On Tuesday, Pope Benedict cited a piece of text in which a Byzantine emperor is quoted as describing some teachings of the Prophet Mohammad as 'evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'.
Well this might be a bit rich, considering the blood on the hands of the Christian massive, what with the crusades, the inquisition, and what have you, but the big hooha it is causing is a little bemusing. I say bemusing, but it is not really the correct word, typical would be more apt. It is typical that an bloodsoaked organisation like the Roman Catholic church would be so hypocritical when assessing the practices of it's main market rival. It is typical also that the Muslim factions should start losing the rag about a fair comment as far as I'm concerned. It is 'evil and inhumane' to use violent and unmerciful force in the propogation of a religion. Who can really argue with that? I mean if WalMart was sending in warriors and torture squads to establish their superstores around the globe, and threatening people with hell or divine retribution for not shopping there, I'm sure nobody would have a problem calling bullshit on it. Both the Catholic Church and Islam have blood on their hands, both have engaged in 'evil and inhumane' practices in the spreading of their faith, So why do they both have such a problem being called up on it. Why do we as a society give so much protection to religious organisations? Why are we not allowed to criticise a religion in the same manner we would a government or a corporation? I mean if you take a good look at Scientology, you can clearly see a collection of business saavy criminals who have realised that instead of forming a plain old organised crime syndicate, you can form a church and avail of all the touchy feely protective laws our society affords a religion. You can't say shit about the Church of Scientology without a billion gagging orders and charges leveled in the name of protecting religious rights. What about my secular rights?
I am just shit-sick of humouring flat-earthers in their insane beliefs. Fine if you want to believe in some collection of superstitions, but do I really have to sit idley by and not comment on the lunacy of your chosen beliefs. I feel like the big brother in the family who has been instructed by my parents not to tell my 24 year old brother that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and if I do well I'll be grounded or pounded by some angry relative. I mean the basic premise of these various religions is generally sound, largely because they are based on common sense, don't kill, don't steal, be good to your neighbour....all great, no problem there, it makes sense. It's when people start ranting about pregnant virgins, devils, and glorified fortune tellers that I feel it rising from my gut..."BULLSHIT!!!" I cry. I mean all these people will tell you that believing in magic is against the Bible or Quaran or whatever, yet all these organisations are based on the willful suspension of disbelief. The fact is a Christian or a Muslim would have no problem publicly calling bullshit on believing in fairies, yet they would be rioting in the streets if somebody publicly called bullshit on the silly fairytales these major faiths are literally drenched with, and what's more they would have ambassadors and presidents falling over themselves to make international threats and apologies.
I just wish that the supposedly faithful could be content with their faith and not raid the arms-house everytime somebody criticizes their idols. A cartoon of Mohammad in a Danish magazine is hardly grounds for rioting and burning buildings, and these actions deserve no more respect or understanding than we would lend to any other mentalist. I mean if I burned your house down because you drew an insulting picture of Bill Hicks, do you think I would get an ounce of the understanding which was offered to the offended Muslim massive over the Danish cartoon. Would you publically apologize for offending my hero? Would you fuck. It's like we all stand back anytime the religious get distructively upset and start making excuses for their behaviour. Like committing an atrocity or destructive act in Gods name somehow validates an agressive and anti-social action. There is no excuse for reacting violently to criticism or ridicule of your faith. If there was then Agnostics and Aethiests would have grounds to burn every church and mosque the Earth has to offer.
Both the Church and Islam routinely tell the world that people like me are hell bound, yet if somebody turns around and says Christians and Muslims are backward in this belief, good God, grab your AK you have no idea what you have just done, Blasphemer....Witch!!! If people want to believe in fairies and goblins that's fine, it's their own business, but why do we have to gag oursevles from publicly criticising them, especially when they are allowed to be so openly and vocally critical of anything secular they choose? It's like having a slow child with issues hurling rocks at you and being told you can't hit back because he's special, but also being told you have to stand still and take it.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
You are right violence is not the way out. I was very offended when the Danish cartoon came out, and I have the right to be. I think the same actions would have occured if Danish made fun of Jesus. Honestly, I think it would have been a bigger riot. I know that Christians and Muslims have their problems. As a Muslim, I am saying that we should get over it. In the 21st century who really cares if you are a Muslim or Christians, both of the religions are so close in their origins. We strive for humanism, but we forget that we can not achieve it if we are not able to accept who everybody else is. We need to accept who we are first, and know that not everybody is bound to believe the same things.
----
I never let my schooling interfere with my education. - Mark Twain
I don't really understand how a cartoon can provoke so much offence. When Monty Python's Life of Brian came, Christians lost their damn minds. It was meant to be funny, even the end should ring out to the religious "always look on the bright side of life". Surely if these faith made people happy and fullfilled then they wouldn't even have the capacity to lose it over a cartoon. I personally find it amusing that some clerics believe I will pay some kind of divine retribution for disagreeing with their madness. Am I offended? No I couldn't give a rats ass that someone thinks I am infidel scum, because I am content in what I believe, these people have never offered me a convincing argument, their judgements of me are worthless because I think their beliefs are mad. Surely the devout, who have made promises to be good and just to their respective Gods could muster up a bit more tolerance and maybe a sense of humour while they are at it.
