I'm Feeling Activist Today.

Postby SteveB on Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:24 pm

On 2002-03-27 14:09, FlyingFish wrote:
On 2002-03-27 12:30, SteveB wrote:
I think people today have almost no regard for intellectual property compared to, say, automobiles or diamond rings or houses, partly because it always has but also because it's easy to get free on the Internet.

And the doctrines of a faith don't count as intellectual property?

Well, that's the point, isn't it? The TM(TM) folks (and I've heard more than one of them say this) claim that they charge for training specifically for this reason -- people pay more attention when they pay cash. Playing Devil's Advocate, I postulated that the Scientologists might be charging money for essentially the same reason.

And you could certainly make the argument that the spiritual wasteland America has become is largely because of our materialistic culture does, indeed, devalue doctrines of faith along with poetry, music and other intangibles.

Steve Bolhafner
Regular Poster
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO, USA

Postby Hysteria on Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:42 am

On 2002-03-27 14:09, FlyingFish wrote:

And the doctrines of a faith don't count as intellectual property?

That's an interesting angle, but I would like to point out the difference between Scientology and most of the other faiths on the planet. Other faiths want to get the word out about their religion, they want people to believe in what they're saying.

I have seen anti-Christianity sites, anti-Judaism sites, and anti-Islam sites. Never once have I heard of the Catholic church, or its equivalent in the Judaistic and Islamic religions (at least in America)try to actively suppress a site that quoted portions of the New Testament, the Koran, or the Talmud.

Scientology, on the other hand, tries to shut down xemu.net by saying that they have reprinted too much of their sacred scriptures. Did they condemn the site? Did they try to refute their arguments? Perhaps some of them, but in the end, they acted to get the pages pulled from the internet. If any other religion did that, I would think they had something to hide.

Also, I can find an online Bible. I can find an online Koran, and I can find an index to the Talmud within five minutes on a search engine. I can get a free copy of the Book of Mormon. The books of Scientology, though, apparently need to be explained to me solely by scientologists at the appropriate level. Not only that, in order to truly understand, I need to attend several sessions and seminars, and pay a lot of money for them. Let me reiterate--the ONLY religions that do that are cults. I have been invited to religious retreats, seminars, and that kind of thing, but it has never been insinuated that I needed to go to these things in order to become a better religious person.
Regular Poster
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Afeldspar on Sun Mar 31, 2002 2:24 pm

On 2002-03-25 15:07, manticoraus wrote:
Uhm forgive me.

But I am moved to utter confusion.

Outside of claiming Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Battlefield Earth

What is Scientology? Is this like the transhumanist movement or something. Is it out in california. How are they "dangerous."

I mean lets admit it people have said off key comments about the Taliban and those stuck with them here and other posters have rushed to corrected.

Why's everyone falling in line to say "They are the bad guys" :I

Read their written notes on <a href="http://www.holysmoke.org/pc/freako.htm">Operation Freakout,</a> a harassment campaign against journalist Paulette Cooper, and you'll understand what makes them so dangerous.

Read the detail on <a href="http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~cowen/go/ops/go732/go732.htm">Project Snow White,</a> a campaign to infiltrate governments world-wide and steal documents unfavorable to Scientology. 11 major members of Scientology leadership went to prison due to their proven involvement in Scientology's infiltration of the IRS.

Investigate the fact that Scientology <a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/19/scientology/index.html">bankrupted the Cult Awareness Network</a> -- and now does business in their name, not disclosing the fact that this former watchdog group is now run by one of the religions upon which they were keeping the closest watch. Even more disturbing is that they now own all of the original CAN's confidential records -- all their records of people who called them with concerns about controversial, possibly cultic religious organizations -- and are almost certainly doing with them what they do to people calling them for help right now -- <a href="http://trancenet.org/groups/can.shtml">reporting them immediately to the very organizations they were afraid of.</a>

There's plenty more where that came from. The church's standard response to any criticism of them (besides to <a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/scientology/sci31998.html">harass the critic</a>) is to "dead-agent" them, or to immediately spread whatever stories, true or false, are needed to destroy the critic's reputation. This is intended, of course, to make the situation look balanced: The critic says that Scientology has been up to horrible stuff, but the same thing is said about the critic, so who are you going to believe??

The flaw in this policy, however, is that it only works if Scientology is not caught, time and time again, in unethical and illegal behavior (such as, of course, slandering its critics!) And one begins to wonder which is more probable: that over one hundred people who found their own reasons to criticize the Church of Scientology, are all actually guilty of the "lurid blood sex crime" that L. Ron Hubbard declared was in the background of <i>every</i> critic of Scientology, and should be fed to the press immediately? Or that Scientology smears its opponents as a matter of policy and does not do a very creative job? In other words, who do you trust? Hundreds and thousands of people who all have stories of their own abuse at the hands of the cult? Or a cult <a href="http://www.ronthewarhero.org">which cannot keep its stories consistent</a>, let alone keep them to facts?
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm

Postby Manticoraus on Mon Apr 01, 2002 4:46 pm

First thank you I am going to check out all these links VERY soon.

but so far these are all "white collar" crimes. Or at worst driven people to suicide. Islamic terrorists have.. ya know killed folk. I think both are wrong but in society at large I'm generally used to make someone feel so rotten they inhale carbon monoxide is considerred less of a wrong than say bombing a public place. As I've said within wave of 9/11 we had folks besides me on this board jumping to defend Taliban to some degree or greater islam or something. We had alternate voices within the same post. This thread got to me because of the near singlemindedness. Well what I perceived as singlemindedness. And yes I know T is a human being but I guess I am easily frightenned by him when he is upset. (note the resurrected Smallville thread and his comment on writers)
Regular Poster
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: 48307



Return to FANS!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests