More Scientologist lunacy
 

It seems like wherever I look these days, I see the cancerous effects of the "Church" of Scientology. I'm sure most of you are aware of Tom Cruise's reprehensible dabblings in the field of censorship, the attempts to tell expectant mothers and people suffering from depression they're wrong to seek important medical treatment... the list goes on. However, I think the situation described by Brian on the front page is perhaps the worst example I have seen so far.

It's not so much the fact that they disagree with psychology/psychiatry that is disgusting: every major religion has its own views on issues like mental illness, depression, childbirth etc. It's the fact that they are the ONLY so-called faith to go to such extraordinary lengths to harass and intimidate people who disagree with their ludicrous and outspoken views. Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with a number of medical treatments, but I have never heard of them trying to prevent persons who are not a part of their church from receiving such treatments. Jews will refuse on religious grounds to receive transplants and skin grafts of any kind from pigs, but would never dream of attempting to stop non-Jews from undergoing this type of surgery, and yet a tiny cult like the Church of Scientology thinks it has the right to prevent non-scientologists from receiving vital help? I sincerely hope the authorities stand up for vulnerable youths and give their full support to the Signs of Suicide program, which from Brian's description looks to be a worthwhile and honourable initiative.

A word of warning to Brian though: I have done a fair amount of research into Scientology, and I know that they have a policy of harassment and intimidation towards persons who publicly criticise their "church". By using the front page of a popular website to denounce their vile attempts at forcing their views on Florida's youth, there's a chance you will be declared a "suppressive person" and therefore "fair game" for any kind of character assassination their members care to throw at you: the site www.xenu.net that you link to on the front page has more information on these terms. If the CoS notices today's article, you can expect to be bombarded with floods of angry emails, forum invasions, attempts to hack the site and forums, public attacks on your character... all kinds of ridiculous bullshit designed to bully you in to backing down. As a long-time 8-Bit reader, I'd like to say that if they DO try any of this, you have my full support through the possibly difficult times ahead, and I'm sure the rest of the community feels the same. Carry on standing up for your beliefs and for the welfare of Florida's children and teenagers, safe in the knowledge that there's a large and loyal community behind you who will not be swayed by the idiotic ravings of a tiny, malicious cult.

End of Rant.

One, they will do something, IF they hear of it.
Two, IF they do something... ass kick time!
Three, who cares? cops will get them sooner or later, just leave them alone unless they bug you
any questions?:D

Let's just say the clams had better not try and bother us here, or mods don't screw around.

scientology is complete bullshit. let them come! I have my flame thrower ready to handle those morons. :D

Scientology is, at the core of it, a scam. Literally. L. Ron Hubbard started it as a kind of expensive counsoling service simply to fill his pulp-sci-fi writer pockets. He then later decided to take it the extra step, and made it a religion, thus removing lots of legal and tax problems. It wasn't founded on some greater knowledge or anything like that, it was created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I feel sad for all the people who think it's for real.

I followed that link on the front page. God, some of the stories there make me feel sick. How do people belive stuff like that? Humanity is way to gulable.

If they really try to attack Brian, they will want to shut down the site. Maybe we may need of hackers to protect the site?

I was under the impression that religious themed discussion was really not welcome here. I understand that there are physical points of concern, but they are still attached to a religion.

I could not see myself do the same with issues related to some older religions, so I hope my objection is understood.

Actualy, you're right. Wow was that easy to forget. *backs away from minefeild slowly*

Opps.....
 

I Thought that that was along the lines of debating a religion, BUT, might be a good idea to drop the topic and follow shadow's example...

If Scientology can be openly ridiculed, then so can all other religions. But, since it is difficult for us to acknowledge this concept, and since we cling to a myth of religious tolerance and censorship, this thread should be closed, even if you are right.

Honestly, one can't logically talk about the fallacies of one religion without relating those of all the others. Until the rules change, talk of Scientology, Islam, or fairies is strictly forbidden.

Good points... I didn't realise that discussion of religion was taboo on these boards, so please don't think I started this thread in order to be inflammatory and start a flame war of any kind. It was intended purely as a show of support for Brian and his friends as they try and promote their worthy and honourable cause, but if I've violated any forum rules then I apologise and have no objection to a mod locking/deleting the thread.

Don't worry, we're safe. Scientology isn't a religion, so the rules don't apply here.

I would guess that religions that have insulted the memory of close friends of the proprietor would be considered exceptions to the rule in question.

Of course, that's my guess, and certainly not the determining opinion in the matter.

I agree with Whale Biologist. Scientology is not a real religion, so discussing it should be allowed on this forum.

Grotesque.

Carry on, then, see if I care (of course I do, but it's a figure of speech).

Whether or not its laws and/or tenants are completely insane has no bearing on whether or not its a religion. Why? Because that's a completely relative thing. I'm sure there are many people out there who view the major religions as being retarded too, but they still are what they are.

But really, I am curious to see what the mods say. It was bashed on the main page after all...

We don't allow religious discussions because too many people use some very beautiful ideas -- namely, don't be an asshole to people -- to justify their incredibly asshole-ish ideas, opinions, and actions. I don't feel like seeing that on my forum.

Scientology, however, is a fraud and a cult that acts like a religion to further its fraudiness and cultitude with the added bonus of skipping out on paying taxes. Treating it as a religion, even if out of a sense of politeness, is giving it entirely too much credit.