As a Muslim, I have to admit, the cartoon came as a shock and I found it offensive. Aroudn that same time, Valentine's day popped up and a boy gave me a copy of that same cartoon and wrote, "You're the Bomb. Be mine." Or something like that. I did not find that cute.
It's not only that the cartoon misrepresents our prophet(pbuh), but in Islam, any depiction of a prophet is forbidden. Not only to prevent shirk(worshipping other than God), but also false representations. In the same sense, movies about Jesus(pbuh)- like the Passion of the Christ- are in bad taste to Muslims. These actors go for charisma. These actors are good-looking, and people fall for their looks, as opposed to the characters that the prophets really stood for. Just think of Jesus Christ Superstar. The blue-eyed, blonde haired depiction of Jesus is just as much in bad taste as any depiction of Muhammad (positive or not). Well, I suppose negative is a lot worse.
And the Pope's comments were just plain ignorant and false (Islam never was a religion of the sword; rahter, Muslim leaders were known as merciful and honored by the Christian world for their kindness during the Crusades), therefore also pissed off a lot of Muslims. Especially since the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and we respected the last Pope.
But the reaction from some Muslims was still outrageous. And pissed me off even more than the Pope's comments. It's okay to protest (peacefully) and get your opinion across, but emotion-filled violence is just unreasonable, and unislamic (breaks Shar'iah law)!
I'm sure the majority of Muslims would agree with me.
I find it hard to understand how Muslims, or any other religion for that matter, could take such offence over a cartoon. I mean, it's part of both Christian and Muslim beliefs that Agnostics like myself will suffer all kinds of heinous pain and torture at God's hands for our lack of faith, for eternity no less. Do I find this offensive? The arrogance of it annoys me slightly, but I won't lose any sleep over it.
What if a Muslim newspaper produced a cartoon making fun of Atheists, do you think anybody would care? Can you envisage the Godless Atheist masses running rampage, clogging up newspaper space and airtime with their injured cries? I mean Atheists of all people, surely lacking in Gods guidance, should be the only ones we could excuse for such rage, with them not knowing Gods love and all, no?
As far as what the Pope said, I agree with you. But it is no more ignorant and wrong than half the rhetoric spouted by Muslim clerics on a regular basis. Both Muslims and Christians have blood on their hands. Are you really goin to try and tell me that the Muslim clergy had no hand in using force to ensure Muslims stayed true to their faith, are you going to tell me that there were not people living in Islamic states who followed Islam because to not follow Shar'iah law would mean punishment or death? Cmmon now, this is like the Christians claiming the crusades were a reaction to Muslim agression, in other words: bullshit.
Any religion that uses scare mongering and divine threats to secure and maintain followers, in my book, is spreading the faith by the sword. The fact that Christians and Muslims have both used a literal sword, just cements my view of both.
The blood that lies on the hands of both Muslims and Christians does not represent their respective religions. Muslims and Christians, like all other human beings, are creatures driven by emotions, by a sense of immediacy, and therefore make mistakes.
I know for a fact that Islam does not teach one to force your beliefs on another. At least that's the way it's meant to be. Peace is the ideal that the world of Islam works toward. During the time of Muhammad (pbuh), Jews and Muslims lived together harmoniously for centuries. Why can't that happen today? Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years and druing that time Jews, Christians, Atheists, Muslims, coexisted peacefully.
I guess it's up to today's generation(of any belief).
But you're right: there probably are people that have been forced to believe in Islam. That doesn't make it okay, or even Islamic.
Now, if some theist prints an article aiming at atheists- I think it's quite tacky and low of them. And for Atheists to react in a nonchalant cool way, would be very high of them, being offended or not. That was, indeed, the reaction from most Muslims, and that's how it should have been from all of them.
Humans, like all other animals (except for the sheep), have this innate instinct to attack, to defend themselves. We will fight. But taht is never an excuse. We also have a brain: we have the ability to reason. Call all of this bullshit if you like. Maybe it is. Maybe it's just a bunch of pretty ideals that will never exist. Ultimately, maybe most people just need to learn to accept themselves before they can accept others. I'm digressing.
I get what you are saying and I agree. According to Christ, all Christians should turn the other cheek and live in peace, I'm assuming that is also what Islam is meant to be all about. The problem is that people who call themselves Christian and Muslim have shed blood and acted violently in the name of God, and were driven by their religious fervour. So when I criticize either this is who I am talking about.
But if a cartoon or some kind of blasphemy puts a person into a rage I have to question their contentment with their beliefs. I would find it hard to believe that Allah, the supreme being, would waste even a single second worrying about blasphemy. I'd hazard a guess that Allah would see such an over reaction to a cartoon as nothing more than disappointing. I mean why would anybody care whether or not somebody was being blasphemous if they had true faith, surely pity should be the only emotion the devout hold for those who hold Islam up for ridicule or even in contempt. Would that not make sense? If non-believers want to blaspheme, then surely they should be pitied by those who truely believe their religion is the truth.
Can I ask you what you make of this: According to the Qur'an a Muslim who dies killing in God's name will be guaranteed a place in paradise. Does this not suggest that Islam condones violence in the defence of the faith. Could this not be interpreted as a justification for using the sword to extinguish competing faiths with the aim of defending the faith in God's name?
