dslreports logo
Scientologists Shut Down ISP
ISP shut off over copyright issues

Dutch ISP Xtended Internet was cut off by its upstream provider after pressure from the Scientologists over a Web site that it hosted. The company says its connection was terminated by Cignal Global Communications after threats of legal action from the Church.

The managing director of Xtended Internet believes this was the first time an ISP has been cut off over copyright issues. "We had to move our entire company to a new backbone provider. It has cost us money and time, but was nothing we could not handle." Xtended Internet is now housed at TeleCity, and intends to continue hosting the web site.

The church of Scientology likewise has tried using a DMCA threat in an attempt to remove large numbers of references to Xenu.net from the Google search directory. Google originally removed the links, eventually pulling a 180 and replacing them. Google and Scientology's long history makes some interesting reading.
view:
topics flat nest 

Ray
Mahnahmahna
Premium Member
join:2001-04-02
85120

Ray

Premium Member

No Class

If the only way a "religion" can deal with opposing viewpoints is by having them removed by questionable legal means, it says to me that they don't think their beliefs can withstand scrutiny. Such a profound lack of confidence in one's own belief system isn't exactly a glowing advertisement.

Yet another abuse of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Castration Act) to suppress free speech.

BrianDamage06
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium Member
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX

BrianDamage06

Premium Member

Re: No Class

Yeah, it would seem as yet another abuse contributable to overzealous attitudes of recent memory. (9/11, etc.)
But I agree that if they don't want their practices scrutinized, then they should be practicing them.
The Catholic Church has existed much longer and it is not without unscrupulous members, and has been subject to criticism as much as it has been subject to support, as well.
We could argue that point for just about every religion that exists today.
It's fair game, and if it can be proven that illegal activities take place in the practice of the religion, or by people associated with the religion but not necessarily in the practice of it, then these people should pay the price.
If these religions have questionable, possibly fraudulent or illegal tactics, then it should be brought to light.
I don't think it's any coincidence though that these Scientologists target actors and actresses, musicians, etc., for inclusion, because-
1. They are mostly devout liberals,
2. They have lots of cash, and
3. The principles of Scientology agree with aspects of
personal behaviours and attitudes that other churches
or religions would not endorse.

That's just my opinion.

Ray
Mahnahmahna
Premium Member
join:2001-04-02
85120

Ray

Premium Member

Re: No Class

I didn't say what they did was illegal, just questionable! Exactly what is "fair use"?

BrianDamage06
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium Member
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX

BrianDamage06

Premium Member

Re: No Class

Pay closer attention. I said fair game, not "fair use".

Ray
Mahnahmahna
Premium Member
join:2001-04-02
85120

Ray

Premium Member

Re: No Class

The "fair use" wasn't in reference to your post, it was meant as the basis for the copyright infringement charges. Exactly how much can you paste onto your website before fair use becomes a copyright violation?

wolfvgang
@lbcktx.swbell.ne

wolfvgang to BrianDamage06

Anon

to BrianDamage06

Re: Fair Game

Ha ha ha! "Fair Game" is a great choice of words...visit Xenu.Com and see how L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology used the phrase fair game...it's scary stuff.

Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium Member
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX

Doctor Four

Premium Member

Re: Fair Game

There actually is a tactic used by the "Church" of
$cientology that goes by this name. It involves using
the Court system to silence any of their critics. In
doing so, they are violating others' 1st Amendment rights.
This organization, described as crackpots, idiotic, and
other similar epithets is by definition a religious cult,
and one of the accusations levelled at them is that they
exert mind control over their participants. On the Web,
they've used SLAPP lawsuits and now the DMCA to censor
their critics, and in an extreme case of what can only
be called body snatching, they shut down and took over
the Cult Awareness Network's website - it is now manned
by $cientologists. Yet another accusation directed at
them is that they are scamming people out of their
money. In some countries, most notably Germany, the group's
members have been arrested and the practice outright
banned. The A&E Cable TV network did a 2 hour investigative
report on $cientology: a lot of this information came from
that investigation, with the help of ex-$cientologists
and critics alike. The A&E program was called Investigative
Reports: Inside Scientology, and the video can be ordered
from their website
(for anyone who is interested).

jhudson2
Copyright Martyr
join:2000-11-07
San Marcos, CA

jhudson2 to BrianDamage06

Member

to BrianDamage06
I know there are lots of famous high-profile Catholic liberals and Protestant liberals and Jewish liberals and Muslim liberals and maybe some Hindu liberals and certainly at least one Buddhist liberal. But I'm sure they just pay lip service to aspects of personal behavior and attitudes that their respective religions endorse.

Cause they're liberals ya know.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Re: No Class

Unlike Conservatives, who are all perfect, all knowing, and never do anything wrong. Ever. Until they get caught.

BTW Wasn't Jesus called a liberal... a radical... oh yes, in fact he WAS, wasn't he...
finortis
join:2001-11-30

finortis

Member

Re: No Class

And Richard Nixon (who not only got impeachment charges brought against him for Watergate, but also for abusing the IRS tax auditing system to "deal with" "political enemies" was just as much a conservative as Ted Kennedy was a liberal. And in the end, I wouldn't view either as better... And does anyone know be it the party affiliation, or whether Hoover would have classified himself as a conservative or liberal? With people like Hoover though, it little matters either way. Cointelpro was still Cointelpro, and his dealings were exactly what they were....

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to Ray

Premium Member

to Ray
I think it's more of the classic "We know WE are right, so you all are WRONG and we MUST re-educate you".... etc

The problem is simple, once people believe they are chosen of God, then that means everything they do is O.K. and is the "will of God."

More will be misled and perish due to religion then any other means available to man. Religion is empty form and ritual and often does nothing more then separate man from the truth! Fastest way to bury the truth is build up a massive layer of religion around it....

