Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology 426
eldavojohn writes "It's a lengthy read, but Lawrence Wright at The New Yorker has released a 26 page expose on Scientology. In a world where such innocuous sounding words as 'squirrels,' 'security-checked,' 'disconnection,' 'contra-survival,' 'suppressive persons,' 'clear' and 'open season' carry very serious and heavy baggage, director Paul Haggis has exited after thirty four years of membership and massive funding. Now he speaks at length of Scientology's controversies. From how celebrities were recruited with a 10% commission by a worker at Beverly Hills Playhouse to the current investigation by the FBI of physical abuse and human trafficking, Wright draws surrounding histories and accounts of the Church including Anonymous' crusade. The length of this article reflects the unusually large number of individuals (12 cases of physical abuse) cited as testimony of Scientology Leader David Miscavige's inurement and physical violence. The case remains open as the FBI collects data and testimony — especially in relation to Sea Org. Most disturbing are the disappearances of people that the New Yorker piece enumerates. The piece concludes with the author's interaction with the Church that results in several conflicting foundational statements from its stance on homosexuality (Haggis' original reason for publicly leaving it) to almost all details of L. Ron Hubbard's naval service and discharge. The article ends with Haggis' quote: 'I was in a cult for thirty-four years. Everyone else could see it. I don't know why I couldn't.' You can find summaries of the lengthy article and its suspected results along with corresponding reports listing politicians involved with the Church. Copyrighted work, leaked government documents, PS3 encryption keys and everything else has been posted on Slashdot but only the Church of Scientology has forced comments out of existence."
Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame (Score:5, Informative)
It didn't even mention the Fair Game [wikipedia.org] practice, Operation Snow White [wikipedia.org], Operation Freakout [wikipedia.org], or the numerous other nasty bits [wikipedia.org] from the history of this organization.
Of course, that probably won't stop Scientologists from calling the author a child molester and sending private detectives out to his house to harass him and try to dig up dirt on him. They don't seem to do measured responses very well.
Of course, anyone who believes such attempts to discredit Haggis and Wright probably also believes that Julian Assange is a rapist.
Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame (Score:5, Informative)
They have 35 years worth of audits, they don't have to hire PIs to keep their own people quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
That would only work on the dupes.
The higher-ups have no illusions and would never reveal anything.
Even this rat deserting the sinking ship is spinning. He was a victim, not a grifter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would only work on the dupes.
The higher-ups have no illusions and would never reveal anything.
That's why they get the dirt on you while you're still a newbie.
Re: (Score:2)
When was L. Ron a newbie? Muscarage? The Pope?
Grifters spot each other early and never have to tell each other that they are scamming.
Re: (Score:3)
When was L. Ron a newbie? Muscarage? The Pope?
L Ron was never newbie to Scientology, but the Pope most assuredly was a newbie in Catholicism. He didn't invent Christianity six years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear: He is spinning that he is a victim.
Also to be clear: Almost all religions have a problem with accepting homosexuality. That is not why Scientology is a scam.
Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame (Score:5, Interesting)
When Haggis joined, he had no gay daughters. He probably didn't care much either way back then. However, his views had since evolved, and he probably believed the church had clarified away those now troubling doctrines. He'd allowed himself to become personally invested in those repudiations, those edits. However, he felt betrayed when he realized that those repudiations were likely just window dressing. I don't think that's b.s. He was very arguably being a bit naive, but, taking his cult at its word, he legitimately felt betrayed.
Re: (Score:3)
A. He never read Dianetics. In the article it mentions that he never got further than 30 pages into it.
B. As others have mentioned, when he joined homosexuality wasn't even on his radar.
C. It's extremely easy to be involved in an organization and miss (intentionally or not) it's less than shining attributes. Cognitive dissonance is real, and it occurs to everyone.
D. This is an organization that is known for, if not anything else, it's ability to lie straight faced while doing exactly what it says it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Being an asshat does not make a person a rapist.
Does being an asshat make someone a Scientologist? Or does being a Scientologist make someone an asshat?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you read over his charges?
This is rape by Swedish definitions. There are two different women who consented to have sex with him, but in the course both demanded he wear a condom, and he refused. He also didn't disclose to either that he was having multiple sex partners at the time.
