Users who Dugg This
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
NewsMeBack
6468 Followers
Boss This!
10033 Followers
John Doverspike
362 Followers
wjappeJun 30, 2011
They should be placed in the fiction fantasy category, with a warning labels on them.
fostina1Jul 1, 2011
with the bible. the most extremist book ever.
goforthbillyJul 1, 2011
At least the bible is a historic timeline and actually contains facts about humanity. Whether you believe or not, the bible is one of the oldest books of history and referenced even by some of the greatest minds today as acurate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepJul 1, 2011
What is even more amazing is how it came to be and it is actually many books stripped down and edited over hundreds of years.
Its accuracy is questioned daily. Some even think the stories are taken literally.
com2Jul 1, 2011
You must be talking about what came before the dead sea scrolls, the translations into the KJV are really accurate and where mistakes have been made are very small errors that do not change the content or context significantly. Here is a good page explaining the issue with examples: http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/what-are-the-errors-in-king-james-version-bible.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
D1gst1llsuxJul 2, 2011
The Bible is very accurate.
Everyone descended from 2 people - a lot of incest must have been going on.
Adam who factually never really existed, was the supposed perpetrator of "original sin" (which was made up by Paul around 300a.d.), which Paul did not know but which was presumably known to God (and/or Jesus) which completely undermines the whole preposterous story.
The Sun and the Moon are both light sources.
There was a great flood - even thought there is no evidence of such.
The story of Lot is virtually identical to that of chapter 19 in Judges.
The story of Noah was derived from the Babylonian myth of Uta-Napisthim and known from older mythologies of several cultures.
These are just a few of the Bibles "accuracies"./s
neotechniJul 1, 2011
[Citation needed]
ericschc1Jul 1, 2011
I don't think I'd say it contains "facts" per se, but rather interpretations or historical perceptions of facts for the time period.
If people are allowed to call climate change a "theory" in present day, presenting the flood as a product of God's will should be scrutinized for accuracy at least as much.
chrisinsocalifJul 1, 2011
Are you sure about that? Bible seems pretty retarded to me, You got talking donkeys, Flaming talking bushes, cosmic zombies, water walking, making someone from another persons rib, bably killing, talking snakes with legs, millions of species on one boat during a flood, celestial genocide and many more stupid stories. Also the inconsistencies of numbers, dates, places and people. It is one of the most inaccurate ambiguous nonsensical book out there.
ballyhoopsJul 2, 2011
Agreed. Love your comment. "It is one of the most inaccurate ambiguous nonsensical book out there." Excellent choice of words.
angryredplanetJul 2, 2011
To us today, with a more developed ability to think rationally and science to help us, that's true. But if you were around thousands of years ago and you saw something amazing that you'd never before encountered, your description of it would sound utterly unbelievable to somebody else. This is likely how such stories were written. Who knows where they came from, they are thousands of years old and are amazing just for that fact. It does document human history, just some things more abstract than others and with room for interpretation.
rudegarJul 2, 2011
common misconception that Christians have
Roman letters are a much more accurate source
those have the stellar references are the reason we
now believe it's more likely that the person called Jesus was born in the spring in 35 AD
D1gst1llsuxJul 2, 2011
There is still doubt as to whether he actually ever existed or whether his story was made up to fulfill old testament prophecy.
rudegarJul 2, 2011
like the brothers grimm collected stories and folklore
the new testament is likely the same
Jesus was likely a common name back then
and very democratic the priests in Rome votes in which texts would make the new testament
so most likely a pile of messiahs (in the eyes of their followers) merged into the Jesus we all know and love and are puzzled how Western looking he is :P
Frank the messiah: hey this Lazarus guy is not dead he's just passed out from that water I turned into wine so d000dz chilll mmmkeeaayy!
ngc4414Jul 1, 2011
This account has been closed by the user
aristotle0dudeJul 1, 2011
It is only extremist in the eyes of extremists like you. You see what you expect to see.
The bible is a love letter to humanity from god with accounts of human cruelty to other humans.
It is radical in that it calls us to love our enemies, pray for those who persecute you and to love one another.
The ten commandments can be summed up in two commandments.
