the ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 972
(2/27/02 15:08) Reply
Re: Speaking of made up philosophy
Are most the other religions in question you name cults?
Simple answer, no.
As for circumcision and some authorities no longer endorsing it, even though they can't say why for the most part all the while admitting that there are numerous health benefits to the procedure.
Where I live it came down to a simple matter of dollar and sense {read cents} the procedure was deinsured last year or so, again only for financial reasons, which in my professional opinion is the main if not sole reason for the new positions.
Circumcision is not reserved to Judaeism but also encompasses Islam, unfortunately some sects also practise female circumcision. I am sure that you are well aware of the significance of the covenant, and according to the paediatric assoc.'s opinion there are known health benefits to circumcision.
Circumcision is as old as human history carvings and illustrations from ancient Egypt show pre-adolescent males being ritually circumcised as long as 4,000 years ago.
www.crha-health.ab.ca/hlt...circum.htm
The conclusions presented in the 1996 position statement are as follows:
There is evidence that circumcision results in an approximately 12-fold reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI) during infancy.
There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission.
There is also a reduced risk of cervical cancer in partners of circumcised males.
Although I disagree with their conclusion: Cultural, and religious opinions aside.
"The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed".
Even the AAP says:
"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision";
"In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided".
Task Force on Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850 Pediatrics Volume 103, Number 3
March 1999, pp 686-693
Of course in my opinion this is the ral reason for the softening of the AAP's stance:
"Although the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million".
Why even mention the costs?
If there are significant health benfits cost should not be an issue.
That is of course unless there is a political and financial agenda at work.
... a population-based cohort study of 58 000 Canadian infants, found that the hospital admission rate for UTI in infant males younger than 1 year of age was 1.88 per 1000 in circumcised infants and 7.02 per 1000 in uncircumcised infants, for a relative risk of 3.7.
Using these rates and the increased risks suggested from the literature, one can estimate that 7 to 14 of 1000 uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life, compared with 1 to 2 of 1000 circumcised male infants.
Penile cancer:
In the third study, in which 45% of the men in the control group had been circumcised as neonates, the risk of SCCP {squamous cell carcinoma of penis} among men who were never circumcised was 3.2 times that of men circumcised at birth.
There is at least a threefold increased risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men; phimosis, a condition that exists only in uncircumcised men, increases this risk further.
...there is a substantial body of evidence that links noncircumcision in men with risk for HIV infection.There does appear to be a plausible biologic explanation for this association in that the mucous surface of the uncircumcised penis allows for viral attachment to lymphoid cells at or near the surface of the mucous membrane, as well as an increased likelihood of minor abrasions resulting in increased HIV access to target tissues.
Finally the AAP reports in their Task Force ,"A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men".
I know the choice I will make for my son, it is a no brainer if you care about his health. Relgious aspects aside.
LD glad to see you escaped the cult of COS, now what can I do about deprogramming the Gor outa you*.
Re: Speaking of made up philosophyAre most the other religions in question you name cults?
Simple answer, no. Because they've been around longer? Please explain this simple answer no to a non-believer.
I know the choice I will make for my son, it is a no brainer if you care about his health. Relgious aspects aside. So parents who do not circumcize their sons don't care about their health? What kind of physician are you again?
the ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 974
(2/27/02 22:01) Reply
Re: Speaking of made up philosophy
Go look up the word cult.
Ther's no such thing as a non believer, you cannot believe in nothing, for a paradox arises as believing in nothing means that you believe in something.
As for what king of physician?
One that sees the studies and understands that a circumsied boy statistically will not die of penile cancer, nor will he get near as many UTI's and his chances of contracting STD's including HIV and HPV will be significantly lower as will his chance of giving cervical cancer to his wife.
Ther is no question of pain anymore.
And his wife cannot only rest knowing that he is less likely to give her cervical cancer but she can relish in the fact that circumsised men are more sexual according to the AAP.
As I said, it is a no brainer.
Again religion aside.
Anecdotally when I was growing up I learned that my then best friend had been rushed to emerg after he tore his foreskin during sex.
Something that could have certainly been prevented.
We had a few good jokes on him that summer ahh goodtimes.
