Anonymous vs Scientology!

[Molyneux]

They do, all follow the same bible... Hmm False, Mormons have their own fucking book. Yet they are still classed as Christians.

You idiot, a good number of the Protestants in America don't view fucking Catholics as Christian, much less Mormons.[/i]

[Skelron]

Funny ... if you actually knew anything about the period, I would have thought you would contradict me with actual facts rather than supposition.

I think the Burden is on you to prove that before the Emperor Constantine called the Convention that decided what would go in the Bible, that Christians where going around persecuting 'Hereticcs' or that they where even able to.

Your the one who made the original statement that they where after all.

Yet again, you demonstrate your ignorance of history. The Mormons were heavily persecuted for their heresy. At one point the US Army was even dispatched against them.

Yes due to the feigned burning of Court Records and a onrunning dispute over Federal Authority that they ahd been circumventing for years. Exasperated because the Judge in question criticised their polygamy while living with another mans wife, but at it's heart the Army went in because the court was attacked.

Anyone can read what you said earlier, you lying little shit. You said that Scientology's use of trademark and copyright to prevent unauthorized splinter groups made it totally unlike Christianity, when Christianity used the sword to prevent unauthorized splinter groups.

Except you, you seem to have failed basic reading comprehension, shall I help you out.

While in the past it can be argued the various faiths have done much worse than sue when a group splinters off, today we would hold to higher standards I think.

I'll admit through I should have said 'while in the past it is true faiths did a lot worse than sueing...' I have clearly there admitted that today was not say the Middle ages.

The Queen of England once had a death warrant on her because she was a "heretic", and now you act as though Christianity doesn't do this because she was able to fight off these attacks and establish herself to the point where the Catholic church gave up the fight.

Shall we not romaticise that period of history by claiming it was cut and dried, their was a war of succesion, various claims to the right to the Throne from various European nations that gained the Political support of the pope. The Church was, and still is a political body as much as a religious one. Simple greed by the European Monarchs had as much to do with such things as anything else.

[Yet AGAIN, you demonstrate your astounding ignorance of history. The Catholic Church considered itself the keeper of dogma for more than a thousand years, and violently suppressed all dissent.

Except for the Orthodox Church, and except for internal debate. Hence I hate to sound like a broken record ST Thomas Moore, 'Co'-Writer of the work for which Henry VIII was awarded the Title 'Defender of the Faith' in which Thomas argued that Luther was wrong not in saying the church had faults but in his manner of saying it. if Luther had acted like the good son and taken the drunked father into the tent and quietly remonstrated with him, he would be lauded, instead according to Moore he was the bad child taunting his Father as he laid passed on drunk.

Moore was accounted a very religious man, but he was also a man who argued in texts and works the faults of the church, right up until the sacking of Rome. Which led to a lot of the church's critics falling silent, out of shame. Self inflicted shame, they grew sickened at having their texts turned into a defence for rape.

On the other hand change and debate internally was welcome, we had Monistic orders that grew up to argue against the church, some growing to be quite famous.

That is only true because men with swords demanded it be so, against the wishes of the Catholic Church.

No Wong, as much as you would like to think that all debate within the church is only possible because it was forced on it by outside agents, you are wrong. Moore's debates against the church his criticisms of it, and those by others occured BEFORE the protestant uprisings, before Luther and before Henry VIII.

Quick Question iof a man can point out flaws before the men with Swords came around, did the men with swords allow him to do this?

[Skelron]

America don't view fucking Catholics as Christian, much less Mormons.[/i]

I know funny isn't it, but as Wong and others are treating all Christians as a single entity, I shall do the same. Since no differance between the beliefs of Liberal Christian or that of a Conservative one has been allowed for in any of Wongs rants, I shall do the same.

[Darth Wong]

Funny ... if you actually knew anything about the period, I would have thought you would contradict me with actual facts rather than supposition.

I think the Burden is on you to prove that before the Emperor Constantine called the Convention that decided what would go in the Bible, that Christians where going around persecuting 'Hereticcs' or that they where even able to.

What kind of a fucking ignoramus are you? One of the first fucking things Constantine did when he converted the Empire to Christianity was to sack pagan temples, you imbecile.

