[Ir-l] HELP! Please lobby against the criminal cult of Scientology getting new powers against its critics

[Dave Bird]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0111280708300.11562-100000 at batten.zaz.palfrema
n.com>, William Palfreman <william at palfreman.com> writes
>There are plenty of reasons to oppose any kind of law that seeks to
>restrict peoples' right to freedom of conscience and right to criticise,
>including the right to criticise religions of which they aren't members.
>I note you aren't making the free speech point here.  
>
>You're describing Scientology as a "Problem" religion and then you make
>a blood-libel about it.  

 No, actually not. The word "Scientology" is not present.  Rather
 the law would be stated in terms that "the court is inclined to
 take any religion as genuine, but if you are able to -- not just assert
 -- but prove to the court on the preponderance of evidence, on  the
 simple practical tests laid down, that it is so corrupt as to be 
 not deserving of protection then we will act differently." But, 
 it is implied, don't waste our time on mere ranting without an
 arguable case or you will be landed with a big bill for court costs!

 The reason I am arguing this line is that (1) if the governement can
 be persuaded at all then it won't go further than this, and (2)
 certain important elements of mainstream religions have told me 
 pretty much that this is what they want and might support whereas
 more radical opposition is not on the menu for them.   


>You try and make a spurious distinction between
>"sincere and ethical" religions you and other people don't currently
>like, 

 BZZT!  It is not about "liking" (or the beliefs). It is about
 whether they are abhorrent to objective, secular, human rights 
 principles.
 
>even though there is any number of sincere and ethical
>Scientologists, 

 It is not a matter of some INDIVIDUALS, it is about whether the
 organisation (i.e. leadership and written policy) is being 
 conducted in a fraudulent and vicious manner.


 Feel free if you like to write the two halves in terms of AND:
 the defendant can show as a rebuttable presumption that

 (i) the organisation is being conducted in a corrupt and vicious
 way abhorrent to human rights principles such as keeping written
 confessional records, and using them for blackmail, after the
 member has left;
                  AND
 (ii) That the statements made were not, in intent or effect, rousing
 irrational hatred against believers, but making a legitimate protest
 or warning against corrupt conduct of the organisation which he can, 
 on evidence, plausibly show exists. [I was short of drafting time]

>and even if there weren't you have no business making
>arbitrary generalisations like that.  

 Sorry, I'm losing patience: the above can only be read as stupidity.
 If I see that a so-called betting shop is defrauding people and 
 beating people up those who object, this is "not my business" to 
 complain vociferously about --- expecting, of course, I will be dragged 
 into court to justify my damning words as true on the evidence --- for
 what reason exactly?  Does it make any difference to substitute
 "place of religious practice" for "betting shop"??

 Also, why is it so difficult to say that a group expecting the
 protection of secular law must itself accept the reality that
 secular government has a right to make basic laws against 
 damaging the person or property of others (and, presumably,
 against inciting people to commit such crimes against others),
 and further that your official leadership does not go round 
 regularly saying that members should break precisely these laws,
 in order to get the protection of secular law against others
 doing the same to them. Otherwise they are not merely criminal
 scum but hypocrites as well: surely they should expect the deity,
 not man-made law which they despise and trample upon, to protect
 them against attack or incitement to attack from nonbelievers?

> In fact, the only religion
>I can think of round here which does acknowledge the state is the C of
>E, and that's because it's the state religion.

 Then you clearly don't understand what I said.  Christianity has
 a statement that you should "render unto Caesar what is due to
 Caesar and render unto God what is due to God," which St Paul
 further strengthens by saying "the powers that be... are set in
 their places by God" and should be obeyed in basic secular matters. 
 Thus it is a matter "for Caesar" that there are taxes set or laws 
 against burglary, and you will be punished if you avoid the taxes
 or break the laws...  and that God has actually ordained this so. 
 Moslems believe that in a majority-Moslem nation the prince should
 be a Moslem, and govern criminal matters according to Moslem law
 ***BUT*** if you go to live among kaffirin then you should obey the
 basic, fair, secular laws of that place, presumably because this
 is Allah's will for you and you should submit to it.  Most religions
 say something similar.

>You've basically said that religions you label as disloyal to the
>present government are legitimate targets for persecution.  

 Ah, you don't understand, then.  "Loyalty" to every policy, or
 even not having conscientious objection to the state's wars,
 is not in it.  Accepting the right of the state to make basic
 laws protecting citizens from (incitement to...) attack on the
 person or property, is a basic prerequisite of demanding such
 protection for yourselves organisationally. I do not even 
 say, as $cientologists would, that "the individual burglar
 has foregone protection of law against being burgled himself."
 I do say that the society of burglars is not a fit body to be
 given criminal sanction to shut down public criticism of its
 organisational acts.

>And at the
>end of your email you 
 wibble wibble twaddle twaddle: go stick you head up a dead bear's bum.
>This was an appalling email.  
 Then why did you write it? Your time would have been better
 spent on reading comprehension and remedial education classes.


 When Scientologists are criticised for a negligent killing 
 by their (basically financial) corporation, they refuse to
 discuss the evidence but characterise the very mention of
 it as Biggott!Biggott!Biggott!  I suggest anyone interested
 do a search on LISA, MACPHERSON, DEATH, CLEARWATER and make
 up their own minds whether this is reasonable of them.

 Yes, though I did not say it,  the Church of $cientology officials
 are fiercely bigoted against any unbeliever who challenges their 
 actions and any heretical Scientologist group.  Another search 
 on newspaper headline DEATH IN THE SUNSHINE STATE might be helpful
 for those readers who want more detail.


-- 
' ' ' .:::. ' :: ' ' 'what do Scientologists say  when ' http://www.
'    (o\ /o) .::.  '  you ask why their money-grubbing ' xemu.demon.
'     \ " /  XEMU  '  killed  a woman  by  starvation? ' co.uk     '
'      '-'   ::::  ' - - - -http://www.lisatrust.net - ' ' ' ' ' ' '
'      :v:   \'''| '        BIGOT    BIGOT     BIGOT               '
'   ;;\:::/;;\/ /  '     OO  /       /         \               ?   '
'   ;;;;;;;;;BEER  '    (~~)      .00           @@-._           \  '
'   WithAKick\/    '   (    )    (  =)         (O    )     ( ") (" )
' 'LikeAnHBomb ' ' ' '  ^^^^ ' ' ^^ ^^ ' ' ' '  ^^ ^^  ' '  "" ' ""
   see the famous frogs at http://members.home.net/bwarr1/Movie2.html