Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:56 pm

>Having the government cater to one religion more than another would encourage religious freedom?

No. That's the opposite of what I'm asking. As it stands, it seems the government is catering to Unitarians more than anyone else.
Hsu, I appreciate your perspective in this. However, for most religions, it's not that simple. Most do not require political neutrality nor strict pacifism. And if I joined the Air Force like my father and my grandfather, the government would not have the right to prohibit the free exercize of my religion, which is still, if the Constitution is properly followed, possible even within the military.

Post by **fourpawsonthefloor** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:06 pm

I still don't get how trying to be more kind and respectful and inclusive of other people is disregarding your religion. You can still chose to believe exactly what you want without having to make other people feel like crud.

That's another huge problem I have with right winged people - they will insult other people, make them feel horrid, and try and force their will on others to "serve God" or to be "true to their religion" or whatever you want to call it. I cannot understand how they could possibly think that ramming their beliefs down other people's throats would be a good thing, or how it would make anyone want to covert. I personally run shrieking in the other direction from these types of people - so aren't they kind of defeating themselves?

The other thing, is how can these people go absolutely nuts on something like, say, gay marriage (and now I've gone and done it

) and still be merrily doing other prohibited things and say that's OK? Explain this to me, cause I just don't get it at all. Again...it reminds me of nothing more than a pack of school yard bullies taunting the more vulnerable just because it inflates their self worth.

Guys, I respect all of your beliefs, providing that you are not hurting others with them. I am very content and secure with my own relationship with God. This is what life boils down for me - be kind, do good and you'll be just fine. Wisdom a-la paws.

(And thanks y'all - it was nice to hear from all of you - I just had a really bad flare of my fibro over Christmas - plus for a while I couldn't bear to look at light because I had a really bad attack of iritis. Geesh.

I did however enjoy it very much and have found myself more peaceful, so ironically even with all of that going on I am happier than normal this time of year (though frusterated at times).)

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:13 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
>Having the government cater to one religion more than another would encourage religious freedom?

No. That's the opposite of what I'm asking. As it stands, it seems the government is catering to Unitarians more than anyone else.
Hsu, I appreciate your perspective in this. However, for most religions, it's not that simple. Most do not require political neutrality nor strict pacifism. And if I joined the Air Force like my father and my grandfather, the government would not have the right to prohibit the free exercize of my religion, which is still, if the Constitution is properly followed, possible even within the military.

I think this is where you're missing the point a bit. A person in the armed forces has the right to, a point, exercise their religious freedom as much as they like. That point I mentioned would be anything that makes their time in the military difficult or impossible (like the Orthodox Jew mentioned). What is under discussion here is the Chaplain. This person has taken a job which before he even enters he KNOWS he is required to act a certain way, and preach certain things. If this person doesnt agree with it, there are millions of other professions they can go in to! But they take the job KNOWING FULL WELL that they are going to have to act a certain way. As Jack said, tough cookies...

It's like going to McDonalds, and ordering a coffee, knowing your allergic. You can't blame McDonalds!

One of the main points of the military, is that the individual comes second to the security of the country. That's how it is. That's how it should be. That's why it's a choice. You have to give these people credit, they DO write away some basic freedoms for the service of our country. But they know full well going into it what will be expected of them. So thats that....

So, my question here is, do we stop allowing religion at all in the military? Because, Ange, the way you speak of it, that seems to be the only way. Best to allow SOME faith to these people who are putting their lives on the line daily so you CAN say Merry Christmas than none at all....

Whoa, super dramatic...sorry...

And Angelique, I already asked you to use the quote button when quoting, now I'm telling you to. Use the quote button! It's at the top of whatever post you want to quote. If you need help using it, I'll explain it, but your posts can be confusing without it.....

Paws: I know where your coming from! This is really for another thread, but I'm sick and tired of the Republicans of today calling themselves Republicans. THEY'RE NOT! The Republican party is BASED on the idea of small government. The gov't collects taxes, builds highways, and basically leaves you alone. What this doesnt leave room for are the welfare programs and other gov't assistance programs (where Democrats and the large gov't stuff comes in)....which are honestly both good and bad. If the Republican party were to stay true to the ideals on which it was based, they should shut their mouths about abortion, gay marriage, and a number of other topics. But more often then not, politics are based on something completely familiar to itself: hypocrisy.

