NEW FROM XENU TV: Boston Legal
Mark Bunker
http://www.xenutv.com/us/bostonlegal.htm
Out_Of_The_Dark
Thanks Mark Bunker!!
Mary........
Fred Durks
Thanks for posting this. I was looking for this episode at abc.com and
they don't have it.
El Ron Crozo
Susan
"Mark Bunker" <markb...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:COCZg.33365$tO5.29982@fed1read10...
That episode is awesome!
Thanks Mark :-)
Susan
El Ron Crozo
the problem. The problem is the Church of Scientology's practices. It
is the fact that they try to hide these beliefs is where the concern
lies. This was yet another poorly researched episode about Scientology
that did not address the real problems associated with it. And on top
of that, it wasn't really funny.
El Ron Crozo
Susan wro
Mark Bunker
"El Ron Crozo" <imwiths...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1161233064.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Wow. I really did not like that. The beliefs of Scientology are not
> the problem. The problem is the Church of Scientology's practices. It
> is the fact that they try to hide these beliefs is where the concern
> lies. This was yet another poorly researched episode about Scientology
> that did not address the real problems associated with it. And on top
> of that, it wasn't really funny.
I agree. I wrote up my thoughts at the Wog Blog:
jerald
I thought it was very good and made a very good point. If someone
brings their religion into the work place they should be fired. We
have just gotten to PC on stuff these days. I'm not sure it was meant
to be funny. Its a dry type of show to start with.
If it was all true then I learned some new stuff. How about it guys.
What was true and what wasn't??
jerald
Michael Pattinson
:)
Michael.
Susan
"jerald" <jerald...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161233515.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I don't know El Ron,
>
> I thought it was very good and made a very good point. If someone
> brings their religion into the work place they should be fired. We
> have just gotten to PC on stuff these days. I'm not sure it was meant
> to be funny. Its a dry type of show to start with.
> If it was all true then I learned some new stuff. How about it guys.
> What was true and what wasn't??
>
> jerald
I think the point was to illustrate religion should not be brought into the
work place and showed why. The why is that different religions are
incredible to those who are not practising that particular religion, using
Scientology as the latest example since the public is just becoming aware of
the tenants of scientology. So, the point of the show had nothing to do with
the abuses of the cult of scientology. I think that the show also had a lot
of value since a whole lot of people now know a lot more about the bridge to
total freedom, before being coerced into paying for it.
Susan
Fred Durks
> Wow. I really did not like that. The beliefs of Scientology are not
> the problem. The problem is the Church of Scientology's practices. It
> is the fact that they try to hide these beliefs is where the concern
> lies. This was yet another poorly researched episode about Scientology
> that did not address the real problems associated with it. And on top
I agree. Episodes like this can make critics look like how they look
on the RFW pages. I don't think anyone really cares what someone
believes. I know I don't. It's your own decision to believe whatever
you want but the cult like and dangerous practices of scientology need
to be addressed. This is what people need to be educated about.
Though, having a prime time show have a show that tells the 75 billion
year Xenu story is pretty cool :)
> of that, it wasn't really funny.
Yeah, I don't ever watch this show. Who was the lawyer telling the
Xenu story? I wanted to punch him.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Bridge Movie that the "church" of scientology does not want you to
see:
http://www.scientomogy.com/the_bridge.php
Tilman Hausherr
wrote:
>Here it is:
>
>http://www.xenutv.com/us/bostonlegal.htm
>
I just watched it... in reality, a court would never allow an attorney
to discuss the details of that "religion". We've seen it with actual
trials.
What I'm wondering - this is so short. I thought that "Boston Legal"
(which I've never watched before) is 45min (i.e. the usual length of a
series?) This seemed to be about 15-20min to me.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
http://www.xenu.de
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html
Wally Anglesea™
<tilman...@snafu.de> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:03:46 -0700, "Mark Bunker" <markb...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Here it is:
>>
>>http://www.xenutv.com/us/bostonlegal.htm
>>
>
>I just watched it... in reality, a court would never allow an attorney
>to discuss the details of that "religion". We've seen it with actual
>trials.
>
>What I'm wondering - this is so short. I thought that "Boston Legal"
>(which I've never watched before) is 45min (i.e. the usual length of a
>series?) This seemed to be about 15-20min to me.
