Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Church of Scientology Enlisting Followers In Censorship

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the good-luck-with-that dept.

Censorship 628

DrEnter writes "Apparently, the recent very public divorce of Katie Holmes and devout believer Tom Cruise is reflecting negatively on the Church of Scientology. Adding to this are other recent issues causing problems for 'church' leadership. In response, the 'church' has decided to encourage its followers to censor online chatter and comments about the 'church' and the divorce. This Yahoo blog post sums it up nicely. In short, they are encouraging members to complain about people posting negative comments about the 'church' as violating the Code of Conduct' in the posting venue. I can only imagine they are hoping these complaints will just be rubber-stamped and respected without investigation, but I think the campaign deserves a bit more attention."

cancel ×

628 comments

First Thetan! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570215)

Book 'em, Xenu!
--
Posting anonymously because the Church of Clams still uses vexatious lawsuits against their critics.

Re:First Thetan! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570323)

Book 'em, Xenu!

Please remove the above post as it violate's Slashdot's code of conduct which requires the exact phrase "Frosty Piss" to be used in all first posts.

Re:First Thetan! (5, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 2 years ago | (#40570723)

Frosty Piss was unavailable to this poster as he has not reached OT$10M. His devotion is insufficiently funded, so he's basically darned to heck anyway.

Standard Scientology practice (5, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#40570217)

Call all your critics liars (and wife-beaters and child molesters if possible), send private detectives and Sea Org types to follow and harass them, sue them and anyone who supports them, cry religious persecution to the cops and govt officials, rinse, wash, repeat...

Read [wikipedia.org] all about it, and more.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570317)

I really hope that everyone who comments here, do not follow any other (moronic) religion?...
Because if you do, you are just as utterly underdeveloped as the rest of them.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#40570337)

Name one other "religion" that charges you to read the "bible" and forbids you to tell anyone what they teach under pain of law suite.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570433)

Name one other "religion" that charges you to read the "bible" and forbids you to tell anyone what they teach under pain of law suite.

The closest I can think of is Pythonism which typically utilises a comfy chair to punish aspostacy but in extreme cases may apply an entire three piece suite.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40570447)

Name one other "religion" that charges you to read the "bible" and forbids you to tell anyone what they teach under pain of law suite.

While they may harass and sue you, they don't often go with the "Kill the Infidels" if you say something nasty about their Ronnie or Tommy.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570505)

This is false. They have been indicated in a number of murders and convenience suicides of people who speak out about either, or the Church itself.

They are, in short, very much like extremist Muslims, except without the benefit of their religion having been created far enough back that quasi-rational people might give it the benefit of the doubt as being legitimate.

It also helps that Islam doesn't have actual documents with its founders talking about making a fake religion to bilk people out of their money.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570887)

They are, in short, very much like extremist Muslims, except without the benefit of their religion having been created far enough back that quasi-rational people might give it the benefit of the doubt as being legitimate.

This.

Scientology's been caught blackmailing politicians, breaking into government offices to steal records, forging papers used to indict and jail people, and sent in infiltrators [paulettecooper.com] incredibly deep in near critics to try to break them, dig up dirt, or even get them to commit suicide. They've been caught breaking into doctors' offices for private medical records, breaking into psychiatrists' offices for anything they can find against their critics or targets.

This doesn't even deserve to be called a cult. Scientology is nothing but a mafia, a criminal enterprise. This is the Cult of Scientology [wikipedia.org] in action, how they really operate. The BBC did an absolutely great documentary on how they still operate in 2010 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Standard Scientology practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570489)

I would have thought that they would ENCOURAGE reading their holy works to the world, so as to spread the word and help recruit new members - hence all the parables and metaphors in the Old/New Testament.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (2)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#40570597)

Nope, 35$ to read their book. http://www.amazon.com/Dianetics-Modern-Science-Mental-Health-3/dp/1403155429 [amazon.com] and of course if you actually join the church it costs thousands to hundreds of thousands to advance in it.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (5, Funny)

XCDBFPL (846367) | about 2 years ago | (#40570661)

Not true. For only $400 I've learned frost trap and my next spell for $800 will be how to handle car wrecks.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#40570579)

Name one other "religion" that charges you to read the "bible" and forbids you to tell anyone what they teach under pain of law suite.

