Scientologists In Row With BBC 763
CmdrGravy writes "The Church Of Scientology is currently engaged in a row with the BBC, a result of an investigation by reporter John Sweeney. Sweeney is investigating the Church Of Scientology, trying to judge changes in the organization over the last few years; He's trying to discover if they've moved away from the questionable practices and secrecy they have employed in the past. The conflict centers around a YouTube video posted by the scientologists. It shows Mr. Sweeney losing his temper with a scientology spokesman. Mr. Sweeney's outburst came at the end of a tour of a scientology exhibition which attempts to portray psychiatrists as evil nazi type torturers entitled 'Psychiatry: Industry of Death' which is both gruesome and utterly unconvincing. The BBC appears willing to stand behind its reporter, in spite of the pressure brought to bear by the scientologist organization."
Why (Score:5, Insightful)
Their material calls that there's not a shred of "scientific" evidence that mental illnesses exist, instead it's all about the alien ghosts lord Xenu imprisoned.
I mean, for Christ's sake, people. Is there a limit to how ridiculous you can get?
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hope the BBC wins, and shows that nothing has changed. We have to nip this "religion" in the bud, it's disgusting.
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying parallels can't be drawn, but Scientology is definitely much worse. You can argue it's a gross exaggeration of mainstream religion, but it isn't mainstream religion.
Re:Why (Score:4, Informative)
Things got a little better thanks to people like Martin Luther (not King, in this context), who pushed for mainstream access to translated Bibles, but the basic premise of mind-control or financial extortion didn't change much. One modern day example that comes to mind is Sweden. In Sweden, the State and Church only got separated in 2000, but still almost all of its citizens pay a 1.25% tax to the church automatically. And that's in a socialist country. It amazes me every time I think about it.
Scientology isn't much worse, it would just appear that it's still in the primitive, expansionist cult-state that Christianity managed to shake in most parts of the world. Way I see it, this is a part of the life-cycle of any religion or dogma.
Re:Why (Score:5, Informative)
Neither are you, apparently.
Paying one's way into heaven was never a fundamental part of Christianity; the closest thing that happened historically was the selling of indulgences (remission of the earthly consequences of sin), a real and grave abuse, but one which emerged late in Christian history and which was subsequently eliminated.
It's also worth pointing out that for much of Church history, Greek (and later Latin; the texts were translated accordingly) was the language everyone spoke, and even after the various Romance languages became differentiated, for a long time it was a reasonable expectation that anyone who was literate could still read the two languages (Latin, at a minimum). Later, as literacy in these local languages became more widespread, there were recurring issues with "creative" translations which did result in many local translations being banned. The Church, an organization more than a millennium old at that point, was (perhaps overly) conservative about producing new, official, translations, but did eventually produce them out of necessity as more people became literate in their local tongues.
The European church taxes which you are rightly appalled by were actually an (unintended!) consequence of the Reformation movement led by Martin Luther et al. -- unmoored from the central organization of the Church, the European monarchs were able to establish themselves as the heads of the national churches and turned them into instruments of the State. While the Church, as the only central institution left after the collapse of the Roman Empire, had become too involved in secular affairs, such a development represented a radical overcompensation which made the situation worse rather than better. Incidentally, it is a desire to avoid this state of affairs -- an established State church -- which motivated the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution.
Lastly, as the two religions (if Scientology can be called that) differ greatly in their fundamentals, I think it would be especially constructive for you examine the first few decades of Christianity and compare them with the first few decades of Scientology. For instance, how many Christians (particularly the leadership!) could expect to be (and generally were) killed for their religion? Money really was the least of their concerns...
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this is a great point and helps illustrate the difference between Scientology and religions. In other religions, you give money freely because you think it will help the church/society/causes, etc. In Scientology, you are presented with a "self help" system that is designed to help you with vague problems ("Do you ever have negative thoughts?"), and the teachings are VERY EXPENSIVE. HOWEVER, you are generally not asked to pony up 100% of the cost. The rest is loaned to you interest-free for as long as you're a part of the church. You can rack up millions of dollars of "debt" to the church through their normal course of training. Which is irrelevant as long as you never leave the church, but if you ever do, millions of dollars of loans come due and you've destroyed your life.
And that's just the economic side of things. When they send a private investigator to your town and tell your neighbors that you're an accused child molester, call the news and tell them that you're being investigated for terrorism, and follow you around day and night, it starts to get old.
