Wikipedia has banned the Church of Scientology and its members from editing its site after discovering that members of the church were editing articles in order to give the church favorable coverage.
The move is being hailed as "an unprecedented effort to crack down on self-serving edits," and it is the first instance in which Wikipedia has banned a group as large as the Church of Scientology.
The Register reports:
According to evidence turned up by admins in this long-running Wikiland court case, multiple editors have been "openly editing [Scientology-related articles] from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities." Leaning on the famed WikiScanner, countless news stories have discussed the editing of Scientology articles from Scientology IPs, and some site admins are concerned this is "damaging Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality."
cont. in link.
Wikipedia also banned some wikipedians from editing articles about scientology because they were too biased. However, scientologists are banned from editing any wikpedia pages. In any case, those IPs that wikipedia banned may not be too impactful since scientologists can still do it through other means. Here is the case that lasted six months.
You know I'm leaning toward this being outrageous. Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion' and it has some extreme, terrorist-like stances like Fair Game which essentially states that enemies have no rights within the scientology ethical framework. This is pretty bad since an enemy is anyone that tries to oppose the spread of this religion. But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
For starters, The Register always blows this kind of shit out of proportion since they like to make drama about Wikipedia. I'd be wary of taking anything they say too seriously. The coverage outside of The Register seems to be more fair.
Anyway, if you had been a participant in trying to defend these articles from the Scientologists over the last 5 years they've been aggressively -- and with great determination -- infiltrating Wikipedia, you might be able to appreciate what a relief this is. Yes, they can edit articles via other means, but it will now be much more difficult.
On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote: But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote: But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
On this page which has all the vote decisions for the case, the particular move to ban all scientology IPs had one lone dissenter. Basically, the rebuttal to his claim was that wikipedia also bans organizations like college campuses and because most of the scientologist activity was related to scientology. Now I've known for quite a while that the whole "encyclopedia anyone can edit" deal is bullshit, but banning an entire organization will probably do nothing more than make it harder to keep track of their edits.
On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote: But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
lol? Did you even read what they were doing?
Yes, so? You think this is like the one case that someone abuses wikipedia?
On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote: I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
I think it's generally accepted that being a scientologist naturally excludes them from being intelligent and contributing citizens...
You know I'm leaning toward this being outrageous. Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion' and it has some extreme, terrorist-like stances like Fair Game which essentially states that enemies have no rights within the scientology ethical framework. This is pretty bad since an enemy is anyone that tries to oppose the spread of this religion. But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
yep people who devote their lives to a religion created by a science fiction writer are often perfectly intelligent and not crazy at all
You know I'm leaning toward this being outrageous. Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion' and it has some extreme, terrorist-like stances like Fair Game which essentially states that enemies have no rights within the scientology ethical framework. This is pretty bad since an enemy is anyone that tries to oppose the spread of this religion. But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
yep people who devote their lives to a religion created by a science fiction writer are often perfectly intelligent and not crazy at all
How do you make the distinction between religions created by science fiction writers and sheep herders? To me they're both pretty loony, but I know many intelligent people who buy into the latter kind so I don't see why one wouldn't extend this to followers of the former as well.
You know I'm leaning toward this being outrageous. Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion' and it has some extreme, terrorist-like stances like Fair Game which essentially states that enemies have no rights within the scientology ethical framework. This is pretty bad since an enemy is anyone that tries to oppose the spread of this religion. But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
yep people who devote their lives to a religion created by a science fiction writer are often perfectly intelligent and not crazy at all
On May 30 2009 14:53 Hippopotamus wrote: How do you make the distinction between religions created by science fiction writers and sheep herders? To me they're both pretty loony, but I know many intelligent people who buy into the latter kind so I don't see why one wouldn't extend this to followers of the former as well.
A lot of people bring their own biases to Wikipedia, and they're dealt with on a case by case basis.
The difference with the Scientologists is that they are much more organized and determined, and their PR is such that they learned Wikipedia policy so they could appear to be making legitimate edits that, in the aggregate, severely slanted the articles to a pro-Scientology bias. So in this case ArbCom decided to go with the nuclear option, and I think they were right.
I like how Christianity/Hinduism/Islam/etc. are somehow viewed as "better" than scientology. They are just as ridiculous if not more so in some cases. They're simply older, and people have had time to digest/ignore their garbage.
On May 30 2009 15:01 Draconizard wrote: I like how Christianity/Hinduism/Islam/etc. are somehow viewed as "better" than scientology. They are just as ridiculous if not more so in some cases. They're simply older, and people have had time to digest/ignore their garbage.
great work. this sort of thinking was unheard of 200 years ago. this gives me hope. the only thing that keeps religion going is a bunch of people agreeing with each other... for no external reasons. im hoping this cant go on forever.
On May 30 2009 14:53 Hippopotamus wrote: How do you make the distinction between religions created by science fiction writers and sheep herders? To me they're both pretty loony, but I know many intelligent people who buy into the latter kind so I don't see why one wouldn't extend this to followers of the former as well.
A lot of people bring their own biases to Wikipedia, and they're dealt with on a case by case basis.
The difference with the Scientologists is that they are much more organized and determined, and their PR is such that they learned Wikipedia policy so they could appear to be making legitimate edits that, in the aggregate, severely slanted the articles to a pro-Scientology bias. So in this case ArbCom decided to go with the nuclear option, and I think they were right.
Explain the process of making legitimate edits to arrive at an illegitimate result? I admit that I have not been reading much about scientology on wikipedia. I have seen edit warring, abusing the 3-edit rule and I have personally dealt with wikilawyering. Especially annoying is when some jackass accuses you of using weasel words. But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article.
scientology really isn't a religion, it's a lot more about personal development than it is about anything else. people aren't forking over 1000s of dollars to hear some bullshit about aliens, they're paying to attend courses and seminars to gain skills for everyday life. too bad it's run like a cult, i went and took the free test and when i was talking to the auditor she told me 99% of scientologists had no idea about xenu etc before anti-scientologists came up and started confronting them about it, apparently the 1st few levels of scientology are basically self-help stuff
On May 30 2009 15:29 Motiva wrote: I think this is a step in the right direction for wikipedia. Regulation is always necessary. I'm glad to see it happening.
isnt that the truth. without regulation we would all have been working when we were 10 years old. we would be driving cars without safety regulations. eating food without even ingredient lables. watching commercials without any accountablity to truth or reality. and who knows wtf we would be drinking and eating... im sure they would feed us sawdust if they thought they could get away with it.
