War On Scientology

[Rosaline]

Very civilised coverage, and a good example of well done unbiased news reporting (something increasingly rare in this day and age). I liked the comment from anonymous regarding the matter, it sounded nicely down-to-earth and mature

Is the coverage a good thing? It raises interest in the subject, so I guess it probably is a good thing

[TooNice]

I am starting to get to the point though whereby I am thinking the only way for humanity to keep progressing and not regress back to another dark age is to challenge these stupid and baseless ideas and ultimately destroy them.

I differ from that view. I am just as disgusted by atrocities committed in the name of 'religion', but I just think that there are just as many 'unstable' individuals out there. School shooting in the US (amongst other places), ritual suicide in Japan (amongst other places), violence that erupt during/after a game of football. It doesn't take religion to make some people behave in irrational manner that results in harming themselves and people around them.

Religion, by 'streamlining' a set of rules does provide a more direct platform for abuse, just as a knife's inherent characteristic makes it suitable for harming someone. Yet knives have legitimate purposes, just as religion can also be used for good such as promoting care toward other living beings. I do note that a limitation to this is that many religions distinguish 'them' and 'the infidels'. But if that can be 'changed' (somehow, I doubt that most system of beliefs are unchanged such their beginning), there would be less room for abuse. It's a hard sell as religious leaders may see the exclusivity as a good marketing tool (though it worked for Buddhism), but

Why have such system at all? My view is that the alternative is unpredictable and possibly worse. Anyone who would otherwise use religion to start a war to take over the world can find another way for that mean (e.g. ultra nationalism) anyway. So unless science somehow manage to find a way to identify 'unstable individual' (based on a globally agreed sets of 'appropriate behaviour'), find ways to 'treat them' (after overcoming whatever ethical concern over such proposal) we will probably always find things that'll blow our mind (in not a good way). I don't forsee any 'regression' into the dark age though (I'd say that progress has outpaced irrational behaviour as a whole), at least until some nutter manage to start a nuclear war for whatever reason which may include, but is certainly not limited to religious reasons.

[G4Z]

Your ideas are interesting, however I do not think that because of the existence of sociopaths we should reject objectivity and rationalism and accept religion just to try and control them. I don't see how it will work seeing as the individuals you are talking about are sociopaths and by definition have no concept of empathy and should they get into power in a church or anywhere for that matter could well cause chaos.

I would also point out that out of your examples, one is from the US which is obviously a hugely god bothering country and the other one is suicide which tbh I don't have much of a problem with. Football fans fighting and the odd instance of violence I do not think is anywhere near the level of destructiveness that can be caused by religious institutions.

You say you think the alternative would be worse? I say how is that exactly? We all have morals (except for the 2% of sociopaths), morals are as simple as thinking 'would I like it to be done to me?'.

[Rosaline]

And once again, a thread descends into Religion Vs Atheism, with all middle ground ignored...

Any chance we could keep this thread about Anonymous' protests regarding the acts committed by Scientology?

Whatever your opinion of Scientology or religions, the protests are not about the beliefs (which anonymous thinks people are entitled to, however strange), but about the real physical documented activities that Scientology 'may or may not'* still be undertaking and their 'supposed'* charging for religious'-like'* guidance.

To quote Directhex from earlier in this thread:

THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT A RELIGION, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, OR THE VALIDITY THEREOF

* Because personal safety and future job security is a fine idea...

[CaseyV9]

I don't really think religion is a bad thing in general. Being an Atheist.

I think the real harm comes from people exploiting religion.

And cults such as Scientology? I can see no good in this. This is probably where all the socialpaths go.

[CaseyV9]

And once again, a thread descends into Religion Vs Atheism, with all middle ground ignored...

Any chance we could keep this thread about Anonymous' protests regarding the acts committed by Scientology?

Whatever your opinion of Scientology or religions, the protests are not about the beliefs (which anonymous thinks people are entitled to, however strange), but about the real physical documented activities that Scientology 'may or may not'* still be undertaking and their 'supposed'* charging for religious'-like'* guidance.