Anubis Prime
join:2001-06-01
Avonmore, PA

Anubis Prime to Ray

Member

to Ray
This is what happens when you believe that the Psychlos are coming to destroy us all in the year 3000.

BrianDamage06
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium Member
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX

BrianDamage06 to Ray

Premium Member

to Ray
I am not defending Scientologists or any other religion.
As a matter of fact, I was pointing out how dishonest and unscrupulous many within various religions can be.
There are many more who practice "legitimate" religions that are not this way.
All I was saying though is that is premature to dismiss all religion as bringing some good to people just because of the actions of a few people or by the philosophies of some otherwise far-out religions.
All of us have had some good points. I see many of them.
I agree that some religions are excuses to take advantage of the weak-minded, the gullible, the rich, etc.
But the God I believe in ain't short of cash, mister.
Another point of note I made is that of agreement with the original poster of this thread....if they can't take criticism of their religion or otherwise explain it away, then it is not much of a credible "religion" at all, but could be spawns of other motivations, such as money, power, etc., in much the same ways that the most murderous leaders of our times have used religion to justify their actions and direction.

Anubis Prime
join:2001-06-01
Avonmore, PA

Anubis Prime

Member

Re: No Class

But...uhh...

I know how the '3 in 1' Jesus/Christian thing is unbelievable to some (especially the Phoenicians), but Hubbard said that Xenu, an evil intergalactic ruler banished humans to Earth 75,000,000 years ago, and that he (Hubbard) discovered 'implants' that were placed in humans (being nothing but bundles of intergalactic spirits) to track us, and that there is still some alien being imprisoned in a mountain on Earth somewhere.

Hell I could write a couple of Star Trek novels, and then claim that I had been contacted by "Kronax, the god of small electronics and handheld devices".

It's not an argument about religion. When the scientologists want to promote mainstream acceptance, they refer to it as 'a philosophy'...other times it's a 'religion'.

Do a search online and you will find people harassed, stalked and litigated.

BrianDamage06
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium Member
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX

BrianDamage06

Premium Member

Re: No Class

Yeah, you could.
I agree with you that "philosophies" or "religions" can be taken out of context, used as motivation to justify murder, etc.
This is an argument about religion. It's a matter of what you choose to believe.
If you want to be Christian, fine....Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Hare Krishna, Branch Davidian, whatever....it's all fine. You have that choice. If you think Scientology is a religion and you want to belong to that, fine....
But, I have a problem with it if it starts to perpetuate intolerance, injustice, racism, and murder.
That's the primary reason I don't belong to any religion, specifically....because of the rampant hypocrisy associated with most of them.
Oral Roberts said, "I saw a 900 foot Jesus in Tulsa, Oklahoma". His nurse said, "take your medicine, Mr. Roberts."
Some other TV evangelist (I had a brain-fart at the moment and can't remember the name), said that unless the could raise a million bucks in thirty days, that God would kill him (this was probably 5-7 years ago, and some of you posters may remember the incident I recall here), and he is *STILL* here....
It demonstrates that unscrupulous people have used religion to take advantage of others also, for purposes of money and power, and this has happened for as long as religion has existed, which has been pretty much since the dawn of man.
Like I said, believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want.

SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA

SAM Hunter$

Member

Re: No Class

said by BrianDamage:
If you want to be Christian, fine....Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Hare Krishna, Branch Davidian, whatever....it's all fine. You have that choice. If you think Scientology is a religion and you want to belong to that, fine....
But, I have a problem with it if it starts to perpetuate intolerance, injustice, racism, and murder.
That's the primary reason I don't belong to any religion, specifically....because of the rampant hypocrisy associated with most of them.
You are being illogical. Just substitute "religion" with "conservative", "liberal", "NAACP", "NRA", "ACLU", "Democrat", "Republican" and so on. The same could be said for all of them as well as any other group. They all have a core set of values and beliefs but on an individual basis there are a lot of members and even representatives that have those negative beliefs and attitudes you speak about. Therefore you could not belong to any of those groups or any other group for that matter. Hypocrisy is an equal opportunity emotion and attitude.

BrianDamage06
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium Member
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX

BrianDamage06

Premium Member

Re: No Class

I thought we were talking about religion here.
"Substitute" this for that....okay, I can do that. I will address what you said.
I agree, hypocrisy exists in those areas you mentioned also. No doubt.
The Kennedy family is a perfect example of it. The NAACP is a good example of it...so is the ACLU, the political parties, and so on.
However, what do the core values of most of the parties mentioned have in common as a basis for their direction? Religion, in one form or another.
What has the present administration been talking about so much since Mr. Bush took office?
What has this war with Afghanistan meant for people? For most, it has religious significance. Some say that this is the US war against Islam, said by some to justify further terrorist acts against US targets and spur further US resentment of their actions....The US has waged a campaign to dispel these rumors that it is NOT a war against Islam, but of terrorism.
Yes, in the US, we are discriminately tolerant. What I mean is, we are tolerant when it suits us.
It is the same in this instance. It just so happens that this war and its' consequences are the most visible in the media today.
When you break this situation down to its' basic level, it is about religion. The Taliban and Al Quada used Islam as reason for what they perpetrated against us.
We use Christianity to justify our responses.
Our government is based on Christian principles, just as many Arab country's government are based on Muslim principles, and they are equally credited with political influence.
Many of those other groups of which you speak are the same.
The logic is to realize how religion has affected the operation as well as the creation and administration of government over the course of our history.
Anyone that says there is a bigger influence than religion in the formation of governments is ignoring the basic significance of their creation.
I would like for someone to point out more governments based on principles that don't have a basis in religious conviction than governments that do-
But I don't think anyone can.
That's my point....it's the underlying religious significance that brings the most to bear on an individual government's (and other groups, like the ones mentioned) ideaology and direction.

SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA

SAM Hunter$

Member

Re: No Class

You miss the point.

You said that you can't belong to any religion because... "I have a problem with it if it starts to perpetuate intolerance, injustice, racism, and murder.
That's the primary reason I don't belong to any religion, specifically....because of the rampant hypocrisy associated with most of them."

The exact same thing you've said about religion is true about all organizations to various degrees with regards to chapters, individuals, certain representatives and so on. Everyone of them have people or representatives, (no matter how few or non-representative of the majority) who "perpetuate intolerance, injustice, racism, and murder." Therefore, you couldn't belong to anything like the NRA, ACLU, Masons, NAACP, etc.

Your standards are unreasonable and the basis for your conclusion is illogical because of reasons I've stated. By your logic and standard religion is no different than any other organization in the context of those attitudes and hypocrisy they perpetuate at some level.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-27 17:23:31]

BrianDamage06
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium Member
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX

BrianDamage06

Premium Member

Re: No Class

I will concede that to "varying degrees" like you describe, that these problems exist on other levels. I don't remember ever having dismissed that.
But, they are as not as significant as is religion in its' base forms, however.
A lot of organizations, individuals, chapters, etc., that you describe base their philosophies and by-laws, etc., on laws that are otherwise founded in religious principles.
My most poignant point is that out of all reasons people may have to do what they do, justify their actions, and legitimize their philosophy(ies), etc., they all mostly have a basis in some religious belief or another.
Sinn Fein did what they did out of religious belief. The PLO do what they do out of religious belief. The Israelis and the Jews do what they do out of religious belief. UBL, AlQuada, and the Taliban do what they do out of religious belief. We do what we do out of religious belief. These are all obviously recent examples. I could go on.
That's my point.
I also believe though that many religions of today have been horribly perverted from their original intents. Islam is a good example of this. Guys like Mullah Mohammed OMar and Usama bin Laden have twisted the Muslim religion to suit their own ends, just as many others have. Yassar Arafat, Benjamin Netanyahu, Saddam Hussein, and even Ariel Sharon are guilty of this, in my opinion.
That's a whole other rant. But I hope you see what I am trying to point out here.
BrianDamage06

BrianDamage06

Premium Member

Church members

I wonder what Tom Cruise and John Travolta think about all this.
But I am left to wonder....
Who was harmed by this, aside from the fact that these websites shed some light on some of the "Church"'s activities and philosophies?
Can't anyone who follows L.Ron and reads his literature come to the same conclusions about these matters?
I think this goes a bit overboard. After all, people can pretty much say what they want as long as it's not slanderous or a libel offense.
That same freedom allowed Mr. Hubbard (a science-fiction writer) to dream this "religion" up in the first place and spread it all around so that people would buy into it.
I think the people at Google were right to put the links back in place.
If these Scientologists want to sue, then let them sue. I didn't read anything I hadn't read or heard before about them.
If you read "Dianetics" it sheds some light on Mr. Hubbard's views.
I perused it years ago....I haven't read it lately. I think it's humorous though that people took it seriously as a "religion".
But I still like John Travolta as an "actor".
c0mmander
join:2001-10-03

c0mmander

Member

Re: Church members

guess scientologists arent much for technology...

mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal

mags2 to BrianDamage06

Member

to BrianDamage06
Whatever gets you thru the day, I guess. "Religion" has always been a concept for the weak-willed/weak minded anyway. Even "Scientology." /flame off
[text was edited by author 2002-03-22 10:13:14]

DaSneaky1D
what's up
MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou

DaSneaky1D

MVM

Re: Church members

Now was that comment really necessary?

mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal

mags2

Member

Re: Church members


Now was that comment really necessary?

Unfortunately, the truth always hurts. If you cannot accept someone else's opinion, then perhaps you ought to reconsider reading this particular forum. After all, you are in charge of your life and I'm not holding a shotgun to your head forcing you to read it.

BrianDamage06
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium Member
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX

BrianDamage06 to DaSneaky1D

Premium Member

to DaSneaky1D
Religious discussions are always going to attract those of varying opinions, including atheists/agnostics.
My opinions and beliefs are probably outside what most religions choose to believe or hold dear. I would classify myself as an "educated agnostic".
I believe that objectivity is paramount when discussing religion though, and that one should be willing to accept varying religious beliefs as being at least as valid as any other.
I believe that they all have their good points, but they all have idiosyncracies as well.
They all have as many similarities as differences also.
But the only thing that has been certain throughout the course of human history as we know it is that religion, in its' varying degrees of philosophy, has been responsible for more deaths of human beings than any other single cause.
One should also be prepared to accept criticism as much as support in issues such as these.
DannyBoy5
join:2000-11-29
Malabar, FL

DannyBoy5

Member

Re: Church members

Religion responsible for more deaths that anything else? Let's see, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... what religion were they using to justify their acts? The truth is that they were all out for power, nothing else. Now, as it has been for some time, most "religious" killing is in the name of Allah.
If you'd like to make the statement that more killing has been done in the name of religion that anything else, please include some facts to back it up.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-22 11:05:11]

nc1165
join:2001-04-10
Delray Beach, FL

nc1165

Member

Re: Church members

That BS! Never heard the term "manifest destiny"? How about reading of the Crusades? I should know better than to respond to a guy that starts sentences with "Let's see...". It's condescending and reflects myopic tendencies toward new or unfamiliar ideas.

The forum mods should consider removing this thread.

