Scientology versus the Wikipedia
p2pnet news view | Freedom:- p2pnet was among sites which leaped before it looked when ‘news’ broke that Cult of Scientology pope David Miscavige supposedly wondered, “Will Scientologists have to wear yellow, six-pointed stars on our clothing?”
It looked real and it was exactly the kind of thing Miscarriage, as he’s popularly known, might have said.
So we reported it as real when actually, it was a Rant & Rave spoof.
However, it was inspired by a genuine event — the Wikipedia’s ban of Scientology IP addresses — and, “I’d say the Wikipedia situation is a bit of a conundrum,” says p2pnet frequent poster and occasional contributor Devil’s Advocate in a Reader’s Write.
He goes on »»»
First, freedom of speech was being enjoyed for a while. People contributed. People corrected other people, under the watchful eyes of still more people.
But then, groups like CoS start ‘exercising their right to free speech’ by editing everything that refers to them and replacing the contents with their own propaganda, as well as going to pages of those that would expose them and doing more ‘editing’. Naturally, that’s going to piss off a whole bunch of people and cause them to go back and ‘correct’ what they’ve done, and soon you have an ‘editing war’.
After the bullshit the CoS pulled on YouTube, it was pretty clear they were willing to complicate Wiki the same way.
If I were Wikimedia, what would I do?! Do I allow the whole thing to continue, thus inviting more mayhem to the ‘pedia and similar legal complications from the CoS as happened on YouTube?! Or do I need to lock it all down?!
Personally, I’m glad I didn’t have to make the decision.
Is it censorship to stop CoS from ‘contributing’? Maybe. But is the FORM of their editing to be considered ‘free speech’, when all they’re doing is removing all other entries, and trying to block everyone else’s ‘free speech’, in favour of only theirs??… I’m thinking, ‘Maybe not!’
I believe your ‘right to free speech’ does not trump the rights of others to the same. By ‘editing’ the ‘free speech’ of others, I think you’ve already tossed away your own right in this regard.
Perhaps this makes the Wiki format unsuitable for a ‘free speech’ scenario, if it were to stay totally open?
At this point, I’m just not prepared to form an opinion about that.
As to the difference between Scientology and other ‘widely-accepted’ religions…
What should be no surprise to anyone who knows me or has read my words often is that I’ve never been an advocate for any religion. Just because some are ‘established’, in that, they ‘go back a long way’ and have remained adopted by many, I don’t view them any differently than ‘cults’ like Scientology. They all have the one common denominator when in their classic forms – worship of a ficticious (unconfirmed) ‘higher power’, whether contrived from ’scriptures’ or from a ’science fiction’ scenario.
In this respect, ‘Jesus’, ‘Moses’, ‘Vishnu’, ‘(fill in your own)’, et al, are really no more ‘legitimate’ than ‘Xenu’.
Things that probably separate Scientology from the pack might be the ‘methodology’ written into it to extract money from its followers, and the level of ‘interference’ it is willing to inflict on the surrounding society.
Yes, I have a problem with Scientology, and certainly acknowledge the attrocities connected with it, but, like Henry, I also have the same problem with all cults and religions. They have all been guilty at certain points in history of heinous acts, all in the name of unproven ‘higher motivations’, and have been instrumental in keeping this world in conflict.
“I’d really like to see people practice their own, independent ‘religions’, where they only appeal to the ‘higher powers’ of beneficial HUMAN CONCEPTS, like ‘good will’, ‘tolerance’, ‘honesty’, and ‘true advancement of the whole collective’, for the good of THEMSELVES and OTHERS, rather than the ‘teachings’ of non-existent deities handed down by 2nd-rate Sci-Fi writers or ‘prophets’ (read ‘WRITERS’!), for the good of ‘the Church’,” adds DA.
He refers back to Henry — Henry Emrich, another (even more 
) frequent poster and occasional contributor, who’d written, “This is just dumb beyond dumb, I gotta say,” continuing »»»
1. Yes, we all know it’s trendy to hate Seicntology [sic], because the CoS does evil things.
The strange part is, nobody on the anti-scientology bandwagon bothers to apply this to ‘real’ religions, or the denominations thereof.
