Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology 665
El Reg writes "Showing a new-found resolve to crack down on self-serving edits, Wikipedia has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology. According to Wikipedia administrators, this marks the first time such a high-profile organization has been banished for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit.'"
Fine by me (Score:5, Insightful)
That's no problem (Score:1, Insightful)
I heard they are experts at getting members to let them use their home machines as proxies.
-Anonymous Coward
Dead agent (Score:3, Insightful)
Jimbo just put himself on the top of the list for a good old fashioned dead agenting.
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but all this does is cracks down on "official" astroturfing. We all know that xenu's followers will simply do their edits from home, from now on.
This sort of thing cannot be contained if the information is publically editable. I just hope this doesn't mark the beginning of the end for Wikipedia.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
freedom of expression (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
This will be a long-term lockdown (Score:3, Insightful)
I predict a few outcomes:
*CO$ will find a way around it by rapidly changing their IP addresses
*If this gets to be a major headache, Wikipedia will either semi-protect all related articles, which they are generally loathe to do, and/or start treating entire ISPs as if they were open proxies
*Here's where it gets interesting: CO$ will discover they can manipulate Wikipedia into blocking entire ISPs, and will use that information to hurt ISPs they don't like. This will only work on relatively small ISPs that don't depend on location, e.g. non-major dialup ISPs.
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it's all fine and nice to be anti-religion, but I am so sick of people involving Christianity whenever Scientology comes up. There is a difference between religion and cult, despite trying to lump them together for your own jollies, and this is coming from an atheist.
What Science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientology is to science what Al Qaeda is to Islam, total fucktards having hijacked a noble precept.
Re:freedom of expression (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one private entity to another, a simple case of "my house, my rules" - Abuse them and I'll make you leave.
Re:Mass Christian Wikipedia Edits (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:freedom of expression (Score:5, Insightful)
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
They are free to express themselves. Just not over here on this privately run website, that is supposed to host impartial articles on a wide range of subjects, because they refuse to be impartial in their expressions there. They are still perfectly free to express themselves though (this being the internet and all, they can post their drivel just about anywhere).
Random side note:
Since they are all supposed to be reincarnations of super beings (or something), why is it that they haven't cured cancer for us yet?
Re:Fine by me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Insightful)
The part about how they treat the outside is definitely evil, although primarily evil insofar as they have a lot of money and intend on doing harm.
The rest doesn't seem at all like a double standard or inherently malevolent. We're all free to get along and settle our differences outside of court. The courts inherently exist only for the cases when no agreement can be reached, but action is required. Definitely it's a huge drain on society to have people dragging one another in there for every trivial piece of bullshit infighting that may occur. Get along, as much as possible.
I don't especially want to take my sister to court because she didn't pay me that $100 back that I loaned her in high school. Nor is there a double standard if I should take my phone company to court if they refuse to reimburse me for making a mistake on my bill. I might be able to agree with my sister, or decide that it's not worth the family hostility, but the phone company is (at best) nobody to me.
Re:freedom of expression (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think Chomsky was suggesting we allow vandals to "freely expressing" themselves with spray cans, simarly we should not allow CO$ to vandalise WP with astroturf.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it means they have to use other IP addresses. It's stupid of Wikipedia to think this stops anything.
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am so sick of people involving Christianity whenever Scientology comes up. There is a difference between religion and cult
Agreed. And since some people don't see it, modern religions don't try to turn their followers against non-followers. They don't try to seclude followers from their families, either. They don't try to kill people that leave the fold.
Note that some religious fanatics may have the above characteristics, but fanatics do not make up the majority of the people that consider themselves religious.
Re:Fine by me (Score:2, Insightful)
Scientology is currently everyone's favorite whipping boy. Followers of larger and more powerful religions don't want to get into a debate about whose beliefs are nuttier, because they're all about equally nutty when you get right down to it. So instead they label it a "cult" and try to make it go away. Sometimes that doesn't work out so well [wikipedia.org], but it's never stopped the powers-that-be from trying.
Re:Why!? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a popular view, but not a useful one.