On May 30 2009 15:01 Draconizard wrote: I like how Christianity/Hinduism/Islam/etc. are somehow viewed as "better" than scientology. They are just as ridiculous if not more so in some cases. They're simply older, and people have had time to digest/ignore their garbage.
You say it like age has no meaning whatsoever.
You also say it like you understand all those religions well enough to be able to say such a sweeping statement.
Also, "some cases" isn't enough to condemn something like this...even Scientology.
Is this really super newsworthy? A more accurate topic title would be "Wikipedia bans IPs of some abusive Scientologists", or even just "Wikipedia bans IPs of some abusive users". Based on the Huffington Post bit you quoted, this event is regular Wikipedia moderation, not an anti-Scientologist movement. The banned users could be of any creed...the bottom line is they were consistently abusing Wikipedia and thus were IP banned. What else is new? Is Wikipedia going to IP ban some Christians tomorrow? Probably.
On May 30 2009 15:19 Hippopotamus wrote: But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article.
Hippopotamus, I'm sorry but I honestly cannot tell if I understand what you're saying. Did you just say that there is no way that changing a wikipedia article can make that article biased? Is that what you're saying?
If that's the case it sounds really dumb. But I'm not good in english and maybe I'm just getting confused. I hope so.
wow I can't believe how many people who I consider smart have nothing but short, dscriminating comments about scientology, yet if I told some wackjob christian that being a christian meant he was retarded
or said
"I think it's generally accepted that being a christian(scientologist) naturally excludes them from being intelligent and contributing citizens "
then people would be moderatoring it. I think most religions are stupid and abuse media, but is the difference between these idiots and the ones who think an imaginary friend is watching over them?
So much discrimination on teamliquid.... the general forum is a wasteland.
On May 30 2009 15:34 JWD wrote: Is this really super newsworthy? A more accurate topic title would be "Wikipedia bans IPs of some abusive Scientologists", or even just "Wikipedia bans IPs of some abusive users". Based on the Huffington Post bit you quoted, this event is regular Wikipedia moderation, not an anti-Scientologist movement. The banned users could be of any creed...the bottom line is they were consistently abusing Wikipedia and thus were IP banned. What else is new? Is Wikipedia going to IP ban some Christians tomorrow? Probably.
Well, this is in many news outlets. There wasn't enough room for the real title, but it should be "Wikipedia bans all IPs associated with Church of Scientology". This bans more than just some abusive scientologists and it doesn't really prevent some abusing scientologists from editing wikipedia if they'd really want to. The spirit of the motion is to ban scientologists from wikipedia. Banning all church of scientology IPs is simply the closest wikipedia can come to doing that in practice. I know wikipedia has banned stuff in the past, many high schools, for example, but this just seems to be crossing the line.
On May 30 2009 15:19 Hippopotamus wrote: But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article.
Hippopotamus, I'm sorry but I honestly cannot tell if I understand what you're saying. Did you just say that there is no way that changing a wikipedia article can make that article biased? Is that what you're saying?
If that's the case it sounds really dumb. But I'm not good in english and maybe I'm just getting confused. I hope so.
Well, how do legitimate edits lead to a slant? Usually you skew an article by introducing weasel words, lies, and overloading one side of an issue, and creating a sense of false controversy. Those are not legitimate edits. I just don't see how, say, 20 edits that add information, clarify statements, and citations (the most important kind of edit!) ultimately decrease the quality of an article.
On May 30 2009 15:43 AttackZerg wrote: wow I can't believe how many people who I consider smart have nothing but short, dscriminating comments about scientology, yet if I told some wackjob christian that I being a christian he was stupid
or said
"I think it's generally accepted that being a christian(scientologist) naturally excludes them from being intelligent and contributing citizens "
then people would be moderatoring it. I think most religions are stupid and abuse media, but is the difference between these idiots and the ones who think an imaginary friend is watching over them?
So much discrimination on teamliquid.... the general forum is a wasteland.
I believe the difference is more due to the fact that scientology is a relatively "new" religion, whereas christianity, islam, and other religions have been around a much longer time, so people have become resistant about what they do. Sure, its easy to skimp over the fact that christans and islams have done many bad things in religious events (for a lack of better word at the moment) and not make comments on that, but is much easier to make comments on scientology due to it being very new in the informed world, making most of its documents about itself readily available to the public.
On May 30 2009 15:43 AttackZerg wrote: wow I can't believe how many people who I consider smart have nothing but short, dscriminating comments about scientology, yet if I told some wackjob christian that being a christian meant he was retarded
or said
"I think it's generally accepted that being a christian(scientologist) naturally excludes them from being intelligent and contributing citizens "
then people would be moderatoring it. I think most religions are stupid and abuse media, but is the difference between these idiots and the ones who think an imaginary friend is watching over them?
So much discrimination on teamliquid.... the general forum is a wasteland.
Instead of getting mad at the consequence you could instead try to figure out the cause. People didn't randomly choose a religion and said "Hey, I'm gonna pick up on these one!". There is one very distinctive reason why many people simply ignore most religions, but hate Scientology. And if this episode on wikipedia don't give you the slightest clue, I don't know what will.
For the record, I personally could care less for any of them. But I do understand why others feel this way about scientologists.
On May 30 2009 15:19 Hippopotamus wrote: But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article.
Hippopotamus, I'm sorry but I honestly cannot tell if I understand what you're saying. Did you just say that there is no way that changing a wikipedia article can make that article biased? Is that what you're saying?
If that's the case it sounds really dumb. But I'm not good in english and maybe I'm just getting confused. I hope so.
Well, how do legitimate edits lead to a slant? Usually you skew an article by introducing weasel words, lies, and overloading one side of an issue, and creating a sense of false controversy. Those are not legitimate edits. I just don't see how, say, 20 edits that add information, clarify statements, and citations (the most important kind of edit!) ultimately decrease the quality of an article.
I believe most people see it as how it is written.
