all. He worships MONEY - look at his neck; he's wearing Satan's leash (a necktie, the symbol pf money and power) and wearing $4k suits, bad-mouthing the poor and homeless, opining that we should assassinate foreign dictators we don't like, and so on.

Christ taught that we should feed the hungry and house the homeless, that we should love one another as ourselves, and that it is "as easy for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" as it is to get a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

I doubt Robertson even believes in God, even though Satan has most certainly bought his soul.

The right are anti-poor, anti-homeless, anti-drug. Christianity is for the poor and homeless and neutral about drugs (and yes, drugs such as opium and marijuana existed then); drugs aren't even mentioned. The Baptists especially piss me off with their anti-alcohol stance, since on Christ's last night before his execution his disciples were all stone-drunk.

Now excuse me while I go to the Church of Jack Daniels and bitch about the neocons while getting shitfaced.

Re:hm

Umm, have you not been paying any attention AT ALL to what the religious right has done and/or tried to do to the US governments direction and policies in the past 25 years?

And fortunatly for the Christian Right, the Progressive Left has been promoting the concept of Social Democracy, where by society is socially engineered by the state in order to better address social issues. Years ago, the Christian Right had to go through pretty extreme lengths to enforce their will (for example, in the 1920s the prohibition of alchohol needed to explicity constitutional amendment to be enacted), since the role of the federal government was so limited. Nowadays, most law is essentially dictated by the executive branch (in regulations created by the EPA, the DEA, the FDA, the Department of Energy, etc., etc.), and completly bypasses congress, state and local governments, etc.

The thinking of the Progressive Left was "We need to make a super powerful federal government, where the president and the executive branch have nearly total power over all affairs of our nation, because then the president will be able to do a lot of 'social good' with all that power. It isn't like a right wing christian nut will ever be elected president!".

The greatest allies the Christian Right has ever known in their struggle for power in America is the Progressive Left.

Scientology isn't a Religion

Seriously, it's just a pyramid scheme that takes advantage of people's unhappiness. The leaders of scientology make bank by brainwashing their followers.

Even if Scientology was a legitimate religion, why is it illegal for someone to interfere with a religion, but it's completely acceptable for religions to interfere with everyone elses lifes.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

So what's your definition of a "legitimate religion," and why doesn't Scientology fit it?

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

Legitimate religions are based on Gourds or Sandals. Scientology is based on science and so clearly is not legitimate.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

Scientology is based on science and so clearly is not legitimate.

No, scientology is based on a science fiction novel. It's no more a religion than The Jedi Order [bbc.co.uk] or a church based on Harry Potter.

Personally, I don't care what scientologists do, but if I can be ridiculed for believing in ID, then I see no reason why this guy should go to jail if all he did was ridicule Tom Cruise.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

You could say the same about the bible...

No, you couldn't. The Bible, all religion aside, is at least a historic text. Many of the stories and accounts in the Bible can be and have been verified. Regardless of your religious preferences, you don't contest the fact that pharos existed, crosses were used for execution or that Caesar was in charge of Rome. Contrasted to scientology, there are no pyramids built buy Xenu!

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

The Bible, all religion aside, is at least a historic text. Many of the stories and accounts in the Bible can be and have been verified. Regardless of your religious preferences, you don't contest the fact that pharos existed, crosses were used for execution or that Caesar was in charge of Rome.

Is Harry Potter an historic text because children really do attend schools, and take multiple classes teaching them different subjects, as depicted in those books?

While the bible uses settings that may be mappable to various locations on earth, the bible's point has never been to assert that pharoahs existed, or that crosses were used. The bible is basically one giant assertion that there is a god, a heaven and hell, and most of the rest is detail about how to get on the right or wrong side of said heaven/hell dichotomy. To declare the bible an historic text based on its inclusion of a few possibly-verifiable but completely-beside-the-point elements seems somewhere between misguided and manipulative.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

At this point it's no secret that L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology as a sort of get rich quick scheme. There's plenty of documentation of this, and there is plenty of information on the CoS's internal workings that has made it into the public record thanks to a number of court cases. Red flags should start flying immediately once one realizes that you have to pay the CoS thousands and thousands of dollars before they will start telling you the religion's actual theology (the stuff in Dianetics is really only the tip of the iceberg, it isn't even enough that I would be willing to say that Dianetics alone could possibly qualify as the basis for a religion).