Quoted. For. Motherfucking. Emphasis.

I simply cannot believe how people can follow a 'religion' like this. Flying through space on jetliners? Telepathic and telekinetic powers? No psychoactive medications? Big money? Wow.

The thing that gets me is how so many people could take such a boring sci-fi author so seriously. This is just my opinion mind you, but I read one of his books, Mission Earth, Book One, and it was the most mind numbingly boring things I have ever put myself through. It was an 800 page book in which absolutely nothing happens! Am I missing something here, does he actually have intersting books, and do these scientologists realize that Hubbard is just a mediocre sci-fi writer? I give Brian my full support in this matter.

Well, there's an old saying.

"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.'" - L. Ron Hubbard

This is the same 'religion' that spied on the United States Government. They committed fraud and carried out illegal wiretapping and seizures and earned themselves a pwning by the FBI. That alone should have been enough to strip them now and forever of their religious status.

Hubbard was a schizophrenic, paranoid, and he was full of himself. To the brim. He believed everyone against him was a 'suppressive person' (i.e. interrupting his cash flow) and should be 'utterly ruined'. He condoned the use of barratry and violence against his critics.

Unbelievable.

Shitty sci-fi writer + Tax break= scientology

Hey didn't you hear? L. Ron is dead, aparently scientology is NOT the path to immortality.

But other people's belifs are their reason to live, so as fun as it is, it's not nice to make fun. {deleted unnesesary terrible jokes about the foundation of christianity islam judaisim and the like} But it is like apples to oranges. scientology is the TAX BREAK religion, which is as good of a reason as I've heard to start one.

But I am starting my own religion at this point, and it will be called CommonSenseisim. Where we believe in truth, justice, and the 'merican Way!

Noooooo, you misunderstood the great teachings of L. Run Cupboard! He merely stated that it was time for him to leave his body and then poof! He vanished! He didn't die! He left this dimension of his own free will, using his incredible powers over MEST! Then a special DC-9 transported him impossibly across lightyears of nothing but hard vacuum to his sci-fi heaven!

Typewriter in the Sky was actually pretty good, if you like that sort of thing.

People will believe anything as along as it seems to profit them, it may be somewhat exclusive making dividing lines ("seperating us from them" and that sort of thing) and there are already people who seem to believe it.

When that is known, it's not so hard to understand why someone would listen to utter bullcrap for hours on end and believe every word of it, be it about Thetans and evil psychologists, or that Terrorists are the REAL threat to society.

This is why i liked my Sociology professor. She'd mercilessly rip into the Scientologist when we came up to the Cults unit. She did not like them, and made certain to say that it wasn't a religion set up to help people, but rather a machine to generate revenue. My History of Religion professor said the same thing too (though we didn't cover it in class, it was one of the religions that we had the option of reading up on for a writing assignment).

I've been reading up on the site that Brian posted, and I'm honestly sickened. I knew it was bad, but, I never imagined how bad it was, or the means they used to preserve their revenue machine. Of course, it seems that more and more questioning of Scientology is coming up, and now they have Trey Parker and Matt Stone taking aim. I love this next quote.

It's only an exception because its modern. All religions were started in the exact same fashion--I don't mean by an insidious person, but derided by most initially, and considered cults and "non-religions."

Yet it still isn't okay to discuss why Islam at its roots is a cult of death? I think delineating a border between religion and cult is a phenomenon as old as time itself, but only to protect one set of beliefs from valid criticism, and only works in this case because the religion is of a monetary basis, even though crimes such as death and regression in the face of scientific progress are just some results of "non-paying," established religions.

Walking on water? Transubstantiation? Immaculate conception? Political pull? Wow. How can anyone follow a religion like that?

On Scientology itself: there are some good documents on the struggle between Scientology and the Internet out there. It's done a good job of exposing lots of the scams.

...like Scientology. :D

All religions started by someone making up a bunch of stuff after a semi-successful career as a writer? Well.... yeah, thats pretty much very likely. Thats one of the reasons I don't believe in religion.

I've heard that Scientology also tried to artificially raise it's standing on the national bestseller lists by initiating massive book-buying campaigns within it's own members.

""Last Event: 04/18/06 S Favorable with 1 amendment(s) by Children and Families; YEAS 6 NAYS 0 on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:21 PM"

To me, that sounds like it was passed. [EDIT: Well, not passed all the way, there's quite a few steps to take for a Bill to become law, and we're still fairly early in that. By "passed", I mean "not blocked by the inane ramblings of cultists"]

I'll wait for final confirmation from the Buonauro family before I get overly celebratory though"

hmm. it seems that the Scientologists have lost in florida.

Ironically, thats proof there's a higher power who likes us. :)

Amusingly enough that's not how the New York Times Bestseller List works, though it could still have an effect on it by proxy.

Personally there has never been more proof that God does exist than the fact that Him and Jesus are probably laughing at all of the religons. I mean really, most reporters can't get a quote right to save their lives so.....You know. He probably thinks it's funny, and it makes the after party in heaven Akward for the fresly dead.

But it don't matter, according to Loser Ronald Mcdonald Hubbard, God is a space alien and he shoots scientologists with infinity beams of medicine and knowledge, and candy. (Can't forget the Alien God candy.)

Shhh, I'm birthing an infant, I need total silence.

