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."
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.
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:hm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scientology isn't a Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
All we need now (Score:1, Insightful)
It just seems (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scientology isn't a Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Scary (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:omg (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Arrest this man! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's covered under amendment DCLXVI of the Constitution: The Right To Never Think, which says in part:
Endeavoring to apply rational thought or common sense or questioning any aspect of religion in any way shall be deemed a crime against religion;
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously... (Score:2, Insightful)
With out knowing the exact details of the case but doesn't this sound like an April Fools joke?
Is this still America?
With apologies to our benighted brethern in other countries who have yet to see the light of American democracy. We have this message for you: We know where you live, and we will get to you in short order. Please consult Who's Next For a Democratic Make Over [dod.mil] to find out when we will get to you.
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:Hazy Case & Donation Fund (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that he feared for his life if imprisoned. The Scientologists have a code of ethics by which people who are identified as enemies of their organization are "fair game" for any aggression. It is not unlike a fatwa against a critic of Islam. Indeed, in some ways, Scientology is a post-modern form of Wahhabism.
Re:hm (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Scientology and its ilk are all CULTS (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Mo free will (Score:0, Insightful)
It's covered under amendment DCLXVI of the Constitution: The Right To Never Think, which says in part:
Endeavoring to apply rational thought or common sense or questioning any aspect of religion in any way shall be deemed a crime against religion;
Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund (Score:2, Insightful)
While that is not uncommon for religious movements, this makes them very aware that the development of such organizations needs to be watched closely.
Other countries often have more of a "laissez-faire" attitude where they will allow a lot until it gets completely out of hand.
Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia on Keith Henson (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:2, Insightful)
I've read about his case, and from that I'd say the 'stalking' material would be his picketing their compound.
According to the article I linked, he followed people from their homes. Picketing is one thing, following people around and acting weird is another. Apparently 12 people on the jury didn't think the behavior was harmless picketing. I'm just not getting the feeling that this guy is all that stable.
Or to put it another way, if this guy was, say, an abortion protester who was following doctors between their homes and the hospital, would you give him the same benefit of the doubt?
Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to like them, even the obviously wacky ones (I've been touched by his noodle appendage!) but you should respect their rights to exist.
Should we be a bit more aggressive in limiting their manipulation of the law? Sure, but that goes for any unjust manipulation of the law by any party.
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: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:2, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:3, Insightful)
the courts sure do (Score:2, Insightful)
They sure don't sentence such protesters to jail.
Re:Clash of the nutjobs (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (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:Scientology isn't a Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of Religion = No Freedom for Humans? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (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.
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, having been exposed to these nut jobs, I can completely sympathize with him. These people are 11 shades of fucked up, the "religion" attracts the type. Further, they tend not to be too concerned with actual law and have proven merely by being a member that they are extremely gullible. Further, if you've read some of the things these people believe in, you'd have no problem believing that they can and would kill you simply because they think you are a suppressive person ( which, amusingly, most of their members fit that definition to a tee, but I digress ).
I'm sure he could have followed proper channels and had this resolved in a more amicable fashion, but don't fault him for fearing for his life. Scientologists really are as wacky as they claim.
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:3, Insightful)
Why was this modded insightful? While extremization of religion (but also of many other things) can be bad by itself, I don't see why there is such a hatred for that in these posts. This "intolerance" mostly comes out of people that are "tolerant", or say they are. However, respecting religion when it doesn't cause harm to you or your country (I'm talking about religion by itself, not fanatism) would be a real sign of tolerance.
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: stalking behavior, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, come on. If we were at "war" with Islam, I do believe things would take on a slightly different appearance, don't you? We probably wouldn't have just had a lenghty academic argument over whether or not a newly elected (Muslim) federal legislator should get to use Thomas Jefferson's old copy of the Koran while being sworn in, or have trade relations with all sorts of primarily Muslim countries. Similarly, I don't think Scientologists have dispatched loony suicidal types to kill thousands of people, or pump money, supplies, and deluded basket cases into operations that drive truck bombs into vegetable markets full of women and children (notably, other Muslims).