It's true that you've struck on an interesting semantic conundrum, though. The fact of the matter is that, as part of his scheme, LRH and his compatriots did have to construct a religion, and the fact of the matter is that anything can be a religion as long as people actually believe it. And there is a group of people, the Freezone Scientologists [wikipedia.org] who have turned the official Church of Scientology and the incredible number of crimes it has committed. This group is obviously a legitimate religion as much as any religion can be according to any objective definition that I can come up with*.

*Since I can't personally determine the details of the beginnings of any religion, I don't feel it's reasonable to say one religion is legitimate and another isn't based on which ones I am guessing came from the imagination of one man and which ones are truly divinely inspired. Especially given that, as an atheist, I believe that all religions fall into the former group. So I won't call Scientology-the-religion illegitimate despite the fact that it was created as part of Scientology-the-pyramid-scheme.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

It's true that you've struck on an interesting semantic conundrum, though. The fact of the matter is that, as part of his scheme, LRH and his compatriots did have to construct a religion, and the fact of the matter is that anything can be a religion as long as people actually believe it.

But that's what's great about Scientology, and why I hope to see it flourish.

The fact that something which was started in our lifetimes as a get-rick-quick scheme, could become considered a "legitimate religion" on legal par with Christianity and Islam and all the rest, is the most striking demonstration to date of why religion is a crock and in fact deserves no special legal recognition whatsoever.

Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

You do not know or understand the history of Christianity. There were a series of meetings, known as the Ecumenical Councils [wikipedia.org], that defined what Christianity is, what it believs and professes, and what it considers heretical. The important ones occuring between 325AD and 1123AD and resolved such questions as whether Jesus was entirely Divine, entirely human, human and divine parts seperated, or human and divine parts united.

Allmost all Western Christian denominations, as well as Eastern Orthodox accept the decisions of councils 1-7. Catholics, protestants, all of them. That is the Christian party line. Oriental Orthodox churches only accept 1-3; Assyrian Christianity accepts 1-2; Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians and a few other fringe groups don't accept any of the council's decisions.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

You do not know or understand the history of Christianity.

Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. You don't know the history of Christianity, I do.

You're being glib.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

Actually, he's pretty much correct, sad to say.

How many Christian sects -don't- believe in the Nicean Trinity? Think long and hard about that, because I understand that there's only -1-, they're routinely vilified along with the average 'Christian' declaring that they can't possibly be Christian because of it.

So yes, adherence to the Nicean Creed IS, in fact, pretty much used as a 'definition' to determine who is, and is not, a "real" Christian, whether you like it or not.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

The vast majority of religions that do not require payment. Most religions will teach the beliefs regardless of whether you cough up money. Some ask for donations but that is hardly on the same level as Scientology.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

maybe it's about time someone starts an open-source religion? license it with the gpl so it can be distributed freely and not require payment to participate in. everyone can modify it as they see fit and all gods/goddesses must be open for all to see.

i just wonder how long will it take for microsoft to embrace the new religion, add their own pantheon, patent it and try to squash the rest of us? i can hear the chant now... "developers.. developers.. developers.." as we do a monkey dance around a bonfire of burning penguins.

Being religious is like being gay

Being religious is like being gay - both have a genetic component.

Some people have both genes, but I'll Cruise away from further speculation on that subject.

Here is my hope...

That, at the end of the day, Scientology will be laughed out of court, and this guy set free. Think SCO vs IBM.

One can dream, of course. Scientology is well-known for legally attacking any and all critics. They are the biggest bullies you have ever heard of, even worse than most Fundamentalists.

Hazy Case & Donation Fund

Personally, I've only become aware of this case via this article. If all he did was post that on a forum to cause all this trouble with Scientology, I sure feel sorry for him. But if a California court found him guilty of any wrong, then I think he should serve his time. I don't think "interfering with a church" should constitute a long sentence though. I feel I am missing a large part of the story here or that this article was written omitting tactics Mr. Henson used agains Scientology. I can't judge until all the facts are in but I am aware that people with a lot of money can make strange charges stick.

If you want to support Keith Henson, there is a donation fund set up for his defense fees [extropy.org].