So he didn't violent force his way on a woman by US standards, but put women at risk of STDs by refusing to wear a condom while having multiple sex partners. By those standards, and with the testimony of these two women, he w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm suggesting that there is a lot of smoke, and where there is smoke there is often fire.
Or someone with a smoke bomb. Or a cigarette.
If there's any truly suspicious looking smoke here, it's the remarkably small time difference between when Assange became public enemy number one to several governments, and the charges of rape arising.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By those standards, and with the testimony of these two women, he would be found guilty.
You mean, all one has to do is allege that one asked one's partner to wear a condom and that they refused to convict someone of rape?
As I see it, whether or not he refused to wear a condom is utterly irrelevant.
If she asked him to wear a condom, he refused, and she said... oh ok fine... then its not rape.
If she asked him to wear a condom, and he said no, and she said, "oh, ok, then we are done here" and he says "come on"
Re: (Score:3)
Do I believe that the testimony of two women alleging the same thing is enough to get someone in convicted in Sweden with particularly liberal rape laws?
Yes.
Re: (Score:3)
This is rape by Swedish definitions.
Then it's not rape, it's vÃ¥ldtÃkt. The English word "rape" has a specific definition. If what Assange did doesn't fit that definition it is misleading (lying really) to call it rape.
Maybe Assange did violate some Swedish sex law, that doesn't make him a rapist.
Re: (Score:2)
I am an asshole (at times), yet have seemed to avoid raping someone my entire life somehow. Looks like your "theory" that all assholes are rapists is not accurate, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True but the OP suggests that you have to be insane or hopelessly gullible to even consider that Assange might really be guilty so what you said applies to him even more.
Re: (Score:2)
No, two women have stated that they demanded he wear a condom and he refused. By Swedish law, that is called rape.
And basically he knows that if he stands trial in Sweden and the two women testify, then he will be found guilty.
Re: (Score:3)
BTW, Pentagon itself admitted that no lives were put at risk by (certainly redacted) leaks... (of course some time after the official hysteria, so people like you could have their "opinion" shaped in the meantime). And the book of a former colleauge from Wikileaks also says t
Innocuous (Score:4, Insightful)
In a world where such innocuous sounding words as 'squirrels,' 'security-checked,' 'disconnection,' 'contra-survival,' 'suppressive persons,' 'clear' and 'open season' carry very serious and heavy baggage...
'Security-checked', 'contra-survival', and 'suppressive persons' are innocuous sounding words? One of us doesn't know the meaning of that word.
Innocuous Compared to Their Internal Function (Score:4, Informative)
'Security-checked'
To me: Checked for security. Maybe used to say you checked out a building for how safe and secure it is or even referring to the process everyone goes through when they fly or enter a sports arena.
To a scientologist: when someone "blows" (or flees the church) they recover them ("blow drill") sometimes physically against the persons will and subject them to an E-meter test which the article says is a powerful form of thought control.
'contra-survival'
To me: Contrary to survival. Doesn't sound like you're committing suicide but maybe smoking or drinking? Making bad choices that jeopardize your health? Hell, driving while texting on a cell phone could be called 'contra-survival.'
To a scientologist: when someone explodes violently, often hitting someone or throwing things at them that is contra-survival. The article mentions that this often traces back to prior lives where the person was a violent or disturbed individual.
'suppressive persons'
To me: Anyone who suppresses you. Probably a jerk or bully. Maybe an evil tyrant?
To a scientologist: anyone in your life that says anything negative about scientology. It's always only someone you have a personal relationship with. The church determines who this is and oftentimes you must cut off contact with them completely or you will never be clear. The article lists tons of stories of families and lifelong friends being separated because of this. I'm sure Haggis is probably an SP now. If I ever meet a scientologist, I plan to announce immediately that I am an SP.
To me these words seemed harmless and tame until you realize what these labels function as inside the church. It's so arcane and ridiculous. I can't believe people don't recognize the easily abused power system here that has very direct and serious consequences in your life. The article was a real eye opener as to how that crazy O.T. III shit is gobbled up by people because by that point they've maybe signed a billion year contract and have easily spent $400k on course work and auditing so they have a huge investment and desire to keep the lie going in their mind.
Re:Innocuous Compared to Their Internal Function (Score:4, Interesting)
Makes you wonder where the heck people get the money to spend on the courses.