In a hypothetical situation say of, the Iraq war, if we edit wikipedia to say we invaded Iraq to save the people of terrorists and such, that is a positive way of looking at our invasion to Iraq, good morals etc etc. However, if it was phrased, US invades Iraq and in turn provokes terrorists to attack Iraqi people out of revenge, which is the exact same event happening, just worded differently, you could see how it makes the US look worse than the first case.
In case one, the US would be viewed as doing the right thing, in case two the US is shown being the root of the problem that happened.
Being bias isn't changing the facts to something they are not, it is presenting them in a way that makes them look favorable to a group/person/interest you want. You can make most statements turn into a positive one for you, negative for enemies without changing any serious facts of what actually happened.
On May 30 2009 15:19 Hippopotamus wrote: But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article.
Hippopotamus, I'm sorry but I honestly cannot tell if I understand what you're saying. Did you just say that there is no way that changing a wikipedia article can make that article biased? Is that what you're saying?
If that's the case it sounds really dumb. But I'm not good in english and maybe I'm just getting confused. I hope so.
Well, how do legitimate edits lead to a slant? Usually you skew an article by introducing weasel words, lies, and overloading one side of an issue, and creating a sense of false controversy. Those are not legitimate edits. I just don't see how, say, 20 edits that add information, clarify statements, and citations (the most important kind of edit!) ultimately decrease the quality of an article. And here are 100 examples of people who believe it's possible to make an article biased by adding legitimate edits: [...]
Is it clear now?
edit: to clarify a bit: "overloading one side of an issue" is absolutely relative. It's hard to judge that from one single edit. But you can picture what happens after hundreds of additions.
On May 30 2009 15:19 Hippopotamus wrote: But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article.
Hippopotamus, I'm sorry but I honestly cannot tell if I understand what you're saying. Did you just say that there is no way that changing a wikipedia article can make that article biased? Is that what you're saying?
If that's the case it sounds really dumb. But I'm not good in english and maybe I'm just getting confused. I hope so.
Well, how do legitimate edits lead to a slant? Usually you skew an article by introducing weasel words, lies, and overloading one side of an issue, and creating a sense of false controversy. Those are not legitimate edits. I just don't see how, say, 20 edits that add information, clarify statements, and citations (the most important kind of edit!) ultimately decrease the quality of an article.
I believe most people see it as how it is written.
In a hypothetical situation say of, the Iraq war, if we edit wikipedia to say we invaded Iraq to save the people of terrorists and such, that is a positive way of looking at our invasion to Iraq, good morals etc etc. However, if it was phrased, US invades Iraq and in turn provokes terrorists to attack Iraqi people out of revenge, which is the exact same event happening, just worded differently, you could see how it makes the US look worse than the first case.
In case one, the US would be viewed as doing the right thing, in case two the US is shown being the root of the problem that happened.
Being bias isn't changing the facts to something they are not, it is presenting them in a way that makes them look favorable to a group/person/interest you want. You can make most statements turn into a positive one for you, negative for enemies without changing any serious facts of what actually happened.
Well yes, but those wouldn't be legitimate edits. That's not gaming wiki rules, that's breaking them.
I would consider that bending said rules, because they are not actually changing the facts of the information. In both of my cases, the US invaded Iraq (true), just one of them makes the US look good, and one makes them look bad.
They could of said something as simple as back when 4chan did the anonymous stuff against them about how 4chan attacked them, instead of scientology posting videos about what they do and many people responding to that. The article could have been Anonymous attacks Scientology, whereas most people know it as Anonymous responds to Scientology and their religions ways. Both represent the same thing, one makes Scientology look good, one doesn't.
On May 30 2009 14:53 Hippopotamus wrote: How do you make the distinction between religions created by science fiction writers and sheep herders? To me they're both pretty loony, but I know many intelligent people who buy into the latter kind so I don't see why one wouldn't extend this to followers of the former as well.
A lot of people bring their own biases to Wikipedia, and they're dealt with on a case by case basis.
The difference with the Scientologists is that they are much more organized and determined, and their PR is such that they learned Wikipedia policy so they could appear to be making legitimate edits that, in the aggregate, severely slanted the articles to a pro-Scientology bias. So in this case ArbCom decided to go with the nuclear option, and I think they were right.
Explain the process of making legitimate edits to arrive at an illegitimate result? I admit that I have not been reading much about scientology on wikipedia. I have seen edit warring, abusing the 3-edit rule and I have personally dealt with wikilawyering. Especially annoying is when some jackass accuses you of using weasel words. But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article.
have enough drops of water and you can fill a bathtub. The individual edits make small, subtle changes, but as a whole the distortion is large.
Well, see, you point out two possibilites. The thing is, wikipedia isn't supposed to be either one of those. These kinds of edits are not considered legitimate and to test it, you can just edit any significant article in such a manner and you will probably get reversed without so much as an entry on the talk page.
On May 30 2009 16:12 Hippopotamus wrote: Well, see, you point out two possibilites. The thing is, wikipedia isn't supposed to be either one of those. These kinds of edits are not considered legitimate and to test it, you can just edit any significant article in such a manner and you will probably get reversed without so much as an entry on the talk page.
Ok? that's why they got banned, so i don't see the point of us talking back and forth about it. If you are saying what about those who didn't do those edits who are intelligent beings, then I can say:
the 5% ruin it for the other 95%, just like in school and other team organizations. Wikipedia sees them as a group of people who share a same belief, so instead of trying to pinpoint which specific people in Scientology are editing it and banning them (leading to them just getting other people of Scientology to post it for them), they just ban them all halting all efforts immediately.
Well, then we're back to the idea that the edits scientologists made were not somehow legitimate and then suddenly after x legitimate edits the article becomes biased. So they could be dealt with using the usual methods that have been applied, for example, to holocaust denial articles or any other article where most of the damage could come from editors rather than anonymous users. I'm not an admin so I don't know the specifics of banning, but couldn't all those IPs have just been topic banned? Why did they get banned off all articles?
On May 30 2009 16:12 Hippopotamus wrote: Well, see, you point out two possibilites. The thing is, wikipedia isn't supposed to be either one of those. These kinds of edits are not considered legitimate and to test it, you can just edit any significant article in such a manner and you will probably get reversed without so much as an entry on the talk page.