We all have our highs and lows in faith. And you're absolutely right: if someone wishes to blaspheme, oh well, that's their problem, and it shouldn't have a toll on us. Nothing should have an affect on your faith, for true faith is that which rests firmly in the heart. I myself want to reach that stage.
As for the "turn the other cheek" concept, no, Muslims do not go by it. Logically, it is flawed. I like to say, Islam is the natural way. If your people are being oppressed, your friend is being beaten, your daugher raped, naturally, you are not going to swallow it all up and turn the other cheek. It's irrational. You're going to do something!
So yes, Islam permits an attack as the last, worst option because sometimes, there is no alternative but to fight. The Qur'an says, "Fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love aggressors" (2:190). Thus, war is permissible only in self-defense, with the furhter proviso "if they desist - behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace" (2:192) and "if they desist, then all hostility shall cease" (2:193).
And even then, there are simple rules to follow such as not hurting noncombatants (women, children, theinnocent) and no suicide (aka strapping a bomb to your belly).
Also, the Qu'ran states "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith" (2:235), which lays down that any attempt at a forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited. hence, 'using the sword to extinguish competing faiths' cannot be justified. After all, the truth doesn't need forcing.
You do make a very good ambassador for your faith, that I must say. It is a shame that all people of religious faith don't reflect such balance, if they did, I'd hazard a guess that a lot less blood would have been spilt in God's name. Your closing line on truth not needing to be forced, I cannot argue with that, I just wish everybody had that attitude.
:-) Thanks, but I still have a lot of wisdom to gain.
Islam is like a magnificent garden. Only you must take care of it. Trees, plants need watering, weeds need to be pulled out, and sometimes branches need to be cut because of overgrowth. And all that careful tending leads to a balanced garden: prime in beauty and delicious fruits. I have yet to experience all of that beauty and taste every fruit.
Please excuse the sappiness of this analogy.
Today, the Ummah, is weak; they have this splendid garden before them, but because of other priorities, they never enter it; they do not 'tame' it. And that leads to poor knowledge, to imbalance.
yay for sappy last statements
Never let the world get you further down, it already has the weight of gravity on your shoulders.
"You get angry when people denounce your right to an opinion as I can tell from your replies to the blogger comments."
I don't get angry; I may occasionally get irritated, there is a difference. Besides, I don't try to present my offense as something that justifies violence.
"These people that are responding to your blog are illustrating their points, and you, by saying that you are bored with them, are denying them the very right in which you claim you stand for."
Have you actually read the entire thread? When somebody deliberately ignores 99% of an argument and choses to evade questions in favour of repeating the same point over and over, then they are exercising intellectual cowardice, and wasting the very right for which I claim to stand for. Being bored by somebody's repeated failure to address an argument ingenuously, has nothing to do with denying somebody the right to freedom of expression.
At no point have I forbidden any commenter from speaking freely. I am denying nothing to them and I most certainly won't go out and burn an embassy down over anything anybody posts here, nor would i spare a seconds credence for anybody who did.
"make up your mind!"
You might want to wake yours up a bit.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
Thought you might be amused.
I snagged the lyrics and pasted them and the link to the site where I found them below.
http://www.thebards.net/music/lyrics/Always_Look_Bright_Side_Life.shtml
Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...
And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...
If life seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps
Don't be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle - that's the thing.
And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...
For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin - give the audience a grin
Enjoy it - it's your last chance anyhow.
So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath
Life's a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true.
You'll see it's all a show
Keep 'em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
And always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the right side of life...
(Come on guys, cheer up!)
Always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the bright side of life...
(Worse things happen at sea, you know.)
Always look on the bright side of life...
(I mean - what have you got to lose?)
(You know, you come from nothing - you're going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!)
Always look on the right side of life...
Tuffgong is a religious bigot who attacks the Church of Scientology that is internationally recognized as at the vanguard of protecting human rights and religious freedom (see: http://www.theta.com/abouthrcosi.php). The Church of Scientology for more than ten years has funded a massive international campaign to bring public awareness to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was agreed to by all UN member states in 1949 (and promptly forgotten).
Tuffgong attacks Scientology, yet the world's most respected theologians (www.theology.scientology.org/scientology-religion.htm) have individually concluded it is most definitely a religion. Tuffgong ferments the type of insanity that creates religious fanatics who destroy innocent lives by promoting their brand of hatred.
Scientologists are attemtping to protect human rights and religious freedom (See: www.cchr.org and www.FreedomMag.org). Scientology is not the only such group, but it is recognized by governments as the most successful group in protecting human rights. The Church of Scientology (using the International Court) forced the French government to rescind its despicable "sect watch list" that threatened nearly 200 religious groups with dissolution -- these included Fundamental Christians and Buddhists.
Tuffoing's lack of scholarship is astounding. More than 75,000 non-Scientologists (including doctors, nurses, emergency care givers, religious leaders, psychologists) have now trained on Scientology's trauma relief methods that have been used in the 19 major disaster areas during the past two years. See: http://www.volunteerministers.org/
Every business person will tell you that university education teach VERY LITTLE of use in the real world. See: www.ScientologyHandbook.org and scroll down to "study technology."
