But when comparing magnitude of the crimes against society and humanity, the mainstream Abrahamic religions come out ahead, if only because of their size and history.


With all due respect, this smells like terrible goalpost-shifting. Why should the criteria for "real religions" include these conditions? What makes them more real than other religions that fail some of the elements of the list you've laid out?

And targeting them will get you nowhere, and in some cases (such as mainstream Christianity), there is little point - it's undergoing a slow collapse already.



Because such rules would help prevent certain abusive practices from occurring, assuming that religions and other organizations are allowed to retain any exceptional status in society.

It is goalpost shifting - removing religion in its entirety is unachievable for the foreseeable future. So instead you can focus on one of two paths

1: Target the worst symptoms.
2: Shut down smaller organizations.

#1 still brings benefit to society, so it is worth 'going for'.

And yet, one could come up with many other rules to prevent numerous well-known forms of abuse, such as "real religions will not tell people to refuse life-saving medical treatment" or "real religions would not set themselves up in opposition to science", but you conspicuously did not, because those other rules would apply to mainstream Christianity.

If the rationale behind your conditions is to keep the religion from doing harm, then why the coincidentally Bible-friendly exclusions? Oh yeah, those rules are specifically tailored to uphold the double-standard.

I did say others could be thought of, it's not an exhaustive list even with those two points. The former didn't occur to me at all, though I don't think it's generic enough.

I couldn't think of a good way to word the latter, plus at this point it would cut out about half of a potential support base in the US. I'm all for science but I'm also for winnable battles.

Mandated critical thinking, mathematics, logic, and research lessons would be a better place to start, I think. Not only would it be easier for moderate Creationists to swallow, but you also avoid crap like people trying to define their own science.

So the definition of a "real religion" should be based on what is a "winnable battle" now? Why don't you just come clean and admit that your definition of a "real religion" is meaningless bullshit which has no real function other than to pretend that the status quo has some intellectual validity to it?

Enlightening for the discussion about Germany and its treatment of Scientology might this page from the German Embassy.

Relevant might also be the Report from 1997 that resulted in the continuation of the investigation of Scientology in Germany:
In German (pdf)
An unofficial english translation.

From this page from the Verfassungsschutz (Office for the Protection of the Constitution) in Baden-Württemberg, a small summary (my translation):



It goes on from there.

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.

This one definatly. In copywriting the beliefs you make it possible to sue anyone who may wish to form a splinter sect. Thereby making it so that it is impossible to wonder if the faith has gotten off track. 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.

In Copywriting and Trademarking they also pursue a policy of hiding what they claim is the truth and way to whatever the end goal of the church is. In doing this they go opposite most if not all religions, where the goal is at least claimed to be salvation of the human race, this cannot be achieved by hiding what you believe to be the path to that goal.

It also prevents criticism of the Faith, both internally and externally. Internally the believers do not know till they have already paid massive extrotionate levels of cash just what exactly it is they believe, they get bitesized chunks instead. This prevents a serious internal debate over what the teachings mean.

This is something that is contrary to most world Religions, where scholars and other such criticisms have been a long running tradition within and without.


Yes and no, ignoring cults which are... attempting to control relationships, well it's always going to be an issue. If a person converts to a different religion it is going to have a knock on effect in their relationships with familiy and friends. However, the more established faiths would on the whole seem less likely to try andseperate familys, whether it would happen anyway...


Too specific really. The Fair game policy is disgusting but in saying no Fair Game policy you really need to say what exactly the unique thing to Scientology about Fair game is that differs from other religions. It is certainly likely that most religions have some policy for the more outspoken critics etc, Although at least the more Liberal ones would likely not go as far as a smear campaign attempting to destroy lives.

---

From a review of the two Towers.... 'As for Gimli being comic relief, what if your comic relief had a huge axe and fells dozens of Orcs? That's a pretty cool comic relief. '

Wow thats a broad brush you use their Wong. Really all Christians believe that or all Christian Churchs,, with no if's buts or maybes?

---

From a review of the two Towers.... 'As for Gimli being comic relief, what if your comic relief had a huge axe and fells dozens of Orcs? That's a pretty cool comic relief. '

How about the smear campaign being conducted against homosexuals in America, where all homosexuals are claimed to lack the capacity for genuine love, commitment, responsibility, or morality? Or the one being conducted against all secularists? Or the scurrilous lies told about major historical figures in order to discredit their opposition to Christian beliefs such as creationism or the separation of church and state? How about the E-mail chain letters being circulated about people like Madeline O'Hare?

Christianity can slander, smear, and victimize with the best of them, even in America.

And do 100% of Scientologists believe that anyone who disagrees with their beliefs is mentally sick? Funny how you only have a problem with that "broad brush" when it's being used on you, isn't it?

When the older religions were first created, there was no such thing as copyright or trademark. Using that as a distinction is no different than saying that all real religions are old.

And saying that prevention of criticism is not a feature of mainstream religions is the most historically ignorant thing I've seen in quite a while.

Internal criticism is long running and well established Wong, how far back would you like me to go? How about to St Thomas Moore, who before the Lutherites Ravaged Rome wrote a quite famous work that contains his criticisms of the Catholic Church at the time. You might have heard of it, it's called Utopia.

Yet despite his criticisms of the Church he was still made a Saint. Or maybe you'd like me to go further back? Or is it that you mistake the complete splits and the responses to them for being the same thing as suppresing all criticism? The Lutherites and the other such splits from the Church also often occured at times of great threat externally to Western Europe. Where the enemy was quite literally at the gates, with battering rams out.

---

From a review of the two Towers.... 'As for Gimli being comic relief, what if your comic relief had a huge axe and fells dozens of Orcs? That's a pretty cool comic relief. '

So is persecution of "heretics", asshole. Christians were persecuting heretics before they even had a fucking Bible.

And yet they all slavishly adhere to the original Gospels, because they know that making up your own edited version of them instantly brands you as a heretic. How is that better than copyrighting the book, again?

I'm not sure what your point is or what sort of fight you are trying to pick. Your statement is accurate if simplistic. What of it?

To me, you seem to be arguing for an all or nothing approach against religion - that is, either someone should take a hardline stance against all of it, or don't bother.

You can mock the hypocrisy of a given religion all you want - that's fine, but they're still voters, a lot of them. If you want their support for a cause that they -would- support, then why try steamrolling their interests on top of it?

Really before they had a Bible, oh grow up Wong, before they had a Bible tthere was likely at most a few decades, depending on how long it took Constantine to get the books of the bible selected. How the fuck a group that went from powerless minority to having a bible and being in power was supposed to have gotten in some good old fashioned Heretic burning is beyond me.

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

Also yes, the title of Heretic was thrown around. And it did lead to deaths, and yes, this means it is not a free for all, point to where I said it was? I said it was possible to criticise, maybe within set limits of what was accepted by the majority, but guess what the majority at least had the chance to learn what it was they believed. The Scientologists Majority CAN'T.

That is the Fucking differance. A Scientologist believer can't hold a debate with a higher up on what exactly a teaching means because they are not in possesion of all the 'facts' and it is possible will never be in possesion of those facts.

I can ehad down to a church in the morning and after Mass, speak to the Priest. I could take issue with things in the sermon and say to him, 'I disagree with your interpretation of this, because of XYZ.' He and I would be in possesion of the same teachings, so my disagreement with him would be possible, he hasn't got any secrets over me, no Super-Secret Only to be taught to those who pay 'Blah' amount of money, information, that might very well render my intratation moot.

---

From a review of the two Towers.... 'As for Gimli being comic relief, what if your comic relief had a huge axe and fells dozens of Orcs? That's a pretty cool comic relief. '

Getto Edit Interpretation*

---

From a review of the two Towers.... 'As for Gimli being comic relief, what if your comic relief had a huge axe and fells dozens of Orcs? That's a pretty cool comic relief. '

I'm pointing out that your definition of a "real religion" is totally pointless. What you're really defining is the status quo.

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

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.

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. 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.

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. Protestant denominations sprung up despite violent attempts to suppress them, leading to intra-denominational hostility which claimed countless lives and continued right up into the 20th century in some areas.

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

Stop being ignorant. The gospels weren't even written down until at least one hundred years after the events they supposedly chronicle. The Councils of Nicea were held 200ish years and 600ish years later, respectively. The Bible as we know it today wasn't even formalized for over half a century after Jesus was born and died. Just because they didn't have a bible didn't mean they didn't hold considerable power.




Ask a Catholic, and no, they're not. Feel free to continue spouting stupidity though.

I don't see so much of a problem in it because the 'status quo' in the US is gradually secularizing as is, and mandating logic, critical thinking and research skills in education would only help that.

My main concern would be something taking Christianity's place after it leaves, and it's best if such things aren't allowed to take root.

I'll just jump in here and mention that very few Christians both owned and could read the bible for a long-ass time. In England, for example, William Tyndale only translated the bible into English in the 16th century. This also ignores the fact that the bible still wasn't widely available for a long time after that.

Until then they just believed whatever the priests were telling them.

Incidentally, William Tyndale was killed for heresy.

And so you define a bunch of rules for a "real religion" which target only Scientology and not Christianity ... in the hopes that these rules would keep something else from taking Christianity's place?

They actually target some Mormon, Islamic and Jehovah's Witness practices as well (largely in the way that they try to govern relationships). Mostly I was thinking Mormons too when I wrote those - I did say I forgot the prevention of medical care, of which Scientology is a flagrant violator.

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

---

Yeah sure, as long as "awesome" is some kind of Shroomy code-word for "fucking stupid". - DW
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZook