Re: Travolta's aid


"Henri" <hank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:432bcede$0$14368$626a14ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> George wrote:
>> "Henri" <hank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:432a7d2e$0$4199$636a15ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>> George wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Henri" <hank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:43292631$0$14562$636a55ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Henri" <hank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:4327fd69$0$1723$636a15ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Henri" <hank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:43272405$0$18591$626a14ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Henri" <hank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:4326c9e3$0$14390$636a55ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Henri" <hank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:43254b96$0$7961$626a14ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Henri" <hank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:432156be$0$29357$636a15ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Henri" <hank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:4320094f$0$20223$636a15ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Henri" <hank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:431ed786$0$10583$626a14ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Travolta flew with his own plane to the big easy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>delivering a few tons of food and stuff, * and taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the opportunity to promote scientology *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What an ass!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Dude once said,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>man."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well, at least he took a few tons of food and stuff to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people who needed it. How many tons of food and stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>have you send?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it helps allright, but is it really decent to turn it into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a PR operation for a bull*** sect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well, I don't know that he actually did that. All I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is your word.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well, i heard on French news; perhaps US news don't really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>care about that. Like they don't talk much about foreign
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have a problem with people using this hurricane for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>own purpose. Like that Oprah bitch, for instance, doing an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>impromptu "reality" teevee show on-fucking-location.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>- "U've lost your family/brother/father/uncle? How long it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>been since you've seen them? (please cry for the camera)"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>- "it's been, like, days, I'm realy anxious, like, I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>know if they're alive or what. Oh geezus, please..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>- "Well, guess what? we've found them poor bastards, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they're right here."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>- "What? They're alive!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>- "yeah... here they come (please smile for the camera)"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Talk about decency, man. But you only have my word.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Umm, so you heard on a some French news (channel, website,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>whatever) that John Travolta had done what you claimed here,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but there is no way to verify that it actually occurred,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>since no one else apparently covered the alleged story. So,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>explain to me again why I should believe that this ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>exhibit 1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.jossip.com/gossip/hurricane-katrina/jossip-juxtaposition-john-travolta-brings-scientology-to-katrina-vics-20050908.php
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>? John Travolta and fellow Scientologist wifey Kelly Preston
>>>>>>>>>>>>>descended upon Louisiana, joining a 400-member cast of Church
>>>>>>>>>>>>>members, to offer "assists" to Hurricane Katrina victims. Or,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in layman's terms, they turned the tragedy into a recruiting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>effort. Unfortunately Tom Cruise was otherwise occupied.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Umm, a gossip page? Is that what you call "hard" news?
>>>>>>>>>>>>Interestingly, I click on your link and nothing happens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>exhibit 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.snant.com/fp/archives/scientology-and-katrina-ive-stumbled-onto-something-weird/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Why did he feel the need to single out Scientology?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>oh, I don't know... perhaps because this organization is
>>>>>>>>>>>dangerous? That is brainwashes and exploits it's
>>>>>>>>>>>members/victims? That it is more an unscrupulous commercial
>>>>>>>>>>>organization than a religion...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And the Buddhists are harmless.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Really? What religion/cult doesn't use dogma to control its
>>>>>>>>>>subjects?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>well, you don't surprise me
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Umm, that doesn't answer my question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Umm, as far as I know religion is not about control (except,
>>>>>>>perhaps, for some extremist branches, but then again, these are
>>>>>>>mistaken and merely use religion has a justification for other
>>>>>>>purposes). Religion is about faith and this faith does not rely on
>>>>>>>dogmas. No religion coerces believers into following those dogmas.
>>>>>>>But, if you sincerely believe, then you accept these dogmas; it's a
>>>>>>>spiritual and intellectual choice which remains yours and only
>>>>>>>yours. I don't go to church and I don't have some priest telling me
>>>>>>>I ought to go to mass or that I ought to do this and that or that I
>>>>>>>must pay a fee.
>>>>>>>A contrario, such is not the case with so-called cults or sects.
>>>>>>>These have different agendas, and most are commercial organizations
>>>>>>>that hide themselves behind a dubious "religious" pursuit. Their aim
>>>>>>>is to control their subjects in order to get what they want from
>>>>>>>them, usually money. Stories of people that have been ruined and
>>>>>>>spiritually destroyed by sects are common. That is why most of these
>>>>>>>are generally considered as criminal organizations and outlawed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Dude once said,
>>>>>>>"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All religions are about control, and have always been about control.
>>>>>
>>>>>well, not exactly. Only men seek to control.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure the female leaders of the world might disagree with you.
>>>>Having said that, religions were invented by men who invariably seek to
>>>>control the minds of others.
>>>
>>>well, I use "men" as a generic term, meaning mankind. Indeed, females
>>>(not a generic term here) are equally prone to seek and exercise control
>>>when they get the chance. Although, it's a more subtle type of control.
>>>Political and social systems are control apparatuses. Ideologies are
>>>control apparatuses. Now, a church is a hierarchy which exercises
>>>somekind of control, by setting rules of conduct according to a set
>>>dogmas and principles. But a church is not a religion. Religion itself
>>>does not seek control.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Radical Islam, whether or not you consider it to be a valid religion,
>> certainly does seek complete control of its followers. Not only that,
>> is seeks to control those who don't follow it through coersion,
>> terrorists acts, kidnappings, etc. The Catholic Church in the middle
>> ages likewise sought to have complete control of not only those who
>> followed its tenents, but also those who didn't. The history of
>> religion is full of examples of subjugation of the masses. Whether it
>> be the Maya, the Aztecs, the Catholic Church, or Islam, all religions
>> seek or have sought to control the masses. There are no exeptions.
>
> You're talking about men who used religion to justify their actions. It
> is still done today: Ben Laden saying that God's on his side, or Bush
> saying the same thing. Both are mistaken. Religion itself does not seek
> to coerce but, rather, to guide (and I'm not sure that this can be
> considered as a form of control); it's only that we, men, interpret it to
> suit our needs or ambitions. A leader saying "God is on our side" is the
> one who seeks to control you, and if you agree with him then you'll go
> wage war on whoever is not on God's side. This is simply using religion
> to manipulate people.