Aaarrgh! Your unnecessary breaking of the holy silence during childbirth has attracted innumerable thetans to my newborn child! They will plague and haunt him and cloud his mind! He will never be able to achieve the state of OPERATING THETAN!

We must sacrifice him to Xenu in a holy ritual that costs 1,000,000 dollars and is carried out by homeless people who get paid .50 cents for it and the rest goes to David Miscavige!!!!!

AKIA! Er... wrong cult...


Edit: Please don't hurt me.

I am a little offended, not by the bashing of sciewho gives a crap but because I belive in psionic abilities and so does my "religion". Ok ill level with you I dont have a religion, its just like a code of ethics, things like treat other with respect you know what all religions have but, there is one other thing I sorta belive in that is, that the only god is yourself. Go ahead and bash it to hell and back (to bad my "religion" dont have a hell)

Uhm... how're we supposed to bash a religion that we have no clue about? I mean, I love making fun of idiots for disagreeing with me, but you're going to have to be a bit more specific. Besides, I'm like 90% you don't know what a "religion" is by definition. And please- stick to Scientology. If you want to talk about you that bad, just make a thread.

Yes, I do not know what a "religion" by definition is but I tend to define words wrong anyways I geuse I should have said it's my belief, all I can say is hey Loqui equally gallina, esse equally viginti gallinas.
p.s my latin is pretty bad

It sure is, but hey, who cares, we are having a little fun at the scientologists expense, which I am sure they will bill us for, those money grubbing bastards.
And hey, if you believe in your religion then let no one tell you differently. You might be right and they might be wrong, we don't know till we are dead, then we can't tell anyone.

And hey, can I get a frequent sacrifice discount on this one, it's like my fourth this week.

HAHAHAHAHA

(Google "Clearwater FL Scientology" sometime.)

It's not really surprising that the bill's made it this far in spite of clam interference -- they may be rich and litigious, but who wants to be known come election time as the guy who wants to let high schoolers kill themselves?

:O_o: THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!!! :O_o:

...I guess I was right to think that there were no scientoligists on this forum. You guys are waaay too smart to believe in that. In retrospect I should have bashed Issac Hayes more :p.

Scientology is just one of those...phenoms that just sounds horrible no matter what light it's in.

I read a pretty detailed report on Scientology in Rolling Stone. Very unbiased, it interviewed a pretty wide spectrum of people (teenage members, adult members, powerful members, former members of all ages, outsiders, what have you), and didn't twist words or situations to demonize the procedings, but still, when you have to keep bringing up the facts that the founder was almost always stuffed to the gilgats with meth and other mind-altering substances, that they started a 'Recruitment Program' in the 50s solely to attract famous people to 'disseminate' the message (and, in addition to drafting them, giving them the advance track through the 'strict' processes usually involved), and the like, the subject still comes out looking like shit.

The best part was the next issue, where you had people responding to the article in the letters section. I believe Kirstie Alley wrote in and simply said that she thought the reporter had rat-like eyes. Classy stuff.

I don't concern myself with Scientology. I'm only pissed off because they are a contributing factor to the heavy censorship that's befalling South Park, one of my favorite shows.

Well, not so much Scientology as Comedy Central is a bunchof pussy bleeding hearts who can't take a little mouthing off or criticism, or sure, showing Jesus and Bush litteraly shit on eachother was fine, but Allah forbid we should show an image of Mohamad! (I foundout that was real..)

Scientology was the reason they won't show the Tom Cruise coming out of the closet episode anymore, they won't release it on dvd either, had I known this: I would've video taped it then sold bootleg copies.

So bassicaly unless your Muslim or Scientologist the America media doesn't give a damn about your feelings and you got to bite the bullet, but if you are, they'll lick your boots. It pisses me off moreso because of the blatant choosing and picking ceartain ones, hot or cold, pick something and friggin' stick to it.

Well, the Tom Cruise episode, I've heard NOTHING about it not being included on Season 9 DVD set. Plus, clips from the episode are still up on Comedy Central's webpage for South Park. It was pulled from TV stations in multiple countries not because of Scientology, but because Tom Cruise is a whiny bitch and had Paramount in a bit of a bind, due to Mission Impossible: III. There's no reason for it to not be released on a DVD set, one trhat's not even been announced yet, no less.

Unless you can provide a solid source on it. And I don't think there is one, I was reading pretty much every fairly recent news article linked off of treyparker.com

Hell, who wants to be known as the guy who caved to the scientologists?

I AM a SCIENTOLOGIST

IM RUNNING BACK TO MY SEA ORG COMMANDER AND REPORTING U ALL AS SUPPRESSIVE PERSONS

ALL HAIL L RON CUPBOARD

True, especially when you consider that apparently only 8% of Americans have a positive view of Scientology. Which is a little surprising, actually -- I would have thought that more people would at least sympathize with their views on psychiatric medicine enough to feel all right about them, never mind Battlefield Earth.

I understand that there are some unofficial offshoots of Scientology that are less about the mad ducats and abuse of the legal system and more about the core philosophies, run by fairly ordinary people who just happen to believe that vitamins can cure everything -- and hey, whatever works for them, y'know? I feel for them, being myself a fairly ordinary member of a faith whose louder, more assholish participants make it and the rest of us look ridonkulous by association, especially when they try to enforce their particular dogmas by law.

Frankly, the way I judge religions is, so long as your beliefs actually make you a better person, so long as your beliefs instill upon you a sense of ethics and duty, love and compassion for others...you're in pretty good shoes.

Whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, you're supposed to follow teachings and instructions that have the potential -- if correctly interpreted -- to promote very good behavior and contribution to society. I'm Christian myself, but I'd rather hang out with a Buddhist or a Muslim who took his faith seriously and virtuously as opposed to another Christian who reeked of corruption or immorality. In any such faith, you'll find individuals who are honorable and heroic because they truly get what their religion is really all about, and you'll find jerks who try to usurp their tenets to justify immoral behaviors.

The same cannot be said for Scientology.

I cannot honestly profess ever having a conversation with a single Scientologist who I could deem a terribly good person.

Why might this be the case?

I'd argue it has a lot to do with the tenets of the so-called 'religion' itself. Our other modern faiths are based around the general notion that religion and spirituality, in and of itself, serves to connect us, both to a higher power but also to others. Hence, why most good Christians, Jews and Buddhists alike practice charitable activities and generally value being a member of society. As Brian himself alluded to, the idea of most these religions is that you're supposed to become a better person around others, nonbelievers and fellow believers alike. You're supposed to transcend the pettiness of the material world and work towards something greater.

Scientology, on the other hand, is a religion that is based off petty individualism and greed. Period. You're paying exorbitant funds to get the thetans out of your body. You're putting limitations on acceptable behaviors not just for your fellow community of believers, but also upon others. You're threatening to destroy your opposition, and if anything, you're preaching a message that attempts to convert on the basis of greed and hatred, not love.

Scientology is a cult. No doubt about it. Any 'religion' that actually requires you to pay exorbitant fees in order to achieve salvation is not a religion. A relationship with higher existence, should you choose to believe in it, is something inherently spiritual; most major world religions I know of treat it that way. It's not something you can merely buy or sell.

Scientology is most definitely a cult. Wiretapping, seizing government documents, blackmail, barratry, 'Fair Game' and 'Suppressive Persons'... the list goes on. Although I always knew Tom Cruise was loony bin material for a while, he's gone and taken it to new heights with this 'silent birth' he's gonna put his wife through, his debate with Matt Lauer over psychology and medications, and yeah.

Goddamn. If I had a wife and the thought of putting her through that without the option of an epidural so much as crossed my mind, I'd kill myself. On the spot.

What's he gonna do if she needs a C-section?

You know, I just get that itch that someone's going to bring up the idea of olden-day "Pay the church - or we'll send you to hell!" propaganda.

Well, that kind of bullshit was backwards from scientology. Scientology was made with the idea of scamming people and their money - ancient catholicism and protestant religions in old England were manipulated to force people to pay money for said salvation.

So, having said thus, yeah. Sientologists are dicks, or idiots.

I think I pretty much said my part.

Hmm. I thought I had made it clear in my previous post, Mirai, that I was well aware that some treacherous-minded Catholics and Protestants -- and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists, too -- had proven more than capable of manipulating the tenants of their religions to make profits and condemn others.

My point, I believe, mirrors yours; that while the major world religions can be corrupted through such practices as the selling of indulgences, the original messages in every world religion are outright benevolent and genuinely worthwhile. Like it or not, Judeo-Christian principles have given us much of our modern day ethics. The same could be said for similar impacts of other religions on other societies. Generally speaking, I'm definitely in the camp that most the major world religions have done considerably more good than harm. It's only when they're bent beyond their intentions to fit the desires of extremists that religions can become malevolent forces.

Bottom line is, Scientology is different from these other major world religions. As I noted before, most world religions are all about connecting people, interweaving individuals with each other and with their Creator(s). Most world religions promote laws and codes of conduct and spirituality and optional charitable donation and these are all pretty good things. Scientology promotes greed and an individualistic notion of superiority; there is no notion of societal promotion or charitable acts, because the emphasis is on cleansing one's own thetans and impurities. This gives Scientologists their kooky mandates regarding members paying exorbitant funds for salvation, as well as their equally idiotic notion that they have the right to bully the majority of nonbelievers into their submission with tactics of hate, as opposed spreading a message of compassion and love.

Wow, thank you for saying that, I was afraid to. Iron balls my friend.
But seriously folks, Christianity is a cult, a fairly succesful one, but still by definition a cult. scientology is lunacy. I get visions of kids wrapped in bubble wrap, calling out to some dude named ZOLTAN. Zoltan the almighty, rescue me from this place!

*plus those fuckers think that we are just mind and our body is just a body, well shit, then remove your brains and hook them up to electrodes, there is your "perfect existance"

Oh joy, a (mostly) one sided thread about religion. Who could have seen it coming?

This is one of the very very very very very rare instances that I will use LOL. But I shall for this one.

LOL

Hooboy, I cannot express how much I love the game fallout 2 for their complete and utter mockery of Scientology, named Hubology in the game.

Great thing is you can go to the where Hubology is held and either A) join and shell out all the money you have or B) kill 'em all in an orgy of blood and violence!
I often opt for the latter. But back to the subject...

A little taste of what is to come from reading more
We were founded back before the Great Deluge by an author and visionary of great promise, a man named Dick Hubbell. He saw the failure of the medicine of that time, and of the failure of religion, and of the failure of government. He knew that the world needed something new...the world needed Hubology. Inspired by music of the time and hs own personal experience with extraterrestrial beings, he set out to show us wheels in the sky, to keep them burning, and to understand the Great Wheel of Life

Again: I LOVE FALLOUT 2!
link: The great wheel in the sky, it keeps on turning.

