The Internet vs Scientology

[Nazrat]

Also, the Texas legislature does not meet until 2009.  As a biennial legislature, there is a lot of chaos and confusion at the close of a session.  If this gets out of committee, it could pass.  However, it looks like a standard crazy piece of legislation that is introduced for press coverage and then dies. 

Also, this is only a local county resolution.  It is not a state resolution.  Remember, Texas has 254 counties.

I bet a member of this site got this passed.  I am over an hour east of Galveston so it wasn't me. 

[Big Gulp]

If you can buy presidential pardons now you are in even deeper shit than I thought.

Too late, already been done in 2000.  Mark Rich, anybody?

[Miasma]

Also, the Texas legislature does not meet until 2009.

What do you mean, did they take the rest of the year off?

[Lantyssa]

They meet for six months in Austin.  The other 18 months of their term is spent in their home district on constituent services and whatever their paying job is.  (State Legislators only make $18k for their service, it's not enough to live on.)  The governor can and does call special sessions where they meet for a few weeks in the interim.

[HaemishM]

The governor can and does call special sessions where they meet for a few weeks in the interim...

while one party hides in a hotel in Oklahoma.

[Morat20]

Also, the Texas legislature does not meet until 2009.

What do you mean, did they take the rest of the year off?

They meet once every two years. Their pay is shit.

Many "small government" folks tend to see this as ideal. Having lived here, however, I can say the following:

1) Most of them are happily bought out.
2) Their decisions are even more short-sighted and idiotic than usual for state government.

Fuck, our education system has been under fucking judicial control for like two decades now, because our Leg can't manage to provide "equal oppurtunity" under the law. In short, there's schools in bumfuck East Texas where they've got spending at about 20 dollars per student, per year -- and places where it's 8300 per student, per year. Some of the Texas school districts would be sneered upon by third world villagers as primitive and underfunded.

Our current "solution" is if your district spends over a certain amount per student, they match you up with a poor district and you give them lots of your money. (The flaws in this idea are pretty simple -- if you're used to having, say, 8k per student your entire infrastructure -- buildings, salaries, outstanding bonds, etc -- is built around roughly that figure. Losing 2k per student fucks your finances pretty awful). The screams from HISD as gentrification finally pushed them into the "giving money" and not the "taking money" side have been music, however.

I believe our prison system is ALSO under judicial control, or at least a great deal of oversight. Frankly, the Texas Leg can't do it's job -- they don't even try. They just fuck around for six months and then let the courts handle it. Did I mention that ALL our judges -- up to and including the Texas Supreme Court or whatever it's called -- are elected? Often, not to like 12 year terms or anything?

And that the current Speaker of the House/equivilant actually got booted from his position several months ago, but simply refused to acknowledge the rules and has been holding onto it anyways?

It's the most fucked up state government in the US. I'm surprised no one's been shot there.

[JWIV]

Baltimore's Citypaper did a cover story on Anonymous  this week.

http://citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=15543

[Lantyssa]

while one party hides in a hotel in Oklahoma.

I really disliked when they did that, however I now understand why.  DeLay was ramming through mid-decade redistricting to try and take the state from a gerrymandered 85/60 legislators to 100/45.  It's really partisan here.  Keep in mind Texas was the testing ground of DeLay's national strategy and that prior to the 90's, the state was Democrat controlled.

[cmlancas]

Awesome find JWIV:

Right in the middle of the writeup, "'LURK MOAR NEWFAG'."


Edit: I laughed even harder when I read "Anonymous likes Mudkips." 

[schild]

That was good reading.

[Big Gulp]

Keep in mind Texas was the testing ground of DeLay's national strategy and that prior to the 90's, the state was Democrat controlled.

I think Delay's a scumbag, but let's be honest here; he was gerrymandering a state that was only Democrat controlled because it had been previously gerrymandered by Democrats back in the LBJ era.  Texas Democrats complaining about GOP gerrymandering comes off as just a tad bit hypocritical.

[Abagadro]

If they would have done it on the regular time frame it would have been one thing but DeLay and the Texas GOP:

1) Illegally used corporate donations to gain control of statehouse.

2) Did a mid-decade redistricting 2 years after a panel of judges (not the Texas legislature) had just redrawn them.