Have you actually read the edits they made? Have you followed the endless debates on Weasel words and NPOV?
I mean its great you want to argue, but you really dont understand.
On May 30 2009 16:29 Hippopotamus wrote: Well, then we're back to the idea that some edits scientologists made were not entirely legitimate and then suddenly after x legitimate edits the article allegedly becomes biased. So they could quite possibly be dealt with using the usual methods that have been applied, for example, to holocaust denial articles or any other article where most of the damage could come from editors rather than anonymous users. I'm not an admin so I don't know the specifics of banning, but couldn't all those IPs have just been topic banned? Why did they get banned off all articles?
On May 30 2009 16:29 Hippopotamus wrote: Well, then we're back to the valid idea that a few edits scientologists made were not entirely legitimate and then immediately after x legitimate edits the article allegedly becomes biased. So a better way would be to deal with using the usual methods that have been applied, for example, to holocaust denial articles or any other article where most of the damage could come from editors rather than anonymous users. I'm not an admin so I don't know the specifics of banning, but couldn't all those IPs have just been topic banned? Why did they get banned off all articles?
The deal is that these troublemakers are constantly changing their IP's so that they get hard to track, and they have way more users than IP's in circulation so the only way to ban them would be to ban all of those IP's. Why not just ban them from editing their own articles? Because wiki needs to find a solution which isn't too troublesome for them, especially since this would mean that they would have to rescan every person before they make an edit since the Scientology abusers were rapidly changing IP's to making them harder to track.
So in the end, it would not be possible to ban a few of these IP's which were "violators", since they all shared the same IP's. Also this didn't ban private persons IP's just those associated with the organization.
Edit: And to fusion, you don't get banned for changing the way something is described, it just gets changed back without a note as you said since it is rather harmless. However imagine if you had a hundred users all making those innocent changes, then you couldn't ban any of them since they all made an innocent change but the result is 100% worthy of a ban
Hippopotamus, "biased" is a relative term. You are biased in relation to what? You present 1 pro argument and 1 con, it's fair. If you present 1 pro argument and 10000 cons, you're being biased.
I think it is stupid to ban them. If they post from known scientology IPs their edits are easier to find and revert. Now they'll resort to proxies or their private internet which makes them harder to detect. Observing them while they are in the open is better that driving them underground. And why isn't simply setting scientology related articles to protected or semiprotected enough?
that reminds me i wanted to look up the effects of taurin on wikipedia and i felt like alice in wonderland , it helps everything with no side effects.
besides how can they ban scientology ips they probably have computers all over the world , so wikipedia guys must ban them after they edit, to counter that just need to use pc bangs , school pc, work pc , proxies they wont be able to ban all this ip range.
On May 30 2009 14:48 cUrsOr wrote: i think my boss is a scientologist :O our library just HAPPENS to have like every LRH book ever written. its scarry.
I remember in Georgia the Books a Million had a huuuuge section for 'religion and spirituality', and not only was there a tiny, tiny 'philosophy' section; it was full of books like 'understanding the bible philosophically'!!
PS in reference to the OP, sometimes people get a little too bound up in the 'human rights' issues. You can talk about these people's inalienable rights, but that's pretty much bullshit when they're not going to be hurt. It's just like excluding someone from a group of friends, it's not like hanging them. The guys deserve to fuck off and stop editing wiki.
They've been policing wikipedia vandalism since it was created a billion years ago, they know the limitations of their ability to deny people access to Wikipedia. It's more of a public flogging on Scientology
wait if i understand this correctly they say articles about scientology are biased..? thats like saying articles about christianity are biased or articles about evolution are biased , just let ppl chose what they want to believe in.
On May 31 2009 00:14 LuckyOne wrote: wait if i understand this correctly they say articles about scientology are biased..? thats like saying articles about christianity are biased or articles about evolution are biased , just let ppl chose what they want to believe in.
No, having an article about a religion doesn't make it biased. Scientologists Made the article biased by altering it.
On May 31 2009 00:14 LuckyOne wrote: wait if i understand this correctly they say articles about scientology are biased..? thats like saying articles about christianity are biased or articles about evolution are biased , just let ppl chose what they want to believe in.
No, having an article about a religion doesn't make it biased. Scientologists Made the article biased by altering it.
wouldnt a scientologist be the best person to write an article about his religion? just like an evolutionary biologist would be the best at writing an article about evolution.
whats truly biased are wiki admins.
they want a scientific approach to religion article.
Don't ever rely on Wikipedia for controversial issues or issues that a small group of people are really passionate about. That "small group of passionate people" will almost always disproportionately influence the article because they care so much more about it.
On May 31 2009 01:16 FieryBalrog wrote: Don't ever rely on Wikipedia for controversial issues or issues that a small group of people are really passionate about. That "small group of passionate people" will almost always disproportionately influence the article because they care so much more about it.
Wow how strange. I was just reading about various Scientology articles on wikipedia last week and at the time, I had thought that a lot of the articles had a pro-Scientology slant. That wasn't entirely unsuprising because the effort Scientology puts into its PR, but I had no idea it was on this large of a scale.
X is believed by the Y church to have been a prophet of God who wrote the inspired Z.
See how one is much more biased than the other? Sure, a Scientologist is probably the most qualified to write the articles, but if they don't write them from an objective point of view, then they're in violation of wikipedia's terms of service.
X is believed by the Y church to have been a prophet of God who wrote the inspired Z.
See how one is much more biased than the other? Sure, a Scientologist is probably the most qualified to write the articles, but if they don't write them from an objective point of view, then they're in violation of wikipedia's terms of service.
so a Scientologist cant write an article about scientology from an objective point of view. but an evolutionary biologist can write an article about evolution from an objective point of view?
X is believed by the Y church to have been a prophet of God who wrote the inspired Z.
See how one is much more biased than the other? Sure, a Scientologist is probably the most qualified to write the articles, but if they don't write them from an objective point of view, then they're in violation of wikipedia's terms of service.
so a Scientologist cant write an article about scientology from an objective point of view. but an evolutionary biologist can write an article about evolution from an objective point of view?
some bias are allowed others arent.
Clearly not. It's clear that the scientologists were just writing to make themselves look better anyway. From this statement you made I doubt you will be willing to argue rationally anyway, there wasn't any sort of thought put into the difference between a SCIENTIST and a RELIGIOUS NUT.