1. Love your neighbour as yourself.
2. Love god, your creator.
I will pray for you so that one day you may see the light and love other people as you seem to long to be loved.
We are all called to be brothers and sisters and to look after each other.
It shows that god still loves us regardless of what we have done.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
D1gst1llsuxJul 2, 2011
Which ten commandments? There are several different versions throughout the bible.
The bible also says that Lott offered his daughter up for rape instead of letting the men that came to him get raped by the people of Sodom.
The bible also says that a physical human being walked on water.
The bible also says that a physical human being came back to life after 3 days of being dead.
The bible doesn't say anything worth reading.
The bible is a collection of 66 stories written by over 60 men and some of the stories were omitted such as those of a young Jesus turning his friend into a goat.
many stories that were omitted can be found in the apocrypha.
Do you even know what you believe or do you just believe what your priest and parents tell you to believe because it's "true"?
ngc4414Jul 2, 2011
This account has been closed by the user
D1gst1llsuxJul 3, 2011
There is a story about Jesus turning a friend into a goat.
It was omitted like I said.
You have basically made my point though, The only way you can "prove" Jesus could do anything "miraculous" is to just say; it is outside of science, so to speak. Pure regression to which you have no answer. When you can't explain something "god" automatically did it. No matter how much you want this to be true or no matter how much you believe it to be true - DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE - nor any truer than someones belief that dragons and fairies are real.
aristotle0dudeJul 6, 2011
You need to reread the bible.
See:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThePeacefulIslam
fostina1Jul 6, 2011
i do not need god to be a good person. i do not condemn you for needing your god. do not condemn me by insisting i need your prayers to be good.
aristotle0dudeJul 6, 2011
I hate be break it to you but you are not a good person. None of us are. Not a single person alive or dead who was born of two human parents is good enough. Without salvation, even the nicest person will go to hell alongside unrepentant murders.
With salvation, anyone who accepts the gift goes to heaven be they a nice guy, repentant rapists or repentant mass murder.
Every person has moments of selfishness and anger. Everyone has sinned.
fostina1Jul 6, 2011
that i do not deny. but my definition of good is different than yours and god's definition. i am good to the best of my abilities. and since im really the only person i have to answer to that is perfectly fine with me. the only rule i follow to be good is the golden rule "do unto others as i would have others do unto me"
aristotle0dudeJul 6, 2011
Romans 3: 9-23:
9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17And the way of peace have they not known:
18There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
fostina1Jul 6, 2011
"glory of God" not my crutch.
aristotle0dudeJul 6, 2011
I dare you to go here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThePeacefulIslam
and watch the two part video "Why I Left Islam - Afshin".
You are probably afraid of praying because you fear they might be answered like they were for those ex-muslims giving their testimonies.
fostina1Jul 6, 2011
i get my peace when i look into my little girls eyes every morning and kiss her good bye. as long as i do right by her thats all that matters.
i have no interest or need in praying. thats like saying im afraid of cross stitching. and if you are having your prayers answered its not god, just a higher form of alien life. which i guess is totally possible i guess.
chongqingkingJul 1, 2011
sorry, the Koran is still the reigning champion.
D1gst1llsuxJul 2, 2011
The Koran and the Bible are virtually identical.
aristotle0dudeJul 6, 2011
I think you need to learn how to read.
D1gst1llsuxJul 7, 2011
Perhaps you should take your own advice. I didn't say they were identical, I said "virtually" identical. perhaps I should clarify what I meant. Both religions are based on the fictional character of "Abraham", both hold misogynistic views, both condone murder for "sinners", both have similar stories such as that of Abraham - except the Qur'an favors his son Ishmael and the bible, Isaac. They are both virtually identical in multiple respects and it really isn't worth distinguishing between the two. I have read them both, I just don't like fiction.
matthrJul 1, 2011
As much as I hate scientology, and as much as I enjoy watching the censorship they have tried to put on others now being put on them, this is still wrong. They should have the right to say whatever they would like, just as we have the right to call bulls**t.