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
Ridiculous, yes... but have you seen the messes those crazies who believe in Transubstantiation [wikipedia.org] have made over the last couple thousand years? Just as they're settling down, we've got some newer upstarts wanting to go all David Koresh and Osama bin Laden on the world. Where's Janet Reno when you need her?
In one big way, these people are worse than previous cults striving to be religions - ironically, our ability to detect mental illness helps the CoS get crazier. This cult specifically recruits and attracts those who modern science has said are mentally ill... and we're surprised when they pull particularly crazy-assed shit?
Re:Why (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why (Score:5, Interesting)
2 Hours later my friend got me liberated by shouting the place down in no uncertain terms and threatening them with the police for kidnapping.
I'd just split with my g/f and was feeling very low which needless to say they picked up on and I quickly found myself in a side room getting the good cop/bad cop routine, being told it would take 20 years to undo all the damage in my head that was stopping me achieve etc. etc. They would not let me go. Every time I tried to get up they stopped me, not with a gun but in ways that stop a polite person - gentle hand on shoulder, standing in the way of the door etc. as well as all the 'Please, you really need help, I'd be a bad person if I let you just leave - at least buy our book!'.
In hindsite, a lucky escape c/o my friend. Whilst I knew it was all highly dodgy, something in the way they quickly stripped my defences, pulled me apart and offered the 'only' way to be put back together again was with their help was compelling.
Re:Why (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all they showed me some video and then I filled in a questionaire or something and went for a private interview with one of their practioners. He was trying to insinuate that I had psychological problems by asking things like "So, what do you regret most in life then eh ?". "Actually, nothing. I am very happy with my life - how about you ?". He was getting more and more frustrated by me insisting that life and great and I was the worlds best example of a rounded, well adjusted human being and in the end explained his theory about how auditing can help erase bad influences in my psyche so I asked him to explain exactly, scientifically, how this process worked and disagreed with everything he said. This carried on for 10 minutes or so and then he lost his temper when I told him that from what I'd heard so far he was peddling a load of nonsense and would be well advised to get out while he could. Then he accused me of being a reporter and wouldn't say anything else. He just sat there and wouldn't talk at all. I sat there for another couple of minutes or so reading a book I had just bought in town until he got up and left the room without saying anything.
All in all it was a very strange experience.
Thye're slick, I'll give them that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why (Score:4, Funny)
Rather ironic coming from an Anonymous Coward don't you think? How about you take responsibility for your actions and post with your real name.
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
The goal of Scientology is the very opposite of psychiatry - it wants to split you from society (to better 'form' you), not help you work better with it. The things most 'evil' to any religion are things a threat to the religion itself.
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
I call bollocks on that. Human behaviour is variable, but not infinitely so. It's within set boundaries. In no society is, for instance, paranoid delusional behaviour, or severe depression, or mania adaptive.
yet who in our society can define "optimal normal",
Do we need to define one normal? No. Normal was never just one thing. All we need to define are the gross abnormalities.
we worship the most eccentric
eccentric is not insane.
And maybe here's a consistent definition of sane for you to consider: Able to cope and function effectively in the society in which you find yourself.
Two words (and then a few) (Score:4, Insightful)
Care to explain why we waste our time with that kind of delusion? Because the head honchos just happen to follow a religion that supports it?
It might seem unrelated, but I see a parallel. One claims that there's no mental illness and it's all some deity (or, if I remember right, its enemies) messing with your inner alien. The other one claims that, since you can't prove every single step taken from the beginning of the universe to the world as we know it now, it's all a bunch of fabrications and we should instead rely on magic detailed in some old book. Both call science bollocks and we should instead rely on some magical fabrication of some kinda god.
Could you point out the difference to me?
Religion is something wonderful, and if people need it for their inner peace and 'cause they got nothing better to do, ok, have fun. But don't mess with my life, and most of all, don't mess with science, dammit! Religion has no room in science. Science is about disproving things, not blind faith in them!
Re:Two words (and then a few) (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be consistent with ID, for instance, for me to state that our universe reached its present state via general laws of cause and effect, but with physical constants intentionally tweaked (either as a once-off or via an iterative process) with an eye to permitting life. There are circumstances (ie. our universe being a simulation) where such tweaking of constants is feasible.