You only need to make a penny a year and over the course of a billion year contract the fees are no problem with loads of cash left over.
But seriously, people who are in cults don't have normal expenses; you can rent a cheap room, live off instant noodles and pay $400K over 15 years if your day job's salary is only $40K.
Operation Clambake (Score:5, Informative)
The obligatory link when discussing $cientology:
http://www.clambake.org/ [clambake.org]
This is a DMCA-free comment (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:3)
I could have sworn that several years back some comments were removed because they contained a threat to the US president?
Well to give credit (Score:2)
One of the groups behind each of those bits of information will kill you for doing it. I'll let you guess which one.
Re:Well to give credit (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the groups behind each of those bits of information will kill you for doing it. I'll let you guess which one.
But the whole story is about Scientology, and it even talks about Scientologists killing people, so what's to guess?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you telling me you actually read the article?
Re: (Score:3)
Those with low UID are more likely to do that from time to time.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about whippersnapper! not reading the article is a time honored tradition. You would know that if you had registered your account 6 hours earlier like I did.
Re:Well to give credit (Score:5, Funny)
You three must all be new here.
Re: (Score:3)
No, we who have four digit IDs do not need to read the article, we already know what it will say. I was really just messing with OverloardQ, who obviously wanted everyone to guess "Teh ebil Gubermint!" Some people can't resist an opportunity to express their hatred of democracy and collective action.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony?
Re: (Score:2)
Only on slashdot and other tech blogs can something so trivial as the PS3's DRM be considered as bad as what happened to Lisa McPherson, or any other number of deaths, morbidities or other horror stories to come out of the COS.
Hell, once I saw someone say that we should riot in the street Egyptian style because of what Sony's doing. Here's a bit of perspective. Egyptians rioted on the streets because they couldn't eat. Not because they can't play Xbill and Nethack on their consoles.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They will, however, kill your box.
Hrmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hrmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Contrast that with the CoS who has organized the abuses at the hands of several members.
I could be wrong about the churches. Any thoughts?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You might want to look into that claim 'However, the church entity did try to conceal the abuses.' because they've got a smoking gun in Ireland.
The cover-up of the chester priests was started and run from Rome. If their was an activist god like many Christians choose to believe she would smite many of their asses. She has done much worse for less (their claims).
Re: (Score:2)
The Inquisition was coordinated by an office of the Vatican that has since changed its name to something that doesn't actually say "Inquisition". Technically, the Inquisition still exists. It just hasn't burned anyone at the stake since the 1830s. No, not the 1630s, the 1830s.
Re:Hrmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
My personal take on the differences is this:
With Catholic child abuse scandal, your average Catholic believer does not condone it in any way, shape or form - it's entirely contrary to what they believe in. Many of them do refuse to believe that things like that happened, but when they finally realize that this is all true, they are disgusted. In other words, this is a case of Church hierarchy deviating from the very things they teach.
With Scientology, concepts such as "squirrels" and "suppressive persons" are taught to the rank-and-file, and their persecution is the doctrine of the church, fully supported by all its members (because those who don't are kicked out). Thus, the entire Church, as a single entity, stands behind all this - which makes the whole thing evil, and not just some people (or even all leaders).
Re:Hrmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
The so-called Dark Ages in Europe did not begin with a Church Council, and they certainly weren't caused by the Church. By 431, the fall of the Western Empire was already well in hand and Rome had already been sacked by Alaric in 409.
Also, the Church never, ever ruled all Europe. The pope certainly made some claims about overlordship, but the states of Europe were quite securely under the control of secular authorities from start to finish.
The fall of the Empire began with the failure and slow dissolution of the Western Roman Empire, a process that started well before the Christan church became the official religion of the Empire. This process occurred for many reasons like demographic shifts and economic failures based on the unsustainablity of the conquest and slavery-based Roman economy. I assure you, no matter what you may think of classical philosophers, their existence or lack thereof had little to do with the fall of the Empire.
As for cruelty, considering Ancient Rome pretty much made a science out of painful ways of killing people, for instance mass crucifixions, I don't think that any supposed cruelty of the Christians would have even made a ripple in the mood of the times.
Re: (Score:2)
The Federal Government gave Scientology religious/tax exempt status through some shady backroom deals.
