Thank you JS Princeton, you beat me to the punch. Diceman: If you want to know about scientology, buy a fucking book. There are literally hundreds of books and lectures that are available to non-scientologists. You aren’t paying for the beliefs, you are paying for the services. If you knew much of anything about scientology, there are certain things available to you that require another individual to help complete. Really it’s not so very different from psychology, except that for 1.) they dont believe in manipulating an individual, 2.) they arent very big on “current” study technologies(i.e. american school systems)but rather encourage and teach a much more efficient way to educate people and their children, and 3.) are vehemently against “psych” drugs. Many scientologists aren’t paying the church for anything, as paying money is only necessary for the classes which teach you how to perform any counseling. Once the person has learned how to correctly counsel people they can exchange their knowledge for free. Ever heard of a seminary? Where protestants go to learn their counseling and technology of their craft. Is that free? I think not…I’m not going to go in depth about the people involved in the religion, as there are nuts and fanatics in every belief system. At least they haven’t led any violent “Holy” crusades…
I’ve got absolutely no support for Scientologists whatsoever, but it seems like this could be said about any number of religions. </nitpick>
I agree completely with the “dangerous, manipulative cult” part, of course.
JS Princeton, would you defend the Mafia if everyone decided to rag on them?
They are known murderers. I don’t care how loudly you scream about the Crusades or the PLO or the Great Leap Forwards, that’s simply wrong.
They also actively tell people to commit crimes. Those crimes are aimed at harassing the critics of Scientology, who have been marked to be disposed of “quietly and without sorrow.” Some real religious groups commit crimes, but only the worst of them commit crimes to harass and kill those who criticise them.
And what real religion do you know uses false fronts to lure the hurting and needy to its doors? Only Scientology could dream up Narconon. No, not Narcanon, the short name for Narcotics Anonymous, but Narconon, the short name for Greedy Murderous Cult. Confusing? Deliberately.
The evidence is against you. Don’t dig yourself into a hole defending these monsters.
Paradoxical: Here’s a little project for you: Ask a Scientolgist about Xenu. Or Xemu. (It can be pronounced and spelled both ways.) He’ll hem, he’ll haw, and he may even deny he knows anything about the alien. (Or he may honestly not know anything about the alien. It depends on how far he’s gotten in the cult.)
Do a Google search and you’ll get this:
Who’s been bullying Google, and why? Read the links.
Well, this is what I’m looking for. It explains the theology behind Scientology, something the Scientologists don’t want getting out. Why’s it a secret? Ask a Scientologist, and see what happens.
Derleth
Dear Lord, somebody got up on the wrong side of the religious bandwagon this morning.
First off, the mafia is not even remotely relevent to this conversation. So please keep your strawmen to yourself.
If the Scientologists hurt you in some way, I’m sorry, but your case is extremely personally biased, you should know. There are people in almost all churches who are known murders… some of whom have used religious justification and were pretty high up on the ladder. Is it simply wrong? Of course! That doesn’t make the religion itself problematic. Simply linking to the website of people who blame scientology for Lisa McPherson’s death doesn’t meant that scientology is problematic. You can make the argument that it may have led to death (or murder), but what you can make that about many religions. Singling out Scientology is just plain religious intolerance. Period.
It is not official scientology doctrine that one commit crimes to be a member of the church. The CoS has withstood more court cases than any other organization (started many too). If you think there is a case to prosecute them as an organized crime syndicate, then present your evidence to the authorities and see them in court.
First of all, is pretending Scientology is not a “real” religion supposed to support your case? Because it really doesn’t make any sense to me.
But okay, maybe you want some mainstream examples? Hmm, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, for one. The Salvation Army for two. I mean, this is a common practice. I don’t actually think there is anything wrong with that. Is it misleading? Sure, but the laws out there about false advertising apply to consumer protection, liable, copyright infringement, etc. If you have a beef with them on any of those fronts than contact your state attorney general. Personally, I don’t think there is a legal case out there, but that’s not for me to decide.
This clearly seems to me that you have not paid any attention whatsoever to what I’ve been saying.
Let me spell it out for you:
Scientology deserves the consideration of any other religion. It does not deserve special protection. It does not deserve to be above the law. However, the United States of America has a little concept called “innocent before proven guilty” that protects all of us equally. If you decided to go out and found your own religion or church in Havre then you are free to do that. Likewise, Scientology has the freedom to set-up a religious institution that offers spiritual benefits to its members. There isn’t anything a priori wrong with it. Is it my choice? No. Do I think there are problems? Sure. But I don’t think those problems are exclusive to Scientology, and I challenge you to show how they are.
By the way, the whole Google controversy is absolutely delightful, I think. The way Google handled it was a brilliant victory for free speech. I’m sure more people are linking to those removed webpages now than before.
So the Scientologists like to sue. Big deal. If they have a legal point, then they have a legal point. If they don’t then they’ll lose. That’s the way the law works. There complaints and their fondness for litigation does not make their religion problematic, dangerous, or “evil”.
You really have no problem with someone starting a religion solely to bilk people vs someone starting a religion to benefit mankind?
It is of course a matter of opinion as to what beliefs are whackier than other. My judgement is that the Xenu bullshit is a good deal whackier than the other religions I’m familiar with. YMMV, of course.
Dude, you’re not paying attention. When the Scientologists sue people, they don’t care whether they’re right or wrong, they sue people just to drive them into the poorhouse. Defending against those frivolous lawsuits costs money, you know.
They’ll also take those secrets you tell them during “auditing” sessions and blackmail you with them, if you don’t toe the line. Not even the Catholics will do that!
Long ago I bought a few books and took a class at the Scientology center, cost about a hundred bucks which is meager compared to some. For years afterwards, I kept getting bills in the mail for services I never purchased from them. (Guess I never gave them enough information to get litigous, and they merely hoped I’d pay them blindly.) The bills only stopped when I moved.
Read xenu.net, and learn.
damn,Derleth , you beat me to the punch. I just spent the last hour trying to get my computer to work so I could search the St. Pete Times archives for the Lisa McPherson articles. Here’s an article from the St. Pete Times without the bias of the Lisa McPherson site. It still sounds fishy to me. That’s why I don’t like them. Also, living so close (about 20 minutes away) from the official church in Clearwater, I hear a lot more about Scientologists than you guys do. I have heard nothing to suggest that Scientologists are beneficial, or even just harmless. Everything I have heard about them makes me think they are dangerous. 50 years from now they may be an accepted religion. I will still feel the same way. And I don’t like Freemasons either.
that xenu, heh he’s a really great alien, and boy is he peppy…
“Currently, Google is providing a link to a web page which contains literally hundreds of our clients’ copyrighted works and federally registered trademarks. This web site is “XXXXX." This particular web site, “XXXXX.", has been removed five times by well known internet service providers here in the United States for the precise copyright and trademark infringements of which I am notifying Google.”
“This particular web site owner has placed our clients’ copyrighted works and federally registered trademarks on his web page without the authorization of our clients. According, his actions are in violation of United States copyright law”
(Bolding mine. I’ve removed the address because these boards automatically hyperlink to the site, and I’m unsure of the legality of doing so.)
Ooooh. Chilling stuff ** Derleth**.
Someone’s website contained dozens of copyrighted photographs (http://images.chillingeffects.org/notices/232-xenu_chart.html) and “literally hundreds of” of other copyrighted works. The legitimate owner of those photographs asked that Google abide by its legal obligation in defending that copyright. The nefarious bastards.
But if you don’t want to be labelled an ignorant hypocrite you’d better start criticising the SDMB for ‘bullying’ posters. After all every single time we post dozens of copyrighted articles we don’t even get the opportunity to “removed the result(s) from this page” It is done for us, without our consent by those horrible bullying mods. And they don’t even do it after being asked by the copyright holder. They just assume that they want their copyright protected.
Pretty sinister stuff. Imagine a website removing material that infringes copyrightafter they are asked to do so. :rolleyes:
JS Princeton: I agree with innocent until proven guilty. I agree that until he actually does something illegal, even the most odious man has the full protection of the law. But I don’t agree that Scientology is a religous belief system as far as those in power are concerned. I think they know it’s a moneymaking scam, and they run it as such to the detriment of those they’ve bilked. They even commit crimes to further their business goals. In that way, it’s exactly like the Mafia.
And when did Mother Teresa or the Salvation Army ever once try to deny their origins, leadership, or true reason for being? When did they try to lure people in with a name so similar to the name of an established group as to cause honest confusion?
Real religions are very forthright about their mission work, as they wish to be known to be doing the work of God as they see fit. Criminals, on the other hand, want the cover of darkness for their deeds. Which does Scientology most resemble?
Blake, what religion copyrights its core dogma? Why would a religion need lawyers to prevent people from learning what it’s really about?
We can’t know what those in power believe, so please don’t state it isas fact in GQ without some reputable references.