Re: Speaking of made up philosophy
[quote]LD glad to see you escaped the cult of COS, now what can I do about deprogramming the Gor outa you*.[/quote]
Absolutely nothing. We'll never see eye to eye on that and that's pretty much final. You okay with that?
I just thought, for the sake of levity, you might find it interesting that we actually agree on something.
Cheers, and congrats to Canada.
-Shawn
"At every action, no matter by whom performed, make it a practice to ask yourself, 'What is his object in doing this?' But begin with yourself; put this question to yourself first of all." --Marcus Aurelius
Re: Speaking of made up philosophy
In 2 posts you sidestepped the question. What kind of physician are you and while we're at it, which medical school did you graduate?
Re: Speaking of made up philosophy
I am a Rheumatologist and Clinical Immunologist, I also have just completed my Masters in Educational Psychology, I also have a BA in history {Canadian and world}, which I will plan as my next Masters degree. Common knowledge to those that know me.
In Canada we do not have "Medical Schools" per se.
I went to a public University.
I did not sidestep your question, I took it as rhetorical in regards to my comments upon circumcision. Hence my answer.
Neither did I run away for a week or so as I was in Cuba.
Now my question what was it you called circumcision?
Barbaric or something similar?
Why?
Yes LD, see we can agree on some things, I'm sure, as to my deprogramming statement it was of course said in jest.
Gor is not a cult, but some of the groups can be cult like.
In fact LD we can agree on two things.
"Of course none panned out like the Gorean societies. The Gorean societies are fictional".
-LD
Hence if Gorean societies are fictional that is to say artificial, and no such society was ever able to function for long in reality that can only mean one thing.
And that is that gorean "philosophy" is artficial and cannot and never did exist in reality.
I did of course say they were fictional, as you pointed out.
I do believe, however, that the Gorean philosophy is anything but artificial. My life is not artificial. I live my life according to a philosophy which is best described as "Gorean."
It does not mean I adopt any of the fictional elements - most of those elements defining the portion of the Gorean societies that you feel would not work here and now.
It does exist in reality - when we consider it as a philosophy. In fact it is more common than you may realize. It is the deep part of the psychological makeup of all humans. Some choose to let it show, most do not.
Most choose to pretend that it isn't there, and ignore it.
I know you were kidding about the "de-programming" statement, but really...there has never been a more mechanical and subliminal programming method than popular culture - which, if you look at it deep down, follows the Gorean philosophy up to a point, believe it or not.
It has no trouble manifesting its psychosomatic illnesses. This is one of the points L. Ron Hubbard makes that supports Jungian science - which I happen to agree with.
The problem is, pop culture fails to hold strength as a virtue. It prefers to teach people that the strong folks should be weakened so as not to rise above the weak folks. I don't mean physical strength. I mean strength of character. Our media promotes shallowness. It promotes indulgence. Today's society (on the whole), while much better in many ways than previous societies, still forgets many of its basic needs.
I think this is a bigger problem, and it is one Norman addresses.
Sure, we live in yet another Golden Age. The U.S. and Canada enjoy high standards of living. We're comfortable. Even our poverty stricken people can find food somewhere. But doesn't the mental well-being of our people rest in the hands of a proper understanding of our needs - right down to our instincts?
[quote]Mankind has, over a period of rapid evolution, outgrown the conscious needs of his collective, instinctive psyche. He has not, however, outgrown the instincts themselves, and should, for the sake of his mental health, be re-introduced to his most basic and symbolic unconsciousness. It is the key to his evolution, that which defines his prehistoric past, to explore it and the most basic truths that comprise it.
--Carl G. Jung, "On The Collective Unconsciousness"[/quote]
That is essentially what Norman has offered, in the form of his cheap fantasy novels. He has explored an evolutionary past through the eyes of societies that could have, but did not, survive.
He didn't do it to tell us how to return to barbarism.
He didn't do it to tell us we should keep women as pets. Slavery as Norman describes it in his novels is merely an archetype - a symbol of the relationship between men and women. The reason it is taken to the extreme has nothing to do with reality - rather, it serves a dual purpose. First, it sells books and earns an author a livelihood (and it accomplished that for certain - because it entertained folks all over the world), and second, it suggests the clear symbolic differences of the sexes in a way that makes sense to most people.
