Massive Takedown of Anti-Scientology Videos on YouTube

[SUBMAN1]

Someone needs to sue this cult into oblivion for violating free speech rights.

-S

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/09/massive-takedown-anti-scientology-videos-youtube

Massive Takedown of Anti-Scientology Videos on YouTube (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/09/massive-takedown-anti-scientology-videos-youtube)

News Update (http://www.eff.org/blog-categories/news-update) by Eva Galperin (http://www.eff.org/about/staff/eva-galperin)

Over a period of twelve hours, between this Thursday night and Friday morning, American Rights Counsel LLC sent out over 4000 DMCA takedown notices to YouTube, all making copyright infringement claims against videos with content critical of the Church of Scientology. Clips included footage of Australian (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XzFO4M2joBA) and German (http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=T18rj8c3O2A) news reports about Scientology, A Message to Anonymous/Scientology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eIUOhMBIuE) , and footage from a Clearwater City Commission meeting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd78vId2Uns). Many accounts were suspended by YouTube in response to multiple allegations of copyright infringement.

YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices (http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=59826). At this time, many of the suspended channels have been reinstated and many of the videos are back up. Whether or not American Rights Counsel, LLC represents the notoriously litigious Church of Scientology is unclear, but this would not be the first time that the Church of Scientology has used the DMCA to silence Scientology critics. The Church of Scientology DMCA complaints shut down (http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=605) the YouTube channel of critic Mark Bunker in June, 2008. Bunker’s account, XenuTV, was also among the channels shut down in this latest flurry of takedown notices.

[Letum]

Some of the laws they are evoking may be right and just, but the same can not be
said of the motives behind the evocation.

[Frame57]

I am not quite sure even why they use the word "church". I understand in greek it just means "assembly", but traditional connotations infer a christian affiliation.

[Happy Times]

I dont understand how they are regocnized as a religion in some countries while they work to destroy civill liberties. They are in the same cast as organized crime and terrorism.

[Skybird]

When tolerance does no longer ask whether the object is worth to be tolerated or not, it becomes an end in itself. In practical consequence it is not any different than appeasement, then. Such kind of "tolerance" deserve our utmost disgust. It is self-deception, weakness and cowardice.

In France the scientology sect again faces a court trial over organised fraud. It has been sentenced for that before, but sometimes also evaded such a sentence. In Germany, all in all it is being seen as anti-constitutional and a threat to the basic order of the german state. Several federal states have it under observation by federal intelligence services. scientology itself speaks of Germany as its most important battlefield for the fight to infiltrate Europe's institutions and societies.

They are as wanted as bone cancer.

[Frame57]

Yikes! And I thought I had problems with the JW's

[Happy Times]

Yikes! And I thought I had problems with the JW's

Who?

[Digital_Trucker]

Jehovah's Witnesses. They drag their children around knocking on doors wanting to "give" you their little "tracts".

[Letum]

When tolerance does no longer ask whether the object is worth to be tolerated or not

It's not really "tolerance" if you pick and chose what you tolerate.
Excuse the Reductio ad Hitlerum, but in the 1930s the Germans where very
tolerant by your standard, they just decided the Jews where not "worth to be
tolerated".

A better way to go about it is to tolerate everything you can that does not unjustly
infringe upon others.

For this reason scientology's disgraceful activities should not be tolerated.

[Happy Times]

Jehovah's Witnesses. They drag their children around knocking on doors wanting to "give" you their little "tracts".

Ofcourse, they are comparable in many ways.:yep:

[Letum]

Jehovah's Witnesses. They drag their children around knocking on doors wanting to "give" you their little "tracts".
Ofcourse, they are comparable in many ways.:yep:

The JW.s do, on the face of it, seam to be a little more genuine.
They certainly have less money changing hands AFAIK.

[Happy Times]

Jehovah's Witnesses. They drag their children around knocking on doors wanting to "give" you their little "tracts".
Ofcourse, they are comparable in many ways.:yep:

The JW.s do, on the face of it, seam to be a little more genuine.
They certainly have less money changing hands AFAIK.