3) Did so in a way that DOJ career lawyers said was illegal under the Voting Rights Act.

There is a bit of a difference.

[Hoax]

Baltimore's Citypaper did a cover story on Anonymous  this week.

http://citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=15543

That was truly well done, I'm looking forward to the 12th, I totally missed the last one.

[Dtrain]

Israeli TV to Scientology: 1 global conspiracy per planet pls k thx bai:

Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UsqMqtpU44o
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eJNOHmtEt9o

[Samwise]

Israeli TV to Scientology: 1 global conspiracy per planet pls k thx bai:

Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UsqMqtpU44o
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eJNOHmtEt9o

Ye gods.  Kudos to Israel for having the balls to put that on the air.

[Paelos]

Any Christian that backs Scientology because they are afraid of government persecution of religions is a fool. I wouldn't have said that before, but this thread has certainly given me more to think about in terms of the cult than I had ever really considered.

[Llava]

It really all comes down to the third stipulation in that Texan bill: religious enlightenment isn't supposed to cost money.  That's a blatant money grab.  The tithe is at least theoretically optional.  If Scientology was free, it wouldn't have destroyed nearly as many lives as it has.  It'd just be wacky.  And we, as a society, are fine with wacky.

[Paelos]

It really all comes down to the third stipulation in that Texan bill: religious enlightenment isn't supposed to cost money.  That's a blatant money grab.  The tithe is at least theoretically optional.  If Scientology was free, it wouldn't have destroyed nearly as many lives as it has.  It'd just be wacky.  And we, as a society, are fine with wacky.

Well, see the thing is I can biblically and historically defend the tithe as a long-standing tribute to the religious authority dating back to ancient Jewish traditions and writings. In the Torah, Abraham is credited with giving a tenth of a plunder to the high priest Melchizedek as part of the Levitical code. I believe that's where the 10% comes from, although I've never actually studied it thoroughly.

However, as you stated, it was Abraham's choice. It is still our choice today. The priests will still bless and take your confessions in the Catholic Church today without donations. Granted, they crossed that line in the times of Martin Luther, but the Reformation and Counter-Reformation did a lot to re-establish the norms we consider to be important in a religion. Ideally, that money should be going to further the goals of the church, which is helping the unfortunate first and spreading the word second. You are correct in your assessment of Scientology as a pure money grab.

[Llava]

It really all comes down to the third stipulation in that Texan bill: religious enlightenment isn't supposed to cost money.  That's a blatant money grab.  The tithe is at least theoretically optional.  If Scientology was free, it wouldn't have destroyed nearly as many lives as it has.  It'd just be wacky.  And we, as a society, are fine with wacky.

Well, see the thing is I can biblically and historically defend the tithe as a long-standing tribute to the religious authority dating back to ancient Jewish traditions and writings. In the Torah, Abraham is credited with giving a tenth of a plunder to the high priest Melchizedek as part of the Levitical code. I believe that's where the 10% comes from, although I've never actually studied it thoroughly.

However, as you stated, it was Abraham's choice. It is still our choice today. The priests will still bless and take your confessions in the Catholic Church today without donations. Granted, they crossed that line in the times of Martin Luther, but the Reformation and Counter-Reformation did a lot to re-establish the norms we consider to be important in a religion. Ideally, that money should be going to further the goals of the church, which is helping the unfortunate first and spreading the word second. You are correct in your assessment of Scientology as a pure money grab.

I don't want to get off-topic, but...

The history of the tithe in the Bible/Torah really doesn't matter.  They have just as much justification for it in their books.  There is nothing inherently more or less valid about either of your holy books.  Invoking the Bible over Dianetics is an appeal to majority, and invoking it at all is an appeal to authority.  You believe it, but they believe their book with the same sincerity.  I happen to disbelieve both, so the claims of both really don't validate anything from my perspective.  As for the history of it- that doesn't make it any more just.  If the Church of Scientology was doing the exact same thing it is doing, but had been doing it for 3,000 years, that wouldn't make it right.  We'd just be used to it.