Anonymous Dude
@rtviz.com

Anonymous Dude

Anon

Re: Church members

Manifest Destiny was never a religious concept. Several centuries of Crusades couldn't not kill even a tiny fraction of the number of people that the Communists in 80 years.

nc1165
join:2001-04-10
Delray Beach, FL

nc1165

Member

Re: Church members

said by Anonymous Dude:
Manifest Destiny was never a religious concept. Several centuries of Crusades couldn't not kill even a tiny fraction of the number of people that the Communists in 80 years.
The God given right to take the land at whatever cost, including the intentional spread of small pox among Native Americans, is what I am referring to. And as far as Communists are concerned, I've never known a single communist to strike out in the name and will of God to justify his heinous crimes. Despots and dictators are practically duty-bound to kill. That's why they are called despots and dictators. Religious leaders, OTOH, are bound to honor their religion and killing should be the last thing on their mind. They are held to a higher standard and should not be invoking the name of God to justify their crimes, which makes their being committed doubly horrible when compared with those crimes committed by people who proclaim no religion at all.
finortis
join:2001-11-30

finortis

Member

Re: Church members

Then one can throw in the "divine right of kings" and all that could lead too....

But as to Hitler and the Nazis, lets see the Swatsticka, where I have seen that before (not in Nazi Germany), but it's symbolic meaning....the origins of much of the symbology used. If some were right the Io Hitler might have had religious significance, and that there were those in the Nazi party practitioners of "black magic"... I won't state it is or isn't so as such, but if one were to look for the history of some of the symbology and the like, they might find something of interest in seeing what preceded some of what was presented....

ewwww
@dsl.sndg02.pacbell.n

ewwww to Anonymous Dude

Anon

to Anonymous Dude
You want to know what it's like to BE a scientologist? How do they rationalize their actions?

I bet you that in the past 80 years capitalists have killed more than communists.

FDR
Truman
Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ
Nixon
Reagan
GB sr.
Clinton
GB jr.

Those are just some of the big american ones. Each have thousands of deaths in their name. Some have hundreds of thousands or more. As Americans, we love conflict, but we need to justify it with some moral conviction. We have so much faith that we're right that these killings don't even factor into our discussions of political deaths. I'm sure, as they read down the list, most people were already rationalizing what each of those men did. That's what faith does.

This is how people can join organizations like the scientologists. When you get brainwashed, how will you know whether you're really thinking or just rationalizing your faith.

Eatmeingreek
join:2001-06-29
San Francisco, CA

Eatmeingreek

Member

Re: Church members

said by ewwww:
I bet you that in the past 80 years capitalists have killed more than communists...Those are just some of the big american ones. Each have thousands of deaths in their name. Some have hundreds of thousands or more.
Stalin alone killed 10 million of his own people. You lose.

BrianDamage06
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium Member
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX

BrianDamage06 to DannyBoy5

Premium Member

to DannyBoy5
Some of what you say is accurate, some not. Do you even know who Pol Pot is, or did you just happen to hear AL Franken mention him when he addressed the NPC?
No matter. We could debate motivations all day of the people you mentioned. But, yes, some of them had some religious motivations.
Hitler- Christian "Aryan" supremacy, son of a Jewish mother, whom he regarded as a whore, which perpetuated his hatred of Jews. Is this not religious motivation?
I would like to point out that the battle between the supremacy of Christianity and all other religions HAVE killed more folks than any other single reason.
I don't disagree that world leaders have not killed in the name of power, but it has not killed as many people as religion has, in my opinion. My opinion is based of the events of human history.
This killing continues today....Northern Ireland, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific Rim, the list goes on and on....

deltat2000
Timor Omnis Abesto
Premium Member
join:2000-04-13
127.0.0.1

deltat2000 to DannyBoy5

Premium Member

to DannyBoy5
Please quote your historic references for this statement!

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to DannyBoy5

Premium Member

to DannyBoy5
said by DannyBoy:
Religion responsible for more deaths that anything else? Let's see, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... what religion were they using to justify their acts? The truth is that they were all out for power, nothing else. Now, as it has been for some time, most "religious" killing is in the name of Allah.
If you'd like to make the statement that more killing has been done in the name of religion that anything else, please include some facts to back it up.
I'm afraid I'd have to agree... you're focusing on modern history. You have to remember that throughout the ages, more people are murdered "In the name of God" then any other reason.

Remember that Religion doesn't mean truth. Religion is often just the empty form and ritual that has been used to twist and bury the truth. There are many obviously "religiously devout" human beings who obviously don't know much about God...
finortis
join:2001-11-30

finortis

Member

Re: Church members

You know what I find interesting, and some might chose to take it with a grain of salt without a provided reference, which I don't have in front of me (lets just say I've read a lot over the years, and even decades).

Purportedly, Mahatma Gahndi was considering converting to Christianity...but in the end he basically said to the effect of "Christians seem to take an innoculation of truth as testimoney against the real thing...." But he went on to say that even as the defects of Christianity were becomming apparent to him, so the defects of Hinduism were becoming increasingly apparent to him as well.... Supposedly (where did I see this), some weren't happy that he should have dared to say this...and yet one can also wonder who might have been closer to the source, if you will, in all this as well...

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: Church members

I also heard a quote attributed to Ghandi (and I also am not sure how true it is) but it went like this...

"If the world met the Christ of Christianity today, they would embrace him, but instead they meet the Christians of Christianity, and are turned away."

While I understand what he is saying, I'm still not so sure about the first part.
xrobertcmx
Premium Member
join:2001-06-18
White Plains, MD

xrobertcmx to DannyBoy5

Premium Member

to DannyBoy5
said by DannyBoy:
If you'd like to make the statement that more killing has been done in the name of religion that anything else, please include some facts to back it up.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-22 11:05:11]

Please referance crusades 1-3, and follow that by most various fights between protestants and catholics, see also IRA, and lets take a look at the massacare of the jews under hitler, the Priest Stalin sent to Siberea, and we can top it all off with the inquisition.
I can't spell and know it so please save that comment.

Jamming777$
Time Is Running Out
Premium Member
join:2001-07-25
USA

Jamming777$

Premium Member

Re: Church members

said by Linuvas:

Please referance crusades 1-3, and follow that by most various fights between protestants and catholics, see also IRA, and lets take a look at the massacare of the jews under hitler, the Priest Stalin sent to Siberea, and we can top it all off with the inquisition.