Yet again, you demonstrate your ignorance of history. The Mormons were heavily persecuted for their heresy. At one point the US Army was even dispatched against them.

Yes due to the feigned burning of Court Records and a onrunning dispute over Federal Authority that they ahd been circumventing for years. Exasperated because the Judge in question criticised their polygamy while living with another mans wife, but at it's heart the Army went in because the court was attacked.

Answer me this, asshole: does your Catholic church regard Mormons as a legitimate branch of Christianity? Perhaps more to the point, did not your own Pope recently reaffirm that other branches of Christianity are all illegitimate?

Except you, you seem to have failed basic reading comprehension, shall I help you out.

While in the past it can be argued the various faiths have done much worse than sue when a group splinters off, today we would hold to higher standards I think.

I'll admit through I should have said 'while in the past it is true faiths did a lot worse than sueing...' I have clearly there admitted that today was not say the Middle ages.

So? You're comparing it to Scientology using copyright law; also obviously far less extreme than what the Catholic church did in the past.

Shall we not romaticise that period of history by claiming it was cut and dried, their was a war of succesion, various claims to the right to the Throne from various European nations that gained the Political support of the pope. The Church was, and still is a political body as much as a religious one. Simple greed by the European Monarchs had as much to do with such things as anything else.

So? How does that change the fact that the Catholic Church did these things? "Oh, my church acted like assholes, but there were complex reasons why they felt it was in their best interest to act like assholes!"

Except for the Orthodox Church, and except for internal debate. Hence I hate to sound like a broken record ST Thomas Moore, 'Co'-Writer of the work for which Henry VIII was awarded the Title 'Defender of the Faith' in which Thomas argued that Luther was wrong not in saying the church had faults but in his manner of saying it. if Luther had acted like the good son and taken the drunked father into the tent and quietly remonstrated with him, he would be lauded, instead according to Moore he was the bad child taunting his Father as he laid passed on drunk.

Moore was accounted a very religious man, but he was also a man who argued in texts and works the faults of the church, right up until the sacking of Rome. Which led to a lot of the church's critics falling silent, out of shame. Self inflicted shame, they grew sickened at having their texts turned into a defence for rape.

On the other hand change and debate internally was welcome, we had Monistic orders that grew up to argue against the church, some growing to be quite famous.

So? Here's a hint, imbecile: the fact that debate is permissible within certain parameters does not mean that the church does not exert control on what you may or may not say in the name of Christianity. You were defending this ridiculous notion that copyrighting a religious document was somehow an unacceptable feature of religion that made it worse than Christianity; all copyrighting does is prevent unauthorized use of that document by third parties; it does not inherently silence all internal debate.

No Wong, as much as you would like to think that all debate within the church is only possible because it was forced on it by outside agents, you are wrong. Moore's debates against the church his criticisms of it, and those by others occured BEFORE the protestant uprisings, before Luther and before Henry VIII.

See above, imbecile. You are acting as though the presence of internal debate means that the Catholic Church tolerated unauthorized groups running around spreading their own ideas in the name of Christianity. They never have, and never will. To this day, they still regard other sects as heretical, and they only lack the power to do anything about it.

Quick Question iof a man can point out flaws before the men with Swords came around, did the men with swords allow him to do this?

Once again, you try to confuse two different propositions. Nice sophistry, asshole.

[Darth Wong]

America don't view fucking Catholics as Christian, much less Mormons.[/i]

I know funny isn't it, but as Wong and others are treating all Christians as a single entity, I shall do the same. Since no differance between the beliefs of Liberal Christian or that of a Conservative one has been allowed for in any of Wongs rants, I shall do the same.

That doesn't answer the point, moron. Your idiotic claim that attempts to suppress heretics are somehow not a feature of Christianity flies in the face of everything we know of the history of your mindless belief system. I never said that 100% of individual Christians do this; I said only that Christianity has this characteristic. All you're doing is acting like a typical religious apologist.

[Skelron]

[quote="Darth Wong]What kind of a fucking ignoramus are you? One of the first fucking things Constantine did when he converted the Empire to Christianity was to sack pagan temples, you imbecile.

[/Quote]
Likely for the same reason Henry VIII did, for the money, not for the faith although that likely provided an excuse. Also Constantine did not himself convert till his death bed. so strictly speaking it wasn't the actions of a Christian, nor was he the Church.