On May 30 2009 14:48 cUrsOr wrote: i think my boss is a scientologist :O our library just HAPPENS to have like every LRH book ever written. its scarry.
What a terrible library.
actually youre right, lol. our collection is terribly small, its mostly just a place for JrHigh and low-income folks to use the internet for free. thats like 90% of our activity. which is fine with me, but its more of an internet hub than a library.
But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
this may be true but if they were indeed that intelligent then they should have realized something like this would have happened and thus tried to spread the word of scientology in some other ways
for example u don't see us Christians getting banned for editing stuff about evolution or w.e
On May 30 2009 14:39 cUrsOr wrote: they should do the same thing to corporations. like Coke and DoW and Monsanto who edit shit on there to let everyone know how safe their products are.
i do hope they take this a little further.
ty good post.
QFT, Monsanto is fucking epitome of corporate evil. They got their hands in everything too, I was sad to find out a few months ago that even NPR is 'supported' by Monsanto.
thrown into one little volcano and my Overlord got scared, it said "you're all moving to Teegeeack, that planet with air," So I whistled to a DC8 and when it came near, it had no propellers just rockets in the rear! If anything I could say the brainwashing movie was rare, but I thought "nah, forget it" when trapped by Ghostbusters gear. I pulled up to the planet about 7 or 8 million years ago, and yelled to Xenu "Yo, ho, Imprison you later." I looked at my Thetans, we were finally there, to haunt us some primates with little body hair.
The issue here is that the CoS has been shown many times to go to great lengths to propagate good PR about itself, and to repress any negative opinion on itself. This ban isn't going to solve the issue, but if nothing else, Wikipedia is calling them on it, and saying that they're not going to let it happen.
The problem with Scientology isn't that its a religion, but that it bears all the marks of an organized fraud. Kinda like a lot of other cults.
A lot of disrespect in this thread for religions such as Hinduism/Christianity/Islam, but lumping them in with Scientology just shows that you have no nuanced understanding of religion.
On May 31 2009 04:31 FieryBalrog wrote: The problem with Scientology isn't that its a religion, but that it bears all the marks of an organized fraud. Kinda like a lot of other cults.
A lot of disrespect in this thread for religions such as Hinduism/Christianity/Islam, but lumping them in with Scientology just shows that you have no nuanced understanding of religion.
yea scientology is the ultimate cult fraud pyramid scheme bullshit ever. To gain enlightenment you dish out more cash and disclose dark secrets or some shit. And if you ever try to leave the cult then they will basicially just blackmail you.
On May 30 2009 14:39 cUrsOr wrote: they should do the same thing to corporations. like Coke and DoW and Monsanto who edit shit on there to let everyone know how safe their products are.
i do hope they take this a little further.
ty good post.
QFT, Monsanto is fucking epitome of corporate evil. They got their hands in everything too, I was sad to find out a few months ago that even NPR is 'supported' by Monsanto.
thrown into one little volcano and my Overlord got scared, it said "you're all moving to Teegeeack, that planet with air," So I whistled to a DC8 and when it came near, it had no propellers just rockets in the rear! If anything I could say the brainwashing movie was rare, but I thought "nah, forget it" when trapped by Ghostbusters gear. I pulled up to the planet about 7 or 8 million years ago, and yelled to Xenu "Yo, ho, Imprison you later." I looked at my Thetans, we were finally there, to haunt us some primates with little body hair.
When I saw that I thought that it would be a full video of scientology lemmings goodness
They should have taken some lemming level were you had to blow them up to get through walls or the one where you have to create blockers which you later have to blow up to win etc.
it's kind of sickening hearing people who follow a religion bash Scientology. i want to point out how silly they sound but then they'll get so offended and won't want to be my friend anymore =/
On May 31 2009 08:22 eMbrace wrote: it's kind of sickening hearing people who follow a religion bash Scientology. i want to point out how silly they sound but then they'll get so offended and won't want to be my friend anymore =/
the topic of religion is so untouchable...
cults are different from religions. But from the viewpoint of an agnostic or athiest they are both equally ridiculous. But for the most part cults involve paying money as gaining something in the cult. Religions just ask for donations, you don't have to give to be a christian but they do sort of put a stigma/guilt trip on you if you dont.
On May 30 2009 14:47 EvilTeletubby wrote: I think it's generally accepted that being a scientologist naturally excludes them from being intelligent and contributing citizens...
Anyone can be brainwashed; intelligence isn't a factor. It's all about when and how you undergo their conditioning.
Hate the organization; pity/help the people caught up in it.
On May 31 2009 08:22 eMbrace wrote: it's kind of sickening hearing people who follow a religion bash Scientology. i want to point out how silly they sound but then they'll get so offended and won't want to be my friend anymore =/
the topic of religion is so untouchable...
There is a big difference.
Normal religions use a degree of conditioning and ritual presentation as part of their mythos. This helps promote the faith.
Scientology is very different. Ignoring even the financial cost of becoming a member of the "church" (no other religion has mandatory payment requirements. They may say you're supposed to tithe, but they don't throw you out for not doing so), the big problem with Scientology is how they indoctrinate members.
Normal religions give you a book. Maybe you undergo a ceremony or two (baptism, etc). Judaism may have it worst with the whole circumcision thing.
Scientology is on a whole other level. It is indoctrination, plain and simple. They take people, separate them from their families, psychologically break them down, and then rebuild them as "good Scientologists." They tell them that anyone who isn't in the church is to be shunned, that psychologists (people who are trained to help break conditioning and indoctrination) are the epitome of evil, and so on. It exists to propogate itself while giving nothing back to its members.
Most religions promote what we would consider socially acceptable behavior among its adherents (excepting those who've taken it too far, of course). They preach a moral code that is at least semi-reasonable and fairly compatible with human society (to varying degrees).
There is nothing in Scientology that is compatible with human society. It is a cult; a group of people who are brainwashed and segregated from their families and former friends.