Post by **HoodedMan** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:31 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
>Having the government cater to one religion more than another would encourage religious freedom?

No. That's the opposite of what I'm asking.

Maybe, but it's exactly what you're saying. If you read Bamfette's post, she was talking about what would happen if chaplains started catering to Christianity more than to other religions. You then posted:

Originally posted by Angelique
Or it could lead to the complete opposite, like questioning why we expect anyone, not just a Christian, to sweep their beliefs under the rug in the service of a country that prides itself on religious freedom. I don't want the government to grant any one religion or philosophy favored status. Including Christianity. And including Unitarianism or secular humanism.

And, Nacht, in response to:

Originally posted by NachtcGleiskette
So, my question here is, do we stop allowing religion at all in the military? Because, Ange, the way you speak of it, that seems to be the only way.

No, because that would be like saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", and we've already been over that.

Post by **Saint Kurt** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:49 pm

Northstar you owe me a new keyboard and another drink.

-e

Bamfette · Post by **Bamfette** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:40 am

Originally posted by Angelique
>Having the government cater to one religion more than another would encourage religious freedom?

No. That's the opposite of what I'm asking. As it stands, it seems the government is catering to Unitarians more than anyone else.

That's only becuase it is one of the most neutral options available. Unitarian Universalism is not out to say one god is the 'right' one, or say you have to live one specific way to get to heaven, or anything like that. It encompasses nearly all beliefs, which is why it was used. While it may not be any one soldier's religion, it does a LOT more to address the needs of many different beliefs than any other religion. Pretty much any other religion fails miserably at addressing the needs of many differing beliefs, because most other religions teach that they are THE ONLY way. It's like telling the soldiers of a different fath that they're going to Hell. and besides, i don't theink they directly advocate Unitarian Universalism as chaplains, they merely use it as a basis for how you can be inclusive to many beliefs.

Like i said a while back, it's not a perfect solution, but there ISN'T a perfect soluution, or if there is, we haven't figured it out yet, so this is the best we can do. All allowing the Chaplain to preach Christianity (or Hinduism or Judaism, or Wicca, or who knows what else) would do is to satisfy the Chaplain and any soldiers that may share his belief, but it leaves everyone else with nothing. This at least puts all the soldiers on equal footing.

btw. Secular Humanism is not a religion, it's more like a philosophy. It's a collection of people grouped together because they have similar beliefs, but it falls well short of qualifying as a religion. I'd personally put Unitarian Universalism in the same category, but not to the same degree. It had its roots in a religion, but it has since evolved to the point that it's lacking some defining characteristics of religion.

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 am

Originally posted by HoodedMan

No, because that would be like saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", and we've already been over that.

Ohhh touche, sir. Touche

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:23 am

Unitarian Universalism is not out to say one god is the 'right' one, or say you have to live one specific way to get to heaven, or anything like that. It encompasses nearly all beliefs,

Except, of course, for the ones that say "one god is the 'right' one."
This rather brings me back to the story of the flight attendant who was dismissed for not wearing makeup. There is discrimination in any policy that requires clergy to preach against their beliefs.
I wouldn't call it an imperfect solution, because it's not a solution. It borders on the religious equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell." And I don't see how forcing anyone to stifle their own faith is kind and respectful to anyone. It's not like asking someone to avoid profanity.
And I think it's really interesting how I get branded as "right wing," when I am rather strongly against the status quo in this and many other things. And how people assumed that I was interested in religious favoritism. Trust me. It's a big problem where I live, and I don't want to go there. I just think it's hypocritical to say we support our military, and we're grateful that they're there to protect our freedom, but we don't allow them the same freedom because (gasp!) it might offend someone.
And if I were in the military, I wouldn't expect a non-Catholic chaplain to administer Holy Communion to me, nor would I be in any kind of snit if they didn't.