Getting back towards topic -- IDers are generally fairly harmless, except when they try to corrupt widely used educational materials and/or laws to support their positions. Scientologists may operate on a smaller scale -- but their impact on victims' lives is unquestionably far more severe than that of those who support (strictly) Intelligent Design (as opposed to one of the Creationist religions which benefits from concessions made under the Intelligent Design banner -- in that situation, impact is obviously case-by-case).
Re:Two words (and then a few) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why (Score:4, Interesting)
The presentation, a series of picture displays and video documentaries in the style of "fox news" or "americas 100 worst criminals" is very one-sided and lacking any kind of objectivity. Its point is psychiatry is evil, psychiatrists through the ages have committed torture and that psychiatry should be outlawed. However, there is absolutely no discussion of any alternatives therapies / treatments.
Many of the points raised are valid ones -
- In the middle ages people with mental health problems were subjected to horrific, barbaric treatments not disimilar to torture.
- Lobotomy and electro shock therapy are both destructuive non-reversable practices that permanently destroy a patients mental capacity.
- Modern pyschotropic drug therapies are often over prescribed by a for-profit, capitalist health and pharmacuetical industry.
However, more problematic for me -
- A long discussion directly blaming the holocaust and Nazi idealogy on psychiatry and psychological ideology.
- Direct association of modern medical psychotherapeutic practice with interrogation and torture (videos of Guantanamo Bay, pictures from Abu Ghraib)
- A picture display claiming the creativity of celebrities including Kurt Cobain, Marlyn Monroe, Duke Ellington, Peter Green was destroyed by psychiatry.
- No discussion of more benign and benficial psycho-therapeutic practices and no right of reply from healthcare practitioners
- Hiding "scientology" behind a front organisation and masquerading a cult recruitment seminar as pseudo science
The somewhat confrontational exhibition staged in a seaside resort hotel seemed to be attracting few visitors (people here are more interested in going to the beach / casino) and appeared to be disturbing the other paying guests and unnerving hotel staff. I heard they were forced to close the show 2days after starting despite having booked the suite for a week.
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
Does actually help a large number of people though. I've seen interviews with several people who cite it as saving either their life or giving them a fresh start, being the only thing that finally knocked their depression on the head (as it were).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if this was deliberate or not, but every religion is fundamentally ridiculous, including believing Jesus Christ was the son of god etc. After all, Christianity started off as a cult as I'm sure did every other religion. The only thing that separates L Ron Hubbard and Jesus Christ is 2000 years of propoganda.
So its important to push back on cults like Scientology whenever possible. Nip them in the bud. Expose t
TFA final paragraph (Score:3, Insightful)
Link to YouTube video in TFA (Score:5, Informative)
BBC rebuttal + dif. Angle of Incident on Youtube (Score:5, Informative)
The one characteristic that I've noticed is consistent across scientologist interviews I've seen is that they all have a creepy boneheadedness when it comes to answering any question, no matter how innocuous it may be. It's as if every moment in life has to be a confirmation of their beliefs.
Re:BBC rebuttal + dif. Angle of Incident on Youtub (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:BBC rebuttal + dif. Angle of Incident on Youtub (Score:4, Informative)
If there are only a few people more like him in the upper echelons of Scientology, they're gonna be around for a long time. There's a word for people like these, and it's sociopath. And judging from the success of another group of sociopaths (CEOs), I suspect we're gonna have to deal with Scientology for a long time. I wonder if it's gonna take something like what happened to the Knights Templar to deal with Scientology.
The reasoning of Scientology (Score:3, Insightful)
Thousands of people die in car accidents each year. All of them drove facing the steering wheel and front windshield of the car [showing big charts on the presentation screen to show some convincing statistics].
The bottom line: we should drive facing the rear end of our cars.
---
But damn, I'd rather drive my car sitting backwards than believe some alien sci-fi story since they just discovered there are bad psychiatrists, like there are bad professionals in every area of life.
says it all (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientologists are MASTERS at pissing you off. (Score:5, Insightful)
A key belief and practice of the Church involved "auditing" via the "E-Meter". The "E-Meter" is a bargain-basement lie detector. It works on galvanic skin response; it can measure (crudely) fluctuations in your emotional state. It can't measure much past that. So one person holds these two "tin cans" while somebody else tries to make them respond enough to flinch the needle.
The person being "audited" is practicing how to be emotionally non-responsive to whatever is thrown at them - and that can involve verbal abuse, shouting, whatever.
This isn't controversial or something the "church" denies.