I know many, and they are in many ways normal but they arent free to think much on their own. They do give a fair share of money and i understand they send it to US. Now if they only print more gospel with it thats their business but somehow i have my doubts. The threats and extortion of members wanting to leave is also common feature.

[Wolfehunter]

Someone has to put this bogus church into place. How can they actually file this? Isn't there a way for the other side to defend themselves? I guess the powerful with cash can buy the law off?:hmm:

[Happy Times]

Someone has to put this bogus church into place. How can they actually file this? Isn't there a way for the other side to defend themselves? I guess the powerful with cash can buy the law off?:hmm:

They are recognized as a religion in the US.

[UnderseaLcpl]

When tolerance does no longer ask whether the object is worth to be tolerated or not, it becomes an end in itself. In practical consequence it is not any different than appeasement, then. Such kind of "tolerance" deserve our utmost disgust. It is self-deception, weakness and cowardice.

In France the scientology sect again faces a court trial over organised fraud. It has been sentenced for that before, but sometimes also evaded such a sentence. In Germany, all in all it is being seen as anti-constitutional and a threat to the basic order of the german state. Several federal states have it under observation by federal intelligence services. scientology itself speaks of Germany as its most important battlefield for the fight to infiltrate Europe's institutions and societies.

They are as wanted as bone cancer.


As much as I personally agree you with in many respects here, I could never politically support such a missive.
Letum basically sumed it up pretty well.

Why not encourage a groundswell of popular support that forces legislators to pursue criminal court cases for fraud and scientology's other violations of the law?
For that matter, also to encourage them not to support censorship efforts like this.

I, for one, will be including this in my letters to Kay Granger and Kay Hutchinson this month.

[Wolfehunter]

Someone has to put this bogus church into place. How can they actually file this? Isn't there a way for the other side to defend themselves? I guess the powerful with cash can buy the law off?:hmm:

They are recognized as a religion in the US.Right. Who did they buy off or kill to make this happen?

http://www.youtube.com/user/NewYork420420

[Skybird]

When tolerance does no longer ask whether the object is worth to be tolerated or not

It's not really "tolerance" if you pick and chose what you tolerate.
Excuse the Reductio ad Hitlerum, but in the 1930s the Germans where very
tolerant by your standard, they just decided the Jews where not "worth to be
tolerated".

A better way to go about it is to tolerate everything you can that does not unjustly

Disagree. Tolerance must end where ongoing tolerance could only be gotten at the cost of self-denial and self-deconstruction. But this criterion today all to often is no longer considered. Thus we even tolerate those who do not tolerate us anbd abuse our tolerance to enforce their own interests at out costs. That is no tolerance of ours, even if we call it that. It is circumcision between the ears, and it leads to the absence of any criterions by which we could define what we are and what we tolerat5e - and what we are noit and what we do not tolerate.

If we tolerate all and everything and mistaken that as tolerance, our own identity starts lacking any features that define it as such. And this feeds back on our demand even what should not be tolerated. Becasue we have stripped purselves of the needed identity and therefore the standards by which we could judge that this thing could be tolerated - and that thing better not. We are identity-less neuters, then - and prey for those who do not share our mental disorder.

[Skybird]

Someone has to put this bogus church into place. How can they actually file this? Isn't there a way for the other side to defend themselves? I guess the powerful with cash can buy the law off?:hmm:
Ron Hubbard: "If you want to make really big money, do not just write books. Found a religion." andnthat's what he did: he took his d-grade SciFi-novels of really very bad quality that they already where, and formed them into a gospel.

[Letum]

When tolerance does no longer ask whether the object is worth to be tolerated or not
It's not really "tolerance" if you pick and chose what you tolerate.
Excuse the Reductio ad Hitlerum, but in the 1930s the Germans where very
tolerant by your standard, they just decided the Jews where not "worth to be
tolerated".

