Religious Freedom Watch
From Encyclopedia Dramatica
"Religious Freedom Watch" is a Scientologist front organization where Scilons pretend to give a shit about "religious freedom". The general understanding of the phrase "religious freedom" is the ability of religions, like Catholics in China, Muslims in the USA, or Mormons in Italy, to practice and believe whatever religion they please, without getting their asses kicked by religious extremists or skinheads. Scientology's use of the phrase means only the ability to do whatever the fuck Scientology wants, and if anyone raises an eyebrow or asks a tough question, they start squealing "HATE CRIME HATE CRIME HALLLP" before taking you to e-court and either suing you or cooking up some fake assault charge and getting you jailed.
Contents |
[edit] Do-gooders?
Religious Freedom Watch's main page has lots of high-minded phoney-baloney tl;dr about religious freedom. There are links "to learn the truth about" Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. etc. as though they really were sort of interested in giving out good, unbiased information about many religions. Unfortunately, each of these links go to a completely different sites, unrelated to Scientology -- they can't be bothered with hosting even a page about anything other than themselves. So, Buddhism goes to buddhanet.net; Christianity goes christianitytoday,com, etc.
[edit] The critics are evil people
But the kraziest thing about Religious Freedom Watch is its reason for existence, a collection of attack articles on Scientology's various critics, who are labeled "anti-religious extremists" and "hate groups." Most of the site consists of these articles and very unflattering photographs of the critics, who are caught candidly making a weird face, posing in a jail-house mug-shot, etc.
A real religion would respond to its critics in a reasonable way, by trying to clear up misconceptions, explaining controversial beliefs and practices in detail, etc. Not so with Scientology. This is why the site should not be DDOS'd. It is so ridiculous that you just want to laugh.
[edit] What Would El-Ron Do?
Instead, after this "church" has done a complete background investigation on each critic, and found a suitably hideous photograph, they make an article describing any possible unsavory aspect of each critic's life -- bankruptcies, teenage shoplifting arrests, adulterous love affairs, just whatever petty garbage they can find, in an effort to make the person look bad and untrustworthy. Instead, it only reaveals Scientology to be vindictive, immature and dangerous.
[edit] For example
For example, Religious Freedom Watch finds it important to describe in great detail all of the circumstances of Tory Christman's divorce, including a detailed letter from her SciFag ex-husband. This sordid account goes on for pages and pages. With regard to Andreas Heldal-Lund, who runs Xenu.net, they tell a story they "found on Usenet" about "an associate" of Heldal-Lund. A Norwegian called Lars Gule was arrested in the '70s for planning to blow up some Israelis in Israel. Now Gule is a successful author. The Scientologists tell his whole story, but not once do they explain how Heldal-Lund knows Gule, if this is even true, and as if anyone even cares.
[edit] Chat logs
The Scientologists believe that posting ancient chat logs from critic and university professor David Touretsky will make them look like a real religion.
dst@370af11b.2486bca.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@307615a5.1a358005.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP-1728.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP-679.BOLTZ.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP_9333.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP_22147.NET.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP-22245.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP_22358.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP_22326.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP_22211.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP_22456.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP-22309.NET.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP-22049.NET.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP-22196.NET.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP-22260.NET.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP-22294.NET.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP-3480.NET.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP_31739.BOLTZ.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP_39344.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP_5338.NET.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP-5339.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP-5346.NET.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP_5366.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP_5382.NET.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP.5410.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP-5418.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP_5482.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden_SP_5554.NET.CS.CMU.EDU
dst@Hidden-SP_5618.CMU.EDU
- David Touretzky: “Washington DC is more disgusting than Harlem.”
- [Name Deleted]: “How and why is Harlem disgusting.”
- David Touretzky: “Disgusting as in rates of illegitimacy, drug abuse, domestic abuse, shootings, prostitution, welfare culture. I think Harlem has gotten better the last few years, but DC has not. White men don’t walk in Harlem at night.”
- [Name Deleted]: “Yes they do it is not and never was ‘disgusting’. What’s disgusting is you, dst, for even calling it ‘disgusting’. Some of the greatest art and science in this country came from Harlem.”
- David Touretzky: “I know that Harlem was once a major cultural center.”
- [Name Deleted]: “I resent you saying Harlem is ‘disgusting’ dst and you should be ashamed. Not was once still is, always was. I just think it’s wrong.”
- David Touretzky: “The great Harlem theaters and clubs have closed although the Apollo is still around.”
- [Name Deleted]: “Why do you say Harlem is ‘disgusting’.”
- David Touretzky: “For the same reason DC is disgusting.”
- [Name Deleted]: “And that is???”
- David Touretzky: “If you wanna buy crack cocaine, go to Harlem or DC, not Wall Street.”
WHAT IS WRONG OR UNTRUE ABOUT ANYTHING TOURETTESKI SAYS IN THE CHAT?
[edit] See also