On May 31 2009 08:22 eMbrace wrote: it's kind of sickening hearing people who follow a religion bash Scientology. i want to point out how silly they sound but then they'll get so offended and won't want to be my friend anymore =/
the topic of religion is so untouchable...
cults are different from religions. But from the viewpoint of an agnostic or athiest they are both equally ridiculous. But for the most part cults involve paying money as gaining something in the cult. Religions just ask for donations, you don't have to give to be a christian but they do sort of put a stigma/guilt trip on you if you dont.
i admit scientology is more like a cult. most "Christians" really don't do anything special that identifies them as such.
On May 31 2009 09:12 AttackZerg wrote: well mormons give a % of their income and they believe rediculous things that are very america-centric. Are they a cult or christians?
In Germany and some Scandinavian countries, there is an automatic church tax, collected either independent of, or incorporated into the income tax.
On May 31 2009 10:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: In Germany and some Scandinavian countries, there is an automatic church tax, collected either independent of, or incorporated into the income tax.
A little caveat so as not to give the wrong impression - at least in Germany the church tax is only paid by members of the respective churches. i.e people affiliated to a church, who are not member of a church tax-collecting denomination, do not have to pay it.
Like you say in Scandinavia it depends, in Iceland if you are not signed up with a religion it goes to their university system. I am not sure if Sweden has a way out of this and I think in Denmark and Norway it's obligatory one way or another.
Theres more to it than you know, for one thing they are a very secret society not much is known about its teachings what is publically shown is not even a fragment of what they are aware of, for another thing the person who created it was a possibility in the illuminati and dont be suprised if they are not up to dark arts at the top levels of it.
One thing people must begin to realise is there is extra terrestial forces in the universe and there is groups who know about them some have sold themself for power and wealth to part take in agendas scientology does fit such a description. So dont asume your alone and think there wackos for believing in Aliens because it could very well be that extra terrestials have infuelenced it development with a agenda in mind that you may live to see.
Maybe you should study cultures warnings about 2012 and what it may hold...
On June 01 2009 17:57 Un4Seen wrote: Theres more to it than you know, for one thing they are a very secret society not much is known about its teachings what is publically shown is not even a fragment of what they are aware of, for another thing the person who created it was a possibility in the illuminati and dont be suprised if they are not up to dark arts at the top levels of it.
One thing people must begin to realise is there is extra terrestial forces in the universe and there is groups who know about them some have sold themself for power and wealth to part take in agendas scientology does fit such a description. So dont asume your alone and think there wackos for believing in Aliens because it could very well be that extra terrestials have infuelenced it development with a agenda in mind that you may live to see.
Maybe you should study cultures warnings about 2012 and what it may hold...
But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
this may be true but if they were indeed that intelligent then they should have realized something like this would have happened and thus tried to spread the word of scientology in some other ways
for example u don't see us Christians getting banned for editing stuff about evolution or w.e
That's because they have conservapedia to make their own bullshit up.
Bad precedent. Members of other religions do the same shit and are just as fanatical.
You know I'm leaning toward this being outrageous. Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion' and it has some extreme, terrorist-like stances like Fair Game which essentially states that enemies have no rights within the scientology ethical framework. This is pretty bad since an enemy is anyone that tries to oppose the spread of this religion. But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
yep people who devote their lives to a religion created by a science fiction writer are often perfectly intelligent and not crazy at all
yep people who devote their lives to a religion created by some delerious poor people 2000 years ago are often perfectly intelligent and not crazy at all.
On May 31 2009 10:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: In Germany and some Scandinavian countries, there is an automatic church tax, collected either independent of, or incorporated into the income tax.
A little caveat so as not to give the wrong impression - at least in Germany the church tax is only paid by members of the respective churches. i.e people affiliated to a church, who are not member of a church tax-collecting denomination, do not have to pay it.
Like you say in Scandinavia it depends, in Iceland if you are not signed up with a religion it goes to their university system. I am not sure if Sweden has a way out of this and I think in Denmark and Norway it's obligatory one way or another.
I think it has been an option in Sweden for quite some time. But most people have been members of the Church since birth and were therefor paying taxes without really realizing it because it did not say anywhere that they were paying money to the Church. This was changed some years ago and since then the Church has continually lost members every passing year.
On May 30 2009 15:43 AttackZerg wrote: wow I can't believe how many people who I consider smart have nothing but short, dscriminating comments about scientology, yet if I told some wackjob christian that being a christian meant he was retarded
or said
"I think it's generally accepted that being a christian(scientologist) naturally excludes them from being intelligent and contributing citizens "
then people would be moderatoring it. I think most religions are stupid and abuse media, but is the difference between these idiots and the ones who think an imaginary friend is watching over them?
So much discrimination on teamliquid.... the general forum is a wasteland.
The human mind is funny. You don't realize what you have until you lose it.
This applies to religion. Most of us don't realize what we have with religion. When we lose it, we will realize that we had a bullshit plauge that kept us back from all that is good.
Since we don't have scientology, we see it for what it is. Those who have scientology however...
You know I'm leaning toward this being outrageous. Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion' and it has some extreme, terrorist-like stances like Fair Game which essentially states that enemies have no rights within the scientology ethical framework. This is pretty bad since an enemy is anyone that tries to oppose the spread of this religion. But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
yep people who devote their lives to a religion created by a science fiction writer are often perfectly intelligent and not crazy at all
yep people who devote their lives to a religion created by some delerious poor people 2000 years ago are often perfectly intelligent and not crazy at all.
the way people judge things is strongly affected by the culture theyre raised in. western culture has decided that the zombie jew who was born to a virgin and who wants us to eat his body via crackers is rationally acceptable. this makes it much easier for people to accept. but ask any non scientologist and theyre gonna tell you its a load of bullshit. that makes it much harder to get roped into, meaning the followers are much more likely to be retarded.
On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote: I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
I think it's generally accepted that being a scientologist naturally excludes them from being intelligent and contributing citizens...
Definitely agree with you, this is a great move because wiki is supposed to be informational and changing articles to make your views seem more normal and not crazy is just going too far. It seems that they are just trying to make themselves and their organization (I say organization because i do not accept this as a church or religion) seem better and trying to recruit members.
On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote: Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion'
You suggest there is a religion that is not? Damn you gotta eat mushrooms to come up with any of that shit.
All religious peopel are mental ill and should be locked in their local mental hospital for their on saftey.