At the same time, Norman writes about inherently good things, such as honor and honesty, family and friends, dualities between man and woman, speculative approaches on the subject of the human drive to perform wars - and concurrently he exposes the darker side of the psyche.
I could sit here all day and talk to you about the darker side. I know it is your favorite subject. I'm tired of that, though - it's all you talk about.
If you are interested, we could talk about the lighter, more genuine side.
I'm willing to do that - in fact, eager to.
I wish you well.
-Shawn
"At every action, no matter by whom performed, make it a practice to ask yourself, 'What is his object in doing this?' But begin with yourself; put this question to yourself first of all." --Marcus Aurelius
Re: Speaking of made up philosophy
You are free to speak about anything you wish LD as is everyone else here.
Too bad we cannot say the same elsewhere.
Now first human beings that is to say homo sapien sapiens do not have instincts, hence this is the first error of Lange's/Goreans.
Needs are not instincts, this has been gone over here in another thread.
This is simply not my opinion but the understanding of sociology and anthroplogy to date.
Maybe Lange has some inside knowledge, but I doubt it.
His major folly was trying to be a biologist, he tried to combine a dogma with biology all the while knowing completely nothing concerning the latter.
He has failed miserably.
This is the crux of my "problem" with Gor, slavery, violence, sexism etc. et al aside.
That is when he and others try to extrapolate dogma into biology or nature when it simply is not so.
Plainly, he is wrong.
I am still waiting for anyone to show me where Gorean "philosophy" I'll use the term dogma, exists in reality, let alone where it exists as a deep deep part of the psychological makeup of all humans.
From what I have ever read, been taught or taught, the exact opposite is true.
"It {pop culture} prefers to teach people that the strong folks should be weakened so as not to rise above the weak folks".
Completely false, LD.
Can you provide examples?
What constitutes a weak folk?
Pop culture causes psychotrauma?
Perhaps my next thesis?
Perhaps not.
As for strength of character, we all have seen the strength of Tarl's gorean character in Raiders, and that is to say it is non existent.
To a human being strength of character means that you are more than willing to *weaken* yourself so that others may be *stronger* folks.
Further whilst doing so an altruistic human does not complain about weaker folks.
How does Gor explain atltriusm?
Biologically.
Now where did I put that aloe, shoulda stayed an extra week, -37 last night, woo flippin whoo.
Speaking of Cuba how would Gor explain the tendency of Cuban women to hold almost all of the *power* in their culture?
Biologically of course.
Speaking of psychotrauma, women, Mormon women, in Utah, consume almost 50% more anti depressants than the US national average.
A culture where women are treated horribly, probably the most sexist and repressive culture in North America regarding women.
Gor/Biology?
Re: Speaking of made up philosophy
I find both male and female circumcision barbaric, archaic, and unnecessary. Yep, entire cultures have gotten along just fine w/o it and their men didn't drop dead of penile cancers or STDs either. I'm puzzled how you can find it mutilation for a female to be circumcised but its not mutilation for a male. Is that because its a strong belief with your religion/cult?
cult [kult ] (plural cults) noun
1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided or unorthodox
2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs
3. idolization of somebody or something: extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity (often used before a noun) a cult following ....
4. object of idolization: a person, philosophy, or activity regarded with extreme or excessive admiration
5. fad: something popular or fashionable among a devoted group of enthusiasts (often used before a noun) cult status
6. ETHNOLOGY system of supernatural beliefs: a body of organized practices and beliefs supposed to involve interaction with and control over supernatural powers
7. elite group: a self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective
Circumcision is extreme, period. I don't want to take away your rights to have your children mutilated if that is your religious belief and however silly I see them, they are still your beliefs. Back to the orginial thread that you so masterfully strayed...If you want to take away the religious freedoms of one religion/cult, you had best be prepared to give up a few of your own.
As for "medical schools" in Canada, I found 16 such schools on the web.
pnet400.aamc.org/director...eo.cfm#TOC
Medical schools in the United States are affiliated with Universities and colleges as well. The medical school is a department of a university, much like school of dentistry, veterniary, and a school of engineering.
Re: Speaking of made up philosophy
Your definition of a cult is sorely weak.