Stalin was an avowed athiest, the official view of the Communist Party of the former Soviet Union, Hitler killed out of a psuedo-scientific theory and personal beliefs not as a religious leader. The Inquisition which one the Roman or the Spanish? Or one of the other smaller ones? Most of the inquisitions were condemned at the time by the Roman Catholic religious leaders of their own time even. The IRA which wing or party of the IRA, some fight for ethnic reasons against the Orangemen, some are Communistic, and some are Religiously based.

Crusades were not so much about massacres, there were a few but that was how wars were fought then when cities that resisted in a siege were taken. It was considered that if you didn't resist you would be spared the sacking and pillaging, wars between Christians were even fought that way. Many people here are ignorant of the political and social realities of the period's that they are citing in their opinions.

But tell me this, do you like the "Song Amazing Grace", it was written by a former Slave Ship Captain, a Scotsman. He was writing about how that things we consider normal for our times may be transcended, by God's Love and his gift of "Grace". It is placing your trust in something other than your own abilities, because some where along the line you are going to fail. God makes things work out in the evils of all times, God is not religion. His will can be thwarted because He gave us the freedom to choose wrongly, even those that speak in his name. But "Grace" allows all of us to move beyond the facts and opinions, we or others hold, by trusting for the future.

Weak-willed? HA! try trusting some one other than yourself for your future and happiness, I bet you wouldn't last an hour.

mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal

mags2 to BrianDamage06

Member

to BrianDamage06

Religious discussions are always going to attract those of varying opinions, including atheists/agnostics....But the only thing that has been certain throughout the course of human history as we know it is that religion, in its' varying degrees of philosophy, has been responsible for more deaths of human beings than any other single cause. One should also be prepared to accept criticism as much as support in issues such as these.



Well said, BrianDamage. I have always subscribed to the idea that religion -generally speaking- kills a thinking mind dead and the only way most acolytes of the faith can keep it together is to prosecute, proselytize and otherwise eradicate those who believe anything different.

••••••••
nomocontrol
join:2000-12-12
Rockville, MD

nomocontrol to DaSneaky1D

Member

to DaSneaky1D
remember, there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over...sorry, I stole that from Frank Zappa, but isn't that what this is all about anyway ??

Hop
Prostate cancer sucks
Premium Member
join:2002-03-16
Tarpon Springs, FL

Hop

Premium Member

Re: Church members

Hey, wasn't that a singing group from the 60's???
(Neal Down and Ben Dover!);)

mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal

mags2

Member

Re: Church members

said by Hop:
Hey, wasn't that a singing group from the 60's???
(Neal Down and Ben Dover!);)

Good one, Hop.

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside to mags2

Member

to mags2
To each his own, but I don't think you have the right perspective regarding personal beliefs. If what you say is true then EVERYBODY is weak-willed/weak minded. A belief system goes way beyond just religion. Look at the political parties. There are people who are overly zealous for their political affiliation...sometimes to the point that goes beyond reason. Look at sports fans. Some of them go through the same ritualistic mannerisms regarding their favorite team or sport. Everyone has a focal belief system. That's a part of human nature. To say those who believe in God are weak minded is actually narrow minded in of itself. It's likely even you believe in some sort of something beyond your own sphere of influence whether it be politics, spirituality, sports, movie stars, or Quake III. Whatever floats your boat.

As a matter of fact there are many strong willed people out there who would strongly argue your point. Believing in something or having a spiritual faith does not equate to weakness. The weakness is in not making your own choices on what you believe. While I agree organized religion in of itself is not the answer I think people who figure out their spirituality end up being stronger than those who don't.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Daishi7
Premium Member
join:2002-02-24

Daishi7 to mags2

Premium Member

to mags2
Agreed..

I see religion as 2 groups - those that don't know, and those that don't know they don't know.

Your post is partly flamebait but true to some extent, people sometimes tend to align with the religion that caters most to what they want to believe, others believe because that is what they have been told from a young age, or because they are partly afraid of the consequences of being a "nonbeliever". People tend to become aggressively offensive when their beliefs and perceptions are threatened, and sometimes even when opposed with common sense and logic.

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside

Member

Re: Church members

said by Dachi:
Agreed..People tend to become aggressively offensive when their beliefs and perceptions are threatened, and sometimes even when opposed with common sense and logic.
Religion isn't the only subject this falls under. Try talking to a die hard republican about issues that go against their party and you get the same aggressive and offensive views. Same can be said for hard core democrats. If you really think about it anybody hard core about anything will get you that response when their belief comes under fire. You can't just pigeon-hole religion. Some people when they believe in something, and that something could be anything, will blindly follow it. That doesn't mean everyone who is a rep. or dem. or in a religion blindly follows. I stand by my statement that you can't categorize people who follow a religion as weak-willed sheep. Not that you said that...just coming to full circle on the thread.
jp245
join:2002-02-15
Brenham, TX

jp245 to mags2

Member

to mags2
The Swatsticka is actually a pagon symbol for war. Hilter was never a Christian, in fact one of Hitler's main objectives was to remove all religous beliefs and instate old pagon ideas and beliefs..And before you chastise others religous beliefs ask yourself this, what would the world be like without religon?
[text was edited by author 2002-03-24 18:26:53]
bmn
? ? ?

join:2001-03-15
hiatus

bmn

Re: Church members

And I'm guessing that you are following your leaders WITHOUT question and that anyone who dares to question the current leadership should be hanged ?

CloseMinded
@dsl.scrm01.pacbell.n

CloseMinded to mags2

Anon

to mags2
Heres whats funny!

Earthlink Internet was founded by the same crackpot religion

The Searcher
@gtei.net

The Searcher

Anon

Re: Church members

Actually it was founded by Sky Dayton who coincidently is a member of the church of Scientology. A very huge and distinct difference from what you claim. The religious organization itself had nothing to do with it.