Of course the good thing about being an american in this situation is, there is not a thing I can do except sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude.
mikepictorJul 1, 2011
Yeah, pretty much. Honestly, the belief structure is not any sillier or weirder than any other religion, and the literature itself is not what advocates the most extreme actions they done that is so dangerous.
amaoicanJul 1, 2011
I dunno, bro. If it is no sillier or weirder than any other religion, then why does the CoS try so hard to keep their mythology under wraps? Oh right.. profit. In CoS you have to pay to level up.
mikepictorJul 1, 2011
Right...the implementation is f**ked, but the basic beliefs are just as silly as Christianity.
leatherpancakeJul 1, 2011
I agree but Scientology goes past Christianity with displaying cult-like attributes like "brainwashing", isolation, giving up worldly possessions. They even have their own intelligence department called the Guardians.
dauntless1Jul 1, 2011
Do they have their own nation and military yet, like Christianity?
leatherpancakeJul 1, 2011
dauntless, I believe if you gave enough time, scientology would create its own army.
This is my problem with religion in general. Its nothing more than a collective activity. And watching the evolution of scientology is no different from other world religions in terms of structure. The only difference is that major world religions are just older (back when there was no science to disprove them) and have been diluted and politically absorbed into larger societies.
L. Ron Hubbard created scientology as a way to make money. Those are his words.
chongqingkingJul 1, 2011
at least Scientology don't wage Holy just wars, slaughtering each other.
leatherpancakeJul 2, 2011
chong,
If scientology came about 2K years ago. It would.
ngc4414Jul 1, 2011
This account has been closed by the user
ericschc1Jul 1, 2011
I think you're partially right, in that it should rank lower than most organized religion in actual social value because there isn't anything resembling giving back to a community.
Having said that, perceived value is always in the eye of the believer...or simply discounted in the eyes of non-believers.
If, in your comment, you replaced Scientology with any other religion popular among wealthy & influential people, it would simply sound like the words of an atheist who's capable of seeing the "value" offset by social imposition.
inajeepJul 1, 2011
It is a fine line IMO. I don't like censorship and I don't like to see cults absorb the weak minded, splitting up families and influencing politics. A scam is a scam and should be shut down.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
Ahh, so you don't like the risks of freedom.
Other things that "absorb the weak minded, splitting up families and influencing politics"
- alcoholism
- gambling
- sex
- any other addictive behavior (could be gaming or really anything)
Do you also propose shutting down casinos? They are a "scam," yet some people don't mind being "scammed" for entertainment purposes, and some weak minded lose a lot of money. Or is there a subjective reason you claim that's different?
inajeepJul 1, 2011
The differences are greater than the similarities. Scientology at one time tried to infiltrate the govt, they have been tied to manslaughter and have very cult like following. It is an organization bent the weak willed, take their money to dupe them into believing all kinds of bull s**t. Of the 3 examples you gave only gambling is an organization that may be similar. However, scientology will never pay out. There are also safety mechanisms in place for gambling. There is G.A. (plus other less known support groups) and governing organizations to police gambling, laws allowing it only in certain areas. Taxes are gained from it. I don't gamble other than the occasional waste of a lottery ticket.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
You said "A scam is a scam and should be shut down," and implied that anything which "absorbs the weak, splits up families, or influences politics" should be censored.
Now you try to pretend this comment was about manslaughter, or "infiltrating government."
Wait a second, so in a democracy, the people shouldn't be allowed to get elected to office and influence government?
There are safety mechanisms in place for people who sign up for things like Scientology. They are called journalism, peer/family help, and counseling.
There are also safety mechanisms in place for people secretly infiltrating government, and it is always illegal to kill people (people kill each other over gambling, alcoholism, sex, etc also). There are also cult-like drinking groups, sex groups, and gambling groups.
inajeepJul 1, 2011
Pretend? No, being a bit more specific.
You like to pretend that anarchy is good. You want to pretend that a cult infiltrating the government for their own means is OK.
Where are these cult-like drinking ,sex and gambling groups you speak of?
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
fraternaties, swingers clubs, and gambling clubs are a few examples.
Again with the distraction. This discussion is about freedom, not the existence of a state. it has to do with freedom.