What most people don't think about is the flip side: what is being learned by the person NOT holding the tin cans? The one trying to trigger a response in the other?
Yup. You guessed it. They become masters (eventually) at "pressing people's buttons".
So anybody not used to this sort of thing or who isn't expecting it can be made to "blow up", sometimes spectacularly. And I'd bet good money that's exactly what they did to Sweeney and for exactly the reason they've used this incident: to portray any opponent as an out of control loose cannon, nutcase, etc.
Don't go up against these guys unless your self control is rock solid AND you understand this technique. Be ready to say something like "much as you might prefer otherwise, I'm not being "audited", I'm not standing here with tin cans in my hand looking like an idiot, you're not going to get me to blow up". Turn it back on 'em, they'll start foaming at the mouth. If a Rondroid is trying to get you pissed, ASSUME there's a camera pointing your way.
I had an experience simular to this (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, the next day, I saw them again, and this time I was ready for them. I did the whole "Oh, I wonder what this is" type gaze, and sure enough they invite me over for another free personality test, and sure enough the same questions start. The needle was going no-where this time, and in fact the more the guy tried to convince me i was a mental train-wreck the more my confidence grew and the needle fell. Eventually I actually start laughing at the guy interviewing me, and he can't take it any more so hands me over to another fine looking female who tries a similar technique. At this point I'm chuckling even louder at their constant mental batterings, and people are starting to take interest in the commotion, at which point they try and sell me their book once last time.
I tell them quite clearly and loudly enough for the onlookers to hear that "when I'm as insecure as you lot, I'll buy your stinking book then and burn it". To which my awaiting friends added "Scientology is for losers".
That showed them.
Time for the obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/tomato.
I'd say it still has a few thetans to go before it makes clear.
Re:Scientologists are MASTERS at pissing you off. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, it's far, far more intensive than you describe. Scientologists practice "pushing buttons" hour after hour after hour on a course called the "Pro TRs". In this course, you practice:
1) How to seem completely relaxed and calm in nearly any circumstance. You sit in a chair in various places, both private and public, while somebody watches you intently for any outward sign of discomfort.
2) How to not "lose it" despite having somebody right in front of you trying to get you to. You sit in a chair and try to appear completely calm and relaxed while somebody is authorized to do ANYTHING to try to get you to react. They are encouraged to use any means to "get you", including jeering, screaming, feaux sexual come-ons, depictions of anal sex, teasing, yelling, etc.
3) How to lie effectively and believably. It's called "originating a communication", and the practitioner sits in a chair (notice a theme here?) facing another person. The practitioner then has to say ridiculous, nonsense things from a list, convincingly. The practitioner repeats this until he/she can say virtually anything with conviction and apparent honesty, no matter how crazy.
It goes on and on - I think I've covered maybe the first days of a weeks long course. Also included:
How to order somebody to do something with enough conviction to do something they don't want to.
How to effectively project communication at a distance with apparent ease.
How to appear physically intimidating/threatening without appearing overtly hostile.
How to physically direct somebody who's openly defiant.
And on and on and on. If you want to "go up" against these guys, you'd better practice first. Do like "The Sims" and practice your charisma and your calm very, very intensively first - you're going to need it!
Scientologists violate Godwin's Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially worrying (Score:5, Informative)
This is a recent development - in April the European court of human rights decided that it was against EU law for Russia to deny Scientology religeon status - a judgement that applies to all EU member states including the UK and Germany (who have previously been quite outspoken against it).
May I draw people's attention to http://www.xenu.net/ [xenu.net]
Scientology - the cult pyramid scheme
Re:Especially worrying (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading the details of the case, it seems the Russian situation was quite different from that in the UK or Germany, in that an unregistered church is legally prevented from doing several things that could be considered necessary to running a church (e.g., "renting premises for religious ceremonies and worship" or "receiving and disseminating religious literature") which can be performed legally in the UK and Germany without being a registered church. Because of this factor, refusal to register effectively constituted banning them from spreading their beliefs, which is (IMO) unacceptable unless done in full view of the world, with proper democratic process (rather than via beurocracy as was done here). Not considering them a religion in (say) the UK simply means that they do not acquire a number of taxation benefits that they might otherwise be entitled to. I don't think this would be considered a violation of their human rights.