[/Quote]

Answer me this, asshole: does your Catholic church regard Mormons as a legitimate branch of Christianity? Perhaps more to the point, did not your own Pope recently reaffirm that other branches of Christianity are all illegitimate?

They are classed as Communities rather than Churches with the exception of the Orthodox which is merely misguided. however you do not see the todays Catholic Church attempt to enforce this in any manner beyond possibly the Sermon. Wow a group saying 'We are right they are wrong!' how very restrictive and not at all common, why I am sure Political Parties are different....

So? You're comparing it to Scientology using copyright law; also obviously far less extreme than what the Catholic church did in the past.

Indeed, however thats the past, today is a different church, despite the steps back of Benedict the church is still a very different animal from the one it was Pre-Vatican II. Too the point that you are comparing Apples and oranges.

So? How does that change the fact that the Catholic Church did these things? "Oh, my church acted like assholes, but there were complex reasons why they felt it was in their best interest to act like assholes!"

Because the actions where those of a political player and not a religion, the fact that the church wore both hats does not alter this. That and romanticsing the Protestants as the aggrieved victims is just bad history. It was complicated it was messy, and France wanted the Throne of England.

So? Here's a hint, imbecile: the fact that debate is permissible within certain parameters does not mean that the church does not exert control on what you may or may not say in the name of Christianity. You were defending this ridiculous notion that copyrighting a religious document was somehow an unacceptable feature of religion that made it worse than Christianity; all copyrighting does is prevent unauthorized use of that document by third parties; it does not inherently silence all internal debate.

On it's own no it does not. You are right, but when that means that followers can only get the information drip fed to them and so are not in possesion of the facts then it does. By Copywriting it they prevent it being publised by an outside source. By preventing this the only means to get the information is from the church, the only way to do that is in carefully controlled doses so that those above you will always know more about the doctrines of the faith than it is possible for you to know. You have no legal way to gain that information from an independent source. and so you have no way to logically debate or criticise since the other person is in possesion of more information than you are LEGALLY ALLOWED TO BE.

It's a combination thing, If A.) the Copywriting was not in effect however then B.) The drip feeding of information would not even be possible, if the drip feeding was not possible the internal debate, even within carefully structed limits could occur, as it is possible, it is not.

See above, imbecile. You are acting as though the presence of internal debate means that the Catholic Church tolerated unauthorized groups running around spreading their own ideas in the name of Christianity. They never have, and never will. To this day, they still regard other sects as heretical, and they only lack the power to do anything about it.

No they regard them (With the exception again of the Orthodox and a few other branches that get special treatment) as ecclesial communities and not Churchs meaning they are not paths to Salvation but they are not heretical. Also at the very worst the church will do these days if you step beyond what it views as the Church Doctrine is to excomunicate you. In the eyes of the church of course this is a horrendous last step to take, in the eyes of the guy so excomunicated, well, if they disagreed with the Doctrine that much, they are likely better off finding a different path.

Once again, you try to confuse two different propositions. Nice sophistry, asshole.

Oh you stated I can criticise and argue with a priest because the men with Swords came along, I pointed out that criticism occured before the swords. The true change in the church occured at Vatican II. That wasn't forced by swords but a recognition that the world had changed.

[Skelron]

That doesn't answer the point, moron. Your idiotic claim that attempts to suppress heretics are somehow not a feature of Christianity flies in the face of everything we know of the history of your mindless belief system. I never said that 100% of individual Christians do this; I said only that Christianity has this characteristic. All you're doing is acting like a typical religious apologist.

I never said it wasn't, I said two things. One that Internal Debate has always been possible, and two that todays Church is a different animal to that of the past, that today we hold different standards.

[Ariphaos]

So it targets every other religion you don't like? Brilliant.

I like Buddhism, Unitarianism, and Taoism, can't think of any others I'm fond of. I've met Episcopalians that don't believe in God or that Jesus rose from the dead, however. I am also rather disturbingly fond of Gnosticism.

Not particularly fond of the rest, though. While I will admit to being raised Catholic, I will also point out that I was not used for slave labor.

Catholicism started in much the same way that Scientology has. There are others aiming to follow in Scientology's footsteps and they tend to use tools from the same box.