Very good point. How sane can anyone, who has based his life on thousands of years old stuff thats mostly bullshit and made up while being epicly high from hallusinogenic mushroom, be. You´d think that we have somekind of cure for this BS. Also these people rule most civilized countries so it really makes one kinda scared :S
You guys know Scientology is the only religion with a CEO right? As in, Chief Executive Officer? As in, collects the money from the followers? Can you name me a legitimate religion with a C fucking EO? You think Buddha has an accountant?
And before you say shit like "Oh wait, Christianity has the Pope!". The pope doesn't collect your money. You can go to church, and you can leave without donating. Not the same with Scientology. That shit is not a religion, it's a cult. Period.
Goddamn, I mean that in and of itself should be enough of a clue. A goddamn CEO.
Scientology is mainly a way for rich people to circumvent high income taxes (you have to pay slightly less income taxes on money that is 'donated' to the Church) so people like Tom Cruise at least originally funneled most or at least a large portion of their yearly income into the Church and received more back from the Church than they would from income taxes.
Now it's developed into an even more shady organization but that's the main reason I think for many of the rich and elite of society joining.
On June 02 2009 05:04 soudo wrote: You guys know Scientology is the only religion with a CEO right? As in, Chief Executive Officer? As in, collects the money from the followers? Can you name me a legitimate religion with a C fucking EO? You think Buddha has an accountant?
And before you say shit like "Oh wait, Christianity has the Pope!". The pope doesn't collect your money. You can go to church, and you can leave without donating. Not the same with Scientology. That shit is not a religion, it's a cult. Period.
Goddamn, I mean that in and of itself should be enough of a clue. A goddamn CEO.
Try not donating at church and see if anyone gives a shit about you. Your value to their community is absolutely tied to that.
On June 02 2009 05:04 soudo wrote: You guys know Scientology is the only religion with a CEO right? As in, Chief Executive Officer? As in, collects the money from the followers? Can you name me a legitimate religion with a C fucking EO? You think Buddha has an accountant?
And before you say shit like "Oh wait, Christianity has the Pope!". The pope doesn't collect your money. You can go to church, and you can leave without donating. Not the same with Scientology. That shit is not a religion, it's a cult. Period.
Goddamn, I mean that in and of itself should be enough of a clue. A goddamn CEO.
Try not donating at church and see if anyone gives a shit about you. Your value to their community is absolutely tied to that.
I never gave any money to the church and everyone there loves me =( Now I known their true feelings thanks.
On June 02 2009 05:04 soudo wrote: You guys know Scientology is the only religion with a CEO right? As in, Chief Executive Officer? As in, collects the money from the followers? Can you name me a legitimate religion with a C fucking EO? You think Buddha has an accountant?
And before you say shit like "Oh wait, Christianity has the Pope!". The pope doesn't collect your money. You can go to church, and you can leave without donating. Not the same with Scientology. That shit is not a religion, it's a cult. Period.
Goddamn, I mean that in and of itself should be enough of a clue. A goddamn CEO.
There are thousands of religions around the world with the same business model. Saying Scientology is the only one is very ignorant. It's not the first neither the biggest. Scientology is just the one more famous in the internetz. The idea to create a cult only to collect money from people you can scam is about as old as mankind.
Here in Brazil, one of those got so big they even own a national TV channel that is usually top 2~3 in national audience. The 'bishop' who owns the TV channel also owns a church. As if it were another business enterprise like any other. In most countries this is a very efficient way to make lots of money and pay very little or no income tax at all.
On June 02 2009 05:04 soudo wrote: You guys know Scientology is the only religion with a CEO right? As in, Chief Executive Officer? As in, collects the money from the followers? Can you name me a legitimate religion with a C fucking EO? You think Buddha has an accountant?
And before you say shit like "Oh wait, Christianity has the Pope!". The pope doesn't collect your money. You can go to church, and you can leave without donating. Not the same with Scientology. That shit is not a religion, it's a cult. Period.
Goddamn, I mean that in and of itself should be enough of a clue. A goddamn CEO.
Try not donating at church and see if anyone gives a shit about you. Your value to their community is absolutely tied to that.
I never gave any money to the church and everyone there loves me =( Now I known their true feelings thanks.
On June 02 2009 05:04 soudo wrote: You guys know Scientology is the only religion with a CEO right? As in, Chief Executive Officer? As in, collects the money from the followers? Can you name me a legitimate religion with a C fucking EO? You think Buddha has an accountant?
And before you say shit like "Oh wait, Christianity has the Pope!". The pope doesn't collect your money. You can go to church, and you can leave without donating. Not the same with Scientology. That shit is not a religion, it's a cult. Period.
Goddamn, I mean that in and of itself should be enough of a clue. A goddamn CEO.
Try not donating at church and see if anyone gives a shit about you. Your value to their community is absolutely tied to that.
I never gave any money to the church and everyone there loves me =( Now I known their true feelings thanks.
I've always donated money at church on the rare occasions when I go, and no one has ever cared about me.
Religion is not necessarily a sign of feeble-mindedness, but economic reductionism surely is.
On June 02 2009 05:04 soudo wrote: You guys know Scientology is the only religion with a CEO right? As in, Chief Executive Officer? As in, collects the money from the followers? Can you name me a legitimate religion with a C fucking EO? You think Buddha has an accountant?
And before you say shit like "Oh wait, Christianity has the Pope!". The pope doesn't collect your money. You can go to church, and you can leave without donating. Not the same with Scientology. That shit is not a religion, it's a cult. Period.
Goddamn, I mean that in and of itself should be enough of a clue. A goddamn CEO.
Try not donating at church and see if anyone gives a shit about you. Your value to their community is absolutely tied to that.
Not always the case, your involvement in the church is what matters much more, most church members (at least the ones I've met at the couple churches I've attended) could care less about the money and care much more about involvement in community activities, like if they are hosting a picnic coming there to help set up or helping make the food means a lot more to them than the 2 dollars you put in the pan each Sunday.
The main purpose of the tithe is to help support the pastor/leader because in larger churches that is their full time job (in baptist communities) and in Catholic churches it's meant to help support the priest. Most smaller churches (protestant ones, Catholic churches are not as populous so they tend to be larger) the pastor works another job and teaches on Sundays and Wednesdays so tithe goes towards Church activities or isn't collected at all.