I'd be very careful about what you read into the conclusions drawn in the "case law" section of the article you link to, BTW. Wikipedia has a strong scientology community, and in this case I believe they have rendered the article rather biased. As an example:
The decision of the Human Rights Court in the Moscow Church of Scientology case mandates that States cannot intervene arbitrarily into religious matters and are strictly prohibited from evaluating or reinterpreting the internal validity of religious beliefs genuinely held by individual believers or religious communities like Scientology.
This is introduced as an interpretation of the court's conclusion that "the autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is thus an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9 affords. The State's duty of neutrality and impartiality, as defined in the Court's case-law, is incompatible with any power on the State's part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs." While it is a valid interpretation of the last sentence, if taken out of context, I'd say the previous sentence (and sentences earlier in the paragraph) limit the scope of the "incompatibility" noted by the court to matters which relate to article 9.
Specifically, article 9 states "Everyone has the right [...] either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."
Also worth considering is that the court did not consider any public health issues in making this decision (because the basis of the decision that the Russian government made against Scientology was not made on those grounds), but article 9's scope is "subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society [...] for the protection of public [...] health". This means that the courts decision is not incompatible with one where a country introduces a law preventing religious practices that are considered psychologically harmful, for instance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do." -- S.H. Roberts
(Hope I got the wording and attribution right -- I had to rely on Google.)
Should I be worried? (Score:4, Funny)
I have never been quite sure how to take that. Maybe I should have sang them the leader song...Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Leader! Leader! Batman!
Re:Should I be worried? (Score:5, Funny)
At the end of the semester I was approached by my RA who told me that the Church of Scientology had contacted him, they had seen the sign hanging up in my room through the window and they wanted it back. He seemed a little shaken and told me to get it back to them right away. When I took it back the office was empty so I left it on the desk with a note that said "Thetans made me do it."
Actually, some Christians behave the same way. (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that most nutty Protestant sects do not become as large and rich as the Church of Scientology, and they also have to keep some sort of attachment to a nominally Christian approach. They also have the problem that their followers do tend to be socially mobile - the fact of going to Church shows they want to "better" themselves - and with social mobility comes exposure to more educated people who may guide them towards mainstream Christianity. Scientology, on the other hand, is not a bizarre offshoot of a mainstream religion and there is no central tendency for its followers to gravitate back to.
There is too with cults an interesting anti-intellectual tendency. If you want to make authoritative pronouncements in, say, the Catholic or Episcopalian churches, you are probably fluent in NT Greek and can read the NT in the original. Cults contain less educated people, so they will do things like take a particular English translation of the Bible as being authoritative and solve the problem that way. Extreme cults can get a following from rich people who do not want to invest the time and effort needed to become familiar with, say, the Bible or the Pali texts. You can join something like - oh, say Kabbalah - and say pretty well anything in public without looking ridiculous, while a Hollywood actor who tries to sound knowledgeable about the Bible had better know his or her stuff because there are so many well informed people listening. A religion that does not let its sacred texts get out too much is at an advantage in this respect.
As a part time student of religious sociology, it's a pity I won't be around in 50 years to see if Scientology, like Mormonism before it, is evolving into a mainstream religion and gradually losing its bizarre baggage.
A rational response from a provoked man (Score:3, Interesting)
Scientologists on Wikipedia (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a good read: Cold Reading (Score:5, Informative)
Other stuff to read is anything about the sort of tricks that Derren Brown gets up to - he has done a 2 DVD pack with card tricks of which the second one is mostly about psychological manipulation like how to make people think of one particular card in a full 52 deck.
Study, and be amazed as to just how easy it is to put someone on the wrong track. The "church" (bit of an insult to the word) makes full use of this. Start an argument on false premises and then walk away, witter away at one flaw in a story to invalidate the whole story .. hey! Where did I hear that before?
If governments want to fight scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
So rather than claiming that scientology isn't a religion, what can be done to avoid having to give these fraudsters tax benefits and possible government funding?
Simply stipulate that only "open" religions can be given these benefits. That is, only religions in which all the religious texts are freely reproducable and the religious services are open to anyone without payment, will be given full benefits.
This would help against a whole host of other cults it would be easy to argue that only open religions can be considered charities.
Re:If governments want to fight scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
best line from TFA: (Score:4, Funny)
This amuses me. You're welcome.
Scientology Brain Police (Score:5, Informative)
If there were ever devil-worshipping human slime, with a penchant for pederasty, it was L. Ron Hubbard.
Oh, yeah. Charles Manson was a Scientologist.
