Scientology has every right to be considered a legitimate religion

[Ming]

Right now the Catholic church is guilty only of exercising its legal right to lobby against things it doesn't like--and recently of trying to cover up a rash of pederasty to save face. Not nice, not nice at all, and I certainly don't condone the cover-up, but generally speaking, they behave themselves, and the scandal pales by comparison to the massive criminal behavior of Scientology today.

Besides what Boris added...

You honestly believe that the Church covering up attacks on children by simply moving the priests around and NOT TELLING ANYBODY SO THAT THEY COULD CONTINUE DOING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE just to save FACE is BEHAVING THEMSELVES????????????????????????? Talk about EVIL! They were more concerned about saving face and possible lawsuits than they were of the children. AND THEY LET IT CONTINUE TO HAPPEN! Gee, I guess that pales in comparison to other criminal behavior.

Let me ask... do you have kids?

[Boris Godunov]

Let's call it what it was: Child rape. And the Church hushed it up, coddled the rapists and evaded the law in many places.

And the current Pope is guilty in participating in the cover ups:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

http://www.remnantofgod.org/ratzinger-sex.htm

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1126083917974

[Elok]

Okay, first off, I am not and have never been Catholic. I'm Orthodox, we're a totally different organization under different leadership, and I feel no obligation to protect the Catholic church.

Again, I do not condone the coverup of child molesters, that was quite despicable; however, it was done out of cowardice rather than malice, and not as a matter of established church doctrine. What Scientology does is malicious, and fixed in Scientology "doctrine," making the organization intrinsically evil in a way the RCC is not (the Old Testament bits about stoning don't even apply to Christians, or at least haven't been applied by the church for the past couple thousand years, so please leave that hooey in the stable, Asher).

I'd actually forgotten about the condom nonsense, but I'm not sure that qualifies either. It is also not malicious in intent AFAICT. Still a big deal, but it makes them reckless and irresponsible (the same as JW/Christian Scientist/whatever parents), not malevolent. They aren't aiming to spread disease, it's just a side effect of their ludicrous and ill-considered attempt to spread their ideas on contraception. It's all really a matter of intent, the way I see it.

Finally, they are acting WITHIN THE LAW. Sorry if I missed a point or two; I tried to address them all, but it is sort of me against the forum here.

[MOBIUS]

Okay, first off, I am not and have never been Catholic. I'm Orthodox, we're a totally different organization under different leadership, and I feel no obligation to protect the Catholic church.

I'm sure we could find plenty of dirty on the Orthodox church (which one?) if we wanted to...

Again, I do not condone the coverup of child molesters, that was quite despicable; however, it was done out of cowardice rather than malice, and not as a matter of established church doctrine.

Cowardice was when they covered it up. Evil was when they allowed those priests they protected to continue their despicable acts...

Seriously, why do you insist on defending the Catholic church against all reason?

What Scientology does is malicious, and fixed in Scientology "doctrine," making the organization intrinsically evil in a way the RCC is not (the Old Testament bits about stoning don't even apply to Christians, or at least haven't been applied by the church for the past couple thousand years, so please leave that hooey in the stable, Asher).

Blah, blah, blah, Scientology this, Scientology that... Why is it when we back our claims with proof in the form of links to reputable sources, you make unsubstantiated accusations? I don't doubt they are evil, however your tactics are the very ones that you accuse them of for being evil - is that not a little hypocritical? Also, how many people are the Scientologists directly responsible for killing? Any even? Not to mention the evil of Catholics knowingly turning a blind eye to their own priests to sodomise little boys.

You do have a twisted view of the concept of evil...

I'd actually forgotten about the condom nonsense, but I'm not sure that qualifies either. It is also not malicious in intent AFAICT. Still a big deal, but it makes them reckless and irresponsible (the same as JW/Christian Scientist/whatever parents), not malevolent. They aren't aiming to spread disease, it's just a side effect of their ludicrous and ill-considered attempt to spread their ideas on contraception. It's all really a matter of intent, the way I see it.

'Condom nonsense'!? They are knowingly aiding the spread of deadly diseases FFS!!!

Not to mention the worldwide suffering caused by refusing to allow abortions! Have we mentioned that particular evil of Catholicism yet?

but it is sort of me against the forum here.

Because everyone apart from you recognises that:

A) Scientology is a religion

and

B) Catholicism is many orders of magnitude more evil than Scientology both in the past and the present!

[Asher]

Elok is just a man of faith. He knows not what he speaks.