Great example: the Roman Catholic church is just about the most closed-minded, thought-controlling denomination of Christianity out there, with a really bloody history (Crusades, Inquisition, opposition to legal abortion culminating in large numbers of dead women etc.) But we don’t see anti-Catholic bigotry around very much, because people are still at least somewhat able to differentiate between the *Followers* of an organization, the *Doctrines* of the organization, and the *organization itself.*
Why doesn’t this happen with Scientology?
We saw this stupid bandwagon effect back when that chick from the Simpsons used the Bart voice in a CoS promo, and people were ready to boycott the show itself as a result. It’s dumb, it’s sloppy, it’s dangerous, and, at the very least, it calls the issue of ‘freedom of religion’ into serious question.
Blacklisting wasn’t noble when HUAC used it against so-called ‘Communist Sympathizers’ on the basis that they’d maybe attended a few meetings, so how is it somehow noble to demonize an entire catagory of people simply because you don’t agree with their beliefs? Or is this strictly about the actions of the CoS itself? Then Wikipedia should blacklist the Vatican’s IP addresses, as well.
2. This isn’t going to actually stop Scientology-related ‘propaganda’, because at lest some run-of-the-mill scientologists engage in proselytizing about it. It’s not that difficult to find Scientology/Dianetics related info at just about any bookshop or used-book sale or whatever, either, so this isn’t going to stop any scientologist from actively promoting their beliefs.
3. Another issue here is: since when is it the Wikimedia foundations Job to act as Thought-police? I can see them banning particular users for random vandalism or something, but making the decision *for everyone who uses Wikipedia* what constitutes ‘propaganda’ just strikes me as really dangerous.
Honestly, the double-standard here is amazing. Scientology is a ‘cult’ and should be run to the ground like the dogs they are, but Roman Catholicism/Southern baptists get a free pass, even though Christian individuals and groups are EXPLICITLY COMMANDED by the tenets of their own religion to ’spread the good news’ to everybody — whether they want to hear about it, or not.
“But, Henry concluded, “hey, if people dig the idea of Wikipedia acting as ‘Big Brother’ and telling us what we can — and cannot — learn, then that’s peachy.”
May, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
the problem is, most christian denominations don’t run around on the net anonymously editing articles critical of their teachings or demanding that material be removed. maybe some do but they haven’t been as persistent as co$
June 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“The “right to free speech” has been cited on Wikipedia in response to blocks and bans, as well as editing restrictions imposed by Wikipedia policy or the Arbitration Committee. Some contributors apparently believe that because the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated in the United States, and because the Wikipedia servers are located in the US, that contributors retain the right to freedom of speech on Wikipedia, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is mistaken, as that Amendment only protects speech from government censorship. It does not require that a private, charitable organization like the Wikimedia Foundation give a soapbox to all comers. Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge – not providing a platform for human freedom of expression. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Nor it is the soapbox of anyone else.”
“In short, editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so. Your only legal rights on Wikipedia are your right to fork and your right to leave.“
June 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
This article is a new low for p2pnet. I expect better from you.CoS Morons spa their agenda on wikipedia, they get banned. Same goes to anyone who does self-serving edits. They ignored warnings, They got banned.
Cry me a river.
June 1st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“Unconfirmed” is a whole new meaning of “fictitious”. The point is, maybe a bunch of scientists or some sampling of general populace will see someone else’s deity as unconfirmed, but those who believe in his/her/its existence do not.
In the case of Xenu, he is less legitimate since most CoS don’t believe he existed, or if they do, they don’t deify him.
A believer in religion may try to justify that belief with logic. Sometimes it works. Usually it doesn’t, and we get all sorts of logic errors and incorrect assumptions.
However, with Xenu there can BE no logic. There is no way anyone can know about an alien warlord who allegedly lived billions or trillions of years ago– BY NAME! Not without some form of communication. And there wasn’t any.
What CoS members are believing is that there is a system to improve health of mind and body. They don’t care about the Xenu stuff, which is just put there to provide a story for those who want one.
June 1st, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Newton agrees with Wikipedia Administrator. He censors comments al the time and pretends he doesn’t.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:18 pm
^^ Speaking of soapboxes, under Trolls and comment spammers, a while back I posted, “p2pnet isn’t an online version of Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park in England …”
Cheers!