[Warsie]

remembering the anon-sci war..

Am I the only person who senses something weird about the Anon vs Sci thing? Anon has this fashion of being 'evil' and doing some 'bad' things. At least some anon. But in the matter of a week of so; they then abruptly change their position on furries (based off partyvan.info) and are willing to be nice to former scientologists who left (again partyvan.info). Are they using this to gain prominence and power by being the ones who 'defeated scientology'; gaining more members and the like, and many people being ignorant of the internet, that they would be more of a scary ('hackers on steroids') threat" Or is this mainly newer people, or anon who are nicer participating in this. Or the same anon, but they changed.

If the *chans do win, well I sense the beginning of a new order in the net given how this is basically like the Russian/Mongol battle where Ivan was able to unite the Russian Principalities.

What do you guys think?

(and captainchewbacca, the 'unite the chans'=awesome!)

[Warsie]

That, and anon not attacking the religion of scientology, but only the church institutions. And ignoring and wishing to be friends/allies with the Free Zone.

[Hawkwings]

The behavior's pretty consistent with what they want to be. The anonymous fighting scientology isn't the same organization that has been around for a while. This is a different fight, and as it has gained the attention of many people, it has changed in order to combat Scientology more effectively. Being "nicer" is just the smart thing to do, and honestly, who cares about anon vs furries when there's a cult to take down?

And the whole thing about not attacking the religion, but the organization, is also part of their strategy. Attacking their beliefs is unfounded and provokes backlash, which attacking the organization will accomplish their goals. That's why they welcome and encourage former-scientologists and Freezoners to join them: they have information that will help Anon, and are willing to help.

And honestly, what would happen if Anon gained "prominence and power" in the online community? Are they all spontaneously going to launch some next crusade? You've got to remember, a lot of the new Anons would not support the actions that Anon has done in the past. Besides, Anon is nobody's personal army: they all do what they want to do. And right now, what everyone wants to do happens to be the same thing.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why should they be assholes to former scientologists? And those dudes in the Free Zone aren't asshole scientologists who repress information and kill people - hell, the Church even sues those dudes in the Free Zone.

Nobody gives a shit about furries.

[Warsie]

The behavior's pretty consistent with what they want to be.

okay

The anonymous fighting scientology isn't the same organization that has been around for a while. This is a different fight, and as it has gained the attention of many people, it has changed in order to combat Scientology more effectively.

Ahh....Anonymous is Legion. But isn't the g00ns fighting alongside Anon? And the goons hate the anonness of anonymous (it's on their 'about us' page) but they still work together. Would you say they're anon, or an ally of anon. But again, a rule of anon is the whole 'if you are not us, you are my enemy'; something that the goons repeat. They work together, but their ideologies seem to bring them to hate each other.

But if many of them are new, how did they absorb the culture so quickly. Then again *chan cultural imperialism has been in place for a while so and many of them are likely geeks/nerds who know of the chans but never joined them.

Being "nicer" is just the smart thing to do,

correct, but some anons are having non-anon do it, or anon who became nonanon

and honestly, who cares about anon vs furries when there's a cult to take down?

the hardcore radical anti-furries out there. It's just weird how they all immediately stop their other stuff and the whole fucking internet organizes in that way.

And the whole thing about not attacking the religion, but the organization, is also part of their strategy. Attacking their beliefs is unfounded and provokes backlash, which attacking the organization will accomplish their goals. That's why they welcome and encourage former-scientologists and Freezoners to join them: they have information that will help Anon, and are willing to help.

okay; but some of them may also be doing that to be nice; i.e. the new meme "internet love machine" and "internet care machine"

And honestly, what would happen if Anon gained "prominence and power" in the online community? Are they all spontaneously going to launch some next crusade?

Possibly. Or they have no external enemy (or major enemy) and go back to internal strife; or reignite old feuds. Many may be still excited over the war and still energized.

And some sites are not as supportive of *chan hegemony. The TOTSEans, for one are *somewhat* divided over their opinions on the chans, but many TOTSEans are growing angry at the chans and want to reform the TOTSE army (which predated the chans, and was a strong hacking force) to have a multipolar internet.

You've got to remember, a lot of the new Anons would not support the actions that Anon has done in the past. Besides, Anon is nobody's personal army: they all do what they want to do. And right now, what everyone wants to do happens to be the same thing.