L Ron Hubbard's discoveries (Dianetics and Scientology is composed of 5,000 published works, 3,274 public lectures = 35 million words) are CORRECTLY perceived as threats to the vastly profitable psychiatric and drug industries. That's the reason for the media has been slamming it for more than half a century. The media receives $2.4 billion a year to advertise the drug solution to life.
Fella, enough said. You are a prime example of the type of shit I am talking about. http://www.xenutv.com/ Fella we got yo number
Scientology is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. You try to say anyone who opposes it is a religious bigot, when in reality, they are spreading the truth (not "entheta"). You can learn the truth about Scientology at these sites:
http://www.myspace.com/thedarksideofscientology
WWW.XENUTV.COM
WWW.XENU.NET
Scientology scams their parishioners out of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, some wealthy parishioners are scammed out of millions. These days Scientology is nothing more than a real estate company, buying up everything they are able to. Look at their leader, he keeps himself locked up in Hemet, California. He's so afraid for his life he rarely leaves and when he does, he has to have a bunch of goons with him (probably because he's like 5' tall). Every "church" has several cameras monitoring all of the exteriors. I've never seen Catholic, Christian or Muslim Temples with cameras all around them, can we say paranoid?
Scientology claims all faiths pay "tithes" to the church. The difference is you have a choice to give other choices money, it's not a requirement for salvation, or to go further in the church. Scientology is the only "religion" that requires payment for salvation, that I know of (there may be others). You can even aquire a free bible online, or by going to a local church. EVERYTHING in Scientology costs something.
As far as their treatment of the Sea Org, that's another story. These poor people work 100 hours or more a week, are deprived of sleep and contact with families. You know what they get for all of this? $50 a week and room and board, mind you most rooms meant for two, house between 6-12 per room. A room here in Southern Calfornia goes for about $500, in Hollywood where the "Org" is. Divide that by 6, that's $83 a month. Then they get food, I'll estimate that REALLY high at $100 a week, they buy in bulk, so it's probably less than $50. So they get $533 for 100 hours worth of labor. If you take the average minimum wage worker, this is how much they should make for 100 hours of work...$4050.40. That takes in consideration all overtime over 40 hours. So Scientology gets over $3500.00 in labor for free per Sea Org member, I know this from experience, so they can try to come on here and lie all they want. Most public Scientologist have no clue how poorly the SO members are treated.
If stats are down, they put us on the beans and rice diet, we get nothing but that, until stats are back up. That's so nice of the "church", being we give them $3500.00 of free labor a month, we should have been eating filet mignon for dinner every night.
I mistyped Tuffgong's name.
3rd paragraph should read: "... is recongized by governments as one of the most.."
For the record fella, I wrote my thesis on 'The Agressive use of Persuasive Technique in Youth Sector Advertising'. I know all the shitty little tricks Scientology pull.
I am a religious CRITIC, I am not afraid to call bullshit, not a bigot. Scientology is a fuckin sham. Why do they insist on sucking so much money from their inductees? Why does auditing cost so much? Why are there so many people who report as victims of this organisations practices? Why are scientologist so agressive towards it's detractors? How come after Rons death they found new ways to suck more money from their victims? Why are Scientologist so agressive in their use of persuasion? Because they are a fuckin con job, that's why.
http://www.xenutv.com/
To anybody reading, who is in anyway influenced by James comment please check out this link, then go and check out Scientology's own website and draw your own conclusions, don't take it from me or James, make up your own mind.
Our buddy James Lightfield seems to be a regular PR guru, google the man and you find him all over the net trying to discredit anybody who calls bullshit on Scientology. It's like Big Brother black ops or some such creepy shit. I mean I only had my blog up a coupla hours and sure enough like a fuckin heat seeker in they come the Sci-Cronies tryin to gag me and discredit me. Fella I've been through University I have learned enough there about persuasive technique, PR and advertising to know my studies are applicable to the real world, I mean Scientology has made a fuckin fortune using the very techniques they teach in Marketing and Advertising courses. Where did all your lawyers learn their trade, Ron Hubbard?
Actually, ya know what James, I might start my own religion: The Progressive Church of Scientology. Would your boys be up for defending our religious freedom? It'll basically be like Hubbards one only with a twist of William Gibson thrown in, I reckon the Gibson dollar is a good one, whata ya reckon? If not, well maybe you boys would have a job for me? I reckon you're onto a good thing fella, I want in, lets get pig stinkin rich like proper fuckin gentlemen. Better would be for you to jump ship and join me, we could start the progressives, you could be Super Lord James Lightfield (The Messiah with Hubbards spirit in him) founder and I could be Mighty Awesome TuffGong head of our secret police.
James has flooded these posts with nothing but pro-scientology links. He wants us to see his views and only his views.
Agree or disagree with Tuffgong you have to give him credit for listing not only the sites against the actions of scientology, but also the link for scientology itself.
Who has more faith here in what they are writing? Tuffgong asks us to look at both sides and then decide for ourselfs.
James has yet to say or do this.
For anyone to be able to discuss an issue they must know both sides. Otherwise how can you feel you are right?
Way to go Tuffgong!
Now, when you insist that scientologist are shammers attempting only to suck the world dry of their funds, I have to ask, innocently, an honest question, is it every scientologist in the religion, or is it just select members who hold power?
Never let the world get you further down, it already has the weight of gravity on your shoulders.