June 1st, 2009 at 6:25 pm
@Eric:
(Since you’re commenting on my words, I’m answering.)
” ‘Unconfirmed’ is a whole new meaning of ‘fictitious’. ”
I wasn’t exactly using the 2 words as synonyms – just together.
______________
“They don’t care about the Xenu stuff, which is just put there to provide a story for those who want one.”
I think ALL religions/cults exist for that very reason – there are those that seem to need some kind of “pointed explanation” for life, as they lack self-direction and/or self-justification at the time.
______________
“However, with Xenu there can BE no logic.”
I challenge anyone to show the logic in not only Xenu, but in the belief of ANY other deity/idol/god.
Think about it.
What’s different about believing in Jesus, Buddha, Isis, Allah, or any of the countless others, that’s makes more sense than believing in Xenu? (Does a long-dead writer that called himself a “prophet” have more credibility than a recent, science fiction writer-wannabe?)
June 1st, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Other religions don’t charge up to $300.000 until they tell you about Jesus, Buddha, Isis, Allah etc. Scientology does for their Xenu scriptures.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:24 pm
“Does a long-dead writer that called himself a “prophet” have more credibility…” than an alien being who sent people to earth on a space craft to die while hugging a volcano?
umm… yeah. Its more credible. Thanks.
Unless of course you can produce some sort of alien space craft with xenu written on it.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:05 am
@RW:
” ‘Does a long-dead writer that called himself a *prophet* have more credibility…’ than an alien being who sent people to earth on a space craft to die while hugging a volcano?”
I certainly wasn’t trying to validate Scientology in any way.
If that’s how you read it, then I think you need to re-read what I said… all over this page!
I was pointing out that believing in ANY of the gods and idols depicted in ALL these religions and cults is EQUALLY AS FOOLISH as believing in Xenu, and therefore, it doesn’t matter how ridiculous any one of them sound when compared to another. (Is the idea of “a trisexual alien who masterbates to Klingon music while it tosses itself into a volcano” any more ludicrous than, say, the concept of “an all-powerful, omnipotent humanoid being, capable of doing pretty much anything it desires, simply by waving a hand or just willing something to happen, from some point in the sky above us, that we just can never see for some reason”?)
Simply put, what difference should a “higher level of believability” have for any of them, if they’re ALL storybook characters??
I was comparing the “prophets” who wrote about deities in various “bibles” to the sci-fi writer that wrote Dianetics. to . Not to any they invented.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 am
“Think about it.
What’s different about believing in Jesus, Buddha, Isis, Allah, or any of the countless others, that’s makes more sense than believing in Xenu? (Does a long-dead writer that called himself a “prophet” have more credibility than a recent, science fiction writer-wannabe?)”
Well… Buddha was real that lived long time ago (if i’m good remembering it was about 5 century BC)… buddhism is in fact nothing more than philosophy of life, but people started treating buddha as god…
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:58 am
I use wikipedia for a lot of information, so do my children for their studies, and whereas we are aware that that information is not all totally factual, I do trust in those who edit articles to be doing their best to get true information out there.
I have no issue with scientologists or any other religion writing articles presenting THEIR version of the facts on THEIR articles, I neither have to read them, nor believe them , I do however have an issue with anyone who edits other peoples articles to force them to reflect their own opinions ! therefore I am fully behind wikiadmin in their decision, if $cientologists cannot be trusted to use wikipedia properly, thankyou for banning them.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Henry Emrich, you’re not making a good debatable arguement. Your posting was LACED WITH FALLACY. Hopefully the next time you cry about O Religion you actually make relevant points. (TL;DR version at bottom)
1. Bringing up anything pre-Industrial Revolution is a joke. The world was entirely different back then and so was the way people viewed. Practically anyone growing up today is so vastly different from people of those times that they would seem alien compared to today. Therefore crusades, inquisition etc etc anything done by any religion or country back that far is a moot point now. How can anyone today OR any organization today take any criticism for it? No rational person, company, country or religion would look back at such things and deduce that the “right” decision was made. Strike 1 Henry.