I find it on one hand, highly odd and unlikely. But on the other hand, possible and even likely. And adding on the history of Scientology censorship vs the internet roots of free information, yes it contradicts. But...I forgot something else I forgot.

But the 'newfags' are decently absorbed into the culture and such, even if they disagree on many things they can still act as one group indirectly (like the EU).

Why should they be assholes to former scientologists?

because "anonymous is devoid of morality, decency, and humanity" or something like that. It's one of their rules and cultures.

And those dudes in the Free Zone aren't asshole scientologists who repress information and kill people - hell, the Church even sues those dudes in the Free Zone.

k

Nobody gives a shit about furries.

the fursecution and other shit with ED says otherwise. A few months ago that shit was going on/Weakly yes but still.[/i]

[Hawkwings]

Anon is not a formal organization. It's a group of individuals that interact with each other. All those things you say may be true, but you have to remember that those actions aren't representative of anonymous as a whole, but rather the actions of individuals within the group.

Also, you forget that anonymous doesn't always take itself seriously. Check your sarcasm-meter.

[TithonusSyndrome]

That doesn't answer the point, moron. Your idiotic claim that attempts to suppress heretics are somehow not a feature of Christianity flies in the face of everything we know of the history of your mindless belief system. I never said that 100% of individual Christians do this; I said only that Christianity has this characteristic. All you're doing is acting like a typical religious apologist.

I never said it wasn't, I said two things. One that Internal Debate has always been possible, and two that todays Church is a different animal to that of the past, that today we hold different standards.

"Today's church" is different because it would be chased out of the civilized world on the end of a rail if it didn't change, not because their leadership were genuinely moved towards rational ethics and saw the folly of their depraved dogma. The Mormons stopped teaching that black people had their skin color as punishment for declining to fight on behalf of God, and Muhammed claimed he was briefly possessed by the devil in order to save face when certain scriptures he came up with to bridge the gap between himself and Arabic animists blew up in his face when the orthodoxy of his followers caught wind of them. When religions don't wield the supreme authority in a society, they dance the tune they're forced to and bide their time until they have their hands on the gavel again.

Look at Africa, where most nations can't afford to turn away Catholic aid; do you see priests chanting the "love thy neighbor" section of the bible a whole lot and whitewashing over Jesus calling Canaanites dogs and suggesting that non-Jews and Jews working for non-Jews have no better a chance of getting into heaven than Jews who sin against other Jews? Take away the threat of ethical secular reprisal from around a religion and it's true character will come out, righteous sword in hand.

[Warsie]

Anon is not a formal organization. It's a group of individuals that interact with each other. All those things you say may be true, but you have to remember that those actions aren't representative of anonymous as a whole, but rather the actions of individuals within the group.

okay

Also, you forget that anonymous doesn't always take itself seriously.

true. they may fuck up other peoples' lives but often they joke....heh

Check your sarcasm-meter.

mine malfunctions/is broken/doesn't exist/meh.

thank you

[Surlethe]

I think the Burden is on you to prove that before the Emperor Constantine called the Convention that decided what would go in the Bible, that Christians where going around persecuting 'Hereticcs' or that they where even able to.

First, you're an ignoramus: Constantine was Emperor from 306-337. The Biblical canon was established and confirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397. Moreover, the Catholic Church was persecuting Gnosticism during the 300s. In fact, some sources hold that Paul mentions Gnosticism in some of his letters to Greek churches.

[Thanas]

How much do you really know about scientology and germany, Flagg?

They are prosecuted for the same reasons neo-nazis, radical communists or fundamentalists are - they threaten the democracy and are quite dangerous for their members.

Scientology is trying to overthrow the German government? Really? Any evidence for this? Any evidence that Scientology poses a greater threat to Germans and Germany than the Catholic Church or Islam? Or is it just that Scientologists are an incredibly easy target due to their unpopularity?

I never said they were trying to overthrow the german government. I said they were dangerous for their members and threaten the democracy. They use tactics to control members and via that, gain a following that allows them to influence elections. And it may be shocking for you to hear, but in germany, a religious organization does have no right to tell its adherents to vote for such and such a candidate. It is established constitutional doctrine. And yes, both extremist islamic and christian groups are under observation as well.