[Ming]

however, it was done out of cowardice rather than malice, and not as a matter of established church doctrine.

Gee, I guess since they were cowards that that makes it OK?

Cowardice, malice, WHAT ****ing difference does it make. It's still EVIL and VERY WRONG. Oh, and great, the church doesn't have a document that supports raping little kids... yet senior members of the church were involved in the cover up. People who should have reacted to SAVE more kids from abuse... but instead, let it continue. An ACTIVE decision on their part, and done by more than just one senior member of the Church. We are talking a big conspiracy by the church that allowed children to be abused. So what if it wasn't official church "doctrine"... there is NO defense for their actions... just pure EVIL!

I guess I personally think it's less evil to send threating emails than it is to allow your priests to rape little children.

[Felch]

Cowardice was when they covered it up. Evil was when they allowed those priests they protected to continue their despicable acts...

You're absolutely right. I would like nothing better than an old fashioned inquisition to tear the guts out of these child-rapists and their conspirators.

Blah, blah, blah, Scientology this, Scientology that... Why is it when we back our claims with proof in the form of links to reputable sources, you make unsubstantiated accusations? I don't doubt they are evil, however your tactics are the very ones that you accuse them of for being evil - is that not a little hypocritical? Also, how many people are the Scientologists directly responsible for killing? Any even? Not to mention the evil of Catholics knowingly turning a blind eye to their own priests to sodomise little boys.

You do have a twisted view of the concept of evil...

Here's one for you. Lisa McPherson

'Condom nonsense'!? They are knowingly aiding the spread of deadly diseases FFS!!!

They said stupid **** about how condoms don't work. However, the advice of the Church was not "Have unprotected sex," it was, "abstain from extramarital sex." Theoretically abstinence is 100% effective at the prevention of STDs. Its flaw is that it is impractical. Would encouraging people to use condoms save lives? Yes, most likely. Would anyone suffer from taking the Church's advice however? No. Abstinence will not transmit HIV.

Not to mention the worldwide suffering caused by refusing to allow abortions! Have we mentioned that particular evil of Catholicism yet?

Abortion is a contentious issue. Opposition to it is not evil, it's simply valuing the life of a fetus over the choice of a woman. I see nothing particularly evil with valuing human life more than a woman's personal preferences.

Because everyone apart from you recognises that:

A) Scientology is a religion

and

B) Catholicism is many orders of magnitude more evil than Scientology both in the past and the present!

I agree that Scientology is a religion and that the Church has done awful things up to the present day. Orders of magnitude though, is where you go too far. Are we just comparing total figures? Because the Church is orders of magnitude larger than the CoS, and therefore capable of doing more harm overall without even trying. Scientology is far more organized and disciplined than the Catholic Church. Look at how many Catholics are members of the Church in name only. Look at how even the priests are sodomizing boys, an act which is nominally forbidden. The problems the Church has are problems related to a lack of obedience to the ideals of the faith. There would be no massacres, no rapes, no cover-ups, no AIDS epidemics, if people obeyed every last order the Church gave. The problems the CoS have are related to the inherent wickedness of its teachings. Here's a list of what the CoS has done in its short history.

I believe that Scientology deserves the protection that all religions are given. I also believe that the leadership should be held responsible for its actions. That goes for David Miscavige as well as Cardinal Law.

[Elok]

Thanks, Felch. I know you don't distinguish them from other religions and all, but I more or less agree with what you said there. Moby, I'm not doing your damned research for you. It's a hassle and you started this stupid argument, so dig it up yourself, if you actually want to know what the CoS does apart from what you saw on that one episode of South Park. Or just wikisurf from the link Felch gave, IIRC Wiki has a reasonable list. Or continue to call me a liar. I don't care much either way, what with you being an irredeemable douche and all.

[Nikolai]

Cowardice, malice, WHAT ****ing difference does it make. It's still EVIL and VERY WRONG. Oh, and great, the church doesn't have a document that supports raping little kids... yet senior members of the church were involved in the cover up. People who should have reacted to SAVE more kids from abuse... but instead, let it continue. An ACTIVE decision on their part, and done by more than just one senior member of the Church. We are talking a big conspiracy by the church that allowed children to be abused. So what if it wasn't official church "doctrine"... there is NO defense for their actions... just pure EVIL!

Agreed. No one who does such things to children, or cover it up, can claim to be of God. Rather, they do that other guy's work.

[Ming]

Agreed. No one who does such things to children, or cover it up, can claim to be of God. Rather, they do that other guy's work.