To quote Directhex from earlier in this thread:


* Because personal safety and future job security is a fine idea...

But a big issue with scientology is whether or not they are a cult or a religion. Especially with the trouble EpicNoseGuy's court case. Isn't that which started this thread again?

[Rosaline]

But a big issue with scientology is whether or not they are a cult or a religion. Especially with the trouble EpicNoseGuy's court case. Isn't that which started this thread again?

1. The proceeding debates which I replied to regarding the issue with religion vs atheism were not addressing that matter at all.

2. Although many people who self-proclaim to be anonymous use signs such as "not a religion but a cult", this distinction is mostly being used as a means to raise awareness, rather than a declaration of a significant and quantifiable difference between the two. The declaration of their 'cult' status has been made in numerous locations prior to anonymous' campaign, only some of which distinguish between the two statuses.

3. The possible court case (last I checked, ENG had only received a generic notice of potential summons, no formal court case has yet been brought) will not discuss the distinction between the two terms, but rather if it is reasonable to use the term to describe Scientology, and if the term was intended to insult or offend (which will be an interesting debate, since the term was not aimed at members but the organisation).

So, can we please keep the debate here to the actions of Anonymous and any issues with Scientology, rather than religion in general, kthnx?

[spazman]

One of my friends was i London a few months ago and happened to walk past the new Scientology HQ. What had caught his eye was the planning application sign in the window. It was an application for recognition as a historic landmark! Quite how they think its 'historic' or a 'landmark' is beyond me.

[iranu]

I hope this does go to court and the reason for that would be for a judge to allow this lad to counter sue the police and receive substantial damages like £100,000 or something. That way the meeja would have to report it and there would be a precedent against the police.

Two things stand out. Firstly the law itself and it's interpretation would be in the public eye and therefore be more likely to open to debate in Parliament which would show how badly these laws are drafted (No surprise there Labour are terrible at this and they also sneek in clauses that don't at the time receive the scrutiny they deserve). Secondly it would show up how robotic and officious the police are in dealing with some very mundane issues and this would then open up an enquiry as to why senior officers in that force had taken gifts from CoS and who instructed the officer to demand that this lad desist with his legitimate protest.

Compare the wording on his placard and the wording on the Muslims protesting against the Danish cartoons, then compare the police response.

Sadly I doubt this will make court because the CPS will deem it not in the public interest (which it undoubtedly is)

[yamangman]

Quite frankly the sentencing of this teen is more outrageous than the misdemeanour detailed in this thread.

BBC NEWS | England | London | Youth guilty of crossfire murder

[G4Z]

Mate, i don't follow.

He was having a gunfight in an urban area, in my eyes that makes both gunmen guilty to be quite honest.

[Norky]

Quite frankly the sentencing of this teen is more outrageous than the misdemeanour detailed in this thread.

BBC NEWS | England | London | Youth guilty of crossfire murder

He is legally guilty of murder, what's the problem? If a gang kick someone to death should only the person who delivered the fatal blow be guilty of the murder?

[mediaboy]

Aren't you going off topic? Although I totally agree.. when the person can't be identified the entire group should be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder (depending on incident)

[yamangman]

So you think that's right? It is known to jury and police and CPS and judge that he did not commit murder, yet he has been convicted of it. Reminds me of a case in the states where a Dutch woman hired a guy to steal from her ex boyfriends house and he ended up killing a policeman. He killed himself, allegedly, and she was convicted of murder through a felony murder law. It's a dangerous precedent as far as I'm concerned.

[Agent]

Firing a gun in public is very different to holding a placard up at a peaceful protest.

Its way off topic - If you want to go into it please make another thread. It has nothing to do with Scientology.

[yamangman]

Firing a gun in public is very different to holding a placard up at a peaceful protest.

Its way off topic - If you want to go into it please make another thread. It has nothing to do with Scientology.

True, but they are both abuses of rights by the establishment, which is more how I understood this thread.