Historically, the word cult referred to religious practices that emphasize ritual devotion to a god or gods or the idolization of a person or object. References continue today to the cult of the Virgin Mary or the cult of a particular saint. They allude to special worship of that person. But cult took on additional meanings as it began to be applied to unconventional religious movements or to breakaway groups.
People sometimes confuse cults with sects {as you obviously have}, but there are differences. Cults are similar to sects in that they both promote a new religion or a new interpretation of an established religion. Sects, however, are groups that have broken away from an established religion, often in protest against what they see as corruption or impure doctrine.
Cults, in contrast to sects, differ sharply from traditional religions in their doctrine. In addition, cults are typically smaller and more loosely organized than sects. And finally, *cults generally form around a leader who claims to have special spiritual powers, such as healing or prophecy*. Such leaders, sometimes called charismatics, emphasize the importance of personal religious experiences. Cult followers typically feel intense loyalty to the group and its leader.
The meaning of the word cult shifted dramatically in the West in the 1960s and 1970s with the appearance of many alternative religious movements that had unconventional practices and sought to convert young adults. The public viewed these groups and their leaders as extremist and dangerous and felt they exercised mind control over their followers. *Those who joined cults were viewed as emotionally disturbed or as victims of coercion or brainwashing*. Cult, in popular usage, came to describe any group with a fanatical devotion to a person, movement, or common interest.
Cults and alternative religions tend to prosper in times of *social instability*. They offer members clear solutions to complex problems, a promise of salvation, and a sense of security in belonging to a group. The social upheaval of the 1960s and the experimentation with alternative lifestyles probably contributed to the surge in cult membership. The communal lifestyle, practiced by many of the alternative religions, appealed to many young people who sought to remake society.
Recruitment efforts sometimes resulted in young people dropping out of college, abandoning career goals, and adopting a full-time religious life in an unfamiliar group setting. The conformity, loyalty, and discipline required of members also raised alarm. The group might require its members to wear strange-looking garments, follow a strict or unusual diet, chant or meditate at specific times, or take a new name. Some groups required that members *live in isolated communities and restricted or ended members' contact with family members and others outside the cult*.
Parents and other concerned people accused cults of using deception and *psychological manipulation* in recruiting and maintaining new members, a process *dubbed brainwashing or mind control*. They further charged that cults used brainwashing techniques to strip members of their ability to act or think independently. *The charges of brainwashing appeared to be confirmed after the 1978 mass suicide by members of the People's Temple, an agricultural commune in Jonestown, Guyana*. On the orders of their leader, Jim Jones, more than 900 followers of the cult, mostly Americans, took poison and died.
*Some cults or alternative religions are clearly dangerous*: They provoke *violence* or *antisocial* acts or *place their members in physical danger*. A few have caused the deaths of members through mass suicide or have *supported violence*, including *murder*, against *people outside the cult*. Sociologists note that violent cults are only a small minority of alternative religions, although they draw the most media attention.
Dangerous cults tend to share certain characteristics. These groups typically *have an exceedingly authoritarian leader* who seeks to control every aspect of members' lives and allows no questioning of decisions. Such l*eaders may hold themselves above the law or exempt themselves from requirements* made of other members of the group. *They often preach a doomsday scenario* that presumes *persecution from forces outside the cult* and a consequent need to prepare for an imminent Armageddon, or final battle between good and evil. *In preparation they may horde firearms*. Alternatively, cult leaders may prepare members for suicide, which the group believes will transport it to a place of eternal bliss.
The greatest loss of life related to cult activities occurred when 913 members of the People's Temple died in Jonestown, an agricultural commune in Guyana led by pastor Jim Jones. In 1978 a U.S. congressman visited the commune to investigate charges that the group was holding some members against their will. Cult leaders assassinated the congressman and four others, including three newspaper reporters. Jones then ordered his followers to commit suicide by drinking punch laced with cyanide.