I'd suggest that the difference is related to the direction of resources. If a significant portion of the group's resources are directed towards the wealth and well-being of its founders, as opposed to an external problem or cause, then you an unhealthy expression of religion, and quite possibly a cult.
Re:It's not their fault! (Score:4, Insightful)
i before e, except after c.
WTF are you talking about? There's nothing wrong on his post.
Re:nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, when the conservatives felt that Wikipedia had too much of a liberal bias, they went and founded Conservapedia, so maybe COS could start scientolopedia.com or something?
Seems unlikely, given how secretive the COS is. The less information there is publicly, the better, seems to be the way they look at it.
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't entirely buy that. Most mainstream religions don't require a person to see themselves as worthy ONLY through the religion and most DON'T require as much offerings or tithing they can pressure you out of. There is a huge difference between the corner Baptist church where they don't get bent out of shape if you go to church with your Methodist friend some Sunday and a group like the Moonies. That Baptist church most likely isn't after you to sign over all your money and capital then sell yourself into virtual slavery to cross the Bridge as Scientology will.
Religions differ in the demands they make on parishioners and in the control exerted on them. Religions that make inordinate demands on your social, psychological, time, credulity, and financial resources deserve a pejorative and "cult" is as good as any.
There is plenty not to like about more mainstream religions like the Baptists and Southern Baptists especially but being a cult isn't one of them.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then it will be possible to identify the IP addresses of devout Scientologists based on the edit patterns. Not something they would want to do if they were internet-smart.
IP addresses don't identify users (Score:4, Insightful)
IP addresses don't identify people. They tell routers where to forward packets.
Can we please move beyond this 1980s idea that IP addresses identify people?
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Insightful)
That definition still includes a good proportion of American Christians, since one of the larger (and certainly fastest-growing) sects of Christianity in the US is Pentecostalism, run by pop-star-like, very wealthy and often TV-show-having leaders of megachurches.
Re:Why!? (Score:3, Insightful)
'modern religions'?? So mormons and Jehova's witnesses (who do advocate segregation of life from non-believers) aren't modern?
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").
Ok.. How about "A bunch of cults who financially defraud and abuse their members"
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:3, Insightful)
I've tried them. Don't waste your money.
Re:Fine by me (Score:3, Insightful)
Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults. A destructive cult, according to Hassan, has a "pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control." and "uses deception in recruiting new members." In contrast, benign cults are, according to Hassan, "any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream."
So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then? And "destructive" cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church?
\/!@GR@ 4 FREE (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll stab.
Using HUMANS to filter rather than code.
Re:nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it stinks. The more the fundamentalists proclaim themselves "conservative", the more "conservatism" becomes synonymous with "plain wrong and stupid". Sucks for level-headed conservatives!
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:2, Insightful)
They're all made up.
And reading between the lines, I'd say the question has come up once or twice between dgcaste and his brother-in-law :)
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Insightful)
(oh ok "religions" what's the difference?)
Both are fine with believinng idiocies like evil galactic overlords, Harems full of virgins, or deities that grant eternal life by dying on a wooden stake along with some criminals.
Both have memberships and generally some way to extract money from their populations.
But a religion becomes a cult when one or more of the following occur:
1) a clear bias towards profit. ( google for 'scientology make money'' to see this in action)
2) Membership policies that serve to isolate its mebership from external influence. (Oogle 'scientology disconnection policy' for more details)
3) Extreme polcies of secrecy and nondisclosure. (such as the Xenu story which Scientology still denies even though the cat it SOOOO out of the bag - they charge you some 300,000 dollars to find out the 'truth')
4) General skirting social norms and laws, such as child labor, marriage/sexuality, contracts, finance, education, etc. Note that Scientology has many, many horror stories from children that have been raised in or introduced at an early age. Additionally, it's composed of a complex labrynth of corporations and licensing that clearly is designed to withstand significant legal assault.
Yes, the mormons have many of these attributes, but Scientology takes these to a whole new extreme.
Re:IP addresses don't identify users (Score:3, Insightful)
They sure don't identify users, but they sure identify locations!
Re:nice (Score:5, Insightful)
I NEARLY DIED!!!!!!!!!!
When I read the first two blurbs I came across on the front page of conservapedia.