Don't confuse this with any sort of defense of Scientology (hah! not hardly), but rather a defense against the notion that we're at war with Islam, in its entirety. It's just not the case, at least in that broad of a context. We should be, though, as modern western cultures, completely horrified by our own smilig tolerance of a rapidly expanding theocratic movement that causes things like this [signonsandiego.com] to even be in the news. To even be an issue at all. Honestly
Re:hm (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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)
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: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:2, Insightful)
The line is drawn, I think, with the attitude and vocal tone of the speaker. You could say "STOP STEALING OR YOU'LL GO TO HELL" or you could speak like friends (in which case the Christian probably would not mention Hell). The former wants to merely control you, the latter wants to protect you and help you make the right choice. Seriously, there are already "hells" in the material world, like sex-trafficing, drug abuse, and kids growing up in dysfunctional families. People write books all the time about how to be happy in this life. Can you blame Christians for telling you that whether or not you're happy in the next depends on decisions you make here? Isn't that what most religion is about?
Is it so heretical to say that, in the same way not all actions you take are good for you (such those that lead to drug abuse), not every religion is good for you (such as one which let's you murder my family)?
'Course, you might believe that Christianity is not one of those good religions, but I'm just saying this in case you dislike it based on the idea of pluralism.
Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're getting offended that people lump you together with Ted Haggard and the Pope, then maybe you shouldn't be calling yourself a "Christian".
The term "Christiantity" is very well defined and widely understood, just like the words "Scientologist" and "Nazi". So what if you decided on your own personal reinterpretation of the Nazi ideology, that left out all the stuff about hating jews, taking over the world, eugenics, heiling hitler, etc. So what if you call yourself a "Good Nazi" because you don't believe in its bad parts? Then you should certainly expect for people to lump you in with the "Bad Nazi" and not make a special distinction for you as a "Good Nazi". You can't label yourself with the word "Nazi" and then get all huffy when people don't give you the benefit of the doubt. You need a new term to label yourself!
Maybe Tom Cruz is a "Good Scientologist" who doesn't believe in all the stuff about the xemu and body thetans and space aliens flying over in the dc-10s and living in the volcanos, etc. But that's the Scientology Party Line (even though you have to pay lots of money before they're tell it to you). So if you label yourself as a Scientologists, then people are going to naturally assume that you're a brainwashed member of a mind control cult.
So here's another question: Do you support gay marriage? If not, then justify. If so, then why do you label yourself with the same name and associate yourself with people who overwhelmingly don't?
-Don
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you mean to say "the war of northern aggression"?
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: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: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: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: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.
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scientology isn't a Religion (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Scientology isn't a Religion (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell you what. Let's all write down a summary of things that have happened within the past hundred years or so, and then add something asinine into the mix, like, say, flying pink elephants, the re-creation of the Dodo bird, or a man splitting a large body of water in half with a walking stick. Then bury these writings in a time capsule and wait a couple thousand years.
For all you know, the religious aspects of "the Bible" are nothing more than some sort of practical joke some people (read: apostles/disciples) devised as a way to really screw with people in the future. Sort of like a mass-scale e-mail hoax chain letter type of thing. Just because it's really, really old doesn't make it true. And just because some tidbit can be cross-referenced elsewhere in other historical works doesn't make it factual. Don't forget that the people who wrote these religious texts are also the ones who wrote the contents of our ancient history books.
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Scientology fears the free flow of information (Score:1, Insightful)
It would seem that a key element to the "personal growth and development" strategy of the organization is the psychological effect of having this information revealed at an appropriate point during the indoctrination process. (this notion is supported by accounts from former members: http://www.xenu.net/ [xenu.net] )
People who dissemenate these secrets, and other damning information, present a real threat to the continued ability of Scientology to exist and gain new members, through it's normal method of proseletyzing, recruitment and indoctrination along with the obscurity factor that many of their actual teachings are not supposed to be public knowledge.
And now the court cases...
Viewed in this light Scientology is acting very much like the RIAA or MPAA in it's struggle for continued existence based on a (now demonstrated to be failed) business model which is structured upon attempting to restrict the unbridled flow of information.
It seems to me that this is the only rational explanantion for why there is such a rabid animosity coming from this group towards it's critics. They must actually have something to hide.
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:3, Insightful)
I judge neither organization (nor any other, nor any individual) by what they do to or with the willing; I judge them by what they do to the unwilling. You understand the distinction?
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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:scientology is just an evil cult (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't persecuted for their beliefs. They are prosecuted for manipulation and extortion.
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the same token though.
Prove there isn't an invisible rabbit tailing your footsteps.
That's exactly as stupid as god.
For your question to even be reasonable you'd have to address *any* insane crap anybody spouts as if it was gospel.
The onus is on the ones claiming some complely ridiculous idea and then using that idea as an excuse to shove their small minded hatred on others to show one damn thing to base their delusions on.
Saying stupidity is stupidity is just sane. It is in no way symmetrical.