The low level Scientologists are the ones being scammed. That's the irony: they are the ones who also get upset when those who have already been scammed speak out.
It's just a classic cult, but this one is particularly business savvy and just loves the legal system. Basically, they get potential dupes to fill in a 'personality test', which is what we'd call a psychological profile, something which nobody should be handing over to any religious organisation.
This is then used to assess what type of character the cult is dealing with. Next up the new dupe will need some auditing: this is basically a eipanism for being hooked up to a lie detector and asked to divulge their darkest secrets to the church of scientology. Of course they don't call it a lie detector, they call it an 'e-meter'.
They fill the inductee's head will a load of hyperbole about thetan evil spirits infesting your body and how they can be released if you confess all your bad shit to them. You see, Scientology has put it's own spin on sin. You need to purge it using the magic e-meter, to get to the sate of 'clear', at which point they claim you will be functioning at a higher level of consciousness. Oh yeah, did I mention that they charge many thousands of dollars for this 'auditing'? Yeah, well, that's the kicker: everything costs cash money with these crooks.
If a close friend or family member tries to warn an inductee about what is going on and about the cultish persuasive techniques being employed to separate them from their cash, Scientology advises the severing of all contact. This tears families apart, while also ripping the cash from an innocent's coffers.
If you really want to know the extent of their manipulative money sucking empire read or watch some of the videos at these sites:
http://www.xenu.net/
http://www.scientology-lies.com/fliers/sucker.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/nov/16/jonhenley1
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
ALL THE LINKS JAMES LIGHTFIELD HAS OFFERED ARE ACTUALLY SITES RUN BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY......
Can I get a bullshit.
Amen
Your rantings aside -- Scientology technology is in greater use than ever before. During the last six months, more Scientology organizations opened than in the previous 5 years. 156 countries, 6,246 groups, centers and organizations. Keeps growing.
Yeah, yeah, keep tryin to validate your criminal organisation Jimbo. Your "church" has already been done for infiltrating the FBI, you are properly identified as a threat to democracy in Germany, countless ex-Scientologists are speaking out about your bullshit scam. And if the supposedly expanding number of "church" members make what you are doing right then refer to Nazi Germany and theories of mass hysteria etc.
L. Ron's own family have spoken out about what a crook he was, he was a fuckin stage hypnotist with a background in science fiction writing. I've heard from an OT 7 about what kind of organisation Scientology is. Your "Chrurch" are preditors. It would be laugfhable if you weren't so dangerous.
Tell me a bit about Tory Christman, James. What's up with her fella?
Bob Adams was a Senior Vice President at ABLE International, the Association for Better Living and Education, and a director of Narconon International. ABLE is the parent organization for four Scientology front groups: Narconon, Criminon, Applied Scholastics, and The Way to Happiness Foundation. You can read more about ABLE at StudyTech.org.
Bob has reached the highest level of spiritual training available to Scientologists: Operating Thetan Level VIII. He is truly a master of the universe, "at cause over MEST" (Matter, Energy, Space, and Time). He's also a Patron of the International Association of Scientologists, meaning he's contributed at least $40,000 to Scientology's "war chest" for harassing its enemies.
In March 2004 Bob was "disappeared" from the ABLE web site. Why? We think it has to do with his having threatened, on the phone, someone at their work site in order to try to find out details of the SF Chronicle article that reporter Nanette Asimov was writing about Narconon's infiltration of the San Francisco school system. When Mr. Adams' threatening activities became known, ABLE decided to erase him. Here is the evidence:
Article from www.able.org before the Adams incident, prominently featuring Mr. Adams. It says that "Sheriff Baca received the award from ABLE International's Senior Vice President, Bob Adams."
Same article after the incident; Mr. Adams' name has been removed. Now it says "Sheriff Baca received the award from the President of ABLE International, Rena Weinberg." And the photograph in which Adams appears with Baca has been shifted to a less prominent position.
This is not the first time Bob Adams has embarrassed his Scientology masters. In 1999 he issued a press release in which he libeled Olympic swimmer Mark Tewksbury, claiming incorrectly that Tewksbury had been stripped of his title due to illegal drug use. (Mr. Tewksbury, a member of the Canadian Olympic Association, voluntarily resigned his position to protest corruption at the IOC.) A retraction had to be issued to correct the record.
And possible criminal activity in the mid-1990s by a "Robert Adams" connected with Scientology is described on this page at Narconon-Exposed.org.
So now Bob has been "disappeared", including his I am a Scientologist spam page, but we have an archived copy. Also see his list of Scientology course completions.
The email link from this archived page shows his ABLE affiliation; the original page was (here). Perhaps Bob will be rehabilitated some day.
Here is another page about Bob's activities.
In 2006, Bob Adams turned up as spokesman for the Church of Scientology International; full text of the press release is here.
May 10, 2006: Bob Adams lies outrageously about Xenu on KCOL radio in Colorado.
June 23, 2006: Bob Adams again lies about Xenu, this time on KGO radio. As Scientology's official spokesperson, he knows very well that his Church has sued multiple people for copyright infringement for publishing the Xenu story, a document known as OT III. And numerous previous spokespeople have acknowledged Xenu. So lying about this now is just silly.
http://vincedaniels.com/article16.html
http://www.freedomofmind.com/
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Sep/gee20020925016491.htm
http://www.skeptictank.org/fuckoff.htm
CALLIN BULLSHIT ON THE CONMEN
Again, your rantings aside - Scientology technologies are more in use then ever before. It's accelerating growth is a result of its workable solutions. People try it (www.ScientologyHandbook.org) and tell their friends.