Traal
join:2000-10-19
La Jolla, CA

Traal to BrianDamage06

Member

to BrianDamage06
said by BrianDamage:
Who was harmed by this, aside from the fact that these websites shed some light on some of the "Church"'s activities and philosophies?
Any entity who seeks to suppress the truth, unless it is for the protection of others ("Anthrax for Fun and Profit"?), is dishonest at best, dangerous at worst.
IbWahooka
join:2002-03-15
Union Grove, WI

IbWahooka to BrianDamage06

Member

to BrianDamage06
Science and relegion have never really mixed, so this little article doesn't surprise me.
cidhigh42
join:2001-02-26
Ashford, CT

cidhigh42 to BrianDamage06

Member

to BrianDamage06
Yes, I think "Stranger in a Strange Land" is closer to the truth, sadly.

Kid A
join:2000-09-21
Nashville, TN

Kid A

Member

'catchy title'

From the Article:
quote:
They end up being afraid of society, believing all society to be controlled by a group of drug companies, psychiatrists and financiers all of whom report to more remote masters.
you mean, that's not true? sure feels like it sometimes.

nc1165
join:2001-04-10
Delray Beach, FL

nc1165

Member

Re: 'catchy title'

Don't get me started.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt

MVM

This is what DMCA was designed to do

I don't know why anyone is surprised. This is exactly why the RIAA and MPAA lobbied so hard to pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

It gives copyright owners the right to shutdown any site they think has misused their material. Even if the charges so not stand up in court the mere threat of legal proceeding is enough to gain compliance.

This is an interesting perversion of the notion of copyright. Until the DMCA came along the copyright holder had to prove harm to win an infringement suit. Now the act of doing anything the copyright holder does not specifically permit has been criminalized. This does not bode well for our future as an information society.

TheOtherRay
Comfortably Numb
MVM,
join:2001-12-02
Denver, CO
Netgear CM1000
Asus RT-AC88

TheOtherRay

MVM,

Re: This is what DMCA was designed to do

said by tschmidt:
I don't know why anyone is surprised. This is exactly why the RIAA and MPAA lobbied so hard to pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

It gives copyright owners the right to shutdown any site they think has misused their material. Even if the charges so not stand up in court the mere threat of legal proceeding is enough to gain compliance.
The reasons I think people are surprised are a) A *site* didn't get shut down - an entire ISP was disconnected by it's network provider, and b) the site didn't contain any copyright infringing works. This was a clear *misuse* of the DMCA. The plug was pulled for all the wrong reasons.

Rob Froelich
join:2000-03-26
Saint Charles, IL

Rob Froelich

Member

Head for the hills

The end is at hand, Xenu will return to reclaim his throne next tuesday.

WOGS UNITE!!!!
bgraham2
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY

bgraham2

Member

Can L Ron Hubbard now try to shut down DSLreports

technically i guess the "church" of scientology could now come along and try to shut down dslreports because of this thread?

••••••••••••••

deltat2000
Timor Omnis Abesto
Premium Member
join:2000-04-13
127.0.0.1

deltat2000

Premium Member

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

I would not be one to paint all religous people with the same brush!

I personally know many who are very exceptional individuals who are not only strong willed, but channel that will to help others, and better their communities.

One person in particular comes to mind, who makes many trips a year to less fortunate countries..not to prosletize, but to donate his labor to build homes, water treatment plants, and schools for the local population to use as they see fit. I definately would not call this man "weak willed" as he was once a Navy Seal, and I would not wish to test my will against his...lol

Second: I am a recovering addict and alcoholic, who has not had to use any mood altering substances for over 15 year..I was definately what you would have referred to as an extremely self willed individual, but in order to arrest my disease, I had to come to grips with this religion vs. spirituality subject.

I found that I had many preconceived ideas that where coloring my attitudes and opinions about religion. I took the actions of a few, and applied that behavior to all.

I have had to adjust my thinking...I try no longer to judge people simply by their association, or denomination, I try today to judge each individual on his or her own actions, and my life is actually much easier now, and certainly much fuller.

As with all things today,I try to keep and open mind. I try not to "throw the baby out with the bath water"

Try it sometimes....and let me know if it helps.

In service to the God of my understanding.
yazdzik
MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA

yazdzik

MVM

Both sides, please

Dear Friends,
A quote from the FAQ on the clambake site:
Scientology is a confused concoction of crackpot, dangerously applied psychotherapy, oversimplified, idiotic and inapplicable rules and ideas and science-fiction drivel that is presented to its members (at the "advanced" levels) as profound spiritual truth.

While I personally believe that any form of censorship is horrible, and any of you reading my posts over the last year or two could well imagine what I think of Scientology, use of words like crackpot and idiotic does little to enhance the quality of the debate.

The issue is one of DMCA being used to abridge or even abrogate the right under the first amendment to a free press, not one of the validity of one religion, or whether that religion may constitute a cult, in the commonly used sense of the word. By community standards of the period, the earliest Christians would have qualified, and, purely objectively, there is little difference between an apostle claiming that Jesus walks on water, and, some of the eccentric religions in New York, which advise one to walk in front of buses, as the spiritual powers of the mind will protect one. One person's lunacy is another's spirituality.

However, what is debated openly in a press conduit ought not to be subject to suppression, and, therefore, over the years, the publication for debate of copyrighted, or classified material has been, for the most part, with one or two glaring exceptions, tolerated in the US, far more so than even in Britain. Very different than in Roman Law countries where freedom of the press exists, but at the will of the government.

The issue here is one of the ability of a wealthy group to threaten a poor group, knowing full well that, whatever the outcome of the litigation might be, no one can afford to undertake it.

Very different from the Pentagon papers, where the New York Times was in no danger of going out of business because of legal fees. Just as the baby bells have done to Covad, so will all voracious monsters do to their betters, unless we as a society wake up and make certain that our government is not merely a tool in the hands of big business, wealthy contributors, and monopolies who feel, as in the old cliché, "What's good for XXX is good for the country."