Furthermore, their tactics may very well be against article 1 of the german constitution. Also, they are an undemocratic organization that, together with the tactics they are using of psychological indoctrination, may be against normal law as such anyway.

As for the links - do you speak german? If so, you may find these materials interesting.

Why should they be treated any better than say a christian group trying to supplant the constitution with a regime created by "god"? Or a radical communist party?

Are they actively trying to overthrow the German government? Really? Because they don't seem to be trying to overthrow the US government, and we actually allow organizations with that as their stated intent to exist.

Germany is a bit different in that regard. An undemocratic organization may exist, but they are usually not tax-exempt and may be prosecuted if they use unconstitutional means (such as psychological conditioning) to persue their aims.

Also, you can take your germany=nazi spiel and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, because everybody with any kind of knowledge knows that modern germany is quite unlike the third reich.

Oh, sorry about that. I forgot that pointing out that a country which carried out the extermination of 12 million people for being in widely despised religious and racial minority groups might not exactly have the moral high ground when it comes to deciding which religious organizations are "legitimate" and which are not is equating the modern government with Nazis.

What is the bolded part then. If it is the same country, how is that not equating the Federal Republic of Germany with the thrid reich?

[Flagg]

How much do you really know about scientology and germany, Flagg?

They are prosecuted for the same reasons neo-nazis, radical communists or fundamentalists are - they threaten the democracy and are quite dangerous for their members.

Scientology is trying to overthrow the German government? Really? Any evidence for this? Any evidence that Scientology poses a greater threat to Germans and Germany than the Catholic Church or Islam? Or is it just that Scientologists are an incredibly easy target due to their unpopularity?

I never said they were trying to overthrow the german government. I said they were dangerous for their members and threaten the democracy. They use tactics to control members and via that, gain a following that allows them to influence elections. And it may be shocking for you to hear, but in germany, a religious organization does have no right to tell its adherents to vote for such and such a candidate. It is established constitutional doctrine. And yes, both extremist islamic and christian groups are under observation as well.

Furthermore, their tactics may very well be against article 1 of the german constitution. Also, they are an undemocratic organization that, together with the tactics they are using of psychological indoctrination, may be against normal law as such anyway.

As for the links - do you speak german? If so, you may find these materials interesting.

Why should they be treated any better than say a christian group trying to supplant the constitution with a regime created by "god"? Or a radical communist party?

Are they actively trying to overthrow the German government? Really? Because they don't seem to be trying to overthrow the US government, and we actually allow organizations with that as their stated intent to exist.

Germany is a bit different in that regard. An undemocratic organization may exist, but they are usually not tax-exempt and may be prosecuted if they use unconstitutional means (such as psychological conditioning) to persue their aims.

Also, you can take your germany=nazi spiel and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, because everybody with any kind of knowledge knows that modern germany is quite unlike the third reich.

Oh, sorry about that. I forgot that pointing out that a country which carried out the extermination of 12 million people for being in widely despised religious and racial minority groups might not exactly have the moral high ground when it comes to deciding which religious organizations are "legitimate" and which are not is equating the modern government with Nazis.

What is the bolded part then. If it is the same country, how is that not equating the Federal Republic of Germany with the thrid reich?

It is the same country you fucking idiot. Largely made up of the same fucking people. Or do you think everyone gets a moral pass once the government changes?

And are you going to tell me that raising a child as a Christian or a Jew is not using psychological conditioning? The difference here is that you actually have to be somewhat willing to be a Scientologist to even get to the brainwashing stage, unlike innocent children who have no choice in the matter whatsoever.

[D.Turtle]

So Scientology believes that all people who disagree with their beliefs are mentally sick. How horrible of them. Sort of like believing that all people who disagree with their beliefs are wicked, sinful, and evil. Oops; that would be Christianity.

Too true.

The difference between Scientology and mainstream european christian churches (aka Catholic Church and the Evangelical Chruch, among others) is that Scientology wants to create a society in which the Schientology Organisation has total control, which is not the case with mainstream christian churches.

If a christian group (in Germany) would have similar goals to Scientology, they would most likely also be put under observation of the Verfassungsschutz and maybe even be banned.

