Italian Police in Scientologists are control-freak nutters shocker.
Tell me something we don't already know!
Italian police reportedly unearthed hidden dossiers on 'enemies' during a raid on Church of Scientology offices in Turin. The files, apparently discovered behind locked doors in a basement office, allegedly contained personal information on judges, police officers and journalists identified as hostile to the Church. Details …
I don't get religion, or cults or that sort of crap that seems to seek to change the way I would behave.
I'm quite capable of interacting in society without having to resort to believing in some invisible force.
In fact I don't need to believe in anything.
Scientology is just another way of gaining power and money from people less self assured than me. Another type of organised crime, it's hardly surprising they have many enemies and feel the need to prepare for an offensive type of defence.
Where is the flying spaghetti monster icon?
>>I don't get religion, or cults or that sort of crap that seems to seek to change the way I would behave
But they say...
>>Scientology is just another way of gaining power and money from people less self assured than me. Another type of organised crime, it's hardly surprising they have many enemies and feel the need to prepare for an offensive type of defence.
Sounds like you get them perfectly!
Every organization and individual you interact with wants to change the way you behave. Politicians do it to get votes. Corporations do it to get you to buy their products. Friends, wives, husbands all do it for all kinds of reasons.
It is nearly impossible to interact with someone else without trying to alter their behavior in some way. The difference is mostly in the extent to which they want to alter it, but it is almost always for personal gain and not always intended. Peer pressure is a very powerful force.
Also any group will tend to view non-members in a more negative perspective then members. Most groups exist not just to tie members together, but to keep those who don't adhere to their beliefs out. It isn't something that is limited to religions and cults.
It is quite possible to believe in all kinds of stiff, however far fetched or even weird, without changing one's normal behaviour in society. One certainly doesn't need organisations like this.
By the way, I have fond memories of a friend and I being thrown out of the Scientologists' London shop for bursting into song --- Frank Zappa's "What's the ugliest part of your body ... ... ... I think it's your mind".
... the moment their followers abandon their critical facilities ... which is most of the time ... Though Scientology seems better than most at combining incredulity and criminality in one package.
That's why religions don't like each other. Bet no-one is raiding the Vatican files anytime soon.
Please can we stop calling this bunch of muderous crooks a church; they are not; they are a business that indulges in brainwashing vulnerable people so that they can extract money.
Most ''churches'' push their own brand of mythology and rely on their members, but they don't extort in the manner of the scientologists.
I understand that they call themselves a "church" and I further understand that the net is pretty heavily infested with anti-Christian bigots, but is it really necessary for The Register to call the Scientology organization a "church"? With only one or two exceptions, every instance of the word "church" in this article could have been replaced with the word "organization" or "group". Using the word "church" where not required is simply playing into the hands of this criminal organization by allowing them to set the agenda.
It matters not whether you call them a "church", an "organisation", a "group", a "religion" or a "cult". It's just a name. Changing the name of something does not change what it is. A rose by any other name would smell a sweet. And a bunch of charlatans by any other name would smell as bad.
The basis of your argument seems to be that the using the word "church" somehow legitimises them. I don't understand that since there are an awful lot of "churches" out there who are truly sinister, including the mainstream. Religion has historically been a means of gaining control over the population and/or making money. It's not necessarilly that any religion starts out like that, but there it doesn't take too long before people with those motives will take control. People like that are attracted to organisations like churches.
I like that "the net is heavilly infested with anti-christian bigots" is it? What you mean is that when somebody criticizes your beloved church (which one is it, BTW?) you simply accuse them of being a bigot. It's an easy way to believe you've won an argument and common among almost all religious zealots. The trouble for you is that to win an argument it is necessary that your oponent concedes defeat, not just that you refuse to listen to them and shout "bigot".
"Ours is the one true god" they say. And if there are many churches worshiping that god then "ours is the one true religion" is the mantra. As soon as anybody within the church questions its dogma then you throw them out. Should a large number of people question the dogma then it's time for a a schism. And once the church has split in two, and has become smaller, then you can once more chant "ours is the one true religion".
The inteseting thing about your stance is that there are many people on here opposing organised religion, but when you read their comments you see criticism of christianity. And yet they may not be talking about christianity in any of it's forms, it is you who makes that assumption. More than that I suspect that when you say "christian" you don't actually mean "christian" you really mean the branch of christianity that you support. I have no problems if people choose to believe in a god, a prophet or a sacred banana - it's when people start playing on those beliefs in order to control the believers and extort money that I start to object. An interesting question is which came first, organised religion or belief? Did people really believe in gods before some clever caveman told them to. "The fruit on the tree won't grow, unless you make devotions to the fruit god at the foot of the tree every night." Says the clever caveman, and then collects the tributes every night when everybody else is asleep.
The real question here, Turtle, is why you should get to choose who should and should not be allowed to call themselves a church. Does it work on number of members? Or is it the age of the church? Either way, at one point did your chosen "organisation" get to call itself a "church" and what was it before that time?
Criminals? Interestingly many churches seem to exist outside the law, or rather laws are rewritten to bend around them. How does that happen? Members of the church in hpositions of power.
As far as I can see most organised religion exists mainly to play on human weakness in order to extort money from its members. I can see very few major religions that would not, if they were set up today, be treated as a dangerous cult.
Can you explain to me the difference between a legitimate religion and a cult, without referring to age, size or governmental recognition?