I get really pissed when I see somebody try to sweep this under the table, or try to minimize it as "it's not all that bad" or "what somebody else did was worse". We are talking about abusing children, people who have been trained to trust their priests... We are talking serious evil here.
And for somebody to claim that the RCC isn't all that bad, or not worse than somebody else is just full of crap.

[MOBIUS]

You're absolutely right. I would like nothing better than an old fashioned inquisition to tear the guts out of these child-rapists and their conspirators.

Apparently the cover up goes all the way up to the Pope...

Here's one for you. Lisa McPherson

See, my issue with that is "is that the best you can do?". I mean, don't get me wrong, it's clearly terrible what they did. However on reading the article, it does seem as though they naively thought they were genuinely trying to help her with all the arrogance you get when faith (Scientology) clashes with science (the hospital). In the end it was a scientologist who ordered the others to take her to the hospital...

But that is not the only incompetence in that story - there is also the incompetence of the authorities that allowed the CoS to avoid being properly prosecuted. So who is the worse party there?

Besides, that tragedy is no worse than all the tragedies of JW child being made to die for want of a blood transfusion or an organ. So are we saying that the CoS is no worse than JW when it comes to the unintentional (CoS was actually trying to help their victim, whereas JW does, well, nothing) suffering and death of its followers...

That is actually quite a lame story if you're trying to portray the CoS as actively evil.

They said stupid **** about how condoms don't work. However, the advice of the Church was not "Have unprotected sex," it was, "abstain from extramarital sex." Theoretically abstinence is 100% effective at the prevention of STDs. Its flaw is that it is impractical. Would encouraging people to use condoms save lives? Yes, most likely. Would anyone suffer from taking the Church's advice however? No. Abstinence will not transmit HIV.

True. I give you that. "If you follow our rules, you have nothing to worry about disease because you won't be poking your penis where it doesn't belong".

But we are talking about the weakness of human nature - a point that the RCC knows only too well about when it comes to the child sodomy scandal. At best they are gratuitously hypocritical: "Do as we say - not as our priests do" (or who our priests do).

At worst it is a sort of Russian Roulette form of negligent homicide. They know people will die, but hey, clearly they deserve it cos they're clearly not following our rules. Not that our priests deserve to be punished for their weaknesses of the flesh. Are there any stats for children infected with HIV/AIDS because the priest that ****ed them didn't wear a condom because they are forbidden by the RCC?

Besides, after all that - what about the lies that the RCC actively spreads about the efficacy of condoms?

Abortion is a contentious issue. Opposition to it is not evil, it's simply valuing the life of a fetus over the choice of a woman. I see nothing particularly evil with valuing human life more than a woman's personal preferences.

I do. Especially when it puts that woman's health at risk, or that of the child for a multitude of reasons - I'm think mainly of issues such as sanitation in the 3rd World. Still, it's their recruitment tool. The Scientologists have free personality tests or whatever - the RCC has disallowing abortion.

I agree that Scientology is a religion and that the Church has done awful things up to the present day. Orders of magnitude though, is where you go too far. Are we just comparing total figures? Because the Church is orders of magnitude larger than the CoS, and therefore capable of doing more harm overall without even trying. Scientology is far more organized and disciplined than the Catholic Church. Look at how many Catholics are members of the Church in name only. Look at how even the priests are sodomizing boys, an act which is nominally forbidden. The problems the Church has are problems related to a lack of obedience to the ideals of the faith. There would be no massacres, no rapes, no cover-ups, no AIDS epidemics, if people obeyed every last order the Church gave. The problems the CoS have are related to the inherent wickedness of its teachings. Here's a list of what the CoS has done in its short history.

At no point has anyone ever claimed the CoS wasn't evil. However you notion that most of the RCC's problems are a lack of obedience to the ideals of the faith doesn't hold true either. A lot of those 'ideals' are counter to nature - no wonder you have priests sodomising young boys - it's virtually bound to happen somewhere in your faith when you prevent people from having sex and then place a 'temptation' under their influence...

And the problem is that that all too human 'lack of obedience to the ideals of the faith' has all too often afflicted the various popes - including the one today!

I believe that Scientology deserves the protection that all religions are given. I also believe that the leadership should be held responsible for its actions. That goes for David Miscavige as well as Cardinal Law.

See, I don't. The sooner we all realise what a waste of time all religions are, the better.

[MrFun]

Okay, first off, I am not and have never been Catholic. I'm Orthodox, we're a totally different organization under different leadership, and I feel no obligation to protect the Catholic church.