[Darth Wong]

As I tried to explain to Skelron (before realizing that he's a bog-standard Catholic apologist and therefore a complete waste of time), the desire to control society is in fact quite common in Christian churches. The Catholic church successfully did that for many centuries. Even today, many Christians believe that the separation of church and state is wrong. The jealous, controlling aspects of Scientology are the biggest thing it has in COMMON with mainstream religion, rather than being the things which set it apart.

[Stuart Mackey]

That doesn't answer the point, moron. Your idiotic claim that attempts to suppress heretics are somehow not a feature of Christianity flies in the face of everything we know of the history of your mindless belief system. I never said that 100% of individual Christians do this; I said only that Christianity has this characteristic. All you're doing is acting like a typical religious apologist.

I never said it wasn't, I said two things. One that Internal Debate has always been possible, and two that todays Church is a different animal to that of the past, that today we hold different standards.

Hah! only because secular law forbids anything else. I have no doubt that the creators of the menstruating miracle Madonna statue in south park would have been burnt at the stake if the church could have managed it. Warming themselves by the fire of a burning heretic was beyond them so they, and their apologists, must resort to attempted boycotts and law suits to force their beliefs on the public.

[D.Turtle]

It is the same country you fucking idiot. Largely made up of the same fucking people. Or do you think everyone gets a moral pass once the government changes?

The reason Scientology is being observed by the Verfassungsschutz is precisely because of the lessons learned by the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Nazism.

A democratic government, a democratic society has to actively defend and protect its principles. That is the role of the Verfassungsschutz: to guarantee that organizations that want to change the fundamental workings of society away from a democratic one get stopped before they actively try to do so. It is not enough to react when such organizations are at the stage of actively changing fundamental workings of society, you have to stop them before that stage, because it might be to late by then.

And are you going to tell me that raising a child as a Christian or a Jew is not using psychological conditioning? The difference here is that you actually have to be somewhat willing to be a Scientologist to even get to the brainwashing stage, unlike innocent children who have no choice in the matter whatsoever.

Of course religions use psychological conditioning. The difference is that Scientology wants to change the fundamental rules of society away from democratic rules. That is not acceptable in Germany.

Any and all organizations (religious or not) that try to do that are observed, and if necessary banned in Germany.

That is called learning from mistakes (ie the rise of Nazism in Germany, and the failure of the Weimar Republic to deal with that).

[darthbob88]

If anybody's interested, the Verfassungsschutz D. Turtle is referring to is Germany's domestic intelligence service, and it is charged with protecting the state from un-democratic organizations.

[D.Turtle]

As I tried to explain to Skelron (before realizing that he's a bog-standard Catholic apologist and therefore a complete waste of time), the desire to control society is in fact quite common in Christian churches. The Catholic church successfully did that for many centuries. Even today, many Christians believe that the separation of church and state is wrong. The jealous, controlling aspects of Scientology are the biggest thing it has in COMMON with mainstream religion, rather than being the things which set it apart.

In some ways I wonder if the extremely strict separation fo church and state in the US (and some other countries) has not in fact hurt the process of secularization (or maybe better de-radicalization)of those countries.

In Germany, you obviously have freedom of religion. However, at the same time, the state, for example, collects the 10% taxes from members of the Catholic and Evangelical Churches. The majority party in parliament is the Christian Democratic Union, and the Catholic and Evangelical Churches in many other ways are directly connected to the state.

If you look at the teachings of the various denominations in Germany, you quickly realize that most of the more fundamentalist ones are those not connected to the state in any way or form. For example, the Freie Evanglische Gemeinde, Free Evangelical Church, which I was a member of, currently has a huge discussion about the question if women should be allowed to be pastors in a church.

Obviously the big churches would not have come to the point that they are at now on their own, but I think that they were forced into this position (of softening up the more extreme views of Christianity) precisely because they were so closely connected to the state.

If anybody's interested, the Verfassungsschutz D. Turtle is referring to is Germany's domestic intelligence service, and it is charged with protecting the state from un-democratic organizations.

Ah yes, I forgot to add that (I edit way too much before posting).

The official translation is "Office for the Protection of the Constitution". And their homepage is here (in english).

They also have their report from 2005 in English, including a part about Scientology here (in English, pdf) starting on page 289.