In fact, what's good for MS, Scientology, the recording industry and MA Bell, may be in fact deleterious to us, our children, and our Constitution.

Or to put it in modern vernacular, whether or not Scientology suck, surely does the DMCA.

All good wishes,
Yazdzik

••••••••

maddogct2
join:2000-10-12
Norwalk, CT

maddogct2

Member

What a bunch of Whinners!!!

If the members of the "church" of scientology really belived in what LRH preached, they wouldn't react so strongly to the crtitisism. Other religions don't sue ISP's, Television Networks, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, reporters and authors like the way the scientologists do. When was the last time the Catholic Church sued a newspaper over a news story?

LRH preached about using the court system to silence critics
by filing frivoluos law suits and the THREAT of law suits. Hit the critic in the pocket book was his mantra. Sueing the media was pretty easy. Now with the internet, anyone can go online and be crictical and reach millions of people. Ouch!
Now they are getting more bad publicity with this latest tactic. It will probably be converd by the network news soon. They can't stand the scientologist...all those law suits make for a lot enemies.
Last rant...
What church requires you to buy thier bible? Why do you have to pay for seminars and classes to become a better scientologist? Money. The church of scientology is all about money.

•••••

St0ney
join:2001-02-25
uranus

St0ney

Member

whadddahelll

Can someone please explain to me what scientology is and what do the members believe in? I go to Xenu site but cant understand what it all means.

•••

SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA

SAM Hunter$

Member

What is religion?

Is it faith, a culture, a social organization, an ethnic or racial group dominated by those qualities, a set of rules or guidelines, an inspiration or distraction? People when referring to religion may be using any of these or some combination. Problem is you have no idea how they mean it and consequently it can be bit difficult to access the credibility of whatever point it is they are trying to make.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Transmaster

Member

Easy way to understand Scientologists

Heck It's real easy to understand the Chruch of Scientology
just go the the Gwar site their "history" is very much
like the crap the Church of the $uck tries to feed you.
»www.gwar.net can you just see an Auditor measuring
the "old Soul" in "Oderus Urungas" If the Scientologist's
were not so dangerous they would be a joke.

quientus
So Red Shoes
Premium Member
join:2000-08-11
San Jose, CA

quientus

Premium Member

scientologists want the site to be published ?

By making it such a big news, use of DMCA, ect!

is it me or are they trying to get the word out?
wiley post$
join:2002-01-13
who cares

wiley post$

Member

Par for the course

This sounds typical of the neo nazi facist attitude of scientoligists. The have a LONG history of gestapho type tactic's against those with whom they disagree. Didn't 60 minutes do a big piece on them like 10 years ago?. I thought the german goverement was going to ban it there.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Remember Lisa McPherson

CLEARWATER, Florida (CNN) -- The Church of Scientology was charged by Florida prosecutors Friday in the death of a member.

The State Attorney's office in Pinellas County filed the felony charges after a lengthy investigation into the 1995 death of Lisa McPherson.

McPherson had been a member of the church for 18 years and, according to relatives, had been talking about leaving the church.

McPherson, 36, died December 5, 1995, after being confined for 18 days to a Scientology property called the Fort Harrison Hotel, investigators said.

Prosecutor Bernie McCabe charged the church with abuse or neglect of a disabled adult and unauthorized practice of medicine, both felonies.

No injuries, but no clothes

On November 18, 1995, McPherson was involved in a minor traffic accident in which police said she was not injured but removed all her clothes and told paramedics she needed help.

She was admitted to a hospital after medics expressed concern for her mental health.

Shortly after her arrival, members of the Church of Scientology came to the hospital, investigators said. According to court papers filed Friday, McPherson "was allowed to check out against medical advice and leave with other members of the Church of Scientology who had promised to care for her."

Eighteen days later, McPherson died.

An autopsy conducted by the Pinellas County Medical Examiner's office found McPherson died of a blood clot. It also found she was severely dehydrated.

Medical Examiner Joan Wood concluded, according to court papers, that McPherson's "dehydration was so severe that she would have been symptomatic for days and virtually unresponsive for more than 24 hours before her death."

She also indicated "the dehydration was so severe and life-threatening that in itself it constituted great bodily harm."

Questionable treatment

McPherson went without fluids for at least five days and possibly her entire stay at the hotel, Wood said.

McPherson, who investigators said weighed about 150 pounds at the time of the traffic accident, weighed 108 pounds when she died.

Attorneys for the Church of Scientology have consistently denied any responsibility for McPherson's death.

Surviving family members have filed a civil lawsuit against the church.

Not enough, says family

Lisa McPherson's aunt, Dell Liebreich, told CNN she was relieved charges had been filed against the church but wished more serious charges had been leveled, such as manslaughter.

"I feel like they killed Lisa," she said. Liebreich added that if her niece had received medical attention earlier, "it could have saved her life."

Jeffrey Weiner, former head of the Criminal Defense Attorneys Association, said if the church was found guilty, no one involved was likely to be jailed because the charges had not been made against individuals.

According to an FBI agent's statement filed with the felony charges, interviews with two Scientology members conducted in May 1996 described McPherson as a "guest at the hotel who was there to 'rest.'"

The investigator describes various Scientology members giving McPherson medications prescribed by a doctor who had not seen her, including Valium and another sedative.

The agent says McPherson was described at various times as delirious and was once observed drinking her own urine.

Conspiracy claims

In the final hours of her life, church members took McPherson not to the nearest hospital, according to investigators, but to a hospital in Port Richey where a Scientology doctor worked.

Church officials have said that the investigation is part of a 15-year effort by Clearwater officials to discredit Scientology.

They said McPherson was well cared for by church members but became violent and incoherent, had trouble sleeping and frequently resisted efforts to give her food, liquids and medications.

The Los Angeles-based church was founded in 1954 by late science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.