What does count is the voluntary nature of the tithe versus the compulsory nature of Scientology's "donations".  And it starts right from the beginning, too.  Go take a personality test from them, they'll tell you that you're stressed and need the book.  Ask if it's free, "Well, no, a small donation of $8 is required."  I wonder if they realize that "required donation" doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

Of course, then there are apparently folks who say that the tithe is voluntary, but God blesses those who do tithe and curses those who do not.  That sounds less than voluntary.  But I believe those are the (extreme) minority, and I'm not going to condemn the whole practice based on that anymore than I'd condemn it based on the greedy and evil practices of individual priests.

For now, we'll assume the benevolence of the tithe because of its voluntary nature, and the malevolence of "required donations" because of their mandatory nature, subjective judgments aside.

[Roac]

Money is required for any organization to function.  This is a practical matter, not a religious one, and it doesn't matter to me whether the method of collecting money is "we could really use some money" vs "you need to pay to play".  I don't care if you're talking about Scientology, Catholicism, or Pet Rescue.  You need money, and looking for sources of it isn't bad.

The problem is the social pressure used to extort money.  It's the blackmail, the threats, they way they demand it.  This method of collection is wrong, again, whether you're Scientology, the Catholic Church, or Pet Rescue. 

[Kitsune]

Regardless of anything that any holy book may say encouraging tithes, I have yet to hear of any real religion tossing someone out for non-payment.  To the best of my knowledge, I can walk into any cathedral, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc., sit down, worship, and walk out without taking any crap for not handing them money.  In a fair number of them, I bet I can ask for and receive a free copy of their respective holy book, too.

[Krakrok]

The problem is the social pressure used to extort money.  It's the blackmail, the threats, they way they demand it.  This method of collection is wrong, again, whether you're Scientology, the Catholic Church, or Pet Rescue. 

Preying on the weak minded and people in trouble to jank what little funds they may have left is what's fucked up and evil. Narcanon and setting up "aid" stations at ground zero come to mind.

[Paelos]

I don't want to get off-topic, but...

The history of the tithe in the Bible/Torah really doesn't matter.  They have just as much justification for it in their books.  There is nothing inherently more or less valid about either of your holy books.  Invoking the Bible over Dianetics is an appeal to majority, and invoking it at all is an appeal to authority.  You believe it, but they believe their book with the same sincerity.  I happen to disbelieve both, so the claims of both really don't validate anything from my perspective.  As for the history of it- that doesn't make it any more just.  If the Church of Scientology was doing the exact same thing it is doing, but had been doing it for 3,000 years, that wouldn't make it right.  We'd just be used to it.

Scientology wouldn't last 3000 years. I personally have a belief that history has a way of sorting through a lot of the bullshit in the world and bringing the falsehoods and corruption to light. Any ideology that survives that long is battle tested. Is it 100% right? Not necessarily, but I have a more healthy respect for it than anything L. Ron Hubbard could quote. The historical part of it is that tithes are merely a form of tribute, and that is a practice that's been around forever outside of religion.

[Big Gulp]

In a fair number of them, I bet I can ask for and receive a free copy of their respective holy book, too.

Or hell, most churches will try help out parishioners in financial straits with either money or household goods/groceries.  This is a common practice in any "real" religion, whether it's Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

Think the CoS would do that?

[Kitsune]

Or hell, most churches will try help out parishioners in financial straits with either money or household goods/groceries.  This is a common practice in any "real" religion, whether it's Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

Think the CoS would do that?

Sure!  They'll let you move right in and live with them as a staffer.  All you have to do is work 17-hour days for about $50 a week in pay, plus luxurious rice to eat and board with ten or so other people in the same room.

Alternately, as long as the press is watching, I'm sure they'd be only too happy to help you out.  When the cameras stop rolling, however, I'm sure they'll find some ways for you to repay their kindness.

[Samwise]

Alternatively, once they've gotten all the use they can out of you, they can dump you on the street as a shattered wreck of a human being, with a warning that if you ever say anything bad about them to anyone you and your family will be hounded to the end of your days.

[Abagadro]

You have "tithing audits" in the LDS religion and you can have your "temple recommend" (which is the passcard, a real one BTW, that lets you get into the temple and do the central rites of the religion) if you aren't up to snuff on your 10% of gross income.