Truly truly delicious mockery

Then you are wise, and truly deserving of the title Grandmaster. I never read that particular Pipboy entry, and never knew about Scientology last time I played through so I didn't get the Hubology reference, but that entry you linked to highlights just why for many years, Fallout was MY religion. In fact, I'm about to root frantically through my desk drawers and scour my room for my copy of Fallout 2, and if I can't find it I'm going to go to all the game shops in town until I find and copy for sale. This would be about the fourth retail copy I've bought, but I don't care dammit, it's just SO AWESOME!

edit: a little context
You know what Archibo? Everyone (at least me) respects your belifs, and we all (at least me) have our own, so chill dude. No one is attacking your belif structure, nor would we want to, again, we are having some fun at the expense of scientologists, who have strange and funny belifs to us. We are probably wrong in doing so, because I am sure there are those out there that have a problem with your and/or my belif structure or think that it is silly, or strange. While I assure you that I am not one of those people, they do remain. My point is, that we all have different belifs, and nothing roots my convictions further than hearing the people that believe differently than I call into question my belifs. It is a welcome opportunity each day to reconnect with my faith. I really don't think off handed, possibly meant to be witty, remarks in a thread that is a joke, make any real connection with anything. You are a smart person, but I found out long ago that it is no use trying to make people believe differently than they do, we are too stubborn. So kind of lay off the activisim, (which I am sure that will be misconstrued as an attack, when it is not, merely advice.) and try not to incite flames to yourself, or a thread where we are all trying to have a good time. You are just asking for one of the people that believe differently than you to start an argument. I for one don't want to hear it, so fourimites, if you choose to respond to archibo in any kind of negative way, then piss off, just quit! I'd like to have at least one thread that religion is brought up in that we don't get all pissy and start getting into some kind of deity contest. PLEASE. Just for the children.

oh, and scientology sucks.

Spoken by the man himself. It's not about a religion, at least a viable one. We're simply farting in the general direction of a bunch of people who seem to enjoy thumbing their noses at us. We just sound a little LESS like lunatics than they do. Trey Parker and Matt Stone were very right in their comments. Is it alright to make fun of other religions (which they have to massive extents), but to observe special treatment of the Scientologists because their feelings might get hurt, or worse, they'll sue?

No.

Regardless of my personal beliefs (and yes, if I were the "toilet-trained-at-gunpoint" type of anal-retentive person, I would've been offended by South Park long ago), I've enjoyed South Park because of the way the show takes all of our long-cherished, pompous idiocies and forces us to laugh at them. And if you don't like it, hey, more power to you. Don't watch. The rest of us will still enjoy the party.

Where Scientology has screwed up, and more prominently, where Tom Cruise has screwed up, is declaring even to those of us who have nothing, and want nothing, to do with their beliefs what is and is not alright to watch and/or publicize. We are not allowed to see something that pokes fun at something widely viewed as completely reprehensible and more than a little insane, yet everywhere you look, you see Tom Cruise's own beliefs scrawled across newspapers, television shows, and tabloids like some grotesque, completely uncharming graffiti. Were anyone else to be spreading such massive amounts of intolerance, aggression, and complete ignorance in such fashion as he, I would say they'd be a ripe candidate to be taken on a very long date by those nice, young men in their clean, white coats. (They're coming to take me aWAAAY, HAHA!)

All religions and faiths, including my own, have had their bad moments, bad elements, and really bad representations. The difference is that eventually, someone within each of those faiths figured out that perhaps extremism isn't the way to show the world that yours is the correct path... that embracing the world, not alienating it (argh!!! Damn thetans!! Leave me be, oh thou foul extraterrestrial beings!), is the way to draw support to your beliefs.

Now believe... or we'll have to sue.

Tell her "Tough luck, life's a bitch", and then get hooky with Britney Spears.

I'd rather be the former. I'd rather do the former.

I agree. This discussion may end up turning into a "My God's dick is bigger than yours" argument.

What happens when the wheel gets a flat tire?

Now, if you look, there are excuses for violence against non-scientologists on this document. The last one allows for any Scientologist to maim or harm people who aren't as gullible as them. Problem is, they are going against the law and that takes precedent. What confuses me though, is the fact that they say they are trying to help us, but they would freely use violence.

I noticed people are calling this a religeon. It started out as a money scheme, and this guy got so good at brainwashing, he brainwashed himself. He fell into the same pit he built. It's a shame they are this way. What's worse is that there are celebrities going into these things and make fans who follow them do the same.

I totally agree with you, except that there's a slightly better idea, one that :rmage: would definitely approve of.

Exploit them for stat bonuses, and THEN kill them all for combat experience! Save your game, then get the "zeta scan" in NCR, as it has a 50/50 chance of raising your LK by 2. Then blow the "Enlightened One" to Kingdom Come, go to San Francisco, and repeat the process on the rest of the ENTIRE CULT! Combined with the Gain LK perk, and Gifted, you can potentially have 10 LK by the end of the game, making your "Sniper" and "Slayer" perks have a near-100% chance of giving you critical hits on every attack.