I would suggest what you saw was an excerpt. I've seen the entire
episode, and the scientology thing was one of two stories running
along in that episode. The main story of a murder trial (going over 3
or 4 episodes) was the majority of the episode.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
"Maths proves you know how to plug in some figures into a formula, that's
all"
"Even physics is based on wrong theories, so what's the use of maths"
Carole - demonstrating her mathematical abilities.
Android Cat
> I don't know El Ron,
>
> I thought it was very good and made a very good point. If someone
> brings their religion into the work place they should be fired. We
> have just gotten to PC on stuff these days. I'm not sure it was meant
> to be funny. Its a dry type of show to start with.
> If it was all true then I learned some new stuff. How about it guys.
> What was true and what wasn't??
With most cases (in North America) involving Scientology in the work place,
it's the employee who is fired when they won't drink the kool-aid labelled
as "Hubbard Management".
CoS would have wet dreams over a case involving someone fired for being a
Scientologist. Perhaps they should invent one, like their refugee from
Germany.
--
Ron of that ilk.
Android Cat
> I don't know El Ron,
>
> I thought it was very good and made a very good point. If someone
> brings their religion into the work place they should be fired. We
> have just gotten to PC on stuff these days. I'm not sure it was meant
> to be funny. Its a dry type of show to start with.
> If it was all true then I learned some new stuff. How about it guys.
> What was true and what wasn't??
With most cases (in North America) involving Scientology in the work place,
antisectes
"Mark Bunker" <markb...@cox.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
COCZg.33365$tO5.29982@fed1read10...
good one! Thanks, Mark.
r
>
>
Eldon
Quite a good analysis. The show wasn't very realistic at all. The
histrionics wouldn't be allowed in a real court, and I doubt that a
real Scientologist would own up to knowing about the Xenu story. But as
you said, it's interesting that it was aired anyway.
barbz
> Wow. I really did not like that. The beliefs of Scientology are not
> the problem. The problem is the Church of Scientology's practices. It
> is the fact that they try to hide these beliefs is where the concern
> lies. This was yet another poorly researched episode about Scientology
> that did not address the real problems associated with it. And on top
> of that, it wasn't really funny.
>
> El Ron Crozo
Well, it's a start. I expect that prime time will start featuring Scn
abuse in their scripts soon. Like L&O, say. A father kidnaps his
underaged Sea Org kid, shoves a guard, who falls off his bicycle, hits
his head and dies. Or a nice RPF rescue episode on House, where the
person isn't getting the medical care they need to survive.
Give it time. Xenu is only the gateway!
>
>
> Susan wro
>> "Mark Bunker" <markb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:COCZg.33365$tO5.29982@fed1read10...
>>> Here it is:
>>>
>>> http://www.xenutv.com/us/bostonlegal.htm
>>
>> That episode is awesome!
>>
>> Thanks Mark :-)
>>
>> Susan
>
--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net
El Ron Crozo
curiosity to thinking it's weird. However, I think that when the right
people research Scientology and expose the criminal nature on a large
scale will people begin hating the church.
El Ron Crozo
Mark Bunker
"Tilman Hausherr" <tilman...@snafu.de> wrote in message
news:04aej290dr7innptb...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:03:46 -0700, "Mark Bunker" <markb...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Here it is:
>>
>>http://www.xenutv.com/us/bostonlegal.htm
>>
>
> I just watched it... in reality, a court would never allow an attorney
> to discuss the details of that "religion". We've seen it with actual
> trials.
>
> What I'm wondering - this is so short. I thought that "Boston Legal"
> (which I've never watched before) is 45min (i.e. the usual length of a
> series?) This seemed to be about 15-20min to me.
It was just a subplot on the show. I put together the scenes involving that
particular case and dropped the rest.
Phineas Fogg
"El Ron Crozo" <imwiths...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1161233064.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> the problem. The problem is the Church of Scientology's practices. It
> is the fact that they try to hide these beliefs is where the concern
> lies. This was yet another poorly researched episode about Scientology
> that did not address the real problems associated with it. And on top
> of that, it wasn't really funny.