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/02/why
Body Thetans? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Body Thetans? (Score:5, Funny)
Hang on, there's someone at the door. BRB.
Re:I guess this is the end of the BBC. (Score:5, Informative)
You are aware that it is effectively part of the British state apparatus, aren't you? It isn't just a British CNN, NBC or whatever, it was established and is maintained by Royal Charter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/ [bbc.co.uk]
I think it highly likely that any action launched against the BBC in this respect would fall flat at the first hurdle. And if they do actually get sued in the US then in every other place the BBC operates, the plaintiff can expect a huge campaign of negative publicity for the rest of time; they won't back down when they believe that they are right - for any reason.
Re:I guess this is the end of the BBC. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I guess this is the end of the BBC. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I guess this is the end of the BBC. (Score:4, Funny)
You have to pay them money for pretty much the rest of your life, and it's almost impossible to leave.
I guess at a stretch you could say the CoS picked a fight with an organised religion 1000 times stronger than it.
Re:I guess this is the end of the BBC. (Score:5, Funny)
The BBC can look after themselves (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure it's fair to say they got fscked by the government.
For one thing, if you recall, they were right. The problem was that at the time, they couldn't prove it sufficiently to defend themselves. But history has shown that they made the right call, and it's entirely possible that they knew they were making the right call at the time but didn't back it up to avoid compromising their sources.
For another thing, although the two top guys stepped down — effectively "doing the decent thing" and taking the hit to protect everyone below them — they left with crowds of hundreds of BBC staff cheering them outside the building, and hundreds more sending them personal messages encouraging them not to go. Name me any other organisation in the world, on the same scale, where the staff publicly show that much loyalty to the guys at the top. Can't? That's why the culture at the Beeb is special in a world full of cookie-cutter journalism and commercial advertising.
Oh, and did we mention that almost all of the other staff who were directly responsible for the original reporting in that case are still working at the BBC in the same or similar roles? Just because they cut the head off, doesn't mean the rest of the beast is dead.
It's a shame they are tending toward "celebrity journalists" like Nick Robinson and Evan Davies these days. There's certainly been a lot of Blair worship in recent days, with some very rose-tinted views of the results of his ten years in power. Bring back Andrew Marr, I say!
But that's about the limit of their political compromise, even now. If it ever comes down to Hubbard vs. Paxman, I know which side I'll be betting on.
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sorry you're mistaken (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org]
I think if you read Wikipedia more carefully you'll see that the term "constituent country" has no legal basis. Scotland, England and Wales no longer exist as countries and haven't for several hundred years.
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess this is sort of peripheral to that, but still...
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course me as a single consumer will probably not make much of dent, but I wish more consumers would do the same. Though I am thinking more in general about this and not specifically Scientology. People complain, etc, yet few do anything like stop buying products. If people realized that the buck has more power and sway than a single vote maybe there would be some real change.
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember: If they want to succeed in engendering an 'elite appeal', they depend on you to see them as the elite.
Wishful thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
It really saddens me to rain on your utopian dream, but "it would work if we _all_ did X" _never_ worked. Never worked, doesn't work, never will.
By the same token, yeah, it would stop spam if we _all_ didn't buy that stuff, but there'll always be some idiots who do. Yeah, it would stop stock scams dead if we all didn't rush to buy hyped-through-spam stocks, but there'll always be some "smart" guys who think they can beat the system and do their own buying and selling just before it crashes. (It has been already proved to never work, but, hey, there's one born every minute anyway.) Yeah, it would stop unethical business practices dead if we all stopped buying from and investing in unethical companies, but, let's face it, you're a minority there; the majority just buys from whoever sells the cheapest, invests in whoever promises the most gain, and would even deal with the mafia perfectly happily. Etc.
And so it is with this kind of fucked-up cults too. Wishful "if we all started boycotting them" thinking won't work, because there'll always be a minority, no matter how small, who are fucked-up in the head and need some exotic, non-mainstream religion to give meaning to their fucked-up lives. And a cult doesn't really need billions of members to be profitable. If only as few as those who buy from spam links are also gullible enough to join your cult, you're already a rich guy. It's that simple.
So you'd literally need to get _everyone_ to join in your boycott for it to work. Not just "more", but literally "all".
In other words, the "allmighty buck" isn't that allmighty at all when it comes to righteous causes. And it tends to work against you every time.
