Massive Takedown of Anti-Scientology Videos on YouTube

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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]

Originally Posted by Letum

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]

Originally Posted by 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:

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

[August]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

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

See post #9

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

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]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

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+atheist

[SS107.9MHz]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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]

Originally Posted by Letum

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.