I really can't say much more here that's worthwhile, that hasn't been already discussed far more eloquently (kudos to you, Solid Snake, for your earlier discussion of why Scientology is by no means a religion.) All I can say is that I've spoken with Scientologists before, and they creep the living hell out of me more than any other people I have EVER met. I've probably already been labelled a suppressive.

They recruit celebrities for the sole purpose of making themselves look more popular and give them a fast track through the ranks in order to keep them around more easily. They recruit rich people and lawyers because it helps make them more rich and more succcessful in the courtroom, and instead of helping their members work through their doubts and concerned, it is BELIEVE OR BE SUBJUGATED. No wonder they don't let their materials be observed by those outside the cult; they're so ludicrous that if they became widespread knowledge, they'd lose all membership whatsoever.

Ugh, I can't find the article I read right now because the google news thing is flooded over one stupid story about Mohamad being censored. Whatever, you know what? Fine don't believe me, how retarded do you have to be to demand proof to something like that anyway. Oh yeah, I'm going to lie to you and say they're not going to release the Tom Cruise episode on the dvd set just because I can!:rolleyes:

I've read this a couple of times... and I can't make sense of it. Kurosen has decreed that Scientology is not a religion. Are his posts on this forum some kind of holy writ? Sorry, but the religion/cult distinction presented here was/is/always will be nonsense.

It's also the crux of why this is already a diety contest. At that point, Kurosen signified that the name "religion" is like a badge of credit. Then several posters took it from there. Saying "what makes a religion" has allowed "what makes a religion good".

A sure sign that people are having a good humoured good time; spontaneous internet combustion.

Edit: Again; if the rule in question were to be rolled back, I'd have no problem... (hint, hint)

I'm sorry, Archbio, but what I fail to understand here is how any serious-minded historical scholar could analyze and scrutinize Scientology and not come to the conclusion that it was a total farce. At the very least, most other creators of major world religions were not quoted in a Readers Digest article ruminating on just how handsomely rich they would be if they managed to create a fake one. L. Ron Hubbard was.

If I could hear a real defense as to why Scientology deserves to be placed on the same platform as the other major world religions, I would certainly be open-minded enough to challenge, and possibly even change my views. The problem here is not a single person has offered a reasonable defense of the Scientologist platform against psychiatry. So, why can't non-believers of the Scientology creed use psychiatric services? And what greater moral authority gives Scientologists (an extreme numerical minority of the nation's population and an extremist organization effectively debunked by none less than Time Magazine) the right to curtail the liberties of other civilians, effectively condemning some to death in the process?

Within the confines of this forum, yes. It isn't an objective reality, nor does it pretend to be. It's not "fair", but that's the price we pay for keeping this a civilized space.

I'm sorry it offends you so deeply that we don't allow religious discussions on this forum. This is due to the number of people who incorrectly use their religion to justify their frankly ugly little medieval opinions. Decent people of faith who do not use their religion as an excuse to be raging assholes have it hard enough as it is. My forum will not be used as a soapbox for certain individuals to babble about how it's okay to hate based on their rulebook which states the exact opposite. Yes, of course, ideally we could talk with these people and make them see the error of their ways. But after years of seeing how that never works, I've found the only way to stop these people is to never let them talk about it.

It also keeps me from having to roll my eyes at the tired, "LOL all religons are cults, AM I RITE??!!" sentiment that would be offered from those members who are so edgy they make sword-slice sounds with every step.

In effect, the rule protects me from having to get angry at people for being stupid while protecting stupid people form revealing themselves to the rest of us. For every enlightened discourse on the subject of religion, the moderators would have to deal with the fallout of half a dozen eruptions of hate and rage. The moderators are all volunteers and I have no interest in making an already relatively thankless job all the more aggravating. In that sense, it's a very selfish rule but I'm comfortable with that.

This is exactly what I mean. This isn't bashing Scientology so much as praising "major world religions".

I don't think you understand what I was saying. I'm not saying that you can't make any rule you want around here, including saying Scientology (and maybe thuggees) alone is not included under this particular rule.

I was kind of baffled over what I perceived as the idea that your status as owner of the site gave you intellectual authority in matters of cosmology and ethics and that your word is Truth (as opposed to merely Law, which is a state of fact that I understand perfectly).

What offends me (and not exactly deeply) is the way this exception to the rule has allowed a narrow selection of thoughts (think "cognitive laser beam"), which are in themselves only a corollary to the idea that "scientology isn't a religion" to be repeated over and over again (Until I was compelled to post again) while the adequate responses are well outside of the rule.

So now I do what I thought I had properly done several pages ago, and wash my hands of the whole thing.

Okay so I tried to be nice.
But you just can't listen can you.
I tried to be amicable, but I'm just going to tell you to shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Like I said, We are having fun at scientologists expense, if you don't like it, don't read the thread. You don't have to post, you can ignore it, so please do, cause it's like we're having a party, and you show up to bust our balls, why's it got to be like that? Why don't you just come out and say what you so desperately want to say, why must you let it fester? If you really want to talk about religion go here. Or maybe here. or maybe even here. But not here. We don't want it. Jokes are fine, but you are taking this way too seriously. But if you want to open your belifs to open ridicule and bashing by other members, go ahead and post more. I will watch in silent frustration and feel sorry for you. LET IT GO.
SHIT. [/frustration at trying to stop whatever Archbio hopes to accomplish.]