2. “Yes, we all know it’s trendy to hate Seicntology [sic], because the CoS does evil things. The strange part is, nobody on the anti-scientology bandwagon bothers to apply this to ‘real’ religions, or the denominations thereof.”
First, horrible point/argument, “people don’t apply this to “Real” relgions” (paraphrased). Actually they do and have come to a number of conclusions. REAL relgions don’t charge 1000’s and 1000’s of dollars to tell you about their “GENESIS” stories. To learn about Xenu and OTIII (Operating Thetan level III) you must first take dozens and dozens of courses typicall costing around 100,000 dollars AT LEAST. Those who can’t outright afford these classes are made to WORK for Co$ well over 50, 60, 70 hours a week for far below minimum wage. There is a lawsuit right now in California for this issue. What other “FAITH” requires this? EXAMPLE… OH you want to know about Christianity.. well it’s 1000 dollars to tell you who Jesus is, another 20,000 dollars to read the scriptures of Paul, Luke, etc… ESSENTIALLY costing you 100,000 dollars to learn about the virgin birth… What religion works like this? OR requires people to slave their life away working for below minimum wage? NONE and that is JUST ONE of the reasons Co$ is manipulative and dangerous. What about their “FAIR GAME” policy which is still very much practiced, or dead agenting another despicable practice. How about the fact that Co$ infiltrated the American Government 30 yrs back. In a operation dubbed “SNOW WHITE” by the church members of Co$ infiltrated the IRS, FBI, CIA and “purged” unfavorable reports and records about L Ron Hubbard and $cientology. 11 Members were convicted of felonies and sent to prison and L Ron Hubbard fled from US authorities afterwards until he died. To this day its the largest US Gov infiltration carried out by a private organization in history. DONT STOP THEIR.. google “PROJECT NORMANDY” to see how Co$ systematically took over the town of Clear Water Florida detailed in documents the FBI found. This sounds so much like the Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and Jews etc… WAIT IT DOESNT AT ALL.. Strike 2
3. Henry’s stupid points/arguments…. “Scientology is a ‘cult’ and should be run to the ground like the dogs they are, but Roman Catholicism/Southern baptists get a free pass, even though Christian individuals and groups are EXPLICITLY COMMANDED by the tenets of their own religion to ’spread the good news’ to everybody — whether they want to hear about it, or not.”
SYNOPSIS OF HENRY’S STUPID FAILED POINT …. “so $cientology is a cult BUT Christians are still trying to convert you to Christianity and doing it semi-civally at least BUT IT ANNOYS ME” .. Good point?
“This isn’t going to actually stop Scientology-related ‘propaganda’, because at lest some run-of-the-mill scientologists engage in proselytizing about it. It’s not that difficult to find Scientology/Dianetics related info at just about any bookshop or used-book sale or whatever, either, so this isn’t going to stop any scientologist from actively promoting their beliefs”
So are you making a point or trying to discourage people from speaking out about it? Sounds like a typical online $cientologist and if you’ve followed the news on them you’re probably thinking the same thing… but lets disect that…. 1st it IS hard to find Co$ related material at places. Most libraries feel it’s a cult and won’t carry it’s works. Most bookstores don’t like to carry their works either BUT Co$ doesn’t allow a lot of books to be sold through any other method or source BUT CO$… Try to go to your local bookstore and see how many books are their by L Ron Hubbard, who’s unfortunately in the Guinness Book of World Records for “MOST AUDIO BOOKS BY A AUTHOR” and is one of the most published authors of all time, due to the fact that HE Published all of his crazy rants and writings. SO all of the literature and you’ll be damn pressed to find it at a local bookstore. Odd wouldn’t you say?? See if sed local book store carries a New and Old Testament, Qur’an, or texts of Confusionists, Daoists, Buddhists, Hindi’s etc.
And these protests have actually lead to a lot of people leaving the cult, lowered numbers of new recruits AND has seriously hurt their financial coffers. Bottom line, it is doing something and most $cientologists, as I suspect this Henry is, will try to convince you otherwise.
Another bad point by Henry; “since when is it the Wikimedia foundations Job to act as Thought-police?”