I personally hate Scientology but they are a religion and must be respected as one. If they can convince chumps to give them money, there's nothing I can do to stop that.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

"I personally hate Scientology but they are a religion and must be respected as one."

Not necessarily. From http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/ [snafu.de]:

"The German Federal Government maintains that Scientology is an organization which has primarily economical interests. This idea has been reinforced by a ruling of the Federal Labour court (which is not connected to the government in any way). After having reviewed several Scientology books, the judges concluded that Scientology is not a religion, but a commercial enterprise.

  Furthermore, the German government maintains that Scientology tries to distribute its ideas as widely as possible, ideally leading to a society where humans life together according to Scientology rules. A closer look at Hubbard's writings shows that this is not desirable since Scientology is structured in a totalitarian, anti-democratic fashion."

There is an entire faq on the Germany v Scientology thing: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/germany.txt [snafu.de]

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

Very much the opposite in the US.

In the US, money you pay for 'audits' to Scientology - essentially classes - are tax deductable. However, your tuition to a private Catholic or Jewish Day school is not. Go figure.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

I personally hate Scientology but they are a religion and must be respected as one. If they can convince chumps to give them money, there's nothing I can do to stop that.

I was going to say something of my own here, then I thought of this Menckenism:

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken

Space colony, eh?

Can we set up a solar colony for the Scientologists?

Re:Space colony, eh?

It needs to be in this order:
1-Set up space colony.
2-Send up scientologists.
3-Send up air.

Previous Discussion

Here's a vintage /. discussion from 2001 [slashdot.org] that discusses Hanson's escape to Canada.

How is that NOT free speech?

Isn't satire and other kinds of humor covered under the first amendment? and Wow how are you not supposed to make fun of scientology...it's such an easy target...all that stuff about Xenu and aliens being sent here 75 million years ago...it's a humorist's dream

Friday police

Friday police arrested 64-year-old Keith Henson.

I don't know who these Friday police are, but they should be stopped. Friday police don't have the right to stop free speech anymore than normal police do!

scientology is just an evil cult

sometimes, i think it is wrong for countries like germany to prosecute them

other times, i think it is wrong for the usa not too

the issue is one of persecution: one should not be persecuted for their beliefs

but if you are persecuting a group BECAUSE they believe they have a right to persecute people like this poor guy who is also just expressing his beliefs, the argument about freedom kind of collapses in on itself

you are free

we all are

but you are not free to restrict the freedoms of others

and across that simple philosophical divide, so much misery in this world is created, this scientology case beign but one small example

personally, i think there is intolerance, which is evil

and then there is intolerance of intolerance, which is a virtue

you don't gain anything in this world by tolerating the intolerant, except more misery and intolerance

and i think this argument applies just as much to fundamentalist christianity and fundamentalist islam

how or why is tolerance served by tolerating the intolerant?

being intolerant of the intolerance is actually extending tolerance in this world

scientology should be punished, not this poor guy

What's your excuse?

'In 2000 after picketing a Scientology complex, he was arrested as a threat because of a joke Usenet post about "Tom Cruise Missiles."'

I thought people only read Usenet for the pictures.

Religion ?

Surely calling scientology a religion is an oxymoron ?

They have lots of followers but that is only because they have been brainwashed. Scientology is a way of making money for the high ups. Another source of information about the crap that the scientologists peddle is the fishman affidavit [spaink.net] .

If there was any sense in what they were on about they would argue it out in the open, rather than using underhand legalities to silence those who show them to be the charlatans that they are.

Hmmm

I'm no fan of Scientology (they suck, bottom line), but after reading the article, I'm sensing there's a LOT more to this story than we're getting told. It's not like the government are typically fans of scientologists either, so I doubt just their nutty braying is going to get someone sentenced to jail. The guy's statements make him sound a little... er... paranoid and wacked out himself.

I think this is one of those cases where both sides are crackpots. Just because the victims are scientologists doesn't mean this guy didn't do some ugly crap that we don't know about.

what a strange character

Granted, the scientologists are deeply confused and potentially dangerous. And, yes, I think people should be able to criticize them harshly, just one like should be able to criticize any other religion harshly.

But cryonics, extropianism, Drexler-style nanotechnology? This guy is pretty high on the nut-o-meter as well. It's not quite the same level as thetans, but not far off either.

