Hey, there! Log in / Register
Zombie march in Cambridge?
By GarrettQuinn on Sun, 03/08/2009 - 5:28pm
There are flyers all over the place promoting an event called Zombie Outbreak 09. This "lurch of zombies" and "zombie hunters" is scheduled for 12:30pm on April 12, 2009. "Mass at Davis Square for a lurch to Harvard Square."
No website or contact info is listed on the flyer.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Related to this event last year?
http://www.strugglingwriter.com/STUFF/zombies3.html
Currently Underground
The organizers are currently underground, but I'm sure we will find the branes behind this soon enough.
Really? Someone's trying to make a point...
That's odd. I never would have thought to associate zombies with the chocolate bunnies, painted eggs, and marshmellow peeps of Easter Sunday (April 12).
I also never would have figured you'd find something so unholy at a Mass as the sign requests in Davis Square.
The awesome participants will be the ones that are just walking down the street from the direction of Harvard to Davis. When their friends who are dressed as zombies reach them coming from the other direction, they run over, destroy their mark and "turn him" into a zombie. That would be awesome.
Tangent
Duh, I missed that obviously intended connection.
I think there's no harm done by that. Though that sort of thing probably feeds the anxieties of those Evangelical Christians who feel they are under attack.
One interesting thing I've seen in the last few years is the increasing social acceptability of attacking Scientology, with substantial cell efforts to harass Scientologists in the US, and an official banning of Scientology in Germany.
Now, I personally think Scientology is at best misguided, and I'd be happy to see it wither away-- but I wonder where are the leaders of other religions, not stepping up in defense of Scientologists, quoting "First they came for..."
We might assume other religions are more defensible than Scientology, but we should realize after even a few minutes' reflection on old history and even events of the last few years that there's enough fodder there for cases against most of them. "Live and let live" should seem like a good strategy.
"other religions"
Dude, Scientology isn't a religion. It's a cult, and a dangerous one. Don't carry their water. No actual religions will come to their defense, because they're not part of the same club. Maybe some spaceship suicide cult will come to their defense.
Anon speaks the truth here.
There is nothing legitimate about Scientology unless you count "legitimate cult".
I dont think your being fair
I dont think your being fair to the real reason behind scientology, a job it does quite well. Its an awesome multilevel marketing scheme that makes allot of money for those people on top.
Of course Im being a little snarky here, Scientologists are silly.
scientologists
Ive also heard that they have had some good educational programs and literacy programs that work really well....It probably costs a lot but...
Dude, did you read what I
Dude, did you read what I said about a few minutes' reflection? Pick one of the major mainstream religions in Boston, and imagine that you want to put together a one-sided case that it is a dangerous cult. The task is surprisingly easy for several of them, if you know anything about them.
I'm not saying that the religions *are* dangerous cults. I'm saying that, if you want religious freedom for yourself, even when other people think your beliefs are silly and even when they think you're a victim of a scam, then you'd better protect everyone else's religious rights.
So, you think one may never make any distinction....
... between bona-fide religions (even if "kooky") and operations bordering on a criminal scam?
You could try to make a
You could try to make a distinction, but the next person could take down the Roman Catholic Church, for example, on the same criteria on which you took down Scientology.
(I'm using Roman Catholicism as an example because that's what I was brought up in, and my intention is to speak academically and *not* attack anyone. But I could sketch out damning cases against at least two other major religions, right off the cuff.)
My point, again, is that they all should be taking a stance of "live, and let live." And that has to include the Scientology crazies and even the psychics, sorry.
The alternative is to demand proof of all religions whenever they want to be granted any kind of consideration, and they all do. No Western religion I can think of would want to have to prove everything they claim, because they'd all lose.
Get informed
If you think that you can draw useful parallels between the criminal acts and scamming from Scientology and the acts of the Roman Catholic church, then I don't think you've fully investigated exactly what Scientology has done and gotten away with as a *basis* for their "religion".
This is not to say that the Roman Catholic church hasn't done criminal acts in its history either, but at its heart, the Roman Catholic church was not founded on a bet, developed purely as a money-making scheme, nor unable to be practiced if divorced from said money-making scheme.
I can walk into any Roman Catholic church and join the denomination, free of charge, and practice my belief. The same is absolutely not true of Scientology.
I can leave any Roman Catholic church and quit the denomination, free of harassment, and stop practicing those beliefs. The same is absolutely not true of Scientology.
I'm familiar with all of
I'm familiar with all of that. Take the perspective of someone wanting to make a case against the Roman Catholic Church, just as you've done with Scientology, and things don't look good for them. Even in the last ten years.
Sitting down and writing objective criteria for what is a legitimate religion and what is not, is very difficult. Even if you're crafting it to attack a particular religion and protect your own, intentionally or accidentally, you'll have to be pretty specific. And even if you're specific, and you predicate everything on explicit rationale, you might be surprised at how easy it is for someone to then turn even that biased criteria against your own religion.
We're waiting
You keep claiming that a case can be made against the RCC that it's similar to what's being stated about the COS.