A better way to go about it is to tolerate everything you can that does not unjustly
Disagree. Tolerance must end where ongoing tolerance could only be gotten at the cost of self-denial and self-deconstruction. But this criterion today all to often is no longer considered. Thus we even tolerate those who do not tolerate us anbd abuse our tolerance to enforce their own interests at out costs. That is no tolerance of ours, even if we call it that. It is circumcision between the ears, and it leads to the absence of any criterions by which we could define what we are and what we tolerat5e - and what we are noit and what we do not tolerate.

If we tolerate all and everything and mistaken that as tolerance, our own identity starts lacking any features that define it as such. And this feeds back on our demand even what should not be tolerated. Becasue we have stripped purselves of the needed identity and therefore the standards by which we could judge that this thing could be tolerated - and that thing better not. We are identity-less neuters, then - and prey for those who do not share our mental disorder.



Tolerating only those things you like or those things you feel fit with in your
identity is called "intolerance".

[Mush Martin]

Democracy should guarantee freedom from religion in the public forum.
Not freedom of it.
Religion is a personal choice and should be kept
in your personal residence.

jmo shoot me if you really feel the need.

M

[VipertheSniper]

Tolerating only those things you like or those things you feel fit with in your
identity is called "intolerance".

Well but somewhere our tolerance has to stop... so how would you define tolerance?

[August]

Democracy should guarantee freedom from religion in the public forum.
Not freedom of it.
Religion is a personal choice and should be kept
in your personal residence.

jmo shoot me if you really feel the need.

M

So I assume by that you'd refuse religions the right to peaceful assembly right? Maybe make wearing a crucifix or a star of david in public a crime? This whole Skybird concept of forcing folks he doesn't like to keep out his eyesight is as wrong as the worst of organized religions excesses, imo of course.

[Letum]

Tolerating only those things you like or those things you feel fit with in your
identity is called "intolerance".
Well but somewhere our tolerance has to stop... so how would you define tolerance?

See post #9

[Mush Martin]

Democracy should guarantee freedom from religion in the public forum.
Not freedom of it.
Religion is a personal choice and should be kept
in your personal residence.

jmo shoot me if you really feel the need.

M
So I assume by that you'd refuse religions the right to peaceful assembly right? Maybe make wearing a crucifix or a star of david in public a crime? This whole Skybird concept of forcing folks he doesn't like to keep out his eyesight is as wrong as the worst of organized religions excesses, imo of course.

Nope just saying it should be at your house

[Stealth Hunter]

Evangelicals, Scientologists, and Mormons are all basically cultists (though I like the Mormons the most since they don't obstruct a lot of freedoms, like what you can read, what you can think, etc.).

Maybe I'll get a cult together of worshippers who follow the writings of Howard Phillips Lovecraft and the Cthulhu Mythos... yes... I'll name it the Esoteric Order and Church of Dagon.

[Stealth Hunter]

Democracy should guarantee freedom from religion in the public forum.
Not freedom of it.
Religion is a personal choice and should be kept
in your personal residence.

jmo shoot me if you really feel the need.

M
So I assume by that you'd refuse religions the right to peaceful assembly right? Maybe make wearing a crucifix or a star of david in public a crime? This whole Skybird concept of forcing folks he doesn't like to keep out his eyesight is as wrong as the worst of organized religions excesses, imo of course.

Nope just saying it should be at your house

Couldn't agree more, Mush. That's why I've always admired the Germans. They'll let you practice religion and they have nothing on that. But when you start trying to bug others about it and begin preaching on the streets like some Medieval motivational speaker, then they'll take after you.

I love what George Carlin said about the "THREE COMMANDMENTS":

"And finally, the third and last one, 'Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself'..."

[SS107.9MHz]

Jehovah's Witnesses. They drag their children around knocking on doors wanting to "give" you their little "tracts".

Eheh, in Portugal it's JW and Mormons ehehe, though some of those guys are quite nice when they aren't trying to convert this empirical/racionalist+atheisthttp://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon10.gif

[SS107.9MHz]

Democracy should guarantee freedom from religion in the public forum.
Not freedom of it.
Religion is a personal choice and should be kept
in your personal residence.

jmo shoot me if you really feel the need.

M
So I assume by that you'd refuse religions the right to peaceful assembly right? Maybe make wearing a crucifix or a star of david in public a crime? This whole Skybird concept of forcing folks he doesn't like to keep out his eyesight is as wrong as the worst of organized religions excesses, imo of course.
Nope just saying it should be at your house
Couldn't agree more, Mush. That's why I've always admired the Germans. They'll let you practice religion and they have nothing on that. But when you start trying to bug others about it and begin preaching on the streets like some Medieval motivational speaker, then they'll take after you.

I love what George Carlin said about the "THREE COMMANDMENTS":

"And finally, the third and last one, 'Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself'..."

Whoops...

[Stealth Hunter]

I saw two kids yesterday who I think were Jehovah's Witnesses... had white dress shirts on with black dress pants and black neckties. They were hauling around backpacks, too. Saw them on the side of the road when I was heading into town.

[Skybird]

When tolerance does no longer ask whether the object is worth to be tolerated or not
It's not really "tolerance" if you pick and chose what you tolerate.
Excuse the Reductio ad Hitlerum, but in the 1930s the Germans where very
tolerant by your standard, they just decided the Jews where not "worth to be
tolerated".

A better way to go about it is to tolerate everything you can that does not unjustly
Disagree. Tolerance must end where ongoing tolerance could only be gotten at the cost of self-denial and self-deconstruction. But this criterion today all to often is no longer considered. Thus we even tolerate those who do not tolerate us anbd abuse our tolerance to enforce their own interests at out costs. That is no tolerance of ours, even if we call it that. It is circumcision between the ears, and it leads to the absence of any criterions by which we could define what we are and what we tolerat5e - and what we are noit and what we do not tolerate.

If we tolerate all and everything and mistaken that as tolerance, our own identity starts lacking any features that define it as such. And this feeds back on our demand even what should not be tolerated. Becasue we have stripped purselves of the needed identity and therefore the standards by which we could judge that this thing could be tolerated - and that thing better not. We are identity-less neuters, then - and prey for those who do not share our mental disorder.



Tolerating only those things you like or those things you feel fit with in your
identity is called "intolerance".

No. You seem to have a totally undiscriminatory definition of tolerance. What I am about is seeing the difference between things that may not be in congruency with "you" but that you can tolerate nevertheless without damaging yourself, and things that you can only tolerate at the cost of doing damage to yourself.

every tolerance needs limits. Unlimited tolerance is rejecting the difference between what is "us" and what is not to be tolerated without deleting "us". That way we lose the ability (and the claim) to defend out identity against the demand of others to submit to their identiy. that is, because we have deleted our identity all ourselves. And when we do not know who we are any longer, we see no reason not to submit to the demands and the identity of the other. Is there an identity with an unlimited defintion of itself? Of course not, at leats none that is not seriously pathologic and shows intolerant megalomania. But we define identity not only by saiyng what it is, but also by pointing out what it is not. there are boundaries and limits, else defining identity is impossible.

Don't be so indifferent. Only fools tolerate all, everybody and everything. Total tolerqance for all and everything means the absence of any standards, rules and criterions by which to differ and to decide. We call this state anarchy - the absence of rules and identity that create these rules. Tolerance is no purpose in itself. It says nothing more than how far I can reach out to the other - without giving up myself. Be within that range, and you get tolerated by the other. Be beyond that range and demand the other to reach you by moving beaond his reach - and you demand him to reject himself in favour of yourself. Free, open societies have a long range at which they can reach out to others. intolerant, totalitarian and dogmatic, narrow-minded societes have a very short range at which they are willing to reach out for others. that's why dogmatism, intolerance, racism and monoculturalism are so widespread amongst them.

