?

Log in

OH SHI- - Torontosaurus [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Kat

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

OH SHI- [May. 29th, 2009|04:58 pm]
Kat
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/wikipedia-bans-scientolog_n_208967.html

WIKIPEDIA TOOK OUT SCIENTOLOGY.

This reminds me of the time I got thrown out of the Scientology centre downtown. I spent the next week and a half anticipating their lawsuit/hitman that never came.

Hmm, perhaps I'm viewing Scientology a bit too critically, though. I have little to no knowledge of the church's practices, and therefore cannot properly form an opinion of the organization as a whole. It's unfair to judge something based on such limited, biased information. On the other hand, the church of Scientology hasn't done itself any favours in the P.R. department. They do seem rather eager to capitalize on their religion, and are prone to lawsuits.

I've read up on it before and I think Scientology has become corrupted much in the way other religions have. L. Ron Hubbard developed his religion on fairly pure motives, and had some intriguing ideas and theories. Ultimately, however, the church grew and eventually broke free of his control, to the point where he had no say in it any longer. I equate today's Corporate Scientologist Oligarchy with the Westboro Baptist Church- both are corruptions of the original doctrines they claim to champion.

In that regard, however, I must admit that I don't place much credence in Scientology as a religion, even in its purest, most pristine form. Sorry L. Ron.

I LOVE WIKIPEDIA. And not because of this, because it is a veritable Shangri-La of information and relevance. I support them whole-heartedly and JIMJAMIT IT IS A CREDIBLE SOURCE.

I WILL USE IT ON ALL THE REPORTS I WANT, PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.

Speaking of which, I just graduated from that. SUCK ON IT.
LinkReply