Religious people aren't as bad as you make them out to be, granted there is a portion that can be considered Sunday Christians but for the most part they're just like you except the have a different belief.
Having said that I do not attend church anymore for various reasons (a lot of the churches in my area tend to have a lot of gossipy southern families so it turns more into a competition to out do each other than actually going there to organize community projects and discuss the bible) and I realize there are negatives to churches. But before you get a rage hard on remember that not everyone is the stereotypical zealot and a religious person isn't stupid, it's just a separate belief.
I know I drifted super far away the main thread topic but what you said caught my attention.
My thing was really broad and not a general attack on religious people, regardless of what I think of them. Was kinda just noting that it's not as cut and dry as you can show up to church and not contribute and it's all fine and dandy by them (much like scientology). Scientology is also much, much newer and I'd imagine they're looking for real devout people, and you'd think you'd have to be really into it to commit money. Christianity has the benefit of several million members, so a few skimping out doesn't hurt as much.
About volunteering, that definitely is good for them and appreciated. But if people in the community know you make money, you're certainly expected to be donating a chunk of it.
Wikipedia has banned the Church of Scientology and its members from editing its site after discovering that members of the church were editing articles in order to give the church favorable coverage.
The move is being hailed as "an unprecedented effort to crack down on self-serving edits," and it is the first instance in which Wikipedia has banned a group as large as the Church of Scientology.
The Register reports:
According to evidence turned up by admins in this long-running Wikiland court case, multiple editors have been "openly editing [Scientology-related articles] from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities." Leaning on the famed WikiScanner, countless news stories have discussed the editing of Scientology articles from Scientology IPs, and some site admins are concerned this is "damaging Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality."
cont. in link.
Wikipedia also banned some wikipedians from editing articles about scientology because they were too biased. However, scientologists are banned from editing any wikpedia pages. In any case, those IPs that wikipedia banned may not be too impactful since scientologists can still do it through other means. Here is the case that lasted six months.
You know I'm leaning toward this being outrageous. Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion' and it has some extreme, terrorist-like stances like Fair Game which essentially states that enemies have no rights within the scientology ethical framework. This is pretty bad since an enemy is anyone that tries to oppose the spread of this religion. But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
Im so sick of religion that im okay with it. I hate when people say this (and also hate hypocrisy) but "Get a fucking life." Stop trying to take over the world. Let people say bad shit about you. Who the fuck cares?!? Christians don't act like Jesus, Buddhists don't act like Buddha, and Scientologists have a religion that the creator admitted he MADE UP! If Jesus said. ".... okay seriously I made this shit up." I bet everyone would still be Christian. Makes me sick to see how hordes of people act when their common ideas are threatened. Anyways blah blah blah wiki can do whatever it wants. Just don't read them if it bothers you.
On June 02 2009 05:04 soudo wrote: You guys know Scientology is the only religion with a CEO right? As in, Chief Executive Officer? As in, collects the money from the followers? Can you name me a legitimate religion with a C fucking EO? You think Buddha has an accountant?
And before you say shit like "Oh wait, Christianity has the Pope!". The pope doesn't collect your money. You can go to church, and you can leave without donating. Not the same with Scientology. That shit is not a religion, it's a cult. Period.
Goddamn, I mean that in and of itself should be enough of a clue. A goddamn CEO.
Try not donating at church and see if anyone gives a shit about you. Your value to their community is absolutely tied to that.
Not always the case, your involvement in the church is what matters much more, most church members (at least the ones I've met at the couple churches I've attended) could care less about the money and care much more about involvement in community activities, like if they are hosting a picnic coming there to help set up or helping make the food means a lot more to them than the 2 dollars you put in the pan each Sunday.
The main purpose of the tithe is to help support the pastor/leader because in larger churches that is their full time job (in baptist communities) and in Catholic churches it's meant to help support the priest. Most smaller churches (protestant ones, Catholic churches are not as populous so they tend to be larger) the pastor works another job and teaches on Sundays and Wednesdays so tithe goes towards Church activities or isn't collected at all.
Religious people aren't as bad as you make them out to be, granted there is a portion that can be considered Sunday Christians but for the most part they're just like you except the have a different belief.
Having said that I do not attend church anymore for various reasons (a lot of the churches in my area tend to have a lot of gossipy southern families so it turns more into a competition to out do each other than actually going there to organize community projects and discuss the bible) and I realize there are negatives to churches. But before you get a rage hard on remember that not everyone is the stereotypical zealot and a religious person isn't stupid, it's just a separate belief.
I know I drifted super far away the main thread topic but what you said caught my attention.
My thing was really broad and not a general attack on religious people, regardless of what I think of them. Was kinda just noting that it's not as cut and dry as you can show up to church and not contribute and it's all fine and dandy by them (much like scientology). Scientology is also much, much newer and I'd imagine they're looking for real devout people, and you'd think you'd have to be really into it to commit money. Christianity has the benefit of several million members, so a few skimping out doesn't hurt as much.
About volunteering, that definitely is good for them and appreciated. But if people in the community know you make money, you're certainly expected to be donating a chunk of it.
Oh and srry to double post but I agree most church members don't care about money. If they did, the ones who manipulated them would have a much harder time.
Scientology is different in that they make knowledge of their religion contingent upon giving a certain amount of money to the 'Church'.
Mormonism absolutely was a cult when it started. Basically so was Christianity. So was Islam. The difference between a religion and a cult is the amount of time that has passed since its founding.
On June 01 2009 17:57 Un4Seen wrote: Theres more to it than you know, for one thing they are a very secret society not much is known about its teachings what is publically shown is not even a fragment of what they are aware of, for another thing the person who created it was a possibility in the illuminati and dont be suprised if they are not up to dark arts at the top levels of it.
One thing people must begin to realise is there is extra terrestial forces in the universe and there is groups who know about them some have sold themself for power and wealth to part take in agendas scientology does fit such a description. So dont asume your alone and think there wackos for believing in Aliens because it could very well be that extra terrestials have infuelenced it development with a agenda in mind that you may live to see.
Maybe you should study cultures warnings about 2012 and what it may hold...
Hahaha...
My dear friend.. what are you on and where can I get some?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1829/wtfnjt.jpg)