I've not seen many of those. The people you're smearing are generally opposed to all delusion-bearing mind viruses and the criminal gangs that support them.
Scientology is just a bit more belligerent than most, no more bonkers or oppressive.
Anon for very obvious reasons.
"The bust was reportedly authorised by local magistrates over concerns the local chapter of Scientology was holding sensitive personal data (including information on health and sexual orientation) in violation of Italy's privacy laws, the Daily Telegraph reports."
Does that mean that the Vatican will be raided for its confessional records which contain all of the above and so very much more ..... or is that to be different and stay covered up, for the good of the business which appears to be, as per Flying Spaghetti Monster, Richard 120 Posted Friday 21st May 2010 12:02 GMT, "just another way of gaining power and money from people less self assured than me. Another type of organised crime, it's hardly surprising they have many enemies and feel the need to prepare for an offensive type of defence.?"
And uncomfortable thought maybe, but hardly one which can be reasonably argued is not true and valid.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the Vatican had a buit-in exception in the law. There are a few such things; for example, I don't need to sign a privacy disclaimer every time I go to the doctor, because doctors are automatically bound to keep that info secret. The confessional secret may be considered equally valid. Still, it would be hilarious if priests had to get penitents to sign a privacy disclaimer before confession!
"Does that mean that the Vatican will be raided for its confessional records which contain all of the above and so very much more ..... "
"And uncomfortable thought maybe, but hardly one which can be reasonably argued is not true and valid."
Actually... it's very easy to argue that the comparison is invalid.
Your mistake is that your entire argument is based on a faulty premise.
The Vatican, much as I despise them, do not keep confessional records. Confessions are not recorded, their priests aren't there taking secret notes in the confessional, there is nothing to raid the Vatican in search of.
Scientology on the other hand, does keep notes made during auditing sessions, and retains the information for future use.
These two scenarios really can't be compared at all.
"....there is nothing to raid the Vatican in search of." Your right there's no point in raiding it for non-exsistent confessional records, bu there is plenty more secrets/art/etc stashed away in their vaults that could be raided.
@AC - I think the vatican is considered it's own state, which apparently they could technically enforce passport control on their border (last I heard they even had their own police force).
"These two scenarios really can't be compared at all." - uh, yes they can:
"The Vatican, much as I despise them, do not keep confessional records." - You do realize that all of the accounting information of members kept by the Catholic Church(tm) is sealed under the Confessional Rule? Every member "should" report income to their church for proper accounting of tithe (10% gross income). In the US (at least of the Catholics I have known before), it was common practice to simply make an additional copy of their tax return and blindly submit it to the Catholic Church(tm), which includes social security numbers, addresses, and more. This information, as well as a wealth of personal and relationship information, is all stored under the same premise; a "Confessional" record.
Now, whether they are ultimately stored in the Vatican or in the computers of the local diocheses (and subject to local laws?) is another matter...
The Scientologists keep us, their perceived enemies under surveillance.
Only the Germans get it right. Go to http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/index_en.html and scroll to the bottom. A German intelligence agency has them under surveillance. Yes, it takes an intelligence agencies to match their resources! The police is not enough!
Sex abuse scandal at the church of scientology .. well I guess it’s a real religion now and not a cult anymore....
@Turtle… you could also change the words “church of scientology” to “roman catholic” and the article would be just as true.
The way the RC church in the US hides and moves pedophiles around it surely is a corrupt criminal organization.
Should anyone require more information "The Complex: An Insider Exposes the Covert World of The Church of Scientology by John Duignan" is a very good read.
# ISBN-10: 1903582849
# ISBN-13: 978-1903582848
Can't buy it in the UK due to our interesting Libel Laws, but it's available from Amazon.com and several others.
Was available from Eason.ie but they seem to have pulled it.
Anon.................................... because I know they're watching me.
"Actually the vatican is an independant state not part of italy " ......Thomas Whipp Posted Friday 21st May 2010 14:03 GMT
How very convenient and unusually odd? It is not though, as far as I know, Thomas Whipp, independent whenever it comes to the matter of taxation of Italians.
It is funny that people take using a label as an acknowledgement of status, such as "church." Of course, those that DO belong to a "church" wouldn't want themselves associated on the same level as those in the Church of Scientology. Thus, revoking the privelege of branding them as a "church" demeans them in some way, making them inferior.
Also, as noted, one wonders why "Christians" are automatically viewed as simply Roman Catholic. Even though it was cobbled together by majority vote, as far as core beliefs go, to make it the "Universal Church" (look up "catholic"), it does not make them the de-facto of Christianity. Since Martin Luther (and others), one would be fairly hard-pressed to pin down any particular Christian exemplar.
As for Scientology, one would think with their SpaceOrg and such, they'd have advanced enough tech to have everything digitized and encrypted rather than being scratched hastily on a piece of parchment like their novella synopsis of a "world history." (yes, that sounds good). [sic]
Anon, because if anyone mentions religion, someone ends up getting tarred and feathered, burned at the stake, or assassinated. I just hope The Reg doesn't log IPs...
How can anybody consider them as a church?!
Scientology == organize crime == simply evil.
The south park episode 'Trapped in the Closet' is a GOOD introductory to anybody
interested in $ciento£ogy....or read the “A peace of blue sky”.
But HEY, they have TOM CRUISE so maybe they are not EVIL, am I wrong?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021