And yes, beyond that reach threshold we speak of "intolerance." Intolerance in this meaning is a vital, indispensible mechanism of self-protection and survival. Critical it only becomes when it tends to set in too early, and too short ranges for reaching out.

It quite compares to freedom. My freedom ends where I start to limit the freedom of others. accordingly, the right of others that I should tolerate them ends where they reject to tolerate me in return. It is a mutual deal, and reciprocity is indispensible part of the game. Those being totally indifferent and totally tolerant of all and everything, have been deleted and forgotten by history time and again. Only as long as the identity of nations, tribes, cults and people remain healthy, they survive. If they loose it, they become unimportant, weak and dissappear.

[Digital_Trucker]

Evangelicals, Scientologists, and Mormons are all basically cultists (though I like the Mormons the most since they don't obstruct a lot of freedoms, like what you can read, what you can think, etc.).
Which branch are you referring to, the "Reformed Latter Day Saints" (the ones with multiple wives) or the more mainstream Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints?

[SS107.9MHz]

I saw two kids yesterday who I think were Jehovah's Witnesses... had white dress shirts on with black dress pants and black neckties. They were hauling around backpacks, too. Saw them on the side of the road when I was heading into town.

We only get old mad ladies trying to feed us "The Witness" newspapper:rotfl:
Yhey usually wear those thick glasses (we called them bottle bottom glasses:lol:) and aren't very tall (And I'm not tall to begin with)... The mormons are almost always big tall guys very white and very blond... They look like Dutch guys white white shirts and suspendershttp://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon10.gif

[SS107.9MHz]

Oh and I was forgetting all those Brasilian cults like IURD (Universal Church of the Kingdom[or realm] of god) those guys are bonkershttp://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon12.gif

[silentrunner]

Another blow to personal freedoms by the cult of Scientology. There are videos bashing every religion on youtube what gives Scientology the right to remove ones opposing them.:nope:

[Skybird]

none of the cults being mentiponed here compares to scientology in it'S aggressiveness by which it tries to penetrate into big business and education while now hiding it's identity at the same time to evade any flak. Compared to that, JW and some local churches are dilletants. Scientology is a business corproation, and it sells people their own financial exploitation, brainwashing and psychic rape.

That so many fall for this diabolic deal tells us something about the failure of our own mainstream culture and it's real attractiveness. Some fall for scientology sect, because our societies cannot offer them what their mind is yearning for: managable salvation, a causal string of deeds that guarantees spritual freedom and happiness: the heaven in reach of your own hands, if only you reach for it motivated enough. Others see in it fulfilled the promise of living the ideals of our competition-oriented mainstream culture: to become powerful and priviliged in knowledge and by that earn more money at the end than what one has invested. Usually, the latter are few and the first are many, and the latter live from the first.

In the end, both end as fish hanging from lines.

[Mush Martin]

Indeed its an active organized campaign attempting to position itself
for surreptitious domination globally for the advancement of its own
agenda. Which btw is definitely not my preference of whom should
be running things.


maybe we can get rothschild to buy them off.:rotfl:

[Letum]

My freedom ends where I start to limit the freedom of others.

I certainly agree with that.

[Platapus]

Another blow to personal freedoms by the cult of Scientology. There are videos bashing every religion on youtube what gives Scientology the right to remove ones opposing them.:nope:


Every religious cult has the right to bring suit to get videos taken off of youtube. The fact that few cults do so is not the same as saying they don't have the right.

[Letum]

Another blow to personal freedoms by the cult of Scientology. There are videos bashing every religion on youtube what gives Scientology the right to remove ones opposing them.:nope:

Every religious cult has the right to bring suit to get videos taken off of youtube. The fact that few cults do so is not the same as saying they don't have the right.They may have the right to take down videos that violate copyright etc.

but they don't have the moral right to use copyright law, not to fight copyright
infringement, but to cover up criticism.