Continue blowing into the wind. G'bye -- JL
It's accelerated growth is the result of aggressive persuasion, agressive legislation, legal harassment, espionage, kidnapping, exploitation, and clever PR stunts like getting Hollywood stars to front your "church" James.
And people also tried crack and told their friends, they all wound up in the grips of Narcanon, no doubt.
And I'm not blowing in the wind, I'm pissing with it, in your direction.
The accelerated growth is all smoke and mirrors. Most the new buildings are empty or almost so. The numbers are put out by scientology and can't be trusted. Prove it to us James. Show us an independent source on the membership of scientology.
While you are at it. Show me the independent studies that prove the scientology drug program works. Or name one insurance program that will pay for it so families don't have to do so out of pocket.
There has to be independent studies to prove all these claims right? Otherwise you could just be makeing it all up.
James,
When are you every going to understand that Freedom of Relgion does not give scientology the right to commit crimes and try to destory every voice that speaks out against it.
To use your same tactic against you, by your reasoning I am a bigot because I hate the people that bombed the World Trade Center. After all they did so for their reglioin.
For all the time you have been in scientology I just have to ask. Have you been to the critic's sites and seen what they are taking about? If you havn't then how can you talk about something you have no real knowledge of?
If you have been then maybe you can explain to all of us how those actions of scientology members on xenutv.com shouldn't be condemed.
And why on earth is it ok for you to slam the writer for his speech and turn around and call him a bigot only because he disagrees with you.
Human and Civil Rights are for all of us. Not just the members of scientology.
Any answers or even a defence to my "rantings" James?
You are merely stone-walling fella. You just keep tryin to plug your websites, you don't actually have a defence because your organisation is criminal, and a simple google will drag up all the dirt that you used to be able to cover up so well.
"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion"
-L. Ron Hubbard (Founder of the Church of Scientology)
Reader's Digest reprint, May 1980, p.1
If the Danish cartoon had implied something offensive about Jesus or the x-mas holiday, you don't think extreme Christians would have run a muck, as they have done in the past. So how is it hard to understand someone getting mad over a cartoon that offends you and your beliefs? Take The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam out the picture and place it with figures that mean something to you and your beliefs and see how you'd feel.
"If the Danish cartoon had implied something offensive about Jesus or the x-mas holiday, you don't think extreme Christians would have run a muck, as they have done in the past."
No I don't as it happens. Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KiAvmzcZbg&feature=related
I don't recall hearing about any embassies being burned down, people's lives being threatened, people being attacked, or hordes of regressive lunatics going generally apeshit across the globe over this video or the plethora of hillariously blasphemous material floating around which places Christianity on the business end of ridicule.
Maybe in the past the rank and file Christian lunatic would have merrily set about burning or hanging a few folk for such trangressions against their canon of fairytales and maybe then too their less extreme brethern would have defended and made excuses to justify their fellow Christians' violent and primitive behaviour, but thankfully we are not living in the past, we are living in the present. These days no Christian who ingenuously calls themselves moderate would embarrass themselves by attempting to rationalize or justify behaviour similiar to that exhibited by the Islamic nutcases who went postal in regard to that Danish cartoon.
For reference, the present is the year 2008, although anybody would be forgiven for thinking that we were living in the dark ages if they were to use the actions of the regressive idiots who rioted over the Danish cartoon as a measure to aid one in guessing what century such blood thirsty foolishness might best relate to.
"Take The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam out the picture and place it with figures that mean something to you and your beliefs and see how you'd feel."
Okay. How about this: according to Islam, what happens to the people whose views mean something to me in regard to secularism and skepticism, eg Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens etc., after they die? Yes, that's right, pretty offensive isn't it? Especially when you consider that there is not a shred of tangible evidence to back up such wild-eyed speculation. To add insult to injury, such regressive, primitive beliefs are not even intended as humour. If such beliefs were announced as humour they would provoke a smirk of smug superiority from me in regard to the pathetic nature of the humour involved, a reaction which is a far cry from the embarrassing antics of the tantrum throwing Islamic massif in regard to the Danish cartoon.
I'm not bothered to the point of violence by it, am I? I think such beliefs and their broadcast merely represent listings in a catalogue of the many flavours of religious idiocy available to humankind. Getting that worked up over a few scribbles is indicative of mass mental illness; sanity in numbers is not sanity, if the beliefs held by such over-reactionary Muslims as those who rioted and posted death threats over what happened in Denmark were held by only one man, he would have been committed to the nut house a long time ago.
Sorry, but I refuse to judge these people through some kind of gutless relativist set of guidelines, they are backward. Why they are backward concerns me, but not in a manner that extends them any validation for their backwardness beyond that which I would extend to any other backward set of lunatics. I pity them, but that pity doesn't extend to excusing their actions.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
That video is brilliant!