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:53 pm

*sigh*

It's not about offending people. It's about the fact that the military has to do things and follow codes that we do not have to as civilians. There are certain things that are simply made impossible by the way the military is run, but compromising the entire machine for a squeaky wheel or two is unacceptable when it comes to the people who are protecting us.....if you're not ready to give up certain things, and you don't believe you should, then don't join the military! It's actually quite simple...

The airflight attendant reference you keep making is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the entire thing! Yes, THAT is discrimination. To be an airline stewardess, makeup really isnt imperative to the job, so firing a woman for not doing so because of her religious beliefs can be seen as discrimination. It is NOT, however a religious belief to say "Merry Christmas" over "Happy Holidays", and in the military, people have to do as told. And thats it.

My question is, Angelique, WHAT is a better solution? You seem to be very keen on what rights are being trampled and what needs to be respected and very judgemental on a policy that has been working fine for years up until one or two cases. What WILL work?

Another problem I think we are having with your arguments is, (and I think Bamfette said this) not everyone in the world will, nor should be expected, to react the way you do! And you present yourself as very open minded, but then your arguments are extremely closed minded, in that you can't take into account that everyone is very different, and where something may not offend you, it could offend someone else. And quite frankly? You are in the majority. None of your religious rights are being infringed upon, no matter who you're reading. If you disagree, then give me some clear cut examples of your religious rights being stripped from you, specifically. Honestly, we just want to know where your coming from.

Crawler · Post by **Crawler** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:25 pm

So, Angelique, the only way you would be happy is if the military provided for your beliefs, specifically. Well, then, to be constitutional in essentially subsidizing your religion, they'd have to hire a representative for every religion of every soldier in the military.

In that instance, you'd have a ridiculous number of religious representatives running around the military...the only way to cater to all religions and not be spending half your budget on it would be to split the military into religious groups.

Now how many people would cry foul if they did that? The First Baptist Brigade? The Thirteenth Jewish Squadron? The Catholic 104th Airborne?

PLus, go with that and I'd be the sole member of my squad. I'd guess that others would be as well.

They are trying to appease you, not cater to you, with the Unitarianism. It's an attempt to give some religious support where some people might want it (and to keep the military from appearing "secular", IMO) while not adhering to one religion specifically.

It's like buying those bags of miniature candy bars...a little of this, a little of that...instead of stockpiling Butterfingers. Some people don't like Butterfingers and would be very angry that they didn't provide Crunch bars. Do you get a full size bar? No. But you get a little of what you want.

And just how does not having a representative from your religion keep you from practicing your faith? Faith is a private thing. Do you really need a representative of your church available at all times?

Bamfette · Post by **Bamfette** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:32 pm

Like Nacht said, it's not about offending someone, it's about constitutional rights (though the rights are about being inclusive), which is why your stewardess example has NOTHING in common with this. An airline is a private organization. They are very large, but they are privately owned, and not affiliated with the government in any way. Telling a stewardess she's fired becuase she wont wear makeup IS a vilation of her constitutional rights, because it is a privately owned company, and they do not have the right to discriminate agaisnt her religious beliefs/practices UNLESS it's harming someone or is costing them business. Not wearing makeup will not meet those requiremens, so it is discrimination, even though a company has the right to enforce a dress code, this is a bit much.

But in the United States, the military is operated by the government itself, and thus must abide by the constitution more stringently than private organizations. They must both ensure freedom of religious expression while at the same time ensuring the seperation of church and state. Sometimes the two requirements come into conflict and a middle ground must be found. Relevant to this discussion, Army Chaplains must not do anything which accomplishes any of the following

- Promoting one faith group over another.
- Promoting religion as superior to a secular lifestyle.
- Promoting a secularism in favor of a religious lifestyle.

The second the chaplain prays to Jesus instead of something neutral while on the job, he is promoting Christianity above all other beliefs, and he is doing so as a representative of the government. That's the issue here.