Again, I do not condone the coverup of child molesters, that was quite despicable; however, it was done out of cowardice rather than malice, and not as a matter of established church doctrine. What Scientology does is malicious, and fixed in Scientology "doctrine," making the organization intrinsically evil in a way the RCC is not (the Old Testament bits about stoning don't even apply to Christians, or at least haven't been applied by the church for the past couple thousand years, so please leave that hooey in the stable, Asher).

I'd actually forgotten about the condom nonsense, but I'm not sure that qualifies either. It is also not malicious in intent AFAICT. Still a big deal, but it makes them reckless and irresponsible (the same as JW/Christian Scientist/whatever parents), not malevolent. They aren't aiming to spread disease, it's just a side effect of their ludicrous and ill-considered attempt to spread their ideas on contraception. It's all really a matter of intent, the way I see it.

Finally, they are acting WITHIN THE LAW. Sorry if I missed a point or two; I tried to address them all, but it is sort of me against the forum here.

I love the squirming you're doing in this post.

[MOBIUS]

Thanks, Felch. I know you don't distinguish them from other religions and all, but I more or less agree with what you said there. Moby, I'm not doing your damned research for you. It's a hassle and you started this stupid argument, so dig it up yourself, if you actually want to know what the CoS does apart from what you saw on that one episode of South Park.

Well, there I was thinking you'd extensively researched it, so could just reel stuff off at the drop of a hat...

But then, if you insist I should take what an episode of South Park says as 'gospel', then it's clear I shouldn't be trusting any of your sources in the first place...

Or just wikisurf from the link Felch gave, IIRC Wiki has a reasonable list.

Yeah, reasonable I suppose. But there is nothing on it that is earth-shatteringly evil. Granted they are guilty of fooling the gullible into joining their religion - but so is the RCC.

After that, their biggest series of crimes is 'Attacking the attacker'. That could be argued as defending oneself, unreasonably in many cases, granted. But consider what the church has done in 'attacking the attacker', the Crusades come to mention, all the crap with the wars Vs. Protestantism etc. Surely that's just 'An eye for an eye'...?

These guys are rank amateurs when it comes to being actually evil. As far as I can tell, they have a nice little racket going (just like any religion) and they are seeking to protect their livelihoods - just like the RCC church would do...

In fact, as far as I can tell, if you mind your business, the CoS won't ever bother you. The RCC on the other hand can't help sticking their nose in where its not welcome - they're happy to destroy entire civilisations and cultures in the name of God. Haven't been keeping up with prayer - have an Inquisition! Fancy an abortion despite not being a RCC follower - no chance if you live in Ireland! The list goes on and on!

Or continue to call me a liar.

Where have I called you a liar? Oh wait, your 'extensive research' of CoS has worked after all! Am I a 'subversive person' who is the subject of an 'attack the attacker'?

I don't care much either way, what with you being an irredeemable douche and all.

Yet again you resort to name calling. Clearly you realise you have lost the argument on all fronts and so you seek to defame me. Again I say that you are using the very tactics of an organisation that you claim to be evil...

Dare I utter the word 'hypocrite'...?

[MOBIUS]

Or continue to call me a liar.

Nope, I've gone through all my posts in this thread and never once called you a liar. In fact, that must make YOU a liar...

How ironic.

[Boris Godunov]

They said stupid **** about how condoms don't work. However, the advice of the Church was not "Have unprotected sex," it was, "abstain from extramarital sex." Theoretically abstinence is 100% effective at the prevention of STDs. Its flaw is that it is impractical. Would encouraging people to use condoms save lives? Yes, most likely. Would anyone suffer from taking the Church's advice however? No. Abstinence will not transmit HIV.

That's not the issue. In Uganda, they had the largest rate of HIV infection before the ABC program was introduced: Abstinence, Be Faithful, and Condoms. After that, it saw a dramatic decrease. Yes, abstinence works. But so do condoms. And the church KNOWS this. They lied, full stop, because it served their agenda of making sure there are punitive consequences for sex. That goes well beyond giving "advice." If the church had left it at "look, we don't approve of condom usage, we prefer you did the other things," then I'd have less of an issue. Instead the Pope himself engaged in a lie, duping the devout Catholics who trust in the church.

Beyond that, as I mentioned, it wasn't merely "advice," as the church engaged in flat-out extortion over it. The church has threatened to withhold desperately needed aid if condom use education and providing condoms is continued. And given the hold that the church has over so many people in African countries, portraying it as mere "advice" to not use condoms is absurd.