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Yes it is, and isn't it great that even the Chistians have managed to progress enough to co-exist with such hillarity, without going all mental and wrecking the place in big 'ol effigy burning, AK toting rampages? Islam needs to get it's shit together, and that's saying something, what with Christianity's bloody and intolerant history and all. I have no love for either belief system, but, Jesus, at least the Christian majority have stopped making excuses for the likes of Fred Phelps, instead of attempting to rationalize and validate such regressive nonsense.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
Agreed.
While this doesn't excuse anything, I've heard an interesting theory put forth. When Judaism was 1400 years old, it was slaughtering the inhabitants of Palestine.
When Christianity was 1400 years old, we have the crusades, the Inquisitions and the like.
Now that Islam is a comparable age, we see jihads and terrorism and what not.
No excuse, but an interesting theory.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Christ on a bike, what are the Church of Scientology likely to be gettting up to when their 1400 year marker comes up?
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
Oy, the horrors. We'll be attacked by a bunch of fanatical movie business moguls!
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Here's another vid you might like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_A-76LaP5M
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
you're watching too much cnn/foxnews/msnbc etc. who choose to report all of these "muslim extremist" and there actions rather than the extremist people who are of their own faith. Or I guess Mormons are excluded.
Perhaps you are simply clutching at straws. Would it be so hard for you to condemn the actions of some your fellow Muslims as regressive and unacceptable? Or do you actually condone such behavior and deem it perfectly acceptable?
Why is it that I am yet to discuss this with a Muslim who does anything more than try to justify such behavior? Would you extend this kind of cultural relativism to extremist Christians who burn Mosques or extremist Jews who shoot innocent Muslims? Or perhaps you can only see justification for violent, unreasonable and ultimately backward behavior when the inspiration comes from Islam, no?
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
justifying their behavior. However, I'm saying that nowadays, when it's the actions of a muslim, as a result of the behavior of someone outside of their faith, the whole thing is put on the muslims because of it rather than the actual people who caused the outrage in the first place. How bout instead of us coming out to speak against the violence, how bout you and others outside of Islam speak against the people who printed the cartoons that caused the outrage. It's not rocket science to see that those cartoons were offensive.
"So how is it hard to understand someone getting mad over a cartoon that offends you and your beliefs? Take The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam out the picture and place it with figures that mean something to you and your beliefs and see how you'd feel."
Dunno, that kinda hints at you believing that their behavior is justified on some level. It suggests that you believe that any group who has their beliefs ridiculed would be justified in resorting to violence; this is suggested through your fallacious belief that violent rampage would be the default response of other religious groups to blasphemy.
"I'm saying that nowadays, when it's the actions of a muslim, as a result of the behavior of someone outside of their faith, the whole thing is put on the muslims because of it rather than the actual people who caused the outrage in the first place."
Muslims, through their faith, believe that a multitude of non-Muslims will meet vile retribution at the hands of a mono-theistic titan come their demise. Not only do Muslims believe this, but they are pretty vocal about it. Islam is pretty quick to pass judgment over free human beings who choose to live life how they see fit, as opposed to how some bunch of dudes who've been dead for hundreds of years dictated through some fanciful scribblings.
Islam has imposed vicious and barbaric laws upon millions of human beings in the Middle East. Islam, just like Christianity, has a whole load of tortured blood on it's hands. Yet, you have the audacity to suggest that a cartoonist doodling a likeness of Muhamad justifies violent rampage? If that's the case, then what do the hideously insulting judgments of Islam warrant from those it so grandiosely condemns? Are we justified in a spot of mosque burning, Muslim bashing, the issuing of death threats or a fatwa of some kind on the head of some Muslim cleric or other who has insulted Atheism?
"How bout instead of us coming out to speak against the violence"
Sorry, can't do that. Being able to tolerate free expression without resorting to violence is the mark of a civilized society. The uncivilized need to be educated into civility, not given into. Why the hell should we have to kow-tow to the unreasonable and uncivilized? They use violence to bully free human beings into silence; they use violence to censor other free citizens.
"how bout you and others outside of Islam speak against the people who printed the cartoons that caused the outrage."
I respect freedom of speech and expression too much. I know that these rights are not really big under Shari ah law, but they represent some of the many reasons I choose not to live in an Islamic country. The cartoonists did nothing to warrant violence in a civilized society; if some people are too uncivilized to understand that, well, there are far less civilized corners of the world where they will fit right in.
If those cartoonists had published their scribbles in Iran, they would most likely have been executed in some barbaric fashion, in front of a large crowd of cheering spectators no doubt. Those who rioted and reveled in the violence in Denmark wanted that kind of barbarian justice, but upon the realization that they are living in a civilized state that doesn't bulldoze walls onto the heads of blasphemers, they throw a big old tantrum and try to destroy the place.
"It's not rocket science to see that those cartoons were offensive."
It's not rocket science to see that explosive violence on a mass scale is an uncivilized and unjustifiable response to offense.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
justifying their behavior. However, before you go jumping on the extremist who commit the violent acts, you should point at the source. That would be the person who made up the cartoons and whoever made the decision to have them published. They KNOW that there are extreme muslims out there, so they knew what would happen after the cartoons were published. They threw fuel in the fire. So don't place the full blame on the muslims and those that aren't speaking against it. I won't speak against violence amongst someone if it was initiated by the "so-called" victim. When I see people outside of islam protesting against the people who published the cartoons, THEN I'll speak out against the violence by the extremist, who the publishers KNEW would react to the cartoons. Other then that, there's no reason for me to speak out against the violence.