We got off track a bit with the Unitarian Universalism thing. it is not a violation of the constitution because they merely used it as a guide as to how to talk to a large group which may have many differing beliefs, since it was the best example of that available. they do not try to convert anyone, most soldiers are probably unaware that they are using it as a guide, and Chaplains are given extensive guides on many religions (for instance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_usbk.htm) and there are stringent guidelenes for allowing freedom of religious expression and discouraging religious discrimination in the military: http://tinyurl.com/dc9qn please read that, it does a lot to explain why they HAVE to do what they are doing. however the most relevant bit is right at the top:

GUIDING PRINCIPLES: A. WE ARE SWORN TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. IN TAKING THIS OATH WE PLEDGE OUR PERSONAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION S PROTECTIONS FOR FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND PROHIBITIONS AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

And I never branded you as anything, and i haven't seen anyone else do so, I'm merely debating the points you bring up.

Post by **HoodedMan** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:27 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
And if I were in the military, I wouldn't expect a non-Catholic chaplain to administer Holy Communion to me, nor would I be in any kind of snit if they didn't.

I really don't know how many times you've been told this, but not everyone responds the same way you would. In fact, in my experience, no one responds the way you say you would.

Edit: Checked. At LEAST four times you've been reminded that not everyone is as unflappable as you are. PLEASE take this into consideration.

Originally posted by Saint Kurt
Northstar you owe me a new keyboard and another drink.

Oh, I'll just put it on my expense account and write it off. I just get catty when I'm tired.

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:32 pm

Originally posted by HoodedMan

Oh, I'll just put it on my expense account and write it off. I just get catty when I'm tired.

Oh, in that case..um, my entire Louis Vuitton collection and Gucci sandals were damaged irrepairably due to something you've previously said. They spontaneously combusted and there is no longer any evidence of their existance (aint that the dickens?!) so, yeah....that expense account is a sweet little thing, eh?

Post by **HoodedMan** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:38 pm

Originally posted by NachtcGleiskette
Oh, in that case..um, my entire Louis Vuitton collection and Gucci sandals were damaged irrepairably due to something you've previously said. They spontaneously combusted and there is no longer any evidence of their existance (aint that the dickens?!) so, yeah....that expense account is a sweet little thing, eh?

Ah, sorry about that. I say a lot of scathing things like that. Why, my tea kettle grew a tail and ran off just the other day... Cookies to anyone who gets the literary reference.

Why don't you give me an address and I'll send it COD? *beatific smile*

Post by **fourpawsonthefloor** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:25 pm

Originally posted by Angelique

And I don't see how forcing anyone to stifle their own faith is kind and respectful to anyone. It's not like asking someone to avoid profanity.
And I think it's really interesting how I get branded as "right wing," when I am rather strongly against the status quo in this and many other things.

Whenever I have used "right wing" or "fundie" I haven't been refering to you, my dear, but rather the froth in the mouth people that we see in the media all the time. If you were a fundie, I highly doubt that you would even be here, since I've been told that watching any movies or reading any books that have "made up man like creatures" is a big no-no if you are really religious. I even had one lady tell me that letting my kids watch Cinderella was akin to letting the devil in my home because of the fairy god mother. I'd think that Kurt would be viewed pretty harshly by the right winged folk, despite the fact that he is portrayed as religious.

The other thing is I would much rather have someone curse a blue streak in front of my kids than to tell them they are going to hell because of whatever. Personally, I find the whole threat thing way more damaging and upsetting. Religion should be about being kind, not being destructive.
If you believe they are going to go to hell, that's your belief, and I'm not going to sit here and try and change your mind. But I think that no one has the right to go around hurting people telling them they are going to hell. That is just plain mean, and I don't see what it accomplishes other than to make other people mad or sad.

Crawler - loved the candy bar analogy!

Paws

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:29 pm

Okay, again, I am not interested in being granted religious favoritism. Quite the opposite.