Since when does people getting elected to government equate to letting cults infiltrate government. As I mentioned, there are safety mechanisms in place for the latter.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
And since I know you will subjectively interpret "cult" to not include the groups I mentioned:
"The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.[1] The word originally denoted a system of ritual practices."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
all things i mentioned have ritualistic practices and/or are generally considered abnormal and bizarre.
inajeepJul 1, 2011
Regarding the infiltration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
You are looking at terms in a very black and white light. The definition of cult is also a subjective term. Let's include some other adjectives and exclude cult-like and anything that is a club. Brainwashing, giving all your money to an organization that tells you fantastical stories, million year contracts, forced labor, isolation, psychological techniques used to break down the psyche of someone. I know I see some analogies to other religions but let us focus on this one example. Because you are generalizing to an extreme that is distracting for the issue.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
Your objections to Scientology apply to all religions, do you also propose shutting them down? By your subjective nature of creating rationalizations/justifications for things you less opposed to, I assume you have some flawed reason as to how that is also different.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
And for looking at things black and white..that's not a fair charge for trying to objectively define a term to assist in communication while using words that are commonly interpreted subjectively. It's not quite black and white to realize this is going on and take steps to prevent this from throwing wrenches into communication.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepJul 1, 2011
"Your objections to Scientology apply to all religions"
Really, isn't that odd?
Your assumption is flawed. Let us hear your reasoning that supports scientology and all their wonderful deceptions and contributions to society.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
Well at least we agree that all religions are plagues on humanity. We just disagree on the methods of combating them.
I don't believe I have the moral right to stop anyone from doing what they want. If that means them being part of a religious cult, fine..as long as they don't harm others (in this case they should be charged with the laws they broke harming people).
johnnysoftwareJul 1, 2011
Dude, I would say the "safety mechanisms in place for people secretly infiltrating government" were not in place the time that there were "...a series of infiltrations and thefts from 136 government agencies, foreign embassies and consulates, as well as private organizations critical of Scientology, carried out by Church members, in more than 30 countries".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
The Wikipedia article goes on to describe the attack on government records as "the single largest infiltration of the United States government in history[2] with up to 5,000 covert agents".
There are safety mechanisms to prevent your computer from being infiltrated by malware, but even a casual glance at the news would tell you that they are not really all that effective in the case of someone/something actually trying, despite the discouragement.
No one argues that because a burgled home had a lock on the front door, the home could not have been burgled.
Getting elected to Office is a completely different action from getting a job in an office and ransacking its records.
inajeepJul 1, 2011
"Well at least we agree that all religions are plagues on humanity. We just disagree on the methods of combating them."
Agreed.
"I don't believe I have the moral right to stop anyone from doing what they want. If that means them being part of a religious cult, fine..as long as they don't harm others (in this case they should be charged with the laws they broke harming people)."
'doing what they want' is the gray area. What they want to do is deceive and take money. Their influence can go beyond their subjects. Their litigation can effect you if you happen to disagree with them publicly. See anti-blasphemy ruling in UN and Ireland (if I remember correctly). Most if not all religious groups would love not to have the ways/beliefs questioned. Your method of waiting from them to come to a head and harm others would be a worse case scenario as oppose to keeping them from harming anyone from the beginning. I don't expect the US's critical thinking skills to improve in great strides to combat scientology or any other pariah on society.
You can be vocal about the wrong things religions leads to or you can let them be. However, the silent voices do nothing to correct the issue. I believe the closest term alcoholics use is enabler. The definition isn't an exact fit but it is close. You are well informed and most likely know who Sam Harris is but his POV while unpaletable for some has made some very persuasive comments on the matter.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
And as highlighted in another thread:
Who is "deceiving and taking money" is subjectively determined in politics. At one point in time people educating others about the earth being round or not the center of the universe for a fee, would have been deemed "deceiving and taking money." This is not to suggest that scientology is accurate, just that by taking such an approach we risk suppressing advancement of humanity, and that other approaches are preferable.
sloppyjoes7Jul 1, 2011
Just a quick comment - njdoo7, your logic is pristine.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
@johnnysoftware
Okay, I concede that groups have successfully infiltrated government, after being enlightened to this operation.
However, I stand my ground that the best solution isn't to outlaw groups suspected of doing this..but to restructure government to make it less vulnerable to infiltration.