What you need isn't self-righteous boycotts, what you need is laws and courts of law. You already have laws saying that (A) small excerpts _do_ fall under fair use, even if scientology doesn't like it, and (B) once they've made themselves a public figure, they can't really stop other people from talking about them, or even ridiculling them, and (C) they aren't supposed to use lawsuits just to silence their critics. See that those laws are applied. That's really the only realistic, working solution.
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:5, Funny)
Friend, you seem unable to get your letters in the right order. We at the CoS can help and would very much like you to come over one day for a FREE personality test. We can then help you unravel those chaotic thoughts, purify your mind and assist in the distribution of your dollars. Call 800-I-AM-A-MUG.
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:5, Informative)
If you're referring to the "Chef" episode of South Park, and assuming that Hayes did say the things attributed to him (*), then he deserved all the piss-taking he got. No-one likes a hypocrite who's happy to take part in making fun of any religion until it comes to their own.
(*) At the time (he was ill with a stroke) it was unclear if words had been put in his mouth by other figures in the Scientology movement, but I don't see him denying it now.
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Informative)
Also, as another poster said, power isn't solely dependent on raw numbers. Finally, even if its potential for damage is more limited that it was during the 70s and 80s, it's all relative, and certainly no excuse for letting it off the hook.
Apologies for another trite Slashdot analogy, but if homocides were down from 3 in 100 to 1 in 100 per year should we just shrug and say "it's not as bad as it used to be"?
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
>four thousand year old texts?
It's things like:
BAD: Killing someone in a fight or because you wanted to rob them.
GOOD: Killing someone because they wore mixed fibres or smiting your father.
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
And being attacked for criticizing Scientology is something that could have happened to you. For, let's say, talking bad about those Sons-of-a-Bitch here on Slashdot.
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:5, Informative)
This has, in fact, happened. [slashdot.org] As far as I am aware this is the only time in history that a Slashdot comment has been edited.
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not fine with that. If Scientology-copyrighted material has been posted at Slashdot, it is:
* Noncommercial in nature. Posters at slashdot are not generally rewarded financially for their posts.
* Likely to have been a small excerpt. Seriously, you're not going to post the entirity of whatever you're quoting from, and you're likely to only have a summary anyway, as Scientology guards their original documents pretty well.
* For the purposes of criticism, and therefore protected speech.
* Unlikely to affect the commercial value of the copyrighted material (at least via the mechanisms US courts seem to recognise as performing this function).
It would therefore, in my (non-lawyery) opinion, be fair use.
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Informative)
* It was the whole of OT III, which at the time was not very easy to find.
* I don't think the original post had any criticism, just the text.
* Why is it unlikely to affect its commercial value? If people were able to read OT III when they were just joining then Scientology would practically collapse.
Re:Funky (Score:5, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/03/16/1256226.shtml [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/10/1
http://slashdot.org/yro/02/03/21/0453200.shtml?ti
They've attempted to force comments off slashdot. They've forced xenu.net to be delisted from google. They're going after people who publish the OTIII "documents". They're abusing the DMCA.
That's why this is on slashdot.
Re:Funky (Score:4, Insightful)
Whereas to me, as soon as the whole Satanic Verses controversy errupted, it was pretty clear that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with a modern liberal democracy, just like Scientology is. Hell, Christianity is incompatible if it's still based on the old testament, it's just that mainstream Christians seem to have deprecated those bits of the Bible since the Enlightenment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So comparing the CoS and islam is comparing apples with oranges. What would make sense would be to compare the CoS and, say, al-Quaeda; both of these are murderous cults trying to advance poli
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, Islam has been on on a downward trend the last 50 years or so, in no small part due to the pernicious influence of Sayyid Qutb [wikipedia.org]. Islam has a problem with a Christian-style Reformation because the Koran is held to be the inerrant word of God, but there were strong trends towards moderation and modernisation, particularly after the First World War. A lot of that progress has sadly been reversed over the last few de
Re:Funky (Score:5, Informative)
Here are the links:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/21/0
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/22/0
So, they did force xenu.net to be delisted by google. Google luckily changed hearts, probably due to the enourmous amounts of attention that was generated here, on kuro5hin, and all over the internet. In addition to hating the idea of letting themselves be censored in such a way. It was also one of the first time google linked that some searches were excluded - linking to chillingeffects.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Talk to dead space aliens (Score:5, Funny)
Blizzard, take heed and adjust your price plans accordingly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So? Most religions are nutty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So? Most religions are nutty. (Score:5, Funny)
Nutty? So, Scientology is in fact a mental illness, which doesn't acknowledge mental illnesses.
What a cosmic irony.
I suppose in this case you're right, we gotta be more PC to Scientologists and their "special condition".
Sam: Dude, we're tainted by the souls of aliens blown with nukes by alien space invador from a galaxy far far away!
Jim: Man, you're a f***ing idiot or something? STFU!
Sam: No, I'm a scientologist...
Jim: OH! Oh... oh buddy, sorry I had no idea. I really had no idea.. but you'll be fine, yea.. you'll be just fine.
Re:So? Most religions are nutty. (Score:4, Insightful)
But they do have Tom Cruise, and that more than makes up for the rest.
Re:He didn't look like he was "losing it" to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
John Sweeney, I support you 100% on this one. This whole incident probably says more about Scientology than about you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just wanted to let you know that the primary reason behind current sunday-trading laws is actually "protecting the family" and not religiously motivated. Religious concerns dictated the choice of sunday as the day, but the primary motivation was purely secular.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thats England, come north of the border Badboy. Mind you that's if we can get our Parliament
members to talk to each other..
Now mod me me offtopic/pedantic!
Re:This is on TV tonight (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. The difference between a cult and a religion is that you can leave a religion. The Church of Scientology disconnects its members from their families so they have nowhere to go when they leave, and brainwashes them under hypnosis to keep them from wanting to. The Church of Scientology is also the only "religion" to keep its core beliefs secret, to be run for profit, and to have its own paramilitary[1] and counter-intelligence[2] operations.
There may be a Scientology religion, but that is NOT the same as the Church of Scientology. Separate the religion from the organization which practices it, and you will see that the organization is so thoroughly corrupt that it cannot be allowed to continue to exist in its present form.
(Posted anonymously for my own protection, as everyone else who casually criticizes Scientology should.)
[1] http://www.xenu.net/archive/so/ [xenu.net][2] http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/index.htm [xenu.net]
Gee, NO slant here! Re:This is on TV tonight (Score:3, Interesting)
We have people who have been killed by Scientology. We have people who proteest it and end up bankrupted by lawsuits. My lawyer friends tell me they read quite a bit of case law having to do with Scientologists just because they litigate so frequently.
Don't you wonder why they aren't litigating against the Pledge of Allegience or In God We Trust, but
Re:This is on TV tonight (Score:5, Informative)
I guess this will post will give you a discount during your next dianetics session.
First a few facts:
1. No religion in existence goes after dissenters the way the church of scientology does; yes, it is true that in some third world countries and in the middle east, turning away from islam can get you killed. But in the west and in most westernized nations, there is the rule of law and the law protects people from being targetted by proponents of their religion. But CoS is able to pervert even this system of law in western nations to target even influential dissenters via harassment, and even death.
2. Scientology is perhaps the only religion in the world where the only way to get to its "cures" is by paying a lot of money. Any other religion - Islam, Christianity etc - it is possible to become a muslim or a christian without paying any money.
3. Scientology is also the newest religion on this planet created by Ron Hubbard - a known criminal. LRH's views on using harassment as a way of quelling dissent is well documented.
4. Scientology also copyrights its "scriptures" - the only religion in the world to do that.
In short - you guys are just scamsters trying to pass off what is really a scam as a religion; scientology was created by LRH with the explicit purpose of scamming people.
Re:too much (Score:5, Informative)
Scientology isn't hated because it's a wacky religion. It's hated because it's a evil corporation masquerading as a religion. And they always make it personal. Hubbard was a paranoid, insecure, vengeful little gamer twit (yes, he was a geek -- SF writer AND wargamer, probably bad at both), and he made Scientology an expression of his ego. When you deal with a Scientology Sea Org navy member, naval uniform and all, you are dealing with the mentally ill.
And their is a difference between the cute girls taking and giving personality tests in the public orgs and the bastards who join the Sea Org, and no comparison at all with the corporate lawyers who moved in from the top and run the thing.
And religions don't keep their beliefs secret from their own members. That's the critical thing, the moral difference, all Hubbard detestation aside. They don't tell their recruits that they REALLY believe that we are infested with spirits from aliens killed by H-bombs inside of volcanoes by the evil galactic dictator Xenu, and that it will cost them either a lifetime of work or tens of thousands of dollars to find this fact out. It's not a health club, it's a UFO cult.