Also, in Christianity, as well as Islam and Judaism, it is a sin to pray to anything other than the One God. According to the monotheistic Big Three, there is no "something neutral."
I'm not sure there is any solution, really, except for people to grow a tougher skin and realize that their right to have their religious views catered to ends when it interferes with the right of others to freely practice their religions. And there is a difference between trying to ensure sailors can practice their religion to the best of their ability under the circumstances and religious censorship. I think it is theoretically possible for, say, a Muslim chaplain to help out Jewish or Christian military while still praying five times a day to Allah. And I think it's a basic courtesy, if a chaplain makes any effort to accomodate other people's beliefs, we should return the favor and let the chaplain pray as he or she sees fit.

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:40 pm

There's no problem with the Chaplain doing whatever they see fit...as long as they are out of uniform and not performing their duty AS chaplain. it's so simple and cut and dry there shouldn't even BE an argument!

Also, in Christianity, as well as Islam and Judaism, it is a sin to pray to anything other than the One God. According to the monotheistic Big Three, there is no "something neutral."

No soldier is being asked to pray to anyone who is not their God. The only thing that comes close is the Chaplain. And again, if this is a huge problem for the Chaplain, they can easily get a new job.

Where is the religious censorship now? I'm having a very hard time understanding exactly what you are saying here and how it melds with what you've already said.....

Originally posted by Angelique

I'm not sure there is any solution, really, except for people to grow a tougher skin and realize that their right to have their religious views catered to ends when it interferes with the right of others to freely practice their religions.

This has to work BOTH ways then. Christians have to be more observant of jews, who have to be more observant of muslims etc etc etc. This is EXACTLY what my ENTIRE argument has been in this thread the ENTIRE time! And thats EXACTLY what the military is trying to do! Did you read the links Bamfette posted?!

I still want to hear what you are experiencing as a Christian who's rights are being infringed upon.

Crawler · Post by **Crawler** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:24 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
I'm not sure there is any solution, really, except for people to grow a tougher skin and realize that their right to have their religious views catered to ends when it interferes with the right of others to freely practice their religions.

Good. So you concede our point .

And there is a difference between trying to ensure sailors can practice their religion to the best of their ability under the circumstances and religious censorship. I think it is theoretically possible for, say, a Muslim chaplain to help out Jewish or Christian military while still praying five times a day to Allah.

So what's the difference between a universalist chaplain helping someonre practice your religion?

You've contradicted yourself.

Bamfette · Post by **Bamfette** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:04 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
I think it is theoretically possible for, say, a Muslim chaplain to help out Jewish or Christian military while still praying five times a day to Allah. And I think it's a basic courtesy, if a chaplain makes any effort to accomodate other people's beliefs, we should return the favor and let the chaplain pray as he or she sees fit.

It's not theoretically possible, it is possible. It happens all the time ALREADY.

Look, this has been explained before, but here we go again. They are not forcing him to change his religion. The chaplain can practice whatever religion he chooses, he can pray to his god as much as he likes, in any way he likes. The only thing he can not do is mix his job as a chaplain with his personal religion publically. He can go back to his quarters pray in any way he chooses, just like any soldier can. But as soon as he is in public in his roll as a chaplain he has to maintain a policy of neutrality. His job is to serve the soldiers needs, not his own. If he does not, it interferes with the rights of the soldiers, and you already said you think that's wrong. And if hehas a problem with that, he entered the stuation of hsi own free will, and he knew what was going to happen, so it's his own fault.

And maybe I chose my words poorly when I said 'something neutral'. All I meant was that he has to direct services in such a way that he makes no reference to a specific god. I don't know what they do in those services, but chaplains are trained to handle that kind of situation in a neutral manner.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:33 pm

Well, if praying or leading any kind of service is part of his job as a chaplain, then indeed he is being forced, while in his capacity as a chaplain, to do something against his religious beliefs if he has to pray to some nonspecific thing that, in order to not offend the atheists who hear him while he's in uniform, he must acknowlege may not even exist.
I have not conceded any point, nor have I contradicted myself. The right to religious expression, yes, even public religious expression, is Constitutionally protected, and the Constitution makes no exceptions for anyone. Not even chaplains. However, no mention is made of any right to not hear someone pray. So if you want to pray and/or discuss how you believe however you see fit as is your right, it's only fair that you don't insist someone else change their clothes and/or hide somewhere before they do likewise.
Also, I think its unfair to judge entire groups of people, including fundamentalists in all their varieties, on the basis of what a few crazies might say or do. (I have been privileged to know quite a few that, while we disagree quite frequently and occassionally strongly, I've never seen froth at the mouth.)