Article of the Year: Evolution
In 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year."[10]
* "Gallup's analysis says religiosity outweighs educational level in shaping views on evolution." (USN)
Discover what Wikipedia, the public school systems, and the liberal media don't want you to know about the creation vs. evolution issue.
And better yet...
Conservapedia's Highlighted Article ...A study reported that the liberal media is biased towards pro-atheism coverage.[11] Do you want to know what the liberal media is not reporting about evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins? Please examine Conservapedia's Richard Dawkins article!
Watch this video of evolutionist Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist!...
Makes me feel like the world is a battlefront.
On one side is the people with the mental capacity to alter their views and accept scientific progress.
Well... the other side is banished to manipulating statistics to their advantage. Statistics that they don't even fundamentally understand because that is way too "sciencey" for them. Seems like a horrible fate.
Re:the difference between religion and cult (Score:1, Insightful)
A cult is a small, unpopular religion.
A religion is a large, popular cult.
I'm not super-religious; nevertheless I have to take exception to this. There is a world of difference between a legitimate religion and a cult. Legitimate religions don't abuse or exploit their members, and let members leave the religion if they choose to do so. They don't have a small group of messianic leaders who lead lavish lifestyles, stockpile weapons or engage in practices that are contrary to what they teach their followers. They don't use the courts to attack critics. There are other differences, but perhaps the most important of all is that when you join a legitimate religion, you know what you are joining. Nothing is hidden from you until after you're psychologically raped into joining the group and it's too late to back out.
Yes, I'm sure you can look at the above paragraph and force-match some of these characteristics to certain popular religious groups. You may even think that some cults offer certain benefits to their members. All of this misses the point. There is good and bad in all things that humanity constructs. The point is that in cults, the bad far outweighs the good, and in legitimate religions, the opposite is true.
Re:The Irony (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I'm getting tired of these fucking "whoosh" comments. News flash: you are not as funny as you thing you are, and if you think making a stupid reference to some hackneyed geek cliche gives your otherwise nonsensical comment credibility, you're wrong.
Oh, and those "fixed that for you" comments are getting pretty fucking boring, too.
There's an error in the summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone else see something wrong with that statement? I mean, c'mon, "High profile"... What the fuck guys? This is a fucking cult here.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tor
Re:nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientology does not want information to be free though. They want it shrink-wrapped with large price tags to access that information.
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Insightful)
People focus on Scientology because it screws people up to an extent no major religion does. Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive, like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamy, but they tend to be small fish compared to Scientology. This is why anti-Scientology unites people of multiple religions and atheists. Once people decided to focus on Scientology, the question was how to attack. It's hard to go wrong with mocking someone, and Scientology's beliefs are so wonderfully easy to mock. So that's what they mock. It's the tactic, not the reason.
Re:Of course you are unaware (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientology is currently everyone's favorite whipping boy. Followers of larger and more powerful religions don't want to get into a debate about whose beliefs are nuttier, because they're all about equally nutty when you get right down to it.
Let me just point out that this is not a question of which religion is stupider; to me as a convinced atheist they are all equally meaningless, but there are some that are far more harmful than others. Scientology is way out there, not because of what they believe in, according to their books, but because they behave to all intents and purposes as a dangerous and unscrupulous criminal organisation. The first thing they do to new members is make them deeply indebted to the organization by pushing them through meaningless "courses" that get exponentially more expensive. And they suppress any criticism with extremely vicious attacks on those who are critical - as well as their familes.
Calling Scientlogy merely a cult is way too generous. They are a criminal organisation.
Re:The Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it means they have to use other IP addresses. It's stupid of Wikipedia to think this stops anything.
Real-world interaction systems don't need to be perfect, they just need to discourage or encourage certain behaviors.
This makes for one more step that members of the Church of Scientology have to make before they can edit. I'd guess that would cut down the edits that would need to be rolled back by half, which would be a sizeable improvement for any organization.
Further, this sends the clear and documented message that any editor which finds CoS propaganda should just go ahead and revert the change. And it is arguable, but if Scientology is banned from editing Wikipedia, Wikimedia might have a stronger court case that Scientology is tresspassing on their servers. This could be important if Wikimedia is ever sued by Scientologists.