From »www.cnn.com/US/9811/13/s ··· y.death/

St0ney
join:2001-02-25
uranus

St0ney

Member

Religion...yea right

»www.cyberspacefreedom.or ··· risk.htm

Ironic that this "church" published an article entitled "Freedom of Speech at Risk in Cyberspace". What a load of crap this church talks about...in what way does this have to do with religion?
It seems obvious to me and probably most of you that all this church cares most about is piracy and protecting property rights. Sounds like the RIAA, doesnt it?
[text was edited by author 2002-03-23 18:40:41]
CyberNation$
join:2001-12-08
Los Angeles, CA

CyberNation$

Member

What is this person saying?

Said by finoritis:

"And Richard Nixon (who not only got impeachment charges brought against him for Watergate, but also for abusing the IRS tax auditing system to "deal with" "political enemies" was just as much a conservative as Ted Kennedy was a liberal. And in the end, I wouldn't view either as better... And does anyone know be it the party affiliation, or whether Hoover would have classified himself as a conservative or liberal? With people like Hoover though, it little matters either way. Cointelpro was still Cointelpro, and his dealings were exactly what they were....Then one can throw in the "divine right of kings" and all that could lead too...."

"But as to Hitler and the Nazis, lets see the Swatsticka, where I have seen that before (not in Nazi Germany), but it's symbolic meaning....the origins of much of the symbology used. If some were right the Io Hitler might have had religious significance, and that there were those in the Nazi party practitioners of "black magic"... I won't state it is or isn't so as such, but if one were to look for the history of some of the symbology and the like, they might find something of interest in seeing what preceded some of what was presented...."

"You know what I find interesting, and some might chose to take it with a grain of salt without a provided reference, which I don't have in front of me (lets just say I've read a lot over the years, and even decades)."

"Purportedly, Mahatma Gahndi was considering converting to Christianity...but in the end he basically said to the effect of "Christians seem to take an innoculation of truth as testimoney against the real thing...." But he went on to say that even as the defects of Christianity were becomming apparent to him, so the defects of Hinduism were becoming increasingly apparent to him as well.... Supposedly (where did I see this), some weren't happy that he should have dared to say this...and yet one can also wonder who might have been closer to the source, if you will, in all this as well..."

Question: Does anybody understand what this person is saying, or what their point is? I don't criticize or disagree, I don't understand.
finortis
join:2001-11-30

finortis

Member

Re: What is this person saying?

When someone takes bits and pieces of SEPERATE posts, and throws them all together as they weren't written, throwing it at the end of a thread, completely out of context, no wonder.

I could gather fragments of quotes, and throw them all together while leaving the context and placement of them out of the picture on just about anyone's postings (including yours probably), and pretty much make it look as such. If you want to inquire, do so more directly, in context, in direct reply, and without butchering, piecing together, thx.

In fact the manner in which you replied at the end I'm sure could tend to confuse many, if they don't go back and read the thread all over again.... It's like eaves dropping on a conversation one is having on the phone, and only hearing/presenting what one party is saying, despite there was a conversation. There's a reason things are organized into replies (which are given in context and as part of a conversation, not in a vacuum), and sites that don't mantain good contextual relationships in given threads, I tend to avoid, or when the threads grow too large, start another or say no more. It gets to be too much of a pain, when the structure for replies isn't mantained well, and isn't there....

If I were to look at a bunch of fragmentary quotes lined one after another (sometimes fragmentary from the same post, and sometimes from different one's, with no distinguishing characteristic of which is which), and no context provided, no coverage of preceding statements responded to, etc.....I would very much conclude that such a fragmentary presentation isn't sufficient to make comment upon.

Furthermore I would have absolutely no desire to have to go back and re-read everything to establish that which is being left out, reintegrate things as written...so I would probably chose just not to comment, much as I do when threads get long on boards that fail to mantain any form of posting organization so you can know who's post is in reply to whom evers...
[text was edited by author 2002-03-24 04:59:42]

SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA

SAM Hunter$

Member

Don't count on the ACLU!

quote:
said by Shuten Doji:

This is why organizations such as EFF (The Electronic
Frontier Foundation) and the ACLU exist. These groups
are fighting to protect 1st Amendment and other
Constitutional rights that major corporations, government,
and groups like Scientology are increasingly infringing
on. Unfortunately, the ACLU has the stigma of a being a group of quacks to many local, state and federal government leaders... Of course, that might just be the local stigma since everything down south is ultra conservative and somewhat backwards...

Ah, the ACLU. A very powerful special interest group that you can almost always predict what they will do--they will "vote" or pursue the causes and direction of their funding, just like all other special interest political groups. Sometimes they will fool you because an occasional chapter or individual within the organization suddenly will develop a conscience and actually remember what the ACLU claims to stand for and represent and will attempt to live up to those values and standards. Not only live up to them but remember they apply to all the people in this country and not just to those of a specific political or other type of association.

In that regard the ACLU is much like many formal religious groups in that the actions and words of the church's or religions' members are completely contrary to the creed or formal statement of faith of the particular religion or church they claim to adhere to or follow.

CyberNation$
join:2001-12-08
Los Angeles, CA

CyberNation$

Member

Re: Don't count on the ACLU!

The ACLU is overall a joke. If you never had heard of the ACLU and upon learning what they supposedly represent and read their charter or whatever the correct term that describes what they claim their goals and values are you would say this must be one of the greatest organizations in the history of the world. They are awesome! But when you then would look at what they do and what their leaders actually say and do and compare it to what they claim they stand for you would conclude it was all one big practical sick joke.

Do they ever do good? Yes, of course, but only on a limited and specific basis, even though at times those occasions can be spectacular and profound. But generally they are a ultra-left wing political special interest group who uses the guise of civil liberties to accomplish their purely political agenda. They are so incredibly riddled with phonieness, hypocrisy, and favoritism it is sickening. Everyone of their founders must turn over in their graves each day.