[Mush Martin]

is free video free speech in the law?

[August]

Democracy should guarantee freedom from religion in the public forum.
Not freedom of it.
Religion is a personal choice and should be kept
in your personal residence.

jmo shoot me if you really feel the need.

M
So I assume by that you'd refuse religions the right to peaceful assembly right? Maybe make wearing a crucifix or a star of david in public a crime? This whole Skybird concept of forcing folks he doesn't like to keep out his eyesight is as wrong as the worst of organized religions excesses, imo of course.
Nope just saying it should be at your house

But neither of our houses are in the public forum Mush.

To achieve your desire for "freedom from religion in the public forum" that means no Yalmukas or Tilakas or Crucifixes or Sikh turbans allowed to be worn in public. Churches, mosques, temples, either banned out right or at very least stripped of all outside markings and closed to public access. No religious festivals like our local favorite the Feast of St. Rocco, no Christmas lights...

You just cannot erase all sign of religion from the public eye and, imo, to try to do so is to go against the wishes of the great majority of people on this planet.

[Mush Martin]

Fair and granted, this has long represented an obstacle to my
totalitarian domination of earth.:rotfl:

[Skybird]

My freedom ends where I start to limit the freedom of others.

I certainly agree with that.
And how's it with "the freedom of others end where they start to limit mine"?

as Sailor Steve put it some months ago so very elegantly: "I have no problem with somebody who does not raise a problem to me."

I tolerate others if they do not try, intend or press me to change myself in their favour, and if they tolerate me in all my difference to themselves.

it's a good rule of thumb to give others the level of tolerance they show towards you, and mirror their intolerance if they do not tolerate you. I love that kind of reciprocity. It does not always save you from conflict and sometimes sees you in the need to fight off the other, but that is okay. Different to the impression politicians sometimes raise, mankind is not all a great happy family, and there are people who simply wish us bad and look forward to seeing us fall, to raise themselves that way.

[Mush Martin]

For everything you need to learn about tolerance try marriage.

its one half tolerating the other party and one half learning to
curb your own more noxious behaviours in good faith for good
balance.

M

[McBeck]

For everything you need to learn about tolerance try marriage.

its one half tolerating the other party and one half learning to
curb your own more noxious behaviours in good faith for good
balance.

M
Amen!

[Mush Martin]

Democracy should guarantee freedom from religion in the public forum.
Not freedom of it.
Religion is a personal choice and should be kept
in your personal residence.

jmo shoot me if you really feel the need.

M
So I assume by that you'd refuse religions the right to peaceful assembly right? Maybe make wearing a crucifix or a star of david in public a crime? This whole Skybird concept of forcing folks he doesn't like to keep out his eyesight is as wrong as the worst of organized religions excesses, imo of course.
Nope just saying it should be at your house
But neither of our houses are in the public forum Mush.

To achieve your desire for "freedom from religion in the public forum" that means no Yalmukas or Tilakas or Crucifixes or Sikh turbans allowed to be worn in public. Churches, mosques, temples, either banned out right or at very least stripped of all outside markings and closed to public access. No religious festivals like our local favorite the Feast of St. Rocco, no Christmas lights...

You just cannot erase all sign of religion from the public eye and, imo, to try to do so is to go against the wishes of the great majority of people on this planet.

Not to touch on it too much but consider........

all things evolve road systems shopping malls spiders planets stars
the only necessary ingredient is time.

So as with moralities evolving from middle eastern villages to Gene therapy
clinics, so also will likely, the organizations that are "Churches" or religions.

So "The Church's" will likely someday take a lesson from buisness anyway
and convert there assets to higher margined diversified funds while they
give up their properties eventually of their own volition and start outsourcing their facilities, for all the advantages that represents.
sooner or later you will just rent the local mega dome every sunday
because its cheaper than building st peters. the architechturaly fashionable Catherdral/Mosque/temple Built for glorification, will in the far future yeild
to the needs of go forth and multiply.

assuming we figure out the food thing :rotfl:


[edit] I feel in someways that would be sad
some of the most beautiful buildings Ive ever
seen were built for that purpose.