There have to be limits to freedom of religion

Freedom of religion should not be extended to religions that are clearly made up. There is ample evidence to show that Hubbard pulled Scientology's belief system out his ass, the same cannot be said of any other religion from Christianity to Taoism to neo-paganism. The "Church" of Scientology is nothing more than a roving scam that exploits the first amendment to avoid taxation. It has also been shown to be a haven for systematic criminal behavior and should be considered a threat to American society.

Bottom line is religions don't have "trade secrets," but Scientology does. I could buy that if it claimed to be a mystery religion or a form of gnosticism, but it doesn't. Rather, those secrets are exposed as the result of a financial transaction.

Some religion. Despite my being a libertarian, I think the Germans are right on this one. It's not a religion. It's a subversive organization that needs to be monitored by the state because it has been known to use force and criminal behavior to advance its agenda, which is not even remotely religious.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

All religions look like they are "made up" when they are getting started, are small, and the core tenets are associated to a single leader, who claims to have received them by divine revelation.

The LDS Church (Mormons) have been around for a century and a half... old enough for some people consider it a "religion," but young enough for some people to feel that Joseph Smith just "made it up." Don't expect to see the golden plates in a museum the next time you visit Salt Lake City: Smith gave them back to the Angel Moroni.

How do you support Christianity looked during the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth? Do you think the Roman authorities saw it as a religion? Or as something that Jesus just made up?

Deciding what counts as a religion and what doesn't is a very tricky business.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

Freedom of religion should not be extended to religions that are clearly made up.

Um, wouldn't that be all religions?

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

"religions that are clearly made up. ..." the same cannot be said of any other religion from Christianity to Taoism to neo-paganism."

Most, if not all, religions are "made up". In some cases, we know when and by whom. Christian Science was made up by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866. Mormonism was made up by Joseph Smith in 1830. Islam was made up by Mohammed around 610. Christianity was more of a group project; most modern doctrine comes from a committee meeting [wikipedia.org] in 325. In 431, there was a another meeting for a feature upgrade [wikipedia.org], and the Virgin Mary was added.

Freedom of religion is a bad concept

Freedom of religion should not be extended to religions that are clearly made up.

Freedom of religion is simply a horrible concept. People should have freedom of belief, and freedom of expression. Whether or not what you choose to believe in or advocate is called a religion by anyone should be irrelevant.

Similarly, the reasonable practice of religion (for example, by gathering for collective worship) is generally covered by other established freedoms, such as movement and association.

This being the case, the expression "freedom of religion" is usually used as an excuse, an implicit claim to more rights than someone else has, or to have one's own wishes valued more highly than another's. Following a certain religion does not earn you those rights, any more than someone following a different religion (or no religion) has those rights at your expense.

One can readily extend this argument to anti-discrimination legislation. Why should it be necessary to prohibit discrimination on explicit criteria? If something is important enough to protect in this way, why not simply require that any decision be made based only on information relevant to the matter at hand?

I don't get it?

While not outright illegal, everyone here would give me the eyeball if I went out picketing a Jewish mosque. But if I picket Scientology, everyone cheers me on?

That said, unless someone actually breaks a law or does harm, they shouldn't be arrested for "interfering with a religion" unless they actually "interfere". Picketing in a parking lot is about as much interference as a Jovi putting a watchtower under my wiper blade at a red light.
I guess the point is, don't side with this guy just cause he went after Scientology (I am definately not a Scientology defender), side with this pseudo/racist whacko because the US government overstepped in his persecution.

BBH

Re:I don't get it?

While not outright illegal, everyone here would give me the eyeball if I went out picketing a Jewish mosque.

If you can find yourself a Jewish mosque to picket, then I say go for it. You'd probably get a lot of support from Jews and mosques around the world (not to mention the evangelical Christians) for picketing such an abomination.

Re:I don't get it?

If that so-called "mosque" was allegedly responsible for the deaths of several of their members [whyaretheydead.net], then yes, I would say you were justified in picketing.

He was picketing because of the death of Lisa McPherson [lisamcpherson.org]. But you know that and now so do those who choose to read the links.

Better advice, better judgement

Having dealt with Mr. Hanson in the past few years, he has my earnest hope that he gets better advice this time 'round, and LISTENS to it. No small part of this tragedy comes from Keith's own choices.

arww, they are nice guys.

Step right in for a free personality test. :-r

Wikipedia on Keith Henson

Wikipedia is a geek's best friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson [wikipedia.org] One ironic note about that Wikipedia article is that it was created by a Scientology sock puppet, especially to tarnish Henson's reputation with their ongoing smear campaign to make it seem as though he is a dangerous bomb-making terrorist (and a "child molester" -- they even dug up one little snippet from his divorce papers of 25+ years ago to blow it up and try to label him as that, too. His ex-wife laughed that one off and has denied the accusation as fervently as he has.) To get an idea of what Scientology has been trying to do to Keith Henson, you should go to their own hate site on the Internet: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religiou s-extremists/keith-henson/ [religiousf...mwatch.org] -- but be sure to check the whole site out and see the outlandish, unbelievable BS they pile up on there. It all falls just a whisker short of libel, of course. (My own commentary on "Religious Freedom Watch:" http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Religious_F reedom_Watch [modemac.com] ) It should also be noted that Wikipedia's entry on Scientology is probably the most informative, comprehensive, and UNBIASED look at Scientology in the entire world today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology [wikipedia.org]

What, no linkage to Operation Clambake? :)

Here's all the info you need on Scientology [xenu.net]

In Soviet California....

Xenu imprisons YOU!

It's only a matter of time...

"interfering" with a religion

So now it's just a matter of time before creationists start having archeologists arrested for digging up dinosaurs and interfering with their religion...

The moral of the story is

Don't mess with space aliens.

Missing the most interesting bit of the article.

This is the most telling part of the article I think:

Last week, Henson unsuccessfully asked the judge to dismiss the prosecutor's case because the government showed bias by not investigating the deaths of Ashlee Shaner and Stacy Meyer. Both women died at the Golden Era Productions location.

Two women DIE in a Scientology facility and it's not even INVESTIGATED, while the man who is trying to get prosecutors to look at the case winds up convicted.

Odd? No, it's Scientology's usual MO. If you don't think so you've NEVER done any real research on the group.

Freedom of Religion = No Freedom for Humans?

"He fled to Canada after being found guilty of "interfering" with a religion."

I certainly hope the law is more precise (and just) than that phrase implies, although given who was arrested, and how long they've hounded him, I rather doubt it.

So we can't "interfere" with religion. What, pray tell, constitutes "interference?" Speaking out against the irrationality of religious belief? (Better arrest most of the brightest 5% of the country then)

Speaking out against specific religious practices? If so, which ones? Catholicism's stance on gays and women? Mormonism's stance on women and polygamy? Islam's stance on women and jihad. Sounds like women are screwed regardless.

Or do they imprison you for picketing a church these days? If so, better go arrest all those civil rights activists who, in the 1960s in the US picketed their churches (protestant and Catholic alike) for not allowing blacks to worship in the same building as whites.

Religions have absolutely no compunction when it comes to interfering in our lives, whether it is sending missionaries to our doors to harass us, organizing boycotts to impose their choice on what products, music, television, and films are available to us (often in censored form), passing laws that define sizeable portions of us as second class citizens (gays being denied rights the rest of us enjoy, women losing out when the Equal Rights Amendment was squashed, largely as a result of Mormon and right-wing Christian mobilization), imposing their beliefs on our school systems ("intelligent design", anyone?) or even threatening our lives when we dare disagree with their dogma (as numerous cults, including $cientology, are reputed to have done).

Seems to me that allowing religions to interfere with the rest of us the way they are, and then disallowing the rest of us from interfering with their often toxic agendas, is a sure-fire recipe for a theocratic hell-state.

stupid law, trumped up charges, and fishy DA

The jury rejected Henson's claim that he was exercising his First Amendment right to criticize a dangerous cult, and convicted him of interfering with a religion, one of three counts against him.

his "crime" -

Henson seems undeterred. "After court today, my wife Arel and I picketed outside the court with signs about the women killed out at the cult's place last summer," he said in an e-mail. "We also gave away about 200 flyers about how Scientology is hurting people and breaking the law."

1) Why is interfering with a religion even a crime. What if I chose to not believe in a god, can I argue that door to door evangelists that claim I am going to hell unless I convert are interfering with my religion?