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? First of all, no one asked you. Second, you should limit idiocy to a maximum two of the following in any post if you want to be considered a quality troll:
1. Broad generalizations
2. Incoherent statements
3. Mind-bogglingly awful abuse of the English language
Congratulations, you have all three in spades. (How did you manage to get almost every word wrong?)
Now kindly piss off.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be willing to bet that wiki already blocks any proxy IPs it's aware of thanks to /b/
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I for one thank wikipedia to use their stance and point out that this shit is not tolerable. Next up, christianity, islam, judaism. Way to go wiki.
Re:Why!? (Score:2, Insightful)
That was partly intentional.
Religious leaders shouldn't be highly paid. Christianity even has an (early) history of leadership that wasn't paid at all. The leadership would be expected to work full time and do religion/communism in their spare time.
I do not claim to fully understand the phenomenon, but whether they're ultimately helpful or harmful, megachurches are scary.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
*Spam* is not a Point of View. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you show repeatedly (for years now, I imagine) that you have no interest whatever in making positive contributions, but you still keep coming back to troll or vandalize other people's work, banning seems like a very good punishment. Let the childish fucks that are apparently unable to discourse civilly because of their religion stew in their own little world.
Having to time and time again revert edits tires out even the biggest community (especially considering the amount of people who are watching articles like that are probably not all that common), as it is no more than a waste of time. Also, given the Hive mentality of Co$, I doubt if it matters much if you screen out the dumb fucks who are kept in compouds; the ones that are allowed to roam free (Tom cruise) are the dangerous ones.
Re:Hypocritical (Score:3, Insightful)
Not defending Scientology, but does Wikipedia not champion free speech?
Exactly - so why should they allow an orchestrated attack on free speech by COS? Free speech isn't about who yells the loudest.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pro scientology viewpoints are not banned. A group of editors is banned. They aren't banning a viewpoint but a subgroup of people.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every user has them, their user page. Editorials are permitted there. But every page in the encyclopedia has to have a neutral point of view. There are other wikis which allow biased pages. This is not MySpace
Re:So what? (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not about religions or "what religions have done for us", you still think of them as valid "opinions", so you're off on the wrong foot. Religions are a slippery slope of insane behaviour. If you're susceptable to fictional truth and are exposed to such elements as religion, games, TV, you don't need a concept, you don't need an overall covering theory, you just need to want it, but that doesn't make it right nor acceptable.
One must also differ between the very thought of religion and the practice of it. Every day we are exposed to situtations we don't enjoy simple because we decided that believing in a fictional truth should be embraced and compromised for, but a hint of extra fiction classifies you as insane and no longer acceptable and subject to rehabilitation. What makes you so certain where the line is drawn today is where the line should be? My argument is this: let's say hypothetically that I come to actually prove that religion is a mental illness. How would the world go about in receiving this message? Again I think we both know the answer to that. So you see due to the magnitude of religion and the level of acceptance that we've allowed it to have we've made a mental illness (if so) impossible to classify as such, thus whatever we're doing is already wrong and of course ironically already paradoxal to free speach. You speak of free speach but I don't think you understand the concept. Free speach exists because everything changes and we must be able to change it through free speach, we must be ready to change anything at any time. So you see religion and free speach are simply oxymoronic. Not to mention the restraints that many religions put upon our so called free speach, you didn't think about that, did you?
But let's get back to the subject at hand though Tiger. This wasn't about free speach this was about wikipedia which is not a democracy. The head of an organization is responsible for being the very face of it. The church of Scientology has repeatedly sabotaged the very goal of wikipedia, aiming to be as factual as can be. There's no discussion, any person would have reacted, with all justification necessary, in the same way.
What goes for your first question. Do you think that the only resource for human knowledge is found through banners on the Scientology page? Really? You ask "if there is no banner... explaining this, then how are people to know?". I'm assuming that the only possible scenario you could think of for people to be able to receive the message saying that the Church of Scientology has deliberatedly lied is through a banner on the page of Scientology. I don't think such people exist, but then again I could be wrong. I still think it's quite difficult to ignore all sources of the world except banners on the Scientology page.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
But every page in the encyclopedia has to have a neutral point of view. There are other wikis which allow biased pages.