Non-secretive infiltration of government also occurs. Look up the council on foreign relations and trilateral commission. Most of the last several presidential administrations have been from these groups. Maybe we could also examine ways to mitigate one group of people dominating executive, legislative, and judicial positions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
@sloppyjoes7
Thanks, appreciate your comment! :)
skywiseJul 1, 2011
Shut down the scam, sure. But let them print and say what they want... just don't let them take any money for it and see how long that lasts.
inajeepJul 1, 2011
How do you keep them from taking the money?
Scientology has a team of attorneys who are very good at what they do.
skywiseJul 1, 2011
That's kinda like asking how government is going to stop drug dealers from taking money...
In Russia at least they could just stop Scientology from doing business. That's not doable in the US because somebody in government decided they were a legit religion. So first the government has to undo THAT, then you can legislate the heck outta 'em.
inajeepJul 1, 2011
I was asking you since you made the suggestion.
Careful, if someone tries to legitimize a religion, you end up on a very slippery slope.
skywiseJul 1, 2011
Ok, let me clarify - You can't legitimize a religion in general - But you CAN determine one legally for non-profit taxation status which the IRS has done. Get the IRS to declare them as more business than religious (IE How much money goes to charity work) and then you can treat it under regular business laws.
inajeepJul 1, 2011
Will that work on the evangelists too? If so why hasn't it been done yet? Most likely they will cry separation of church and state. But I like the idea.
skywiseJul 1, 2011
Evangelizing is a tricky definition. You've got your Billy Graham and Trinity Broadcasting Networks on one hand and then your Jim Baker and Robert Tilton's on the other. All of them take in a lot of money which fuelled large organizations (And Baker did eventually go to jail for fraud...) But does proselytizing for money which leads to more proselytizing for more money count as non-charitable work or is that donig your religion's work and thus protected? (But in this case, other than people giving away their money/time there's no cultish style harm to society going on here).
matthrJul 2, 2011
One has to ask the question though, if the government takes away the non-profit status from a religion aren't they involving themselves in religion by legitimizing some over others? You could argue that Scientology is a for profit enterprise and not a religion, but almost any argument you use for that could apply to other religions (especially faiths like the LDS).
It's a slippery slope that I'd prefer the government just avoided in general.
chrisinsocalifJul 2, 2011
"How do you keep them from taking the money? "
Hide under the shroud of religion, then enable a tax free pyramid scheme. Exactly what Scientology does.
iamausernameJul 1, 2011
I guess, people should be free to think what they wish, however, if there's money or incentive involved, that should be shut down.
Religion shouldn't make a profit.
haso18Jul 2, 2011
in my opinion, the foolish shall always be fooled. that doesnt mean we stop trying to protect them from the foolers. My uncle used to laugh at the religious extremists because they just accept everything they are told, believe hideous claims from their sheikh, and have their whole lives revolving around something pathetically useless. Sadly, with enough time, peer pressure, and family pressure, he has become the biggest driving force for this extremist group within my extended family. We grabbed what we could from our family and went far away. We visit back once in a while, but things have changed for good. We went from a very high class secular family, into one where almost half of the women wear hijabs and the other half are being hassled to wear one. This is why I cant stand any religion. This is why I have waged a war on religion, where I'm only trying to protect the members of my nuclear family now.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
Well hopefully obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, doesn't get his way. Among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."
As Salon highlights, In a paper he wrote, he proposed:
"that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists."
He also thinks banning or taxing information he deems inappropriate:
"So Sunstein isn't calling right now for proposals (1) and (2) -- having Government "ban conspiracy theorizing" or "impose some kind of tax on those who" do it -- but he says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions.""
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein
These proposals and techniques are not much different from Russia's.
Closed AccountJul 1, 2011
I was going to say the same thing, but then I found your comment.
laradanversJul 1, 2011
scientology scares me
cooltd825Jul 1, 2011
now if we can have them do something about the Mormons.......
carlmosconiJul 1, 2011
At least the Russians have some sense!
bluenose2Jul 1, 2011
I tried reading Hubbard's original work of fiction.It is nothing but bulls**t,just like the bible.I don't agree with the censorship.The book should be out in the open and shown for the crap it is.
tumultuoustJul 1, 2011
This is one time where I can say my ignorance on something like Scientology is a very good thing.
zelnikJul 1, 2011
I am frequently proud of my motherland... Today is another one of those days.