Anyway, I read up a bit more on scientologists, and I was taken aback by thier doctrine of violence, it is worse than all others. I just imagine a scientologist standing against a wall, waving some mace, saying "believe in the hubbard or be maced!"

edit
fine we'll call scientology a farce, it isn't fair to other religions to lump them in the same category.

He really is The Space Pope! Trust me, I don't take it half as seriously as you seem to. Something has to be done with the constant mispelling of my name as Archibo, however.

Well, at least I'm an equal-opportunity lover of religions...

No, in all seriousness, I would disagree. I'm not praising all world religions (though I do respect them all) as much as I am defining their nature, and subsequently using that definition to analyze Scientology. In my previous posts I defined the true nature of the scriptures and teachings of major world religions (promotion of love, charity and equality; interweaving of society; connections to one's Creator(s) and others.) Once religion is defined in such a light, it is easy to see why Scientology doesn't fit the description. Subesequently, because Scientology does not fit the description, it can be debated on these forums because discussing freakish malignant cults of greed that masquerade as religions is not explicitly banned in Brian's rules.

In other words, Brian previously stated in defense of not closing this topic that Scientology was not a religion. My posts only further defended Brian's logic. In order to defend a classification of Scientology as not religious, one must logically define religion and then unmask the differences between Scientology and other religions.

I can't speak for Brian, and it's possible he will contradict me. But I see no reason why you couldn't attempt to defend Scientology as being classified as a religion in this topic. In other words, if you're so livid about all of us tearing Scientology to shreds and arguing that it's an illegitimate fraud and a cult, you can counter with "No, Scientology is actually a religion and here's why." If you actually offered a great deal of new and stunning information that really shed light into the subject, maybe Brian would subsequently say "Well jeez, I guess I was wrong." And then he'd (hypothetically) classify Scientology as a religion and subsequently ban such topics.

What you're saying right now is to the effect of "scientology actually should be considered a legitimate religion and you're all wrong." Well, provide some evidence and maybe we'd actually have something to talk about.

Separating Scientology from religion is hardly praising religion. I can say my car is an airplane and sue anyone who disagrees, but that doesn't make it so. Nor does it praise the airplane. I suppose one could use broad enough terms to define both to make them sound similar -- "They carry more than one person." "They use fuel." "They can travel faster than I walk."

Anyone painting a picture of religion with a brush so broad he can't differentiate it from Scientology has some problems.

I'm pretty sure what you perceived was a little more than what was there. People were wondering whether or not they could talk about Scientology based on our religious discussion rule. I clarified. Any response that seemed to imbue my words with Ultimate Truth were, quite obviously, humorous exaggerations comparing my decrees in relation to forum policy to a "voice from on high" as it were.

What Solid Snake said.

I can see a reason. Kurosen has basically decided that, for the purpose of the rules, Scientology doesn't count as religion. If I were to insist that yes, Scientology is a religion, it would be hard to distinguish between me arguing against the rule and me arguing against your fabulous definition of religion. I see no interest in the former, and one only has to pick a dictionnary up to realize that the latter is pure fiction.

But, of course, you defined (and by defined I mean "made up a chimerical definition") with references to "the true nature of religions and scriptures". By the rules I expressely can't disprove this, as it would be easy to do by picking up the scriptures themselves and quoting selectively. Nevermind that it would be only proof that a literal interpretation is contrary to your definition of what is truly a religion, so one might answer that literal interpretations are a corruption of the original value of religion (which is also patent nonsense). What could I answer to that, if not that both literal and moderated interpretations of religious scriptures qualify as religion, however negative and untrue the former might seem.

Which is the whole point of this dispute (which, I realize now was a folly to encourage). Suffice it to say that you have taken positive elements of religion and excluded the negative as not being religion.

I really don't see it. Solid Snake's last response only confirms me in the idea that Solid Snake, at least, is taking this definition of religion quite seriously.

No, I disagree. Religion is a very broad concept.

This is a very good metaphor for what I'm trying to say. But nevermind that, I think it's pretty obvious that by saying that Scientology is not a religion because it's an obvious (even open) fabrication, you are creditting things you call religions as not being fabrications.

[Edit] According the the Webster Collegiate Dictionary, religion is defined as: [...]the service worship of God or the supernatural[...] or [...]commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance[...] or [...]a personal set or insitutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices.

Religious as: [...]relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

Nothing here (and I assure you, nothing in what I didn't quote because it was irrelevant or redundant) specifies any value judgment or consideration on the truth of it. Same goes for every time the term religion has been used in material I consulted concerning the history of religions.

Lastly: if the term religion is not the general term to designate "that sort of thing", but instead a specific subset that credits several (positive) qualities to what it contains; then what is the general term? Spirituality?

[Edit 2] Please take with grain or block of salt as needed.

[Edit 3] Condensed version of everything above: the definition used in this thread for "religion" doesn't have universal currency. I don't think it even has common usage. The only reason that I can see for its existence is to emphasize certain qualities of certain religions. Otherwise, it is impossible to disprove a certain definition of a word as several can coexist. The best I could hope for is to demonstrated that the broader definition of religion as wider currency, is more useful and is not restricted to a certain opinion of religion.

Huh.

It was always my impression that the no-religion rule was there because of the tendency of such discussions to rapidly devolve into "Oh yeah, well my God is the real god!" "Nuh uh, my God is the real God and your god is a fakey-god!" "Nuh-uh, my Science is the real non-personified instrument of universal causality and all your Gods is a fakey-god!" "Nuh-uh, your science is the fakey-science and my God is the real science!" ad infinium. As opposed to, as appears to be the case, a matter of interpretation within any particular given sphere of faith.