Wikipedia has a constant battle to be "neutral" on many topics. Unfortunately, the definition of neutral is subjective in all forms of media.
Re:Church? (Score:4, Insightful)
And what about "Church"?
I avoid involving the word Church when referring to Scientology since that will defame other churches unrelated to Scientology.
Don't bother, other churches can use more defamation.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bzzzt... fail.
Free speach exists because everything changes and we must be able to change it through free speach, we must be ready to change anything at any time.
Sorry, but you can't throw this out there as a given and just build your anti-religion argument from it. Free speech exists so you might describe how everything changes and so you can advocate for change -- but no one "must" be changed because of your speech (nor "must" you be changed by theirs) and no one "must" be ready to change "anything at any time". Sometimes things aren't broken and shouldn't be changed -- and a resistance to someone's speech saying "You must change now!" is right and proper.
And on that note -- humans looking at the universe and asking "Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more?" (yes, I watched ST:TMP again recently) and finding an answer that works for *them* (true or not, of course -- religions are almost certainly unprovable by their very nature and hence a reliance on faith results) has been occurring almost as long as there have been humans or something close. No matter how much you love your answer of "No, there isn't -- no get over it." and define any other answer as insane, you aren't likely to stop this yearning or decide the question. Perhaps a nice religion like Zen Buddhism would relax you? (grin)
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:3, Insightful)
When I ask him, "how can you trust an institution that is so legally violent? if it wanted to be judged by its merits, it shouldn't be litigating the hell out of everyone that stands in its way!", he responds "our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us". It is quite frustrating to have these conversations with him.
I have a personal rule where I end conversations with anyone who talks about any undefined capitalized "They" or "The Man". It has never failed me so far and saved me countless hours in wasted breath.
I think Scientology are crazy nutjobs. (Score:3, Insightful)
But I still think either anyone must have the right to edit, or that whole Wikipedia experiment has failed.
First we got site lockdowns for non-logged-ins. Then for logged ins. Then blocking of IPs. Then admins enforcing their agenda. Then they planning their agenda together on a mailing list.
That's just wrong on so many levels.
I've thought a bit, about how you can merge the freedom to edit with the ability to filter out nutjobs. And in the process, I found that view are just relative. You can usually not prove that someone is 100% right or wrong, because 1. no single person can track the reasoning down to quantum physics, and 2. there still is the missing base of the world formula. So we pretty much always rely on some sensible paradigms and long chains of reasoning. The nutjobs usually are those, that either A) fail in their logic, or B) do not follow the groupthink of what everyone assumes to be correct, but never gets tested.
Now the problem is, that on Wikipedia, not only (A) gets blocked (which nobody can or wants to check down to the physical base anyway), but (B) too (aka "spin"/"agenda").
Don't think that an "agenda" or "spin" is entirely bad. Because unfortunately, pure objectivity is a physically impossible fantasy. People just have to make their logic work for them, with the input they got. And some just got some really weird or different combinations of input.
So there would be two ways to solve this:
1. Rigorously enforce logic reasoning, most likely with a special language, with defined semantics. You would then find the reasoning behind everything, down to the most basic paradigms. This would be very great... if it were realistic. ^^
Because unfortunately, you would notice, that for some things, you would still, even with rigorous logic, end up with more than one basic paradigm. Because we simply don't know this yet.
2. Because of the problems with (1), we have to make it possible to create more than one view of a subject. I know this sounds like the argument for creationism (which I strongly oppose). That's why there has to be a second element. Maybe you know how cascading stylesheets (CSS) work. For every element, the interpreter goes trough all the rules, and applies them, by overlaying each rule with the next one, so that it changes in the points of the second rule.
Imagine this, but with the rules being people, and the interpreter being you (with software assistance), and the element being the article.
So people could put together a "view" on Wikipedia. From collecting specific versions of the articles into a group, and giving it a name. Then others can define their view from using the first view as a basis, and adding some modifications. And so on.
The enduser can then choose from the views. He could for example, choose the view of some association of scientists or university, add some "Jon Steward" on top of it for the political things, and season it with some changes that a trusted friend or editor chose. He could also publish that as another "view".