Church of the SubGenius. (And yes, I know they won't really sue you.)

Re:Standard Scientology practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570401)

Nope, just Science!

Re:Standard Scientology practice (3, Insightful)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#40570441)

Please don't use the words religion and scientology in the same article.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (5, Insightful)

PlastikMissle (2498382) | about 2 years ago | (#40570521)

Why? They are both based on belief of the metaphysical and the scientifically un-provable.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (4, Insightful)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#40570619)

That's religion in general, in contrast scientology is a poorly cloaked commercial scam.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570715)

That's religion in general, Scientology just ups the ante.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (2)

PlastikMissle (2498382) | about 2 years ago | (#40570787)

I would argue that many religions scam their followers in one way or another. Religions have been monetized before and used as tools to promote politics.
The fact remains that (despite the intentions of the leadership), avid followers of Scientology don't think that they are scammed, and truly believe in what they are told, just like other avid believers of other religions.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#40570649)

Well, it's a good thing that nothing exists that isn't scientifically un-provable, then...

Re:Standard Scientology practice (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#40570785)

Last I checked Scientology is still considered a cult, and is defined as a cult in numerous countries not just the US. Cults are not new, and of course not restricted to Scientology, but they are always called cults. This is true even when the cult calls themselves religion, as an extremely high percentage of cults do.

If you really believe what you said, I would recommend seeking psychological consultation since it's a rather psychopathic statement.

I may be incorrect about the current classification as a cult for Scientology, I'm not going to bother checking. If I am incorrect, you can always look at documentation to see how long they were classified as a cult. It's not a secret, but much of the CIA and FBI documentation regarding investigating them is classified.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40570377)

Call all your critics liars (and wife-beaters and child molesters if possible), send private detectives and Sea Org types to follow and harass them, sue them and anyone who supports them, cry religious persecution to the cops and govt officials, rinse, wash, repeat...

Read [wikipedia.org] all about it, and more.

They remind me of a saying -- Their organization is so ridiculous that no matter how hard you tried you just couldn't make something like that up.

Can't say I've met any, but I have met some real wackos in my life and I suppose if people will believe in 5 billion years ago some aliens put a bunch of people in a volcano that didn't exist yet, to watch a movie and then blew them up, how are you ever going to get them to see any sense?

Meanwhile, it's Friday and me and my Thetans are going to go out and party. (c: Just a sec .. someone at the door

NO CARRIER

Re:Standard Scientology practice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570443)

Sounds just like what "climate scientists" are doing to scientific skeptics.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570625)

Look. Up there, in comment 40570317 [slashdot.org] at 06:18PM, where an AC posted:

Sounds just like what "climate scientists" are doing to scientific skeptics.

And then look up there, at comment 40570443 [slashdot.org] , at 6:28PM, where another AC posts as soon as the 10-minute window is up:

I really hope that everyone who comments here, do not follow any other (moronic) religion?... Because if you do, you are just as utterly underdeveloped as the rest of them.

Hello, Scilon operative! Welcome to the Internet. (Don't worry, we won't bite. In fact, when you finally blow, we'll be here to help.)

The internet is a big place, with millions of other threads for Theists-vs-Atheists, and Global Warming-vs-Deniers, and Obama vs. Romney, or whatever you'll be posting in your next round. But this isn't one of those threads. This is a thread about the abuses your organization has been conducting against free discourse on the 'net [wikipedia.org] for the past 20 years.

And no self-respecting theist, atheist, environmentalist, nor climate change skeptic, will fall for this classic attempt to threadjack the discussion. (Next time, try Apple vs. Microsoft, or emacs vs. vi. You'll still fail, but you'll provide us with much more amusement on your way down.)

"Standard Scientology Practice" indeed.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570741)

I'm the first anon above, and I have no idea what your post is about.

(I'm a very self-respecting climate skeptic though)

Re:Standard Scientology practice (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570893)

Hey, it's an exclusive club. I didn't think I'd ever find anyone with the same belief as me. I don't believe in climate either.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (4, Informative)

Larryish (1215510) | about 2 years ago | (#40570605)

From the Wikipedia link:

Hubbard detailed his rules for attacking critics in a number of policy letters including one often quoted by critics as "the Fair Game policy." This allowed that those who had been declared enemies of the Church, called "suppressive persons" or simply "SP," "May be deprived of property or injured by any means...May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." (taken from HCOPL Oct. 18, 1967 Issue IV, Penalties for Lower Conditions )

Sounds kind of Masonic.