The simple fact is that religions are created by people, not by some
imaginary, omnipotent celestial entity. And those religions have always
(and still are) been used to control the lives of their followers (and even
the lives of those who don't follow).

> I don't think that people who are being religious feel that they are in
> fact yielding to some kind of external control, that in fact they are not
> free.

Of course they don't. They've been brashwashed into believing that their
'religion' is their 'salvation', when nothing could be further from the
truth.

> Do you feel that, being an atheist and not yielding to any religious
> bull***, you enjoy more freedom than, say, your born again neighbor?
> That this guy is controlled and you are not?
>


Absolutely, I do feel that I enjoy more freedom than someone who is
brainwashed into believing religious dogma.

Here's my reply to religious dogma:

Excerts from the Memoirs of Dr. James E. Conkin, professor Emeritus and
founder of the Department of Geology (now incorporated into the Department
of Geography and Geological Sciences) at The University of Louisville.

Nature's Morality

Science starts out with little knowledge, but by efforts, almost
superhuman, strives by the scientific method (induction) to gain from
Nature knowledge of working laws which will allow man to impersonally
communitcate with the cosmic force and thereby gain a more harmonious
alliance between himself and Nature.

We do not discern, by induction, any evidence in Nature for man's idea of
morality; we see no badness and thus no sin as understood in man's classic
religious totomic concept, his a priori deduced "reality". Rather, we view
all the natural processes as the results of resolution of opposing forces,
of conflict, into eventual harmony which we understand inductively as the
laws of Nature. We might be inclined to view this perfecting mechanism in
the evolutionary history of life and non-living things, teleologically as a
pre-ordained purpose in the natural world; however, what we emperically
discern is a continuing complication from chaos to cosmos, and perhaps a
return to chaos, with ad nauseum redundency; in overall view, chaos.

In any case, we, at length, unfortunately reach a no-man's land of
metaphysics and are in a realm of speculation not appropriate to man's
science, for induction can only deal with the natural world of the senses,
or of machines interposed between our five senses which act as extensions
of our ability to experience the physical world directly. If there truly is
a 'supernatural world' (not operating under the natural laws), science will
not be able to access it for science's opinions of cosmogeny are based on
the philosphy of empericism; however, this does not preclude the scientist
from contributing in speculation, from inductive data, on the possible
origin and operation of the cosmos, but not dogmatically, dismissing out of
hand, the impenetrable mysteries of the chaos-cosmos.

Perhaps Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), the
theologian-philospher-physician-music scholar, had stated man's final
inductive-deductive dilemma:

"All thinking must renounce the attempts to explain the universe. What is
glorious...is full of horror. What is full of meaning...senseless. The
spirit of the universe is at once creative and destructive - it creates
while it destroys and destroys while it creates, and therefore it remains
to us a riddle. And we must inevitably resign ourselves to this."

The laws of Nature operative in cosmic causation are, in a large sense, the
catechism of the inductive, scientific method, the study of which has
allowed man to pose pertinent questions concerning the organization and
operation of cosmic mechanics, and has allowed man to be so presumptive as
to attempt to sneak a furtive glimpse into the perfect machine of cosmic
harmony. In this revelation of the truth of the workings which result in
cosmic serenity, man wrenches back in horror when he senses the cold
detachment of the modus operandi of the dynamic duality of creation and
destruction, on an infinite holocaustic scale unimaginable to man's mind,
which is pre-ordained and absolutely required for the existence of the
beauty and perfection of Nature. This is not the paradise man envisioned in
his former state of innocence, but, in reality, he sees heaven and hell
fused into an eternal, violent, and passionate embrace of creativity and
destruction. This vision, at the heart of the universal machine, is, at one
and the same time, the horror of horrors and the beauty of beauties; man
has regained his paradise (the fusion of induction and deduction,
metaphorically) and has found it to be a heaven-hell hybrid, ever dynamic,
passing from one phase to another, the juggernaut of infinity, creating
with one hand and destroying with the other, recalling the old epigramatic
truism "God gives with one hand and takes away with the other".

What could constitute humanity's profanity of profanities against Nature? I
can only suggest that which denies the cosmic manifestations of the laws of
Nature as the supreme and perfect harmonious order of the universe, without
sin and all good, but in its stead proposes to set up a syllogistically
constructed, solipsistic substitute phantasmagoria of deities of its own
making, with all man's passions, imperfections, magnified and inherent in
its cosmogeny: Envy, pride, jealousy, cruelty, certainly puffed-up and
pompous with self-importance, and the worst (again employing the Hebrew
superlative imperative), the author of the concept of sin. Can one suggest
an incarnate epiphany of the nuncio of the supreme anthropomorphic deity,
the sacrifice for man's imagined original religious totemic sin? Ecce Homo.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy
in the cosmos; its indifference extends from the lowest forms of life to
that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man
upon himself or upon other men, or by the natural laws operating
independently of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke
no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic
background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite,
revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it
not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature
had ordained "in the beginning (if there were one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or
there would be an ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods",
and of the cosmic harmony, chaos never returning to cosmos.


.