>
> El Ron Crozo
>
>
I think the message was a criticism of religion in general, and not
necessarily aimed solely at Scientology, and that Scientology was used as
the example because it is bit odd in its beliefs and therefore the message
the author intended would be easier to convey. And so, the purpose was not
to expose those aspects of Scientology to which you are referring, I believe
the message was that, while on one hand we have freedom of religion, and
though it was the framer's of the constitution's intent to uphold this, it
was not the framer's of the constitution's intent that people have a license
to pour their religion down our throats, or hide behind the cloak of
"freedom of speech" in a workplace, when such speech damages the reputation
of a company whose very reputation depends on individual attorneys evoking a
sense of reason and sound state of mind.
Although I found the cartoonishness of the episode unsettling at times, the
point was driven home very well.
Phineas
formerlyfooled
Phineas Fogg wrote:
> I think the message was a criticism of religion in general, and not
> necessarily aimed solely at Scientology, and that Scientology was used as
> the example because it is bit odd in its beliefs and therefore the message
> the author intended would be easier to convey. And so, the purpose was not
> to expose those aspects of Scientology to which you are referring, I believe
> the message was that, while on one hand we have freedom of religion, and
> though it was the framer's of the constitution's intent to uphold this, it
> was not the framer's of the constitution's intent that people have a license
> to pour their religion down our throats, or hide behind the cloak of
> "freedom of speech" in a workplace, when such speech damages the reputation
> of a company whose very reputation depends on individual attorneys evoking a
> sense of reason and sound state of mind.
>
> Although I found the cartoonishness of the episode unsettling at times, the
> point was driven home very well.
> Phineas <
Phineas Fogg ,
Exactly what I thought, too! But I did see that Boston Legal provided
an additional benefit when the show highlighted how Scientology uses
it members to 'spreading the news' whenever the opportunity arises, no
matter how inappropriate the time, place or location and despite the
members own wellbeing & job safety or that of others. This is a
consistent behavior because scientology attempts to blind it's members
from seeing. So caring about anyone or anything outside the cult,
except what will benefit the cult, is a hallmark unique to
scientologists, whether they know it or not, as the 'scientologist'
presented on the show.
Thanks for you summary.:)
El Ron Crozo
In terms of disproving superstitions that can be proven wrong, that's
one thing. Like the patented Scientology concept that we are infested
with dead alien spirits. However, I do agree that while a person
should not make religion an issue in the workplace when it is not one
it is wrong to fire a person for simply being a Scientologist. I felt
that this particular episode put too much emphasis on the beliefs of
Scientology instead of the bad things.
El Ron Crozo
ewsnead
Maybe I'm overly sensitive. Although the treatment of Scientology on *Boston
Legal* should inoculate someone unfamiliar with the cult against any
possible future involvement, the episode seemed geared towards lighthearted
comic relief rather than an introduction to a topic to be taken more
seriously. It was almost treated as an excuse to vent some slapstick
physical comedy (farts, odd vocal tics). Someone on this NG once commented
that although Scientology as a body of beliefs is hilarious, as an entity it
is not particularly funny. *Boston Legal* simply bore down upon the belief
system; it neglected to address the special character of the organization
itself. This treatment conflates two issues. It creates the public
impression that since the palpable idiocy of the belief system is grist for
laughter, then the organization is at worst cranky or a bit strange rather
than malevolent. This always becomes a risk when someone ridicules for comic
effect rather than attempts to educate.
As such, the program was misleading. At the very least, it didn't aim
particularly high.
ewsnead
El Ron Crozo
El Ron Crozo
ewsnead
Yes, it was a comic subplot just like they often had on LA Law. Too bad that
the producers saw fit to offer Scientology up as a fodder for comic relief.
We know better.
ewsnead
ewsnead
"Eldon" <Eldo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161266507.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Yes, it does indicate the remarkable extent to which the cult has lost its
fangs. Scientology has finally become a target for sophisticated fair
gaming. Meanwhile the worker bees are busily and aimlessly responding to the
abuse by pretending to be doing really *important things*. Its like
Scientology has been reduced to an encampment of six year olds playing make
believe. This really underscores the juvenile aspect of the criminal cult.
Perhaps in some sense evil incorporates the drama of the young wannabe who
can't grow up and accomplish real things in a social environment.