So... go ahead. Explain to us how the RCC is a ponzi scheme, a threat to democracy, sadistic and abusive, and should be rolled up under RICO. Go right ahead.
You have a good start on an outline already :)
I'm not going to make a case against any religion. I'm saying that one *could* make a case against most of them, and that we should make cases against either *none* of them or *all* of them.
If someone familiar with the RCC, for example, can't look at them and realize, "Oh! Actually, it would be easy to spin them as an malevolent, abusive, profiteering Ponzi scheme, democracy-subverting, militant cult, based on matters of record alone! I guess we should be careful what charges we make against others," then no further argument from me is likely to change their mind.
No further argument needed
Your fail is complete.
Let's start with the ones I already laid out
I laid out two criteria that make Scientology not about the beliefs but about the money and the secrecy of its "founding ideals". You aren't allowed in for free and the ideology is not fully offered without a lot of money involved. You aren't allowed out without tremendous harassment and even more money involved. I can read the defining texts of other world religions freely because they believe that they offer a truth to how the world works. I can not read the defining texts of Scientology unless I muddy through multiple costly layers of their structure (at best). They profit from their tenements. That is not a religion, it's a profiteering scheme.
That's a good start in differentiating
Paying to get in -- and/or get out -- is not the mark of a legitimate religion.
I would note, however, that the word you wanted was "tenets" (and not tenements). ;~}
This. Right here.
Paying to get in -- and/or get out -- is not the mark of a legitimate religion.
If you listen to only one of these "Scientology is not a legit religion" arguments, please make it Michael's.
Credit where credit is due
It was Kaz that first mentioned this "pay for play" aspect out (in more detail).
Mormons and Christian
Mormons and Christian Science are both great examples of wacky (in my opinion) religions that have sprouted up in the U.S. over the past few hundred years that are, for better or worse, actually religions and not some money making scheme. In fact Mormonism had a really zany practice we all remember, polygamy, that it was forced to drop.
Maybe in 200 years Scientology will work its way up to the levels of Mormons and Christian Science when they ultimatly drop the craziest aspects of their religion, and eliminate the money pyramid. Until then they are just a threat to unsuspecting people.
Of course I meant tenets...
But, clearly, you've never been to Clearwater, FL. I'm sure they do just fine on profiting on many of those tenements.
;)
(Truth be told - I was being rushed out the door to lunch by my co-workers as I was typing that last sentence)
Also, zombies.
I respectfully (but firmly) disagree
While I share your general point of view on "freedom of religion", I think one has to leave the government some flexibility to deal with what might be criminal schemes masquerading as religion. As to whether scientology falls into such a category, I suppose that requires investigation.
added: Kaz beat me to the point. While the line between a "cult" and a "religion" might be hard to draw -- I would like to believe the line between both and criminal enterprises is not only possible to discern (but necessary to pay attention to).
The trouble with something like Scientology is that
all too often, (though not always), something like this often appeals to people who're lonely, depressed, sick, drug-addicted or alcohol-dependent, or who having nothing really going for them in life, so they join such a cult, which all too often, bilks people out of their life savings (yes, they invest their life savings into the Church of Scientology), and buy wholesale into the notion that Scientology will be their salvation. All too often, such people get caught up in their web of lies and connivance, and it's tough to leave the cult once someone's really been "programmed" into it, although it can and has been done. I also might add that, while it's agreed that not everybody gets hurt by Scientology, lots of them do.
I heard from a family friend who knew people who'd been involved in Scientology, and the kind of sadistic stuff that goes on. For example, one way they test people is by a polygraph test. They begin to ask all kinds of personal questions, and then move into a harassing tone, when the real test begins: If the polygraph needle stays pretty stable, then the person's in the clear. If, on the other hand, the needle begins to move all over the lot and irregularly, then the Scientology examiner really starts to dig in and things get worse. All too often, people believe they've been helped by this, when, in fact, they've been greatly harmed. It's best to be extremely careful.
Well I have no doubt that
Well I have no doubt that many of our world religions started as scams, and have grown from there. Maybe Scientology needs to grow before its accepted by the rest of us.
These people are not being burned at the stake like some early Christians, or maimed like many Muslims were during the crusades. Unthinkable acts like those taken against the Jews were not taken out on them, and they havent even been run out of town like some Mormons have in the past. Their members include hollywood superstars and other people in power so they are not even being kept down. I dont see the persecution.
They exist to funnel money and power upwards to the top. As bad as other religions have been with money they also have done great acts of charity in tandem the collection of money. There were times, and still are in some areas , where they provider of last resort is a church, the feeder of the poor would be a church, the healer of the sick etc. The major religions all have problems that should be fixed but at their cores are good institutitions that just need a kick in the butt. Scientology is a different beast.
Scientology is not a real religion
It is just a moneymaking scam that was wrongly given non-profit 501c3 (tax-exempt) status by the IRS. This status should be revoked, at which point Scientology deserves no more protection than Amway or Madoff Securities or any other such fraudulent enterprise.
Exactly, Ron.
This:
is absolutely and totally spot-on! How I wish I could be this articulate.
Jesus: The original zombie!
Jesus: The original zombie!