All they need to throw in is "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations." and Hiram would give them all a great big hug-from-behind.

Re:Standard Scientology practice (3, Funny)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#40570701)

Call all your critics liars (and wife-beaters and child molesters if possible), send private detectives and Sea Org types to follow and harass them, sue them and anyone who supports them, cry religious persecution to the cops and govt officials, rinse, wash, repeat...

Read [wikipedia.org] all about it, and more.

Are you talking about scientology or the upcoming US presidential campaign?

Re:Standard Scientology practice (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#40570877)

It's called paper terrorism [wikipedia.org] , and it's a bullshit tactic that needs to be stopped.

Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (5, Insightful)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#40570265)

I'm glad Katie dumped his ass and is doing her best to protect Suri from that cult.

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (1)

mug funky (910186) | about 2 years ago | (#40570333)

this. ...wait, celebrity goss on MY /. that doesn't involve Steve Jobs?

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (5, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#40570351)

Well... the kid is named after the voice on my iPhone isn't it?

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#40570519)

No. The kid stole my name. I used it first.

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#40570655)

Hmm. Has Apple sued for unlicensed use of that iName yet?

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570697)

Have you considered that this little girl is the one answering all the iRequests?

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570585)

Mr. Jobs? Mr. Jobs, come out of the coffin.

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (4, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40570413)

I'm glad Katie dumped his ass and is doing her best to protect Suri from that cult.

Yeah, but I can only feel so much sympathy for someone who walked right into that mess anyway, and if you believe the papers, she married him for cache down and a salary, plus bonuses for offspring. Bet they'll throw every lawyer and dollar they have into the battle to discredit her and rip that child away from her. Her best defense would be to blog everything so people can see how it really works when the Co$ is on your case.

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40570493)

well, that mess is very clever and specifically design to trap people inly a life time payment plan.

Don't blame the victim.

You are correct, she could turn this around pretty well for herself.
A tell all to any rag would get her a fortune and position herself so that when Scientology goes for her she can point and say "See?".

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40570695)

well, that mess is very clever and specifically design to trap people inly a life time payment plan.

Don't blame the victim.

You are correct, she could turn this around pretty well for herself.
A tell all to any rag would get her a fortune and position herself so that when Scientology goes for her she can point and say "See?".

Yeah, I'd like to see them take her marriage contract into a US court. The court would put them in jail.

On the front of the Co$ fragmenting, that's probably about normal. It's been around a few decades, it has a leadership with a rather rigid set of expectations and some people are starting to think independently (especially after reading stuff on the web) and splintering off.

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#40570551)

He may have ten times as much money as she does, but she's not exactly coming from poverty street herself. I believe she was valued at twenty five million.

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40570705)

He may have ten times as much money as she does, but she's not exactly coming from poverty street herself. I believe she was valued at twenty five million.

If she was smart she took every cent she had and moved it to a bank account with only her name on it and her family as beneficiaries, should anything unfortunate happen.

Sounds all rather mideval in some ways...

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (2)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 2 years ago | (#40570735)

It's hard to feel sympathy here; she chose Tom and his wacky religion. She decided he was good father material. Now she's changed her mind, but you know what? She doesn't get to do that. That's not how it works.

Her decision that scientology sucks NOW does not negate her decision that scientology was ok back THEN.

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (3, Insightful)

Gonoff (88518) | about 2 years ago | (#40570875)

Consider the possibility that "then" she actually liked/loved/lusted after/whatever the guy and the Co$ bit was something she weighed against that and it was not as important. Her feelings towards him seem to have changed and so she re-weighs the factors and comes to a different decision.

In other words, she may NEVER have considered scientology ok but that was not important then.

Re:Then let me violate the Code of Conduct on /. (3, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | about 2 years ago | (#40570889)

It's hard to feel sympathy here; she chose Tom and his wacky religion

Truly, I'm happy for you that you've never had to meet any actors. 99% are beautiful, self absorbed, and utterly naive. Almost certainly she took Tommy's assertions about Scientology at face value and didn't notice the down side for years.