The full story could fill a book, but this timeline gives you the rough outline
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/timeline.html [cmu.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
Remember folks, it's never Christ that was the problem - it's the fan club.
SUCK IT, Anonymous! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trying to defeat a religion's organization and beliefs by using logic has been tried many, many times before and never stops people from being convinced they are right. If you think this will have any impact whatsoever, I think you need to open your eyes.
You'll have forgotten about this in a week.
Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous! (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to defeat a religion's organization and beliefs by using logic has been tried many, many times before and never stops people from being convinced they are right. If you think this will have any impact whatsoever, I think you need to open your eyes.
As they guy said, you can't logic someone out of something they didn't logic themselves into! On the other hand, this isn't about scientology being a religion, its about it being a criminal organisation.
Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous! (Score:4, Funny)
You'll have forgotten about this in a week.
Now come on, this is Slashdot. We forget everything in a week,
WRONG (Score:2)
Re:WRONG (Score:5, Insightful)
Opium of the masses... (Score:2)
Welcome to the club (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are other religions that have a problem with people who leave it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Countries [wikipedia.org] The Christian churches have been and would be the same when and where they can get away with it.
The problem is that in the US, today, only the Church of Scientology seems to be getting away with this kind of abuse of its former members just for leaving the church, so it is appropriate to expose and criticize it.
Re: (Score:3)
I know you think you are pretty smart for making that observation - and those with mod points on slashdot here will be falling over themselves to mod you up because of the hivemind.
However, there is a huge difference between scientology and other religions - especially the more benign ones such as Christianity, Buddhism etc..
For one thing, every rite/ritual/creed of scientology is given on a pay-as-you-go basis.. no other religion does that.
For another - no other mainstream religion actively seeks to "disco
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to point out the danger of quoting a couple of verses from the Bible without establishing context, but even taken on its own, Mark 10:29-30 isn't advocating the sort of disconnect being discussed.
Try reading it in its context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:17-31&version=MSG [biblegateway.com]
(using a modern paraphrase, The Message, because it gets the point across in everyday language. If that bothers you and you want a more literal translation, try this: http://www.biblegateway.com/pas [biblegateway.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If we assume that vanish is a euphemism for killed horribly a majority of Islam currently fits the latter description. Certain pockets of Christianity have as well for very brief periods of time.
Re: (Score:3)
Give me one instance when a Church (place denomination here) sued someone for libel
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy [history.com]
made their former members vanish
Can't be arsed trying to find a reference to generally making people disappear, so I'll settle for "disappear in a cloud of smoke" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wightman [wikipedia.org]
History is full of such examples, what the fuck is the issue with your defence of these archaic superstitious practices?
Scientology is merely younger than other religions, in every other regard it shares their lies, abuses and greed.
Scientology is a cult (Score:2)
It's too bad Slashdot made the (difficult) decision to remove that comment, but at least they went down with guns blazing and provided lots of links to places the content could still be found.
It's always been a mystery to me how an organization that is so clearly a cult managed to get status in the United States as a legitimate religion. I'm willing to argue 'til the cows come home that all religions are cults, but there's another degree of crazy the Branch Davidians, the Peoples' Temple, the Scientolog
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Can you provide a workable definition of both 'cult' and 'legitimate religion' that allows to differentiate between the two?
Hell, to a lot of people the Branch Davidians are a perfectly legitimate church that was unlawfully attacked, and its members murdered, by the US government. Once we accept that "legitimate religions" get a pass on pretty much anything
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I pretty much covered that in the "level of crazy" sentence. My personal belief is close to what you said...that there's not much to choose between organized groups of people who get together periodically to engage in the exercise of self-delusion.
Re:Scientology is a cult (Score:5, Interesting)
It's always been a mystery to me how an organization that is so clearly a cult managed to get status in the United States as a legitimate religion.
I've always wondered how people can use the phrase "legitimate religion" with a straight face.
Re: (Score:3)
As an atheist, I'd say a legitimate religion is one where the leaders also believe in that religion, and where the leaders believe that their religion benefits their followers.
A religious leader being legitimate does not preclude him from being intellectually lazy, full of hate, dumb or ignorant. It just means he'll honestly believe what he says. I think that's a fair and important distinction to make.