When Companies and Organization go onto Wikipedia to delete FACTUAL information that may be damaging to sed companies and organizations then it stops being “FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION” and borders on fraudulent. Wikipedia is viewed by a lot of people looking for viable factual information on topics. When Co$ goes into wikipedia to “EDIT” sections of “OPERATION SNOW WHITE” then they have lost their PRIVILEGE to post on that COMPANIES website. No one is stopping a two way discussion. It’s just been proven that Co$ owned IP Addresses have been abusing that right. Therefore the ban. AGAIN though it does look like another typical response of a $cientologist. Strike 3 Henry.
TL;DR verision. Henry’s points are weak at best, he comes off as a $cientologist using the argument that “OTHER RELIGIONS ARE BAD ALSO.” So what? What does that have to do with the criminal activity of Co$? It’s obvious that Henry is either trying to defend $cientology being that he IS a $cientologist OR complaining about all religions using poorly formed arguments.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“Well… Buddha was real that lived long time ago (if i’m good remembering it was about 5 century BC)… buddhism is in fact nothing more than philosophy of life, but people started treating buddha as god…”
Yeah, I may have been a little hasty putting Buddha in a list of “ficticious” characters, as he may very well have been real, and the resulting philosophy “comes from inside”, exuding the kind of “ideal religion” I described in the first place.
I obviously pulled too many names out of the air without thinking!
: )
But, as you say, there are those that view him as more of a god, and some factions DO place him as an idol and worship him the same way other religions worship their own deities. That’s definitely a source of confusion for those who don’t practice it.
The bottom line, people need to stop “worshipping” and start thinking.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:09 am
Offpoint:
1. “Bringing up anything pre-industrial revolution is a joke”:
Sure it is, speedy, that’s why School-boards in Kansas had “science” re-defined so as to explicitly allow the teaching of Biblical-literalist Creationism. Look it up, I have better things to do than educate a snotty little troll such as yourself, who’s obviously just looking for a fight.
2. Everything else you said (which I only skimmed, because the first point was stupid beyond contempt): bullshit.
The Xenu thing is *no dumber* than any other creation-myth. And as to whether Scientology charges money? You never heard of “tithing?” You never heard of the Roman Catholic church selling “indulgences?”
Anybody who thinks that ideas dating from “pre-industrial revolution” aren’t very relevant today should just look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict — religion AND ethnicity, two “pre-industrial” ideas provoking a hell of a lot of bloodshed, and — because the U.S. Government can’t stop using Israel as a sockpuppet, making the U.S. look bad, to boot.
3. If you think I was “crying about religion”, you’re an idiot and didn’t actually read what I wrote.
My point was — and remains — that Scientology gets a hell of a lot more scrutiny because it’s not considered as “real” of a religion as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or whatever. THAT was my point.
DA:
I wasn’t trying to take the Dawkins-style “militant atheist” position, either. Contrary to what a lot of people would like to believe, there ARE more “nuanced” varieties of religious belief/adherence which, for instance, don’t treat their sacred scriptures as “literal” truth, but as metaphors, parables, symbolism, or suchlike, and that makes a world of difference between the various denominations.
Or are you going to seriously tell me there’s no difference between the Biblical Literalism/Dominion theology of the Southern Baptist convention, and the tolerant-beyond-tolerance of “Unitarian Universalists?”
Gotta give you credit, DA, because you — unlike most Scientology critics — have the balls to criticize OTHER beliefs as well.
Oh, by the way, I’m not a Scientologist. I freely admit that the “Church of Scientology” is a shit organization. I also recognize that there are the Scientology version of “heretics” — NOT affiliated with CoS, who are actually trying to do something GOOD with it.
Google “The Free Zone”, and you might be interested in what you find.
As to whether Wikipedia is wrong to ban problem editors, that’s a different question.
Conservapedia forked because they didn’t like what they percieved as “Left-wing bias”. My issue was — and is — with whether banning and such are applied because of particular actions, or based on the *content of the ideas being expressed.* I was, actually, taking Wikipedia’s side to some degree, in that I made it clear that this wouldn’t stop Scientologists from editing the Wikipedia article.
The question is: is Wikipedia actually adhering to it’s OWN “neutral point of view” guidelines?