Nothing to see here (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570305)

Move along.

Gossip for Nerds, Stuff that's irrelavant (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570311)

Who cares about those two?

Re:Gossip for Nerds, Stuff that's irrelavant (4, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#40570399)

How soon we nerds forget Scientology's war [wired.com] against the internet back in the day.

no need to worry... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570313)

The UN's on it. [slashdot.org]

Re:no need to worry... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40570483)

Well, there goes Tom's $1.00 donation to UNICEF this Halloween ...

Praise xenu!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570331)

I think scientology is a pile of poo!

Re:Praise xenu!!! (2)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#40570431)

I think it is deplorable that you would say such a thing.

It is an insult to piles of poo everywhere.

Power of language (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570357)

They need to shape language to suit their need. Good examples are "descrimination (aka choice) is bad" by the feminist movement. Also try "anti-Semitic" (which is used to strike fear into anyone who accuses/threatens anyone Jewish of anything be it right or wrong.
Scientlogists need to coin a similar term to strike fear into the general public.

Re:Power of language (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#40570459)

How about "Auditing Process R2-45"? [wikipedia.org]

In fairness to Scientology (1, Insightful)

Apharmd (2640859) | about 2 years ago | (#40570365)

Let me say first that I find Scientology repulsive and a particularly greasy form of pyramid scheme. However, compared to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity, they are responsible for much less evil and far fewer deaths. Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine. You have sexism that runs deep through the dogma of all three. You have churches who have officially sanctioned everything from genocide to sexually abusing children to slavery. This stuff isn't even in the distant past. I can find examples in the last century where each of these religions has committed terrible atrocities. Scientology is easy to hate because it is so ridiculous, so absurd, and generally unpopular. It's an easier target than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. But if you really take a step back and look at the doctrine of those three faiths, they are equally as ridiculous.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570425)

This! Mod parent up!

Re:In fairness to Scientology (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570427)

Let me say first that I find Scientology repulsive and a particularly greasy form of pyramid scheme. However, compared to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity, they are responsible for much less evil and far fewer deaths.

Because they had a late start.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (-1, Flamebait)

Apharmd (2640859) | about 2 years ago | (#40570517)

I agree that the relatively young age of Scientology is a factor, but Islam isn't *that* old compared to some other faiths. Yet seem to be closing the atrocity gap with Judaism and Christianity pretty quickly. Scientologists want your money. Fundamentalist Muslims want to cut off your head, or blow you up. That's not a knock on only Muslims- Zionist Jews and fundamentalist Christians are pretty dam hateful too. Ask American abortion doctors, or Palestinians murdered in indiscriminate missile attacks.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (1)

sabri (584428) | about 2 years ago | (#40570435)

Let me say first that I find Scientology repulsive and a particularly greasy form of pyramid scheme.

[Chris Hansen voice] So, why don't you have a seat right over there and sign up for this free personality test? [/voice]

Re:In fairness to Scientology (3, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#40570487)

That is only because Scientology is still young. Given time, I am sure they can kill as many people as good old fashioned cults have managed to.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (2, Insightful)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#40570899)

That is only because Scientology is still young. Given time, I am sure they can kill as many people as good old fashioned cults have managed to.

You do know that in the 20th century, the two godless societies of the former USSR and China killed many more people than the so called cults have throughout their entire history.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (1)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#40570503)

However valid on their own your points fail when comparing world religions with hundreds of millions of followers to a commercially exploitative cult with at best a hundred thousand of nuts and fruits.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about 2 years ago | (#40570861)

...cult with at best a hundred thousand of nuts and fruits.

I thought Cruise married because the cult banned fruits...

Re:In fairness to Scientology (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 2 years ago | (#40570561)

> However, compared to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity, they are responsible for much less evil and far fewer deaths. Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine

They've also been around over 40 times longer then Scientology. It's a baby religion, but look what it's been able to do in its first 60 years.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570565)

"This stuff isn't even in the distant past. I can find examples in the last century where each of these religions has committed terrible atrocities."

