Scientology
This is an interesting article about Scientology and their Gestapo tactics; apparently their constantly suing everyone (do a lexis search for “Religious Technology Center” (a part of the church) and you’ll max out with 100 responses.
Most of the suits involve copyright violations by ex-members publishing Scientology teachings. This synopsis has to be the funniest thing I’ve read in some time.
“According to Scientology teachings, prince Xenu once ruled over the Galactic Federation. 75,000,000 years ago, Xenu solved the overpopulation in his realm by eliminating people and banishing their souls (‘thetans') to Teegeeack (Earth). Xenu put the thetans in volcanoes on Las Palmas and Hawaii, and then bombed them with atomic weapons. After that, the thetans floated in the atmosphere. A thetan occupies a body and moves to another when the body dies. But when a thetan has done too many harmful things and is keeping too many secrets, he can't face up to life anymore and clings to the old body.”
What’s really sad is that this isn’t made up. If it were false, there would be no copyright issue, but a libel suit.
posted by Sam @ 8:38 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Now, Sam...
Are you really going to begrudge a person their religious beliefs? Is this concept really so much more far-fetched than some omnipotent being who, on a whim, creates an entire universe? (What did he do before it?)
Or a belief that the universe is in an upside down bowl being carried on the back of a snake, that's on the back of an elephant, on top of a turtle? Or that we all were once smaller than fish and swam in the ocean?
Well, maybe it is... who knows?
I think the most pressing evidence that this isn't the "truth" stems from Battlefield Earth, the film.
Sam thinks his religion is better than everyone else's. Way to be an open-minded law student, Sam.
For another interesting case on Scientology, see 165 F.3d 1173.
I think the comments were overly harsh toward the original blogger. The assertion that all religious beliefs are equally valid or legitimate is itself a religious belief. It works with the assumption that NO religion is truly legitimate - that is, that no religion can prove its claims any better than another. This is quite an assertion to make - and is usually made by people who have not had many first-hand experiences with different religions.
Our country allows freedom of beliefs, but the better justification for this is NOT that all regligions are equally valid, but just the opposite - that a free marketplace of religious ideas and beliefs is the best way to sift out the ones that are truly bogus. The essence of religious freedom is the concept that some religions are better than others, and should have the opportunity to demonstrate it.
That being said, not even the IRS or the courts buy the argument that anything peddled as religion must be respected as such. See the case above, and also 548 F.Supp. 1247 (D.Minn. 1982); and 288 F.Supp. 439 (D.D.C. 1968).
Particleman - sorry, there is nothing close-minded about him thinking that his own views are correct. On the contrary, one would be silly to hold to views that you DIDN'T think were correct. You seem to equate being open-minded with being a relativist, but the two are not the same thing. Many relativists are famously close-minded (unwilling to tolerate others' absolutist opinions), and many absolutists are notoriously open-minded, chronically searching for truth.
Post a Comment
<< Home