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:3, Insightful)
Go back and re-read what I wrote - it is not so far off from what you say here. The primary difference is that I'm saying the state, being the registrar for such unions, should just get on with that simple duty. I never used the phrase "tax breaks", I said "tax purposes". There's no reason why a household should not be able to file cumulatively. Quite often this increases the tax burden (see marriage penalty [google.com]), but this is offset by the reduced bills that come with running a single household for multiple occupants.
The real problem is assignment of benefits. There's a lot more to the legal realm of "marriage" than taxes and child rearing. There's being able to claim inheritance. There's being able to speak for another in a medical crisis, and having that person able to speak for you. Health insurance. Car insurance. Life insurance. On and on. And if you think any of this is trivial, look at what James Brown's widow, and mother of his son, is going through at the hands of lawyers because they were never "properly married".
No, I'm just saying that the state should consistently apply an already commonly available benefit/official recognition. I don't think the state should butt any further into the matchmaking process of any union than it currently does into allowed unions.
Re:You do not get arrested just for being a critic (Score:3, Insightful)
And Scientologists have been lying to people and taking their money for just as long. It might be technically legal, it might not be. I don't really care. The lying is so immoral that it's as good as criminal. After all, there are some things which are illegal which should not be (drug use, consensual sexual acts) while there are other things which are legal, but are worse than "criminal" acts. Lying to influence people, especially when it involves radical lifestyle changes and money, is one of these things.
It might not be technically criminal, but it's despicable and immoral.
Huh? Many criminals and criminal organizations last forever, and get government and police protection. Why is the mafia still around? Why is Dick Cheney not in jail?
That's not what I'm doing. Believe whatever you want. But Scientology lies to vulnerable people, takes their money, and often forces them to cut themselves off from their non-Scientologist families.
Or "Scientology can solve my problems."
And herein lies the real problem. As you have just stated, Scientology takes advantage of confused and vulnerable people, offering them "truth" - but they do not. They are offering a lie. Otherwise, why do they have to hide their recruiting behind "personality tests"?
It's the oldest trick in the book. Religion preys on the weak and vulnerable, offering easy answers, and then trying to control their lives.
But you really need to show some evidence that they aren't all about the money. If it isn't about money - why won't they tell you all the teachings free of charge? You can believe all you want. You can accuse me of having a closed mind, but it really seems you are the one who has a closed mind, and thinks just believing something makes it true. Are you open to the idea that you may be being exploited?
Re:Tom Cruise Missile (Score:3, Insightful)
Reduces aids (this story is from the BBC, but the reference is from "Lancet."
Reduces chlamidia (Oxford Journal.)
So as a circumcised male are you comfortable fucking chicks that you know are HIV positive or whom have chlamydia? Hell no I suspect. Safe sex practices would seem to me to be more appealing then slicing off a functional part of your body.
From the AMA on Penile cancer (summary... only uncircumcised men get penile cancer):
It's interesting that you decided to quote the AMA twice to back up your case to failed to quote some other lines from this [ama-assn.org].
I could also point out a quote from the ACS on the subject [cancer.org]:
And of course, circumcision prevents one from ever suffering from phimosis.
And the appendectomy prevents one from ever having appendicitis, yet I don't see newborns undergoing this procedure as a preventive measure.
As to function, as a circumcised male, I can assure you that full functionality is present, as is lots and lots of enjoyment. Anecdotal reports speak to an additional ability to control ejaculation, and to that I can only say I've never had a problem holding off until my partner's orgasm and then going with them; so for my part, if indeed this has anything at all to do with being circumcised, I consider it a huge positive. Functionally speaking, I'm one happy camper, as have been my partners. One thing I can definitively say is that the condition itself does not bring lack of function, or reduced function. No question about it.
As an uncircumcised male I can assure you that I have my fair share of enjoyment. I also couldn't help but notice how you said "anecdotal reports" and " if indeed this has...." I would make the claim that I've never had a problem lasting long enough to satisfy my partner. I also like how you can make the claim that it doesn't bring about reduced function. Were you cut as an adult? Did you have sex prior to being circumcised? If not then I highly doubt you are in a position to make that claim.
Well, in many ways I agree with that statement. However, if there is 100% certainty that a procedure results in lack of functionality, while providing no known benefits for the subject (benefits for others notwithstanding), then I think we have a human rights issue that transcends culture
The very first thing you learn in anthropology is not to judge other cultures by our standards. I don't see how you can reconcile your position on this issue while simultaneously saying that it's ok to slice up the penis of a newborn male for perceived health benefits. Isn't it for him t