Except that:

1. Once you reach 1-2 generations of dead people it is effectively distant past if the purpose is to learn something about the people today;

2. "A religion" does not do anything, only some or many followers of the religion.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (5, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 2 years ago | (#40570635)

Let me say first that I find Scientology repulsive and a particularly greasy form of pyramid scheme. However, compared to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity, they are responsible for much less evil and far fewer deaths. Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine. You have sexism that runs deep through the dogma of all three. You have churches who have officially sanctioned everything from genocide to sexually abusing children to slavery. This stuff isn't even in the distant past. I can find examples in the last century where each of these religions has committed terrible atrocities.

Scientology is easy to hate because it is so ridiculous, so absurd, and generally unpopular. It's an easier target than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. But if you really take a step back and look at the doctrine of those three faiths, they are equally as ridiculous.

All those other religions had a 2000 year head start on Scientology, so the Scientologists are way behind in the killing and other stuff, but that is irrelevant. Scientology is not a religion by any reasonable definition of the term. They only use the word church in their name for tax-avoidance purposes and so that they can claim "religious persecution" if anyone tries to challenge their absurd nonsense.

Scientology is a lot of things -- scam, dangerous cult, organized crime -- but one thing it is not is a religion.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (-1, Flamebait)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#40570671)

Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine. This stuff isn't even in the distant past. I can find examples in the last century where each of these religions has committed terrible atrocities.

Well, it's a good thing that atheists like Hitler, Stalin and Mao are so much better, then...

Re:In fairness to Scientology (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570711)

Well, it's a good thing that atheists like Hitler, Stalin and Mao are so much better, then...

Stalin and Mao fair enough but how can you justify pegging Hitler as an atheist?

Re:In fairness to Scientology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570821)

You're pretty special, aren't you?

(E)specially stupid.

Despite factual errors (e.g. Hitler's regime was not athiest)... those people did bad things because they are bad people. Their supposed athiesm has nothing to do with it; athiesm does not imply nor encourage nor suggest those actions.

Religious texts and teachings on the other hand...

Re:In fairness to Scientology (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 2 years ago | (#40570687)

Regardless of whatever credo, religion, belief system, philosophy or culture, mankind will find one reason or another to give way to his baser, violent urges and go on mass murdering sprees.

The problem isn't religion, the problem is mankind.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 2 years ago | (#40570737)

Let me say first that I find Scientology repulsive and a particularly greasy form of pyramid scheme. However, compared to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity, they are responsible for much less evil and far fewer deaths. Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine. You have sexism that runs deep through the dogma of all three. You have churches who have officially sanctioned everything from genocide to sexually abusing children to slavery. This stuff isn't even in the distant past. I can find examples in the last century where each of these religions has committed terrible atrocities.

Scientology is easy to hate because it is so ridiculous, so absurd, and generally unpopular. It's an easier target than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. But if you really take a step back and look at the doctrine of those three faiths, they are equally as ridiculous.

Christianity has had something of a 1920-year head start over Scientology. Give these nutjobs enough time and I'm sure they'll rack up plenty of damage.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (5, Insightful)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 2 years ago | (#40570817)

OK... but.. so then...

Are you saying that we should all be free to criticize ANY religion???
With no censorship???
AND no revenge bombings??

That's crazy.
You're crazy.

Re:In fairness to Scientology (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#40570851)

Let me say first that I find Scientology repulsive and a particularly greasy form of pyramid scheme. However, compared to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity, they are responsible for much less evil and far fewer deaths. Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine. You have sexism that runs deep through the dogma of all three. You have churches who have officially sanctioned everything from genocide to sexually abusing children to slavery. This stuff isn't even in the distant past. I can find examples in the last century where each of these religions has committed terrible atrocities.

Scientology is easy to hate because it is so ridiculous, so absurd, and generally unpopular. It's an easier target than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. But if you really take a step back and look at the doctrine of those three faiths, they are equally as ridiculous.

Why not include the Aztecs in your list so you can claim they also practice human sacrifice? While christianity did rise from Judaism, the three are not really related in the way you are trying to make them.

As for your claims of sanctioning genocide, sexually abusng children and slavery, particularly not in the distant past, I'd like to see your documentation. If you could produce documentation of such events by the various religions and sects to demonstrate how these things were officially sanctioned, then you would be doing a great service to the /. readers.