The principal problem with most Scientologists is not so much fear of
engulfment by MEST, but social incompetency. But since Hubbard treated
people *like* things, it seems that Scientology addresses MEST control since
social reality is transformed and objectified.
ewsnead
butterflygrrrl
> Although the treatment of Scientology on *Boston
> Legal* should inoculate someone unfamiliar with the cult against any
> possible future involvement, the episode seemed geared towards lighthearted
> comic relief rather than an introduction to a topic to be taken more
> seriously.
The point of the program is to provide light-hearted comic relief, not
to provide an in-depth expose' of the evils of scientology.
AND, if it keeps one person from falling into their clutches, then it
is a GOOD thing.
> *Boston Legal* simply bore down upon the belief
> system; it neglected to address the special character of the organization
> itself.
It didn't neglect anything- it wasn't intended to "address the special
character" etc. It did however, accomplish what it set out to do, and
for that I applaud them wholeheartedly!
> As such, the program was misleading. At the very least, it didn't aim
> particularly high.
It's a TV SHOW- none of them aim particularly high.
And in what way was it misleading? It's supposed to be entertainment,
they had the guts to air something that was hilarious and witty that
they knew would cause outrage among those brainwashed by the cult, who
are litigious and will start a letter-writing campaign at the very
least.
I was thrilled that they did it!
Wally Anglesea™
>Mark Bunker wrote:
>> "El Ron Crozo" <imwiths...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:1161233064.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> > Wow. I really did not like that. The beliefs of Scientology are not
>> > the problem. The problem is the Church of Scientology's practices. It
>> > is the fact that they try to hide these beliefs is where the concern
>> > lies. This was yet another poorly researched episode about Scientology
>> > that did not address the real problems associated with it. And on top
>> > of that, it wasn't really funny.
>>
>> I agree. I wrote up my thoughts at the Wog Blog:
>>
>> http://xenutv.wordpress.com/
>
>Quite a good analysis. The show wasn't very realistic at all.
Hellooo. It's a TV show. From the beginning it's been unrealistic.
Wally Anglesea™
<wang...@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:
>On 19 Oct 2006 07:01:47 -0700, "Eldon" <Eldo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Mark Bunker wrote:
>>> "El Ron Crozo" <imwiths...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1161233064.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Wow. I really did not like that. The beliefs of Scientology are not
>>> > the problem. The problem is the Church of Scientology's practices. It
>>> > is the fact that they try to hide these beliefs is where the concern
>>> > lies. This was yet another poorly researched episode about Scientology
>>> > that did not address the real problems associated with it. And on top
>>> > of that, it wasn't really funny.
>>>
>>> I agree. I wrote up my thoughts at the Wog Blog:
>>>
>>> http://xenutv.wordpress.com/
>>
>>Quite a good analysis. The show wasn't very realistic at all.
>
>Hellooo. It's a TV show. From the beginning it's been unrealistic.
I meant to add that at least the writer got to fire out *some* home
truths, which I think was the underlying purpose. :-)
My belief is that poking fun at something (as South Park did of
scientology before it) shows that you aren't afraid of it.
Wally Anglesea™
formerlyfooled
> I think that attacking religion in general isn't really funny or cool.
> In terms of disproving superstitions that can be proven wrong, that's
> one thing. Like the patented Scientology concept that we are infested
> with dead alien spirits. However, I do agree that while a person
> should not make religion an issue in the workplace when it is not one
> it is wrong to fire a person for simply being a Scientologist. I felt
> that this particular episode put too much emphasis on the beliefs of
> Scientology instead of the bad things.
>
> El Ron Crozo
Crozo, *I agree but thinking it is one thing, living it another. The
controversy of what constitutes a religion is the a fundamental part of
why this group exists and why it is as diverse as it is. On a.r.s,
where you stand on religion in general and on the issue of Scientology
specifically, can be the difference between nite and day. My feeling is
that the more effort has to go into defining all that Scientology is to
discern if it is, in fact, a religion as the IRS said is.
I believe that the US Supreme Court actually ruled against Scientology
2x in the 90's. First it's tax exempt status case and 2nd, the
Hernandez case which denied the tax deductability of any donations to
Scientlogy because the donor benefits from what he gives financially.
That was the final appeal step possible, but Miscavige tried again a
different route, through the back door of the IRS it seems, and made a
deal that is not only questionable, it's inherently unfair.