Good to watch out for any organization that starts doing blanket-bans.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 am
“TL;DR verision. Henry’s points are weak at best, he comes off as a $cientologist using the argument that “OTHER RELIGIONS ARE BAD ALSO.” So what? What does that have to do with the criminal activity of Co$? It’s obvious that Henry is either trying to defend $cientology being that he IS a $cientologist OR complaining about all religions using poorly formed arguments.”
Uhh….just exactly how much lead-based paint did you eat as a child, Hmm?
By your “logic”, the ACLU is a Neo-Nazi front organization. Why? They’ve actually (gasp!) helped Neo-Nazi groups excersise their freedom of speech via demonstrations and marches. They’re also a “lobbying-group” for the Pornography industry, because they routinely step up the plate in order to Bitch-slap “obsenity” regulations back into the Stone age where they belong.
Oh, and your “point” about mainstream religions not gouging their adherents for money? Nobody is forced at gunpoint to take the Operating Thetan thing. It’s a course. Just the same way as nobody was forced to donate to those fundie Christian TV-preacher dudes who are always raking in the big bucks. So pull your head out of your ass, stop trying to browbeat me with how the CoS is supposedly “way more evil” than other religions, and above all, stop being a whiny little bitch.
Idiot
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:13 am
@DA Buddhism was actually the idea of a man named Siddharta Gautama from India. He was a prince but was fed up with his idyllic life and decided to find some meaning to his life. (Not 100% sure how the story goes as I studied the birth of this religion back in 94 but it should be something like that) But yeah they do tend to idolize the guy and not the reiligion. I remeber when I interviewed the woman who was a buddhist she said it was more about meditation than about anything else. Finding inner peace was the ultimate goal.
@Offpoint:
“2. “Yes, we all know it’s trendy to hate Seicntology [sic], because the CoS does evil things. The strange part is, nobody on the anti-scientology bandwagon bothers to apply this to ‘real’ religions, or the denominations thereof.”
First, horrible point/argument, “people don’t apply this to “Real” relgions” (paraphrased). Actually they do and have come to a number of conclusions. REAL relgions don’t charge 1000’s and 1000’s of dollars to tell you about their “GENESIS” stories. To learn about Xenu and OTIII (Operating Thetan level III) you must first take dozens and dozens of courses typicall costing around 100,000 dollars AT LEAST. Those who can’t outright afford these classes are made to WORK for Co$ well over 50, 60, 70 hours a week for far below minimum wage. There is a lawsuit right now in California for this issue. What other “FAITH” requires this? EXAMPLE… OH you want to know about Christianity.. well it’s 1000 dollars to tell you who Jesus is, another 20,000 dollars to read the scriptures of Paul, Luke, etc… ESSENTIALLY costing you 100,000 dollars to learn about the virgin birth… What religion works like this? OR requires people to slave their life away working for below minimum wage? NONE and that is JUST ONE of the reasons Co$ is manipulative and dangerous. What about their “FAIR GAME” policy which is still very much practiced, or dead agenting another despicable practice. How about the fact that Co$ infiltrated the American Government 30 yrs back. In a operation dubbed “SNOW WHITE” by the church members of Co$ infiltrated the IRS, FBI, CIA and “purged” unfavorable reports and records about L Ron Hubbard and $cientology. 11 Members were convicted of felonies and sent to prison and L Ron Hubbard fled from US authorities afterwards until he died. To this day its the largest US Gov infiltration carried out by a private organization in history. DONT STOP THEIR.. google “PROJECT NORMANDY” to see how Co$ systematically took over the town of Clear Water Florida detailed in documents the FBI found. This sounds so much like the Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and Jews etc… WAIT IT DOESNT AT ALL.. Strike 2″
It’s true that christianity and other religions don’t demand thousands of dollars up front but they do have tax exemptions and (at least) here if you belong to a particular religion you pay a 1% tax from you monthly salary to said relegious group. Now that may not seem that much as a single person but when people who belong to said religion have in excess of 1 million “worshippers” the sum is pretty nice. Say the average “worshipper” earns about 3000€ which is about 4200$ and you take 1% of that times 1000000 * 420$ that amounts to alot. And remeber said tax is paid monthly. With no taxation on the recievers part. So yeah they do rake in the cash and have been raking it in for say 40+ years now. Not excatly broke.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Offpoint: 1
Emrich: 0
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
“What does that have to do with the criminal activity of Co$?”