2) Also even if interfering with religion is a crime - how is picketing with signs or giving away flyers interfering with it. He didn't forcibly go yank emeters out of peoples hands did he. He didn't take someones copy of OTIII and burn it or something. He didn't try and sink their stupid boat? He picketed and distributed flyers.

"It was not just the postings themselves," said Deputy District Attorney Robert Schwarz. "He had been engaged in other odd behavior -- chasing down buses, taking down license plate numbers."

Since when did odd behavior become illegal??? Seriously how is taking down license plate numbers illegal?

The jury was hung on the other two counts against Henson: 9-3 for conviction on the count of terrorism, 10-2 for conviction on the count of attempted terrorism.

HOW THE FUCK WAS HE EVEN CHARGED WITH TERRORISM??? The man said we should aim cruise missles at them. I've heard radio hosts talk about nuking the democratic convention? WTF is going on? And whats up with

The site says that Scientology has a suspiciously close relationship with the prosecutor: "What kind of Alice-in-Wonderland Court is it that allows organized criminals to sit in the prosecutor's chair bringing charges against the honest citizens, in which a heavily-armed cult has Mafia lawyers direct the activities of the District Attorney?" "A dodgy District Attorney, with cult lawyers sitting at the prosecutor's table, set him up for absurd charges of threatening the cult with cruise missiles," says Dave Bird, another Scientology critic. "Virtually all the defense evidence was excluded.... Even when Henson quoted L. Ron Hubbard's violent words, it was presented as his own speech without quotation marks."

Man was smart to go to Canada - maybe he should have tried someplace further away.

Unfortunate...

Its unfortunate that Keith has finally been arrested. While he was in Canada, I worked closely with him on a few R&D projects. He was a good guy who always had an interesting story to tell. He fought very hard to get political refugee status from the Canadian Gov't while he was here, and was eventually denied after about a 3 year struggle. He left on his own terms, returning to the US in his own time, claiming that if he was escorted properly across the border, he would be a dead man.

In all the time that Keith spent in Canada, he was never once left alone by the cult of Scientology. I was involved with one incident with a P.I. that was following him, and there were numerous other occasions that I had heard about from him.

He was a good friend, always willing to stick his head out for ya. I sure do miss him now, and sincerely hope that nothing terrible happens to him now that he's been arrested.

Scientology is NOT a religion

Never has been, never will be.

I still have the original print of the book, where L. Ron Hubbard himself clearly states that he did not consider it to be a religion, nor did he intend to allow it to become a religion. Gee, did he actually die of normal causes? Or was there some other more sinister event?

Re:Yeah they're oppressed too

Like the 95% evangelical community I live among here in the Bible belt. Go ask those people, just like the rich powerful Scientologists, they whine that they're oppressed. Screw them.

I don't get it... screw them because they're oppressed?

Re:Clash of the nutjobs

So basically what we're talking about here is crackpot versus crackpots.

Ad Homenim. You lose.

Just think about it: Many people would consider a Slashdot poster to be a crackpot. (Especially if he has strong beliefs about something like the unsuitability of the massively-market-accepted mainstream OS, for instance.)

Does this mean such a poster should be unable to exercise free speech when his postings annoy an organization with significant funds and political connections?

Philosophical question

And yes, it is pointless to karma whore as an AC.

If an AC karma whores in a forest of posts and noone mods him up, does he really karma whore at all?

Re:Yeah they're oppressed too

Flamebait? Apparently the mods have never actually lived in the bible belt.

Unfortunately, the parent poster isn't kidding. These are the same people that scream that because the teachers in a public school aren't allowed to force students to pray that the students aren't allowed to pray (which isn't true. They can pray all they like. They just can't be forced to do it) and go "la la la I can't hear you" when they are told what I just put in parentheses.

They're also the same people that scream that, if everyone in the community isn't Christain, that it's just plain wrong and unholy. They act like the beliefs that someone else holds affects *them* on a personal level and that nobody should be able to believe differently than they do.

Sounds crazy, I know, but there are people out there like that. For some reason, a lot of them have a persecution complex because they aren't allowed to force their beliefs on everyone else. Trust me on that one - as someone who is "not a member of the fold" (I'm Taoist), I've often been on the receiving end of tirades that I am what is wrong with the world.

Some portions of them may be in the minority insofar that they think others should be exactly like them, but it's a really *really* vocal minority.