Members of other religions are denied tax deductability of their
donations for similar church services, while Scientologists get to
deduct them and the tax break.!! Now that is unfair!! Maybe someone
else can clarify this but it's my understanding that the famous Skylar
case claiming equal rights to deductability was denied by the Supreme
Ct because the court could not change how it ruled on scientology
donations just because the IRS had a subsequent change of heart
'administratively'. On top of that, the Supreme Ct does not have
jurisdiction over the IRS's administrative decisions.
I believe that one would have to appeal the IRS administratively to try
to get the church's status over turned or find violations of the law on
covering eligibility and maintaining eligibility of it's Exempt
Organization status. I wish I had time to look into this stuff because
I know that what Scientology says it is and what it practices are 2
different things. It's proving it by documented evidence, and that
takes time and effort, which I lack but there are others helping.
The web site below is an excellent resource to understanding what
occured.
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/index.html
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/contents/howirsruns.html
This page has a copy of The Public Research Foundation press release
about IRS COS:
http://www.freezone.org/timetrack/data/PRF/2000-08-29.htm
I claim to save only just begun to skim the surface of information
about this matter so I hope others can refer the readers to more.
As I wrote, "On a.r.s, where you stand on religion in general and on
the issue of Scientology specifically, can be the difference between
nite and day." and I wonder if that has gotten in the way of getting
the facts so the answer to the question is revealed.
ff
El Ron Crozo
government. Even if it does lose it's tax exempt status and status as
a "religion" entity that does not change the fact that it is still
practiced as a religion. While I do believe that Scientologists have
the right to believe in Xenu and that other stuff they also have an
obligation as a business (what Scn really is in my opinion) to be
upfront about what they believe. But of course the media and critics
do that part for them. The paradox I am proposing here is that if
Scientology acts accordingly to how a business/religion is supposed to
then they will no longer exist. Sound good?
El Ron Crozo
Hip E.
about Scientology, which is the power it has to make people think about
the nature of religious belief. We all agree that Scientology is wacky
and ridiculous, and most people would say it isn't a "real" religion.
But then you can move on to Mormonism, which is basically the
Scientology of the 1830's, and is just as wacky, ridiculous, and false
as Scientology. And yet, it is starting to attain the status of a
respected "real" religion. The governor of Massachusetts is a Mormon.
As is pointed out in this episode of Boston Legal, we also have the cow
worship of the Hindus, the burkas and suicide bombings of the Muslims,
etc. etc. And yet, millions or billions of people adhere to these
faiths. It's just an interesting thing for a Christian to think about,
because Christianity is objectively just as silly as all those others.
Burning bushes, parting the red sea, the sun standing still in the sky,
bringing people back from the dead, walking on water, turning water
into wine, etc. etc. Come on! None of that stuff really happened!
Almost all of us conform to the religion our parents had. Do
Christians really think that if they had happened to be born in
Jalalabad, that they would not be Muslims instead? Most people don't
believe in Christianity or Judaism or Islam because they have really
looked into it and found that it's more likely that one of those holy
books is true and the others false, they believe what they were told
when they were children.
I think the Freedom of Religion in the Constitution is really
important, and people should never be persecuted for their beliefs.
But people should also never be encouraged to believe things that are
not true. Things like "Genesis" and "God hates fags" and "Revelations"
and "God wants Muslims to kill infidels" and "OTIII". These are bad
ideas that are not true and that we need to move past for the sake of
humanity.
formerlyfooled
El Ron Crozo wrote:
> What you're talking about is in terms of recognition of by the
> government. Even if it does lose it's tax exempt status and status as
> a "religion" entity that does not change the fact that it is still
> practiced as a religion. While I do believe that Scientologists have
> the right to believe in Xenu and that other stuff they also have an
> obligation as a business (what Scn really is in my opinion) to be
> upfront about what they believe. But of course the media and critics
> do that part for them. The paradox I am proposing here is that if
> Scientology acts accordingly to how a business/religion is supposed to
> then they will no longer exist. Sound good?
>
> El Ron Crozo <
Sound good? They get more than recognition by the IRS Tax Exempt
ruling. The get the stamp of credibility that comes with it. How else
would that have gotten funding for Narconon and Criminon? Not by their
stats, that for sure!!