Do you really have such little regard for freedom that you would suggest that we all censor ourselves, simply because a bunch of regressive simpletons threaten to erupt into violence if they don't get their way?
We have freedom of speech in Europe. Some people may not like that, but to suggest that we compromise such rights to kow-tow to these people would be to turn our backs on reason and to surrender ourselves to the unreasonable.
The Middle East is rife with so much injustice, persecution, violence and reality based turmoil, and yet these people are more upset about some cartoonist who penned a picture. If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
If you wanna walk around and find the most agressive and short-tempered black person you can and call him/her the n-word (with the "e-r" at the end.), don't be suprised if you get a violent reaction that may be even cause enough damage to leave you hospitalized. You want your freedom of speech, fine. But when your beliefs of free speech are exercised while maintaining the knowledge of a serious negative reaction, don't get mad and expect people to look at the offended to step up and do something about it when the person who provoked it is more at fault.
"If you wanna walk around and find the most agressive and short-tempered black person you can and call him/her the n-word (with the "e-r" at the end.), don't be suprised if you get a violent reaction..."
A black person reacting violently to a slur on them which originated from the reality of slavery is a lot more justified than a Muslim reacting violently over some silly metaphysical nonsense which lacks a basis in actual reality, beyond some scribblings in a book.
"the person who provoked it is more at fault."
Not in a civilized society. Think about it, where do we draw the line? Am I allowed to just beat somebody's head in and burn down a few buildings simply because something or someone offended me? That sounds like a wonderful state of affairs; luckily our courts here in the West aren't in agreement with you.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
"A black person reacting violently to a slur on them which originated from the reality of slavery is a lot more justified than a Muslim reacting violently over some silly metaphysical nonsense which lacks a basis in actual reality, beyond some scribblings in a book."
So now you want to make this conversation on what violent acts are justifiable and what acts aren't? Okay, so how about the riots that happened in L.A. after the Rodney King case verdict? Is that justifiable as well? Or how about the violent acts committed against Muslims after 9/11, was that justifiable as well?
I mean, I'm just saying...
"a lot more justified"
That is actually what I said. Maybe it would have been better phrased as 'closer to justification'. That is to say, that I would offer a lot more understanding in such an instance where I walk up to a Black person and call them a nigger and they react by punching my lights out. I don't think that the violence is justified. As plenty of Black people will agree, there are far more constructive ways to react to such an obvious attempt to provoke a reaction from them.
"? Okay, so how about the riots that happened in L.A. after the Rodney King case verdict?"
That was completely idiotic. There are a billion and one more constructive actions which could have been implemented in place of rioting. It was a backward and regressive route to take, which only played into the hands of racists who claimed that the reason King took a beating was because Black people are violent. Those idiots who went looting and generally wrecking the place actually validated the views and the propaganda of the white power movement.
Were they justified in violently rioting? No, and the simple fact is that the majority of Black people in LA were not rioting. We can understand why they rioted, as we can understand why the Muslims rioted, but that is not the same thing as believing that their actions were justified. Their actions were the product of ignorance.
"Or how about the violent acts committed against Muslims after 9/11, was that justifiable as well?"
No. But let us not forget that such violence came in the wake of a fleet of planes being crashed directly into several buildings at a large cost to human life. Let us also not forget that these acts were also inspired by the beheading of Western journalists and the subsequent flaunting of the video footage across the globe. that is a far cry from attacking Muslims because a Muslim cartoonist penned an unfavourable likeness of Moses in a magazine which was intended for circulation in an Islamic state.
If Muslims were rioting in Washington because the US used white phosphorous, a chemical weapon, on Muslim citizens in Fallujah, then I would see that as far more understandable than the reason they rioted in Denmark. At least their gripe would be grounded in reality. I still think that their energy could be better spent, but at least their rage could be viewed as more reasonable.
Just let me ask you this: How much tolerance do you think an Islamic state would extend to it's Western immigrant citizens if they went mental and started burning embassies, torching cars and violently attacking Muslims on the streets of Iran because a cartoon offended them? Also, since you seem to be such a fan of Islam, how do you feel about the idea of Shariah law being imposed on America as a whole, would you like to wake up tomorrow living under similar laws and practices as those found in a state like Saudi Arabia? I am genuinely curious to know how anxious you would be to scrap all this liberty and tolerance lark we favour in the West for a more Islamic approach as demonstrated in the Middle East.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
The L.A. riots was a result of the the outcome of the rodney king case, in which the officers who brutally beat him while he was down on the ground, got off with no real penalty. THAT's why they rioted. It wasn't them thinking it was a racial issue, it WAS a racial issue. Similar to the Watts riots that happened in LA back in the 70's. Do your research.
As for the 9/11 issue, I'm willing to bet that the main reason we were attacked is because of the malicious actions by some of our troops against innocents in the middle eastern countries. That could have very well inspired it. Not saying it's justifiable though nor were the acts against muslims afterwards. BTW, there were muslims who were also killed during the attacks.
"How much tolerance do you think an Islamic state would extend to it's Western immigrant citizens if they went mental and started burning embassies