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:05 am

YOU.KEEP.MISSING.THE.POINT

And the points you make are irrelevant..

Reread all our posts. See if you can make any sense of them. We've said our piece 300 times and just. keep. repeating ourselves. At this point, I fail to understand how you keep missing our points....

Anyway, new topic: Scientology.

Anyone subscribe? I personally find it quite annoying that a "religion" will use the word "science" within it and actually be kind of anti-science. At least, anti-psychology.

For crying out loud, it was started by a sci-fi writer who was quoted as claiming a good way to make a million in America is to start a religion......

Post by **HoodedMan** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:26 am

And we talk about intelligent design not being science... the people who believe in scientology's fundamentals have serious, serious problems. I can't even speculate on the motives of its creator; perhaps it was originally a giant hoax to see who'd pay him?

The sad thing is now he's well paid and people actually believe in this bull... everyone who believes that this makes sense, please raise your hand.

Scientology's real dogma is that we are all suffering from the traumatic memories of aliens, called thetans, who were murdered on Earth millions of years ago by the evil overlord Xenu, who trapped them in a volcano and then blew them up with nuclear weapons (hence the volcano reference on the cover of Dianetics ). So what we all need to be cleared of are parasitic alien ghosts haunting us with bad memories.[1]

1: http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/gbase/L ... oid:126922

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:40 am

Originally posted by HoodedMan
And we talk about intelligent design not being science... the people who believe in scientology's fundamentals have serious, serious problems. I can't even speculate on the motives of its creator; perhaps it was originally a giant hoax to see who'd pay him?

The sad thing is now he's well paid and people actually believe in this bull...

Like I said, it was created by a Science Fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard. Remember the movie Battlefield Earth? It was based on a book Hubbard wrote and starred well known Scientologist John Travolta.

So, this guy wrote the book that crappy movie is based on, and we're supposed to believe he's a prophet??

One thing I find interestign about Scientology, is that within the religion, they refer to non-followers as criminals. And criminals in the sense of "murderer" or "robber" same we would jail. In scientology, it is not against the religions rules to do anything which infringes on the rights of a non believer because they are criminals and should be punished. I had read somewhere a story about a scientologist who had raped a girl, but the church did not do anything to tunr him over to authorities, because the girl deserved it in their mind.....

I'll find sources for this later, but there are alot of stories at http://www.xenu.net/

Yeah, it's a very anti-scientology website...and I'm gonna look for some accounts that are a bit less biased, but it's still a good read and does give alot of facts on the church

Post by **HoodedMan** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:57 am

Originally posted by NachtcGleiskette
Like I said, it was created by a Science Fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard. Remember the movie Battlefield Earth? It was based on a book Hubbard wrote and starred well known Scientologist John Travolta.

I wish very much that he had just stuck to his writing. He was a pretty good science fiction writer. I like to think that Scientology evolved much beyond what he intended, but unfortunately it was not so.

Some interesting quotes here: http://www.xenu.net/archive/infopack/5.htm.

idsunki · Post by **idsunki** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:16 am

Scientology is a cult. If you have any doubts that this is true, do a thorough reading of the above links. Even if you don't believe everything you read, if even a tenth of what those pages say is true, these people could be locked up for life. I, for one, wouldn't shed a tear.

Is anyone familiar with the religious commentary of Bill Hicks? I don't know if this is the right thread for it, and I don't know if the subject matter might be considered an attack on certain religions. So, of the people who have heard his stuff, anyone in agreement? Should I probably not include the guy in the thread? I've been listening to a lot of his stuff lately (funny how you can take most of his stuff about Bush and the first war in Iraq and apply it to Dubya and his new war), and I've been tempted to answer a lot of stuff that's been said overall in this thread with quotes from him.