I don't think 'they' would no longer exist..... I just think there
would not be enough money in it like there is now. A chunk of the
business administrative tech is useful and marketable but books like
'The History of Man' ( History of the Clam) would wond up out of
print, lol! It's all about the money. No illusion, no money. Money is
the power that keeps them going.
No money means you can't buy off or hlegaly harass your critics.
formerlyfooled
El Ron Crozo wrote:
> What you're talking about is in terms of recognition of by the
> government. Even if it does lose it's tax exempt status and status as
> a "religion" entity that does not change the fact that it is still
> practiced as a religion. While I do believe that Scientologists have
> the right to believe in Xenu and that other stuff they also have an
> obligation as a business (what Scn really is in my opinion) to be
> upfront about what they believe. But of course the media and critics
> do that part for them. The paradox I am proposing here is that if
> Scientology acts accordingly to how a business/religion is supposed to
> then they will no longer exist. Sound good?
>
> El Ron Crozo <
formerlyfooled
El Ron Crozo wrote:
> What you're talking about is in terms of recognition of by the
> government. Even if it does lose it's tax exempt status and status as
> a "religion" entity that does not change the fact that it is still
> practiced as a religion. While I do believe that Scientologists have
> the right to believe in Xenu and that other stuff they also have an
> obligation as a business (what Scn really is in my opinion) to be
> upfront about what they believe. But of course the media and critics
> do that part for them. The paradox I am proposing here is that if
> Scientology acts accordingly to how a business/religion is supposed to
> then they will no longer exist. Sound good?
>
> El Ron Crozo <
El Ron Crozo
sense.
El Ron Crozo
butterflygrrrl
episode was misleading?
Mike Gormez
wrote in <1161233064.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
>Wow. I really did not like that. The beliefs of Scientology are not
>the problem.
They can be. When a person adheres and defends Hubbard's demented writings
on radiation and is about to be get a job promotion into a huge nuclear
reactor then you have a problem. This is not some theoretical babble but
this situation once happened in France with scientologist Pierre Denis
from Lyon, and I glad he didn't get that job thanks to his own writings
here.
No matter if it was a nice person or not but you don't want to hear form
someone in that postion that "All about radiation is completely true".
--
Mike Gormez
- World Institute of Scientology Enterprises (WISE) - www.stop-wise.biz
- www.whyaretheydead.net - Why Are They Dead, Scientology?
- Child abuse and neglect by scientologists www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
- www.psychassualt.org - Scientology hatred of mental health (CCHR)
Keith Henson
>What I loved about this episode is one of the most fascinating things
>about Scientology, which is the power it has to make people think about
>the nature of religious belief. We all agree that Scientology is wacky
>and ridiculous, and most people would say it isn't a "real" religion.
>But then you can move on to Mormonism, which is basically the
>Scientology of the 1830's, and is just as wacky, ridiculous, and false
>as Scientology. And yet, it is starting to attain the status of a
>respected "real" religion. The governor of Massachusetts is a Mormon.
I started writing articles about this 20 years ago. Originally I
didn't give a lot of thought to why people evolved to have religions,
though I did note that the "religious meme receptor site" in human
mental space seems almost PROM like in its character. (I.e., once
programmed, it usually does not change over a lifetime.)
More recently I have come to a far more paranoid view of religions.
As part of the run up to wars (which are "needed," originally to keep
hunter gatherer populations in check), some meme builds up in the
population that dehumanizes the band/tribe/nation/group that is going
to be attacked. (Jews in Nazi Germany, Tutis in Rwanda)
I have come to see religions as seed dehumanizing memes.
snip
>
>I think the Freedom of Religion in the Constitution is really
>important, and people should never be persecuted for their beliefs.
>But people should also never be encouraged to believe things that are
>not true. Things like "Genesis" and "God hates fags" and "Revelations"
>and "God wants Muslims to kill infidels" and "OTIII". These are bad
>ideas that are not true and that we need to move past for the sake of
>humanity.
Religions, more particularly the trait to pick up and carry religious
memes, may have been part of the complex that kept human populations
in ballance with their ecosystem for millions of years.
We can only move past the function of religion (allowing people to
slaughter each other) when our societies reduce the number of children
born to the point that the population grows slower than the economy.
Otherwise wars, and the religious memes that are part of the process
leading up to them, are an essential check on human populations.
Grim as that might sound.
Keith Henson