Scientology Strikes Again
March 16, 2001 12:43 PM Subscribe
posted by holloway at 2:23 PM on March 16, 2001
posted by holloway at 2:25 PM on March 16, 2001
Crap. I really need to start a religion.
As to Tom Cruise, I have personally made fun of him since the eighties. Hell, it's easy to pick on someone that only stands 3 foot 5. Granted, he has more money than me...but he still has to use a booster seat at Dairy Queen.
posted by bradth27 at 2:39 PM on March 16, 2001
And from the linked page:
Our lawyers tell us that it appears to be a violation of Copyright law, and under the terms of the DMCA, we must remove it
So how is this a clear case of "Scientology silencing its opposition"?
Besides, they have a lot of catching up to do to rival Christianity. :-)
Disclaimer: I support neither/nor. But I just don't see how this is as big of a deal as it's being made out to be.
posted by ethmar at 2:45 PM on March 16, 2001
That is the problem with this forum sometimes. Everyone lumps Christians into one entire group. I don't think so.
I am Christian, yet, I don't agree with Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, etc... Each has seperate views when it comes to Christianity, and to lump them all together as one is as bigoted as you claim Christians to be.
posted by da5id at 2:55 PM on March 16, 2001
> to do to rival Christianity. :-)
Ethmar: I agree. In Ireland hardly anyone dies of Scientology disputes.
posted by holloway at 3:02 PM on March 16, 2001
Publicly criticizing Scientologist beliefs is just as tasteless as publicly criticizing any other religious beliefs, no matter how weird we may find them to be. Criticizing the Scientology organization, however, is a different matter. Whatever people want to go for spiritually is fine by me. But no organization should get away with crimes. And the organization is alleged to have committed all sorts of nasty felonies over the years. (These are current government laws I'm talking about. I don't expect anyone try to bring up the Spanish Inquisition. ::insert huge opening here::)
The best way to differentiate Scientology from Christianity, or most any other religion, is simple. The entire point of most religions is to "spread the word" to as many people as possible; the expense of doing so is incurred by the given church, as The Word is far too important to hold back from people.
Scientology is 180 degress from that. They SELL the religious documents and teachings to you in small doses. Small, unbelievably expensive doses. And all the materials are copyrighted. If you don't pay up, you get nothing, and will just have to do without their wisdom, sorry.
Put another way: If someone started posting books of the Bible on Slashdot, do you think the Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination that goes by the same bible, would sue to have it taken down because it wasn't paid for? Lord no! (heh heh) They'd be jumping up and down for joy! All those geeks getting the glory of The Word! Hallelujah! Publish all you want! Hey, want hardcopies? Drop us an email, you can have 100 copies for free!
posted by aaron at 3:17 PM on March 16, 2001
I'm not sure what's tasteless about thinking a religious belief that doesn't believe in evolution is silly - and saying so publically. Have you read that scientology crud? Hawaii was existed 7 million years ago, yeah, sure.
Buffoons - all of them.
posted by holloway at 3:28 PM on March 16, 2001
Hmmm. Philosophy 101 questions for you here. If I criticized Aztecs for human sacrifice, would that be tasteless? What if one was a major Hollywood actor? What if they proselytized frequently, in an in-your-face way? Could I make fun of them then?
What if Scientologists worked individually, but under the auspices of a political party, to require me to use electrometer thingies to make sure my tomatoes are suitably groovy? What if they connected the use of those things to, say, being a decent human being and a good citizen? What if they made it sound questioning their party's economic theories was akin to being anti-L. Ron Hubbard and thus a bad person?
Yikes, I could go on with these sorts of disconnected questions all night long, but I'm getting ready for a night of basketball.
posted by raysmj at 3:52 PM on March 16, 2001
oh.. and I regard using "criticise" as a rhetoric trick. Criticise? Talk about, more like.
posted by holloway at 4:18 PM on March 16, 2001
Hey, Scientology can do whatEVER the fuck they WANT in private. Gerbilling, Twister, Naked Gin Rummy. It's when they screw with everyone else's freedoms that they need a good smack-down.
posted by dhartung at 4:36 PM on March 16, 2001
posted by dhartung at 4:42 PM on March 16, 2001
You'd think, if they had something worth sharing, they'd be less pro-active about keeping this sub-teenage mythmaking out of the public domain, since it's obviously a front for some deeper set of secrets, isn't it?
posted by holgate at 5:07 PM on March 16, 2001
It is my understanding that the Masons guard many of their higher level secrets under the threat of death, though I don't know where the flowery language stops and the real threat of ass-whoop begins. I had a roommate who was a high-level Mason, and he was always talking smack about swearing on his life to keep these big secrets. Then again, maybe he was just a complete doofus. Yeah, that's probably it, come to think of it...
posted by Optamystic at 5:55 PM on March 16, 2001
posted by raysmj at 6:06 PM on March 16, 2001
In fact, I'm sure the Scientologists will claim that L. Ron's not dead, and just "elsewhere", to avoid his works falling out of copyright.
posted by holgate at 6:13 PM on March 16, 2001
posted by bradth27 at 7:45 PM on March 16, 2001
I rest my case. Good one! :-)
The thing that kills me is that regardless of whatever ills Scientology has visited upon the internet or otherwise, the issue that sparked this thread was that copyrighted material was posted at Slashdot without consent. If their lawyers are saying that the Scientologists are correct in asking for the material to be removed, then to me it's an open and shut case and I move on.
What other religion tries to prevent dissemination of their texts?
Hmmm, didn't Jack T Chick sue to get his infamous "tracts" removed from at least one web site that cast them in an unfavorable light? So much for the notion that "His Word" must be spread far and wide, by any means necessary.
Whoa there Tonto... Don't be grouping Christians in with Scientologists.
As the great Terry Boers once said: listening is a skill. Or in this case, reading.
posted by ethmar at 8:13 AM on March 20, 2001
The other that I'm aware of was a site dedicated to Chick, where the issue was people modifying the text of the strips.
And I don't think that changing the text of the strips can allow them to still be considered "His Word". The god Chick believes in would not appreciate that word being spread.
posted by cCranium at 8:21 AM on March 20, 2001
« Older second teen sentenced to life | My Buddy - A Four Act Passion Play. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
My only question re Scientology is, why did media folks start being critical of Tom Cruise's membership only after he and Nicole split. Before, his choice of religion would only be mentioned in passing, like, oh, he's set to work on this film and by the way . . . never mentioning that he, say, puts electrometers or what you call them in his tomatoes before eating them to make sure they're suitably groovy.
posted by raysmj at 2:20 PM on March 16, 2001