Good job, Russia, good job.
And before you start screaming "right to see blah", remember that this is a different culture, and the U.S. is just as guilty of banning materials as Russia is.
Russia, Canada, and every other country who has banned scientology has the right to do so.
bluenose2Jul 1, 2011
Scientology is NOT banned in Canada.Get your facts straight.
johnnysoftwareJul 1, 2011
Not banned but not wholeheartedly recognized as a religion/charity either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country
skywiseJul 1, 2011
"And before you start screaming "right to see blah", remember that this is a different culture, and the U.S. is just as guilty of banning materials as Russia is. "
Cite please.
Aside from military secrets and pedophile images (and not letting minors see pictures of boobies) What ideological literature has the US banned?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
serenity101Jul 1, 2011
when did Canada ban scientology? (I wish we would)
Duel1stJul 4, 2011
I’m from Russia and we do not need any “Scientology”. We have Orthodox Church since 988 AD.
Good job, Russia!
babywookieJul 1, 2011
I have personal experience with the kind of damage cults such as Scientology, AmWay, May Kay, etc do to Russians and other post-Soviet peoples. The level of poverty, decay and hopelessness in the post-Soviet boondocks makes those people particularly vulnerable to these kinds of schemes, which tend to promise riches, personal improvement, etc. After they preyed on the members of my own family and reading all the other horror stories, honestly, I wouldn't be upset if the Russians rounded up all of these foreign cultists, shot them and burned down all of their "temples".
skywiseJul 1, 2011
Mary Kay and Amway a cult?
Hucksters definitely. Scam artists for sure. But a cult?!
babywookieJul 1, 2011
The way that they operate in poorer countries overseas is very cult-like. A relative of mine got suckered into AmWay a few years ago. They brainwashed the s**t out of her. She spends thousands of dollar on their "product", classes, seminars, etc and still hasn't made a penny. They have turned her against her friend and her husband, telling her that they are negative influences on her life. She doesn't even take care of her kids like she used to. It's f**ked up!
ngc4414Jul 1, 2011
This account has been closed by the user
msagnosticaJul 2, 2011
Scientology is the most extreme cult in the USA today. I grew up as a Jehovah's witness so I know a cult when I see one and Scientology is one of the worst ones. They actually sit people down and brainwash them after putting them into a hypnotized state.
laurahoustonJul 1, 2011
a smart move for russia..those cults with big money are impossible to get rud off once they move in and convert.
Duel1stJul 4, 2011
+1
Duel1stJul 4, 2011
+1
Closed AccountJul 1, 2011
And yet the US continues to provide them Tax benefits.
Gotta love it.
mark5hsJul 1, 2011
Good, it should be banned here too. It's not a religion... it's a scam. No religion has membership fees. And it's even got Tom Cruise and John Travolta for celebrity endorsements. You can bet they're getting a s**tload out of it.
iseesharpJul 1, 2011
Everyone has a right to their beliefs, no matter how insane
neotechniJul 1, 2011
"Everyone has a right to their beliefs,"
Not when they are dangerous.
ie: Praying instead of using a doctor. Brainwashing, etc.
ThisFlatJul 2, 2011
If you ask me. All religious text should be labeled as Fiction. There is no prove behind it. You can't throw in a little Science and call something truth. "It's the word of God," they say. B.S. I say.
welleasyJul 1, 2011
well that is not much of a suprise really
Rajnish357Jul 1, 2011
Wow thats a great news !!
PontiusMorganJul 1, 2011
If Scientology is recognized as a religion, why isn't Jedi/Sith?
johnnysoftwareJul 1, 2011
Actually, I think someone did register something to do with the Star Wars movies' storyline as a religion.
PontiusMorganJul 1, 2011
I believe it has been done several times, in several countries and was shot down each time.
easytospellJul 1, 2011
yay Russan court!