This would make it possible, to create a completely "clean" (in your eyes) Wikipedia (trough choosing the right "view"), and still allow everything and anything to be said. Even some weirdo's 4chan Wiki view. ^^
Of course it would be nicer to be able to enforce logic. But until we found a realistic way, and have a world formula, I think this is our best shot.
I rather sacrifice that, than to sacrifice freedom.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely it does. But all authors (editors) are required to support the idea of building a NPOV encyclopedia. Neutrality isn't supposed to be something that happens accidentally but something that editors are deliberately striving to achieve.
And wikipedia has a very robust definition of neutral. Sure there are areas of judgement but what the Scientology editors were doing was well outside those areas.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, which means it must be based on a consensus determined by multiple parties. The cult of Scientology does everything it possibly can to destroy that consensus and inflict its fucked-up brainwashing on everyone else, which is why it's necessary to go to such extreme lengths to stop it!
No need to single anyone out (Score:3, Insightful)
No ban need mention a party by name, rather simply enumerate policy violations that merit said ban. Done.
Re:Fine by me (Score:2, Insightful)
Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive, like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamy
What?
There exist non-religious people who are poly. And plenty of people claim that monogamous marriage is a "religious" thing, and use that as an argument to control who should be able to get married. I find it curious that when it comes to poly, connections to religion is seen as a bad thing, but with monogamy, connection to religion is seen as a good thing. Which is it?
Re:Church? (Score:2, Insightful)
Please do not insult the believers, those in this world who believe it is right to help and provide hope to our fellow human beings who suffer around us and those who wish to better the world in which we all live, by comparing us to the greedy, abusive, and controlling pseudo-religion that calls itself the "church" of Scientology.
A church is a group of people who welcome you in, and welcome the world to inspect their beliefs, and in fact encourages them to do so. A cult is a group of people with something to hide who refuse to allow just anyone in, and try to keep their power to themselves.
Your comment betrays a bigotry towards all organized religion, and I cannot see what benefit it added to this conversation.
Re:freedom of expression (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad analogy. ISPs are in a position of power over its users. Generally there are only a handful of plausible choices for broadband internet in a given location. Wikipedia is just one information-gathering web site out of thousands. If you don't like Wikipedia's conditions, you can put your stuff somewhere else, including many completely free wiki sites. Whereas you can't set up your own independent broadband connection without a huge investment of money and effort.
Re:freedom of expression (Score:3, Insightful)
Your example of there being other wiki sites is just as poor as their being alternatives to your ISP - I can guarantee that you will *always* get dialup wherever you are, but is that adequet? No. But then again, typically neither are alterantive wiki sites.
Churches don't exist for charity (Score:5, Insightful)
I abhor the "church" of Scientology, but gladly attend my local congregation. We actually help people. I abhor the "church" of Scientology, but gladly attend my local congregation. We actually help people.
Attending church is not required to help people. You are making a false distinction by bringing in irrelevant facts. Scientologists probably contribute to charitable works as well but it still is irrelevant.
Yes, we have an agenda behind it, to tell others of our beliefs, but one is not required to join our faith in order to receive the benefits of our generosity and our desire to help those in need.
So basically your price to receive aid is to harangue some poor fellow who is down on his luck that he should believe in your mythology. Nice.
Our beliefs are out in the open, for all to peruse and attempt to debunk.
I don't believe for a moment that you are the slightest bit interested in a skeptical analysis of your religion or that you or your congregation would react with anything except hostility to such an analysis.
Please do not insult the believers, those in this world who believe it is right to help and provide hope to our fellow human beings who suffer around us and those who wish to better the world in which we all live, by comparing us to the greedy, abusive, and controlling pseudo-religion that calls itself the "church" of Scientology.
There's two problems there. The first is that you are trying to make your beliefs credible by confusing them with charitable works that have nothing to do with your religion. You don't need a church to do charity and frankly I have little respect for anyone who does charity under false pretenses or with ulterior motives. You are trying to recruit people who are down on their luck to your church. I find that distasteful if not outright despicable.