Not quite sure what difference that makes, if any, but it seemed worth noting.

Psht, you're just jealous 'cause you can't do it.

Want to play the dictionary game? Lets take a little look at what CULT means.

1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. (except in this case the psycho is six feet under i.e. wormfood..OH MY MISTAKE Enlightenment!)

# A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
2. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
*cough faddish.. Tom Cruise cough*
*wheeze thing veneration money wheeze*

Key words there. GENERALLY. EXTREMIST. FALSE.

Now the word generally is used in a manner conveying, "the opinion of a great many" not the logic of "what is any organized but a large scale cult?". No, by it's use: the general consensus of a population's view towards this violent and wacked out farce from the mind of a deranged loony.

It isn't so much as the logic deeming it a reason not to be discussed and mocked. Its more along the lines of The head mucky-mucks here not seeing it as a religion to avoid discussion because it might raise some tempers. SINCE it isn't viewed as a legitimate religion 'round these parts theres no fault in Brian or the others who participate.

Its a losing battle Archbio.

I'm not sure in what the definition of cult alters the definition of religion, unless one were to think that religion and cult are mutually exclusive. Personally I think the old logic exercice applies for the most part: "All cults are religions, but not all religions are cults".

For the most part, anyway. Also, not that I don't consider Scientology a cult, but I'd like to note that definitions, like this one, which depends on a question of popularity have an admitted, relative component. You seem to think it's to its credit. I don't. If Scientology where to be accepted by consensus of the general populace, what would it change?

Archbio. So you're basically upset that you can't use this as an opportunity to talk about how religions are a bunch of crazy ideas that no one should take literally? Okay, well, to help out I'll do it for you so no one has to get in trouble.

"Har, you sheeple believe in a man in the sky, you are so dumb."

There.

Maybe it's just because I distinctly recall figuring out that organized religion was a convenient way to keep an oppressed populace in line when I was five years old, but I'm really tired of hearing people trumpet it like they've figured out the secret history of the world.

What's next, atheists, will you tell me there's no Santa Clause and TOTALLY BLOW MY MIND?

I suppose I'll just un-hijack the thread a second.

You probably did - you have that eloquent way of writing that makes me agree with you, but often times I lose track of small tidbits of info. I really only said that to cover the fact that I didn't want someone to jump in with some sort of anti-religious junk featuring Exibit A as their "LOL Roman-catholics are scientologists!"

Just wanted to make sure - wasn't sure if you ever mentioned it. Arch, first off, you're not a bad guy at all for questioning authority. There needs to be more like you, alright? So seriously, more power to you, this is an ambiguous area.

The reason that the ban on religious discussions has been lifted for this one topic - just Scientology - is because Scientology, even though it's painted with a big pretty brush behind the background of "A religion," is a hoax. I'm sure that 80% of the world agrees with it - this can't be a religion. It's entire point of existing was to scam people out of their money. Sure, some people fell for it. But you can't put a 'badge of safety' on an entire religion just because that's how it was described as.

The fact that anyone who does any research at all - a Google search, to start with - finds that it was just from a con artist who ran out of scams. I know you're arguing the point because if religious discussion is banned, it should be banned for all, not just 'religions we happen to hate'. I'd agree with you, too. But it falls back to what Snake said - This is a religion started on scamming people out of money, and somehow managed to catch on on it's 'spiritual' side. That's not a religion, that's a scam. I know that the definition of religion isn't "Not a scam" according to Webster's Unabridged, but I think that it should kind of be implied.

EDIT: This is going to be ugly.
You're still not 'getting it.' If we were the only sane voices in the world of Socialists, I doubt much would change in Kurosen's eyes to make him - or me - not hate these guys for believing a scam with their hearts.

SIGH.

I think my argument was more complex than that. But I hope you think you're damn clever (maybe like Clint Eastwood in the final scene of A fistful of Dollars) for waiting for me to type this all up before you could wait and unload this inane insult on me.

[EDIT2] I mean; what the HELL?! Yes, I happen to think that the status of something as a religion shouldn't depend on something like how much it can be proven wrong. It just doesn't work that way. You'd have a boundary between "true religions" and "not religions" like a 1000 words puzzle.

[EDIT3] If I wanted to say just that, I would have said just that. Yes, it happens to be my opinion. Yes, I'm an atheist. But, while it orients my judgments, that doesn't mean you get to lampoon me by putting words in my mouth. Because this isn't about what I believe is true. If the definition proposed here was the primary definition, that would mean that some interpretations of christianity wouldn't be religions, and others would be. Yes, it would depend on the literality on the intepretation, both on the factual value and the ethical value. Other people have implied this and this is what I was bothered by.

Forget that noise!

[EDIT]

Please read what I was responding to. If you have, I don't get this.

It's not just Webster, and the definition that was argued was much more restrictive than that.

Dude, I'm sorry, as a moderator, your whole position in this thread from the beginning has looked like a protracted argument of semantics to forward an agenda of using the obvious ridiculousness of Scientology to draw parrallels to "regular" religions to expose them as equally ridiculous so you can look clever.

Now, I'm sure you remember an earlier post about the reasoning for the religious discussion ban...