There are many things to validly complain about with organized religion, however, wild unsubstantiated claims, as you make are not valid complaints but just show your own ignorance and bigotry.

Why is 'church' in quotes? (1, Insightful)

vistic (556838) | about 2 years ago | (#40570371)

It's not like the church you think doesn't need quotes is any more valid than this 'church' which you think needs quotes.

Re:Why is 'church' in quotes? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 2 years ago | (#40570523)

I want to know why people keep claiming that these two got a divorce.

"Apparently, the recent very public divorce of...."

No divorce has been granted.

Re:Why is 'church' in quotes? (5, Funny)

natophonic (103088) | about 2 years ago | (#40570533)

Because any 'religion' with an eschatology that reads like (bad) science fiction is illegitimate and false. A true religion has an eschatology that reads like a dragons and wizards epic fantasy.

Re:Why is 'church' in quotes? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#40570627)

And lots of begotting.

Pssht, the Bible reads like sci-fi sometimes (4, Insightful)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#40570867)

They just didn't have the terms they needed to describe the spaceships and artificial alien insemination in Aramaic, so all we get are vague descriptions of "wheels with wings within wings and many glowing lights" and sudden miraculous virgin births.

Re:Why is 'church' in quotes? (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#40570703)

Or, you could be the one that's mistaken. That's why the Bible is the best-selling book of all time and every year:

The familiar observation that the Bible is the best-selling book of all time obscures a more startling fact: the Bible is the best-selling book of the year, every year. Calculating how many Bibles are sold in the United States is a virtually impossible task, but a conservative estimate is that in 2005 Americans purchased some twenty-five million Bibles—twice as many as the most recent Harry Potter book. The amount spent annually on Bibles has been put at more than half a billion dollars.

But other research has found that ninety-one per cent of American households own at least one Bible—the average household owns four—which means that Bible publishers manage to sell twenty-five million copies a year of a book that almost everybody already has.

It's OK if you haven't figured out yet what everyone else has, God is patient...

So the $cientologists want a war with the internet (1)

mmell (832646) | about 2 years ago | (#40570381)

Talk about a mouse messin' with a gorilla! Go get 'em, boys!

Re:So the $cientologists want a war with the inter (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40570471)

Talk about a mouse messin' with a gorilla! Go get 'em, boys!

The beauty of this is you only need one jpeg image of the mask, rather than buying them by the container ship.

Re:So the $cientologists want a war with the inter (3, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#40570485)

They've done it [wired.com] before. They were pretty successful, too.

Re:So the $cientologists want a war with the inter (3, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#40570543)

We already did that. The internet won. The direct damage to the CoS was just a minor annoyance, but the social media saturation exposing so many of the sordid stories told by ex-members and leaked documents destroyed their reputation to the point that they are impossible to take seriously any more. It seriously hurt their recruitment efforts.

Blog is not accurate (3, Informative)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 years ago | (#40570455)

I am not a Scientologist and would never join a religion purported to be created on a bet.

The blog takes quotes from the Scientology post out of context. It talkes bout clicking on the report tag and what to write but ignores the this intermediary step;

4. Read the comment from people and pick the ones that fit the violation of the Code of Conduct.

Where the blog post states that the Scientologists are directed to report all anti-Scientology comments they are actually directed to report only the ones that really brear the Code of Conduct.

One final comment; Has the existence of this email been confirmed by an independent source? I would be suspect of anything reported by someone who has a bias against an organization without independent verification. That is one reason I generally don't read blogs; they have a tendency to be unverified and very biased..

Please delete this story (5, Funny)

Ecuador (740021) | about 2 years ago | (#40570499)

It obviously violates the Slashdot code of conduct.
It is not related to bitcoin or raspberry pi, it is not a dupe and has links to multiple articles that have a lot of text per page, requiring very few, if any, "next page" clicks. It might fool some that it has merit to be on slashdot by being a rather lame story that might appeal to people who like getting pissed at reading stories they don't consider "news for nerds", but I am sure you will agree that that alone is not enough.

Scientology is as bad as Christianity, Judaism,etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570501)

They are all religions.