The other problem is that you presume that I as an outsider think your christian/muslim/jewish/whatever beliefs are any less bizzare than those of scientologists. Nor do I think the behavior of your church is necessarily any more honorable. Your religious beliefs are, and should be, just as susceptible to criticism as any others even if you don't like what is said. It is fair to point out that there are more similarities than differences between scientology and christianity. It is fair to point out that neither scientologists nor christians welcome actual logical analysis of their beliefs, texts or doctrines. The stories are different but they both are made up mythologies based not in fact but in irrational belief.
A church is a group of people who welcome you in, and welcome the world to inspect their beliefs, and in fact encourages them to do so.
I have NEVER seen a church that welcomed people to skeptically "inspect inspect their beliefs". Interesting choice of words you used. Frankly if I were to "inspect" your beliefs I suspect you and your congregation would react with hostility when I point out the logical inconsistencies, fallacies, and self-contradictions. Some even react with violence when you point out that their emperor has no clothes. No, I don't accept your premise that churches welcome people in or welcome people to critically inspect their beliefs.
A cult is a group of people with something to hide who refuse to allow just anyone in, and try to keep their power to themselves.
Are you seriously arguing that religions do not constantly war with each other like tribes precisely for power? That the church does not recruit members precisely to grow its power and influence? A cult is nothing more than a religion that hasn't become "successful" yet. A cult is a threat to a religion because it might just take followers away from the religion. All religions were once cults and to my mind they still are cults. It is a distinction without a difference.
Re:Fine by me (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the mormons have many of these attributes, but Scientology takes these to a whole new extreme.
I certainly agree with your complaints against Scientology, but I definitely have a beef with the first half of your sentence, there. I'm a recent (a few years back) convert, so I have seen the Mormons from both the outside and the inside. Let me break this down point by point, as I see some of these misconceptions come up quite a bit:
1) a clear bias towards profit.
The LDS ("Mormon") Church does urge its members to pay a tithe of their income, however the money does not go to higher-ups within the church leadership. In fact, we have one of the few layperson priesthoods and layperson leaderships among all religions in the world. What that means is that the leaders of congregations, the missionaries, the teachers, and up the ladder are volunteer (i.e. unpaid) positions--absolutely no monetary profit involved. The tithing instead goes to maintaining church buildings, production/distribution of materials, education, and (the greatest portion) charity work. (The LDS Church, despite being numerically smaller than many other religions, donated some of the largest portions of food, supplies, funds, and labor to various recent disaster sites over the last decade.)
2) Membership policies that serve to isolate its mebership from external influence.
I can't say I see where this one is coming from, either. Though the church does host plenty of social events for various age groups, attendance is certainly not mandatory. I've never felt pressure to change my group of associates or close contacts... if anything, I've become closer to my family (who are not members), upon learning more of the importance that the church places on families. If you are referring to the odd culture of Utah-Mormons, that's a totally different story of odd cultural quirks arising from a largely homogenous group of people in a small area; however the majority of Mormons in the U.S. do not live in Utah, and the majority of Mormons in the world do not even live in the U.S.
3) Extreme polices of secrecy and nondisclosure.
Now this one I hear a lot, and I assume it relates to our Temple ceremonies, as we certainly try extremely hard to distribute all of our scripture and doctrine as far and as wide (and as free) as we can. Also, all of our semi-annual conferences when the Prophet and other leaders speak (the largest and most important church gatherings) are broadcast over satellite and the internet, and are printed and available through various sources. We don't discuss the temple ceremonies because they are highly symbolic and of a sacred and individual nature to us (we believe that personal revelation is critically involved)--but there is something critical about this that I want to point out... notice what I said, that we distribute "all of our scripture and doctrine". There is no new law or doctrine or secret that comes out in the temple ceremonies that hasn't been taught in so many ways so many times throughout scripture. There's nothing comparable to Scientology's holding back of the darkest secrets until you are too deep and too invested to turn around, as in their OT III texts.
4) General skirting social norms and laws, such as child labor, marriage/sexuality, contracts, finance, education, etc.