Also there are many religious people who are really nice, educated and intelligent - who I genuinely ad
Re: (Score:3)
As an atheist, I'd say a legitimate religion is one where the leaders also believe in that religion, and where the leaders believe that their religion benefits their followers.
We're talking about different uses of the phrase, apparently. I'm sure that witch-doctors honestly believe that sacrificing a goat, pouring it's blood in a circle, and shaking some rattles will cure a guy dying from dysentery, but I wouldn't consider them to be legitimate medical professionals. You can say that the individual is legitimately expressing his beliefs - not that the beliefs themselves are legitimate.
Also there are many religious people who are really nice, educated and intelligent - who I genuinely admire. They are honest in their beliefs - I disagree with them, but I respect that they are genuine.
Ditto, but that's rather irrelevant.
Re:Scientology is a cult (Score:5, Informative)
Not the first time religions have embargoed their own literature.
It used to be illegal to own a bible that wasn't in Latin. The Priests thought that if people could read it for themselves they'd (a) figure out they were being lied to about what it contains and (b) not need priests even if they told the truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Religions are cults practiced by a majority. Cults are religions practiced by a minority.
Too Bad... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be fun to see the Church of Scientology try to play one of its smear campaigns/depowering operations against a group like the Westboro Baptist church.
It'll never happen. Honor among thieves and all that implies.
Re: (Score:2)
DIgiShaman, are you claiming that ALL Muslims are akin to Westboro Baptist Church and Scientologists?
Re: (Score:2)
DIgiShaman, are you claiming that ALL Muslims are akin to Westboro Baptist Church and Scientologists?
I kinda doubt it. But they do seem to be really sensitive to criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
All religions are akin to all religions.
Ghost stories and the irrational human actions they justify.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see the word "all" in his post. Just "the".
As we've seen, doing anything that antagonizes "the muslims" will get you targeted by the violent muslims, of whom there is no shortage.
Which, again, makes them like almost all religions. There are a few religions that don't have as much violence to them. But even Buddhists like to kick a little ass from time to time.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/buddhist-monks-riot-injures-40-1188655.html [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
"CULT" is just hate speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Note that all of the above could easily apply to first-century Christianity; indeed it is difficult to think of *any* definition for a cult that wouldn't (and yes I'm well aware there is an abundance of /. users who don't particularly care for Christianity, or any other religion).
Here is the definition of a cult as people really use it:
"A religion I don't like"
I don't personally have any warm fuzzies about scientology, but to label it "a cult" doesn't describe anything substantive about the organisation except your opinion of it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
I think most people that distinguish between cults and religions actually use "cult" to mean a worship group that seems to have a negative impact on the members lives.
Re:"CULT" is just hate speech (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes and no. There is such a thing as a dangerous cult, and there's also such a thing as a totally harmless new and/or tiny religious group. Many researchers have done work on how to tell the difference, and created tools like this questionnaire [neopagan.net] to tell the difference (Disclaimer: The author of that questionnaire, the late Isaac Bonewits, was a close friend of many people I'm acquainted with). And yes, the official Church of Scientology rates very badly in nearly all of those measurements.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientology is entirely and utterly deserving of all the hate speech we can muster. This organization drains people of their entire livelihoods, forces them into human bondage, and ends in their untimely deaths.
These are documented facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, Ron Hubbard founded Scientology, somehow got some people to believe in it and him, and had ideas contrary to established psychiatry.
The difference being that the established views weren't all that g
Re: (Score:3)
Cult: A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control . . . designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.
I accept your broad point about the word "cult" being a heavily emotionally loaded word; and as such it is difficult to have a rational discussion of this nature with the "c" word being dropped. But I disagree that the word to be sufficiently powerful/tainted enough to implicate any notion of "hate speech". Personally, I have no emotional reaction to the word; it is a neutral, useful adjective to me and when I use it my intent is to convey a factual, rational description (at lea
Re: (Score:3)
Comedy Gold (Score:2)
For those who have been reading up on CoS, most of this is stuff you've known for years (though some of the perks that Haggis alleges Mr. Cruise has received over the years were news to me).