[Llava]

Scientology wouldn't last 3000 years. I personally have a belief that history has a way of sorting through a lot of the bullshit in the world and bringing the falsehoods and corruption to light. Any ideology that survives that long is battle tested. Is it 100% right? Not necessarily, but I have a more healthy respect for it than anything L. Ron Hubbard could quote. The historical part of it is that tithes are merely a form of tribute, and that is a practice that's been around forever outside of religion.

I disagree with this almost entirely, but I don't want to derail this thread.  If you're interested in continuing this discussion, we could start a new thread.  In politics, of course, since it involves religion and, despite my and your best efforts, will probably get nasty when other people jump in.

[Paelos]

Scientology wouldn't last 3000 years. I personally have a belief that history has a way of sorting through a lot of the bullshit in the world and bringing the falsehoods and corruption to light. Any ideology that survives that long is battle tested. Is it 100% right? Not necessarily, but I have a more healthy respect for it than anything L. Ron Hubbard could quote. The historical part of it is that tithes are merely a form of tribute, and that is a practice that's been around forever outside of religion.

I disagree with this almost entirely, but I don't want to derail this thread.  If you're interested in continuing this discussion, we could start a new thread.  In politics, of course, since it involves religion and, despite my and your best efforts, will probably get nasty when other people jump in.

You and I will disagree on mostly everything relating to religion. It's ok. I'm not trying to convert you. I'm never going into politics though, EVER AGAIN. I think at this stage in your life and maybe on the whole, you want nothing to do with what I'd have to say, but that's between you and God. I've done the whole "Let's have arguments with atheists" and I've come to the same conclusion every time: it's pointless. Only God can speak to you, and it will have nothing to do with what another Christian says to you. I can only start to talk once you believe the basics of a higher power, which at this point you don't.

[Llava]

<shrug>  I believe in reason and evidence.  I can see no reason or evidence for God.  That's it in a nutshell.

I'm actually becoming so firm in my disbelief, though, that I'm becoming genuinely curious about the other position.  I'm interested to have people try to convert me, to see if there's anything at all that I haven't considered.  One thing on which I agree with many theists is that the question of whether or not there is a God is perhaps the most important question we can ask (which seems obvious when I say it, but many other atheists feel it's irrelevant... how can the nature of all reality be irrelevant?), and as a result of that feeling I want to be as fully informed on the subject as possible.

As it is, I consider myself "more informed than most", but part of what brought me here is continually questioning and looking for reasons behind beliefs.  That includes atheism.  There is evidence that would change my mind, but that evidence doesn't exist as far as has been demonstrated.  I can expose all the logical tricks (Aquinas, Pascal, Anselm) I've heard thus far, but I won't say that there exists no logical demonstration of God's existence.

That said, f13 probably isn't the place to find it.  But I feel that, at the very least, a civil discussion of it could lead to greater understanding between myself and whatever theist could handle it.  Maybe he could see my reasons for disbelieving and, while perhaps not converting himself, at least begin to understand that atheists are not necessarily amoral hedonists.  I might actually try arranging something face to face with a local church official if it looks feasible.  In all honesty, if I were actually shown evidence for God's existence then I'd convert in a second and quickly become an ardent supporter.  It's just that our world so uncannily resembles a world lacking a God.

[Paelos]

You can't prove God. You can't rationalize or make God out of logic. That's why I stopped arguing with atheists, because that is what they want. It's sort of akin to arguing feelings vs. realities. You can't explain why people feel the way they do, and you can't rationalize it. It simply is.

I could write a long book that nobody would read about why I believe in a God, and you could probably write one logically explaining why there is absolutely no evidence of one, but our feelings won't change. They are feelings and not subject to logic.

[WayAbvPar]

Logic and reason are overrated.

[Llava]

It's sort of akin to arguing feelings vs. realities. You can't explain why people feel the way they do, and you can't rationalize it.

Sure you can.

[Lantyssa]

I have to agree with Paelos, keeping in mind I am an atheist.  For the free-thinking believers and atheists (the rabid ones are focused on the wrong things) it really does come down to Faith.

There is no proof.  You feel he exists or you don't.  Anything else is rationalization of why one feels this way, but it's just that, rationalization.

[Llava]

It's not a matter of faith to disbelieve a hypothesis with no evidence.  Indeed, a hypothesis with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.