FedrJul 2, 2011
просто ужас какой то...
newyorksurf23Jul 1, 2011
good on them.
johnnysoftwareJul 1, 2011
Why is the word extremist in quotes in the headline?
aahpandasrunJul 1, 2011
Yes, we all hate Scientology. But, they should have the right to put out their literature. Just because something is "extremist" or "hate speech" doesn't give people the right to censor someone. Then again, it is Russia.
easytospellJul 1, 2011
yay Russan court!
airoJul 2, 2011
The true leader of scientology.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_07wyoAikc
parasharkshamaJul 2, 2011
http://youtu.be/nK_Jv4RIzpU
ngc4414Jul 1, 2011
This account has been closed by the user
neotechniJul 1, 2011
"Literature should only be restricted if it is spreading hatred of others and inciting people to violence."
Scientology does incite people to violence/hatred of others.
Closed AccountJul 1, 2011
scientology is wrong but censoring free speech is more wrong. :D
jqp123Jul 1, 2011
Wrong response. This will only encourage Russians to investigate Scientology --- if for no other reason than to understand why it was dignified with an official ban.
Unfortunately, the only correct response to crackpot religions is to ignore them. Anything else only adds credibility. Christianity was just another crackpot religion until the Romans decided to start persecuting followers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
If they are crackpot religions, then should be pretty self-evident as a crackpot religion after hearing them out?
I always consider all opinions / ideas before rejecting them, since I am humble and recognize I am not always right and can learn from others.
Imagine if people rejected the at-the-time 'crackpot' idea that the earth is round, and that the sun not earth is the center of the solar system.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
edit timer..errr
*if people ignored the at-the-time 'crackpot' ideas*
inajeepJul 1, 2011
You would think so wouldn't you? The fact that the world is crammed full of various religions and their off-shoots speaks that the evidence is not being looked at rationally. It is a source of frustration for many. A belief alone isn't too bad until you get a group that believes and then tries to propagate that belief outside their circle. It is especially bad if that belief happens to be that one group of people don't deserve to live anymore.
The reason people didn't reject a round earth is that their was evidence that they couldn't deny ..... eventually. I believe many who were taught at an early age that the world was flat stuck to their beliefs until they died.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
My point with the earth analogies was to point out that ignoring or outlawing ideas that are considered less favorable will have negative impacts on the scientific advancement of mankind, as the nature of politics in banning/ignoring without listening to the idea is far from scientific.
Atheists are a growing percentage of the population. Allowing people to freely exchange ideas and do what they think is best IS working. Freedom is working. Techniques like social ostracism (not speaking with, doing business with, etc..) or calling out those who do these things and helping them is a far more effective and efficient method for combating them then using coercion directed by politics; not to mention moral.
njdoo7Jul 1, 2011
To clarify (edit timers):
*as the nature of politics in banning/ignoring ideas without letting people afterwards to listen to and evaluate the idea is bad practice. Politics are far from scientific.*
The people at the time could have said look at this cult of "round-earth truhers" or "flat earth deniers" and banned the idea from ever being examined again. Where would be now? How much longer would it have taken to realize the wrong judgement?
skywiseJul 1, 2011
"The fact that the world is crammed full of various religions and their off-shoots speaks that the evidence is not being looked at rationally"
I see that as cultural rather than a proof issue. Aside from the religion's axioms (Existence/nature of God, core statements, etc) everything else expands (degenerates?) into a myriad of legalese and traditions and these alter/change as the system expands across the world.
The phenomenon isn't unique to Religion... Even secular law is interpreted differently from region to region even in the states. That's a core nature of human society I think.
Now is that a possible argument against the existence of God because one particular religion isn't handled uniformly across the world? Yeah. But even humans can't seem to master that ability for within a small town!
As for how you then choose which crackpot religions to disband as opposed to others, that's a gray area. Obviously you stop the ones that want to destroy society and leave others that want to just meditate quietly alone.
I think everyone will pretty much agree with the former... but the gotcha is what defines "destroy society". I'm more liberal about that (heh) and think it should mean physical destruction. Others might point to cultural destruction of society.
inajeepJul 2, 2011
I agree, religion, politics, sports, industry all splinters off and evolves. A product of the human condition.
Closed AccountJul 1, 2011
I understand that I have no right to say what happens in Russia... but I wouldn't like to see something like this happen in the USA.
Closed AccountJul 1, 2011
Scientology should be investigated for fraud .
yony1Jul 2, 2011
what will they ban next?
This is how it starts