The best bit comes in the last few paragraphs. A CoS rep says that everything in their church doctrine was 100% pure from the horses mouth, the words of Hubbard. Then Wright asks about the church's views on homosexuality. Suddenly the rep responds that some bigot must have, while dictating it from Hubbard, added bigoted
Re: (Score:3)
> For those still unaware, "human trafficking" is basically a euphemism for slavery. See River of Innocents [amazon.com] for a good primer. In the US alone, tens of thousands of kids are at high risk for being enslaved every year.
Victor Malarek's The Natashas is also good.
I've always heard Scientology engaged in some disreputable tactics, but seriously, this is a new low.
Excuse me, my Kitchen is on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
New? Its been part of their practice for decades, since the beginning.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why, when the FBI announces they rescued two or three or maybe a dozen in a raid, I'm not terribly impressed. I seriously doubt a police force would brag about a 0.01% to 0.1% rate of solving cases. It's better than nothing, but this is a yearly at-risk figure, so the cumulative total of slavery in the US is going to be insanely high - probably on-par with the total number of people in prison. (Assuming one slave owner or other active participant per slave, plus one full-time councilor to help a fo
Re: (Score:2)
before the CoS sics their lawyers on them
I would love to see them do that because, you know, the more they try to hide it, the more Anonymous and others will do to scatter it all around the globe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How to spot a cult? (Score:4, Informative)
"Any christian church, any fits that description. So do some flavors of Judaism and Islam."
They want to control your mind, but they're quite modest with money. You can learn everything about these religions, without getting in debt. And there are no restricted scriptures, everything is accesible to newbs as well. That's a huge difference.
Re:How to spot a cult? (Score:5, Interesting)
You're quite right, except that most Christian groups (certainly most Protestant-based groups) don't want to control your mind. They want you to believe certain things, because they think those things are true. But they want your ultimate loyalty to be to God, not people or their institutions. In the Protestant tradition, you can reject the authority of any given group and still retain your salvation.
To me, that's the most useful indicator of a cult: does the group acknowledge that salvation is possible outside their particular institution? In other words, do they allow forking? Most Protestant groups do. Even the Catholic Church does these days, in a way (they see other Christian groups as definitely inferior, but acknowledge that salvation is possible with them).
The distinction is important for the same reasons forkability is important in software. Groups denying that salvation (or "enlightenment", or equivalent concepts) exists outside their institution maintain enormous power of their members, and that power is easily abused.
Re: (Score:3)
Does it want your money?
Does it want your mind?
Does it want to govern your life?
It's a cult.
Of course /. 'ers will list about a hundred other things that fit that bill ;-)
My ex comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it want your money? Does it want your mind? Does it want to govern your life? It's a cult. Of course /. 'ers will list about a hundred other things that fit that bill ;-)
That may be a little bit overly broad, since just about any organization with dues and a code of ethics would fit your definition. So, yes, I'd agree that /.ers will be able to list hundreds, if not thousands of things.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! The implant in my head that I got at the Apple store says I should be indignant!
Re: (Score:2)
> Does it want your money? Does it want your mind? Does it want to govern your life? It's a cult.
How is that different from government? :-) No, seriously?
There are cults that don't require any money, (or time), only your belief system.
> Of course /. 'ers will list about a hundred other things that fit that bill ;-)
With all due respect, your _definition_ is too vague, and not specific enough. The money, and mind-control are simply symptoms of the problem -- that an organization has self-perservation
Re: (Score:2)
And I equally don't understand how people can adhere to this Church of insanity.
Because the world sucks ass many other unsavory things.
People look for something to make sense of it, to figure out why bad things happen to good people, and why evil often lives comfortably in fine homes full of Bugattis and supermodels.
So, many latch on to belief systems that claim to put a filter over the random, horrific bullshit of the universe, and reveal The Truth behind it.
Demons. Thetans. Imps. Sprites. Bogeymen. Aliens. Jinxes. Genetic predispositions. Whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
So it comes to question, who would benefit by convincing science-minded forum-board members that space exploration is a waste of time?
obviously mr space nutter is a alien real-estate agent sub-parceling teh moon.
my reasoning is incontrovertible.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I haven't bothered to memorize any of them, just laughed when I noticed.
But here's one of his vanity cards that air after the credit of every episode that mentions it:
http://www.chucklorre.com/index-mnm.php?p=293 [chucklorre.com]