[Stealth Hunter]

Evangelicals, Scientologists, and Mormons are all basically cultists (though I like the Mormons the most since they don't obstruct a lot of freedoms, like what you can read, what you can think, etc.).
Which branch are you referring to, the "Reformed Latter Day Saints" (the ones with multiple wives) or the more mainstream Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints?

The reformers, although they're both kooky in my book.:lol:

[Digital_Trucker]

Evangelicals, Scientologists, and Mormons are all basically cultists (though I like the Mormons the most since they don't obstruct a lot of freedoms, like what you can read, what you can think, etc.).
Which branch are you referring to, the "Reformed Latter Day Saints" (the ones with multiple wives) or the more mainstream Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints?
The reformers, although they're both kooky in my book.:lol:
Well, just don't turn down the aid they'll (not the reformers) more than likely send your way in case of a natural disaster (at no charge to anyone, including the taxpayers).:D

[Wolfehunter]

none of the cults being mentiponed here compares to scientology in it'S aggressiveness by which it tries to penetrate into big business and education while now hiding it's identity at the same time to evade any flak. Compared to that, JW and some local churches are dilletants. Scientology is a business corproation, and it sells people their own financial exploitation, brainwashing and psychic rape.

That so many fall for this diabolic deal tells us something about the failure of our own mainstream culture and it's real attractiveness. Some fall for scientology sect, because our societies cannot offer them what their mind is yearning for: managable salvation, a causal string of deeds that guarantees spritual freedom and happiness: the heaven in reach of your own hands, if only you reach for it motivated enough. Others see in it fulfilled the promise of living the ideals of our competition-oriented mainstream culture: to become powerful and priviliged in knowledge and by that earn more money at the end than what one has invested. Usually, the latter are few and the first are many, and the latter live from the first.

In the end, both end as fish hanging from lines.Skybird is right. Its not about other religions. Its about how Scientology practices is believe on others. One thing to wave a cross freely. Another is waving when a noose is around you neck.

[OneToughHerring]

none of the cults being mentiponed here compares to scientology in it'S aggressiveness by which it tries to penetrate into big business and education while now hiding it's identity at the same time to evade any flak. Compared to that, JW and some local churches are dilletants. Scientology is a business corproation, and it sells people their own financial exploitation, brainwashing and psychic rape.

I think a little differently about this issue. I think religions act as a group rather than as individual things. You see this especially when looking at the heads of different religions voting on issues in different venues, for example about issues concerning religions in countries. Interestingly, it will be important to see how different religions feel about Scientology, I think they may hold the key to really getting rid of that sect.

Unfortunately, religions tend to act together rather than against each other, especially in the modern world where scientific thinking is lessening the hold that religion holds on societies.

[Platapus]

However, I firmly believe that tolerance must be exhibited by both parties in order for it to work.

It is unfair to expect side"A" to be tolerant of side "B", while at the same time side "B"is not equally tolerant of side "A".

[1480]

SH, the two you describe are most likely Mormons on their mission. Pretty harmless for the most part. I've dealt with baptists, lutherans, episcolpaleans(sp), hinduists, jews, muslims, catholics, eastern orthodox, mormons, jw's, scientologists, wiccans and some other freaky deakies, and I must say, I'll deal with santeria or voudoun any day of the week. They seem to be the most grounded in reality :rotfl:

[Smaragdadler]

...
Maybe I'll get a cult together of worshippers who follow the writings of Howard Phillips Lovecraft and the Cthulhu Mythos... yes... I'll name it the Esoteric Order and Church of Dagon.

You know, others where already 'there and have done that':
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8933/pictures/various/grant1.gif

-> http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/lam.htm

[SUBMAN1]

YouTube videos have been restored.

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/08/youtube-slammed-dmcas-over-anti-scientology-content

-S