Scientology Critic Arrested After 6 Years 1046
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 (Score:5, Funny)
"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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks.
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Informative)
If you can arrested for this, it makes me wonder how many
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the usenet posting (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
--Annie Dillard, 'Pilgrim at Tinker Creek'
Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
We've become so enamored with religion and terrorism that we can't make jokes about anything having to do with either.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you mean to say "the war of northern aggression"?
Buddhism and War (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Going by the standards that it takes to get abortion protestors arrested, there's something fishy about the case.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Scary (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:hm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hm (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scientology isn't a Religion (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Scientology isn't a Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Scientology isn't a Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scientology isn't a Religion (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Some people have both genes, but I'll Cruise away from further speculation on that subject.
Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
You're being glib.
Re:Scientology isn't a Religion (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Here is my hope... (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Space colony, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
1-Set up space colony.
2-Send up scientologists.
3-Send up air.
Previous Discussion (Score:5, Informative)
How is that NOT free speech? (Score:4, Interesting)
Friday police (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Funny)
I thought people only read Usenet for the pictures.
Religion ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, wouldn't that be all religions?
Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion (Score:5, Informative)
"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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Better advice, better judgement (Score:4, Interesting)
Wikipedia on Keith Henson (Score:4, Insightful)
What, no linkage to Operation Clambake? :) (Score:5, Informative)
In Soviet California.... (Score:5, Funny)
It's only a matter of time... (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Missing the most interesting bit of the article. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
stupid law, trumped up charges, and fishy DA (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Unfortunate... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Yeah they're oppressed too (Score:4, Informative)
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.