What “criminal activity”, exactly?
Fleecing the gullible? OTHER religions (quite a few of them of the Christian variety) have been doing that for centuries, and continue to do so, today. The fact remains that nobody organizes anti-Catholic boycotts or suchlike, because we’ve all had centuries of people being raised to believe that SOME religions or belief-systems are “real” and other ones somehow aren’t.
Y’know why Scientology and other “cults” get all the bad press?
Because, unlike Christianity, Hinduism, or whatever else, they are “new” enough that their founding is still in living memory, and no national government has ever had one of them as it’s “State church.” (Such as the “Church of England”, for example — which was basically created so the ruler could get a divorce.)
Really, the anti-”cult” movement is every bit as evil as anything Scientology, the Moonies, or any other “cult” ever did.
Look into the whole “de-programming” thing sometimes, and try to tell me there isn’t a double-standard, there: physical brutality, sleep deprivation, people coercively restrained from leaving, etc. — the whole deal.
My point is — and remains — that Scientology is pretty much the ONLY religion or “cult” or whatever you want to call it, where open contempt is not merely tolerated, but actively encouraged, hence DA’s reassurances that he’s “certainly not trying to defend the Church of Scientology in any way”. The only good part about that is that he’s also not “trying to defend” any other churches, either.
So I ask again (fully aware that this will either be deliberately misunderstood, or simply ignored): WHY don’t other religions get the same treatment as CoS? Why hasn’t Anonymous been all over the Vatican’s ass (given that the Vatican — unlike CoS — is considered it’s own nation-state, and exerts FAR more pervasive ideological control over it’s own adherents?)
Because if you had anti-Catholic/anti-Christian parody websites or boycotts, people would be up in arms about how you were being intolerant and demonizing an entire group of people.
THAT was my point with the Nancy Cartwright thing, and that’s my point now: the blatant double-standard.
How nobody “gets” this, is frankly beyond me.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:38 am
Vatican… should be banned. The pope is simply a inteolerant bigot. Telling people what to do with no real life experience. Living inside a religion is not exactly what I would call a “well rounded and worldly man”.
Ban all religions… problem solved. Want to worship something, go with nature. Easy to see and experience and no one is going to come out of the tree and tell you that you are not worthy.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
“So I ask again (fully aware that this will either be deliberately misunderstood, or simply ignored): WHY don’t other religions get the same treatment as CoS? Why hasn’t Anonymous been all over the Vatican’s ass…”
I think there’s a similar thing going on, when you question religion, as we previously discussed goes on, when you question things like “American patriotism” or any other action of “blind devotion”.
If people, en masse, could actually think for themselves, we wouldn’t be having very many of these kinds of discussions.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“THAT was my point with the Nancy Cartwright thing, and that’s my point now: the blatant double-standard… How nobody “gets” this, is frankly beyond me.”
I’m sure more people do “get it”.
It just comes down to what they’re WILLING to “get”, or AFRAID to deal with (which is deliberately avoided).
June 4th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
“The question is: is Wikipedia actually adhering to it’s OWN “neutral point of view” guidelines?
Good to watch out for any organization that starts doing blanket-bans.”
Maybe this question better represents the reason we all came to this page.
(The other stuff certainly lends itself to some really healthy discussions, mind you!)
: )
One question I have to ask along side the above is “Does Wiki have any real obligation to behave as a neutral party to all this in the first place?”
The reason I ask this question before the other is because, according to Wiki’s own AUPs, it does elect to retain its own right to operate as its own site, and apply any “moderation” techniques it deems fit. First and foremost, Wiki does need to be able to exercise some sort of control in order to deal with clearly “abusive” situations.
CoS did summarily and arbitrarily REMOVE all “unfavourable” entries and insert its own BS. Some of these “corrections” may have indeed been nothing more than categorical abuse, as they were trying to wash away parts of their own history that has already been documented by many.
So, the question is, does Wiki have any obligation to summarily and automatically cater to the “freedom of speech” philosophy on its own site? If so, then comes the other question – was the CoS practicing “free speech” when it did what it did. If not, a third question arises – did Wiki do the right thing after all?