The same criticism can be levelled at the Roman Catholic church not so very long ago. Selling indulgences and selling Scientologist ‘pscychotherapy’ is exactly the same thing. RCs not so long ago, and possibly still today, were made to feel obliged to make a donation when they attended confession and communion, and they were made to feel a spiritual dire need for communion and confession.
And certainly Catholics have committed crimes to make money, [particularly out of their orphanages and workhouses, just as much as the Scientologists have.
Furthermore almost all fundamentalist and even moderate Baptist churches also promote tithing. While I am unaware of crimes being committed to further this I would not be in the leat to discover they were.
People are people. Some religious people commit crimes in the name of religion, and some Democrats commit crimes in the name of their party. Scientologists are nothing special in that regard.
Straw man.
We aren’t talking about core dogma here. We are talking about photographs, amongst other things. I would be astounded if you could name one religion that does not hold copyright on photographs.
Straw man.
The example we are discussing is using lawyers to prevent people from publishing hundreds of copyrighted photographs on a website. Nothing to do with learning what the religion is about.
Try publishing copyrighted material on this website and see how long your posting privileges continue.
Pretty sinsister stuff there. The SDMB Chicago Reader owners are damn bullies, right Derleth?
To hear the CoS tell it, the latter was the very reason dianetics began.
Now, how, praytell, are we to decide which motivation is the true one of L. Ron? I mean, can you honestly say you know that founders of other religions weren’t operating out of a “bilking” paradigm?
I’m just trying to be fair here. Scientology might be founded for bilking, it might not be. What’s true is that we can’t really know except to psychoanalyze from a distance or to jump to our own conclusions.
Virgin birth, Godman dies for sins. Says bread and wine are his body and blood and that all should eat of the body and blood. Was present at the creation of the world as the Divine Word. That’s somehow less whacky than believing in supergalactic empires and aliens who telepathically abuse thetans? YMMV indeed.
Blake, read my link about Fair Gaming (the text “They also actively tell people to commit crimes” has it in my first post in this thread). That is official dogma, and it is pretty unique in the world of religion: While the other faiths focus on peace and love and forgiveness, Scientology has a doctrine of harassing people and disposing of them.
As for the leadership of Scientology: I don’t know what’s in their minds, but look at Narconon. Explain why Narconon is run as it is without assuming the leadership of Scientology wants money more than it wants to spread the faith.
Shouting “straw man” doesn’t make you look smart. The CoS DOES hold copyrights on their core dogma, and they have sued websites for publishing such - without any photos.
Again, NO. It’s a relevant question about "What exactly is the problem with $cientology.
Are the scientologists doing anything illegal? Sounds like your beef isn’t with them but rather with our criminal justice system. If they have a case, they have a case. If they don’t, they don’t. It’s as simple as that.
If you think our justice system is skewed against the little guys with no money, then you are entitled to your opinion. Only, that’s not Scientology’s fault. Is it maybe unethical? Perhaps, but the whole point of this discussion is that other religions are also unethical.
Well, blackmail is illegal. So bring them to court. Actually, I don’t buy the “blackmail” charge at all. What they have done is they bring out the secrets in court. That may seem to be a violation of the minister-supplicant confidentiality that we hold dear, but there is no law that says that cannot be done. Blackmail is illegal. It’s as simple as that. Bringing up admissible evidence in court is legal.
I’m sorry you got involved with the Scientologists and were dissastisfied. You are free to trumpet about that as much as you want. If they were harrassing you, you have a right to sue them. If you don’t owe them anything, then you don’t have to pay. What’s so hard about that?
I mean, I understand that the group is tenacious and money-grubbing, but so are other religions that don’t get the flack. Ever donated to a charity and got junk mail or even bills for the next 20 years? These practices, dude, are not exclusive to the Scientologists.
[quote]
Read xenu.net, and learn.
[quote]
Read through and through. An enjoyable read, but I don’t see how it shows Scientology as being worthy of being singled-out as problematic.
Blake, those aren’t straw men. Those are the main points in contention here.
To prove it, here’s the article Scientology vs. the Internet. Basically, those in command of the CoS tried to stamp out all criticism of the group in the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. It became official church practice to start trollfests, essentially, and to try to cancel messages it didn’t like. They claimed copyright as a blanket excuse, of course, but more often they simply tried to kill messages that were critical of them.
You can’t ascribe that to a few morons within the group: That was the people in charge deciding what the church as a whole must do. That was official practice.