I'm not so certain where you are going with this one... Our views on marriage/sexuality may be more traditional than most modern society (If you are referring to polygamy, it has been illegal in the church for over a hundred years. If you are interested in more information about how the polygamy is involved with the church's history, here is a 65 page historical paper on the subject [fairlds.org] by a Mormon M.D., with hundreds of cited historical references... or a
Re:Churches don't exist for charity (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually his response was more than reasonable and was in fact based on the reality of how any religion historically reacts to critical analysis of their faith. In fact, he probably understand the motivations of your faith better than you actually do. I like to refer to this as "the blindness of faith".
Your answer is actually a laughable illustration of exactly what he was talking about. He made a critical comment about your church which actually can be shown to be accurate. Your response: Throw insults at him that he "doesn't understand your faith", is "bigoted" and "biased" based on absolutely no proof whatsoever. Just about every religion says that charitable work is an essential part of their faith. He pointed out the truth: that charity comes at a cost: "We helped you, now don't you think you should help (or join) us?".
True charity comes with no strings attached. No expectation of reciprocation, no subtle pressure to join the faith of those who provided the assistance. That was his point. Nt that the charity provided by your church is invalid, but that the same charity could be provided by anyone whether they are a member of a church or not.
Tell me: What is the difference between a Scientologist on the street giving someone a free E-meter test (their charitable work) and then inviting that person to join their church so that they can free themselves from their worries and you giving some food or clothing to someone and then inviting them to join your church so that they can free themselves of their worries? In the end, there is none.
Re:Churches don't exist for charity (Score:4, Insightful)
Your response is so far from reasonable...
It's interesting how a logical but critical response to someone with a belief that is by definition irrational gets immediately labeled unreasonable. Basically it tells me that despite your claims to the contrary you don't really welcome analysis of your faith. Pretty much what I expected.
You presume too much about what you think you know about me, my congregation, my faith, my willingness to receive thought out criticisms of the foundation of my faith,
Perhaps but I can only critique what you wrote. What you wrote is that you have an ulterior motive to proselytize. You apparently do this in conjunction with charitable acts which is something I cannot condone. Furthermore you made some statements about what a church is and what it is for that are at best half-truths. You sought to assert distinctions between christianity and various cults without clearly explaining what those differences might be or even acknowledging that christianity was once regarded as a cult itself.
Get out, get to know some of those who profess a faith in Christianity, and see that we are not "harangu[ing] some poor fellow who is down on his luck" but rather we are providing some meaning and hope to those who often have nothing in which to believe.
I live in the US so it's pretty hard not to "know some of those who profess a faith in Christianity" since that is about 76% [wikipedia.org] of the population. I'm quite sure I have a reasonable grasp of the history, foundation and readings of your faith. I've read both the new and old testaments, I have family members who are deeply religious, and I've actually studied the history and philosophy of christianity far more than most actual christians. Genuine curiosity about what all the hub-bub was about on my part. Good enough for you?
You may tell yourself you are providing meaning. I suspect you even believe it. I don't even have a problem with people believing so long as they realize that they are mostly myths and fables. But the simple fact is that you can help people find meaning without religion. You can feed the poor without religion. You can provide hope without religion. Your argument is a straw man which for some reason you are using to try to draw a distinction between your beliefs and those of a scientologist. There are differences and I'm pretty aware of them but you certainly didn't illustrate for anyone what they are.
Furthermore you say that others have "sullied the name of those who truly practice what Jesus taught". That belies an astounding arrogance that you have a clearer understanding of Jesus's teachings than others. Christianity has hundreds of different sects and their respective members cannot agree on all kinds of issues. Who to believe? You? Not likely. I've read the new testament and it is a mess - full of contradictions, errors and fanciful stories. Christians pick and choose the bits of their bible they think are important to follow and ignore the rest. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that you are a better follower of Jesus's teachings than any number of other christians.
nothing I say to you is going to change your bigoted and biased view of me, my congregation, and my faith.
Interesting. You say I presume too much and then you do the same in return. You are more than welcome to try to convince me of whatever you like. Just bear in mind that I might very well decide you are talking nonsense if your argument is weak. So far the premises of your arguments have been nonsensical. If you want to distance yourself from scientology I respect that but you'll need to be more convincing and more researched.