Re:Scientology is as bad as Christianity, Judaism, (3, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#40570767)

Except Scientology isn't, its a pyramid/litigious scheme passed off as one..

At least a real religion has faith, these jokers only have cash and attorneys.

The same as Lefties... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570541)

Sounds the same as gays who protest about people posting up the truth about what they actually get up to (which would make you realise they are sick and perverted), and non-whites protesting about white people posting that they simply want to live with their own people, and not have to share their countries with a bunch of hate-filled third world invaders...
And sounds the same as the braindead censors of Slashdot who mod down any posts that aren't 'politically correct'...

Re:The same as Lefties... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570623)

Or the same as Republicans that chant about states rights until California goes and does something with them.

Worst defamation of them all (1)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#40570553)

The worst defamation I could imagine is claiming someone to be a member of that gang called scientology.

I'm a proud owner of the Xs4all & Karin Spaink vs. Scientology 1-0 shirt.

It seems to be working very well (1)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 2 years ago | (#40570569)

No one I know or care about has talked to me about this outstanding and important event.
The censors got to all of them first, it seems.

It's not alone! (0)

krashnburn200 (1031132) | about 2 years ago | (#40570573)

I wonder what the cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster will look like in fifty years.... Dun dun dun....

aka (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#40570595)

The church of the Streisand effect

I can hear the LOICs powering up (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#40570653)

The anons will really like this...

It's not censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570721)

the 'church' has decided to encourage its followers to censor online chatter and comments

Be careful about the word "censor". Only the government can censor.

If a non-governmental entity is engaging in something that you want to call "censorship", it is actually exercising its right to define and control its speech.

For example, if the owner of a religious web blog wants to delete reader-submitted responses that attack their religion, it is crucially important that the owner be allowed to do so. Confused people may proclaim that it's "censorship", but that proclamation doesn't make it so.

In this case, people are submitting requests for certain posts to be deleted. The owners of those sites need absolute freedom to heed or ignore such requests. It's not helpful when confused people cry "censorship" when they see others exercising their freedoms.

Church of Scientology members are a bunch of twits (1, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#40570727)

Censor me you assholes. Go on, i dare you.

The entire thing is a huge scam designed to suck peoples wealth dry with a bunch of lies.

Oh Tee! (5, Funny)

Nethead (1563) | about 2 years ago | (#40570757)

Not nary two years ago I stood upon a roof top in Clearwater FL as a superhero of justice (network engineer) alongside my sidekick (general contractor) and peered (as we setup a Clearwire cell site) upon all those that had dedicated 1,000,000,000,000 years of their existence to serving the word of Mr. L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer of some modest renown. We, in aghast awe, watched as they boarded their numerous bus vehicles to travel far to partake in what we would call lunch. What manor of noontime evil feast, we could not imagine. For they looked grim and uninspired.

I bared my being to him at that time and allowed that for some short time in the early 80s I had once myself, this bastion of all that is right with network protocols, had fallen suspect to the siren cry of their teachings I related the trial and tribulations of having to buy their manuscripts and attend communication training (which, sadly, they did not impart the truth of a single RFC.)
Fortunately I escaped by the narrowest means of not having enough money to buy the next book. For ages (about 2 hours) I beat my brow over not having the manly integrity to fight through my engrams and discover the universal truths of the Xemu protocol (RFC-infinity) and thereby understand, just my laying the wires upon my tongue, the truth of every communication protocol in the universe.

But now that I've gone through deprogramming I'm much better.

Now just if we could get everyone that believes in sky faeries to take deprogramming.

Did you never hear of Usenet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40570769)

Bogus claims of network abuse to try and falsely get people disconnected have been standard practice since the first day that the first scientologist got online. It's a dangerous cult, folks.

only one. (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | about 2 years ago | (#40570779)

Well, I don't know what they're worried about. Apparently, the church's office of special affairs feels that

people [are] start[ing] to spread false datum.

What's one small little bit of information, compared to the bullshit spewed by Hubbard. I read on some anti-scientology site a while back that Hubbard suggested that inventing a religion would be a better way to make money than writing fiction.

Frank Zappa was right (5, Insightful)

jamrock (863246) | about 2 years ago | (#40570853)

"The difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of real estate they own." — Frank Zappa
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...