Several other cults gained worldwide notoriety in the 1990s. In 1993 a confrontation between U.S. government agents and the Branch Davidians of Waco, Texas, resulted in the death of more than 80 Davidians, including about 20 children. Four federal agents also died. In 1994, 53 members of the International Chivalric Order Solar Tradition (commonly called the Solar Temple) died in suicides and murders at two villages in Switzerland and at a site near Montréal, Québec, Canada. The Solar Temple members believed their deaths would result in the transit of their spirits to another planet. More members of this cult died of suicide or murder from 1995 to 1997. In Tokyo, Japan, members of Aum Shinrikyo released poison nerve gas in a Tokyo subway station in 1995, killing 12 passengers and injuring 5,000 more. The group's leaders were put on trial, and several were sentenced to death.
The largest mass suicide in the United States occurred in 1997, when 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult killed themselves in Rancho Santa Fe, California. Members of the cult believed that through suicide their souls would leave their bodily containers and would travel to a higher realm. Part of their faith stemmed from a belief in UFOs (unidentified flying objects). They believed a UFO spaceship hidden behind the comet Hale-Bopp, which was then approaching Earth, would transport their souls.
Sociologists expect alternative religions to continue to grow in the Western world in the atmosphere of individual freedom that dominates Western culture. Opposition to alternative religions has generally declined in North America. The New Age Movement has increased tolerance for a variety of spiritual experiences and changed the attitudes of many people toward religion. Opposition to alternative religions has grown stronger in other countries, however, especially in western Europe. The French and German governments, for example, do not recognize the Church of Scientology as a religion; some officials claim that its organization is *antidemocratic*.
As I said, weak.
As for medical schools, you basically repeated what I said.
I went to a public University, the "medical school" is not detached, that is to say, a student{s} taking Arts, Education, Science, Medicine, I.T., Engineering, etc. can all be found in one class or another, as opposed to a traditional medical school where all the students in a said class are all enrolled in medicine.
Barbaric? That is your opinion, but then you must also believe that tattoos and piercings are also barbaric. How about cosmetic surgery? The latter three have no redeeming or health benefits.
There is a huge difference between female genital mutilation and male circumcision, again your argument is weak, if non existent.
To equate the two only shows your ignorance.
Typical argument of the ignorant, "it's barbaric" but you can not say why. Alternatively it's "natural", "good", but can never provide proof.
The fact remains that all medical science proves that circumsised men have less health problems and an increased libido.
"The fact remains that all medical science proves that circumsised men have less health problems and an increased libido." -DrXS
"Men who are not circumcised at birth may have a higher risk for getting cancer of the penis." -NCI
The keyword in this sentence is MAY. As a physician you should know that a couple of clinical research studies do not prove anything. Cigarette smoking and poor hygiene account for more problems with both circumcised and uncircumcised males equally.
Yes we all know about Jonestown and other cults in which ended with mass suicide. Brainwashing is only brainwashing when it leads to death? How about cutting the foreskin off a male infant? Is a family is allowed to remain within the community of their synagogue or mosque if they refuse to take part in this ceremony?
"Cults and alternative religions tend to prosper in times of *social instability*. They offer members clear solutions to complex problems, a promise of salvation, and a sense of security in belonging to a group. "
You've just described half the Christian religions in the USA.
I don't see any differences between cults and religions. You easily pick apart Scientology as a cult. Do they practice mass suicide? Brainwashing? Is theirs any different really from the "teachings" of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity? Its all in your language, your definition. I am merely confused, weak and ignorant. You on the otherhand have no people skills. How pathetic for a physician? We can only hope you are locked in a lab with a microscope for company. I pity the people of Canada if you are the considered one of the best their education system has to offer. There, I think I managed to repay all your insults. :)
the ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 980
(3/10/02 15:19) Reply
Re: Speaking of made up philosophy
Thing is I was not insulting you.
I used the word, Ignorant, correctly.
That is to say you are ignorant of the topic{s} you are attempting to speak of. As proven by your inability to say why circumsicion is barbaric and cosmetic surgery or piercing/tattoos are not. Hence my comment, and rightly so, that your argument is weak if non existent.
Simply put you glommed onto something you figured would upset me and my religious choices so you attempted to use it against me.
I simply turned the table on you providing proofs from numerous sources showing that circumcision is a far more healthier choice. Even leaving the religios aspect aside.
Weak.
Just as you were weak in your arguments concerning hockey and medical schools, in fact it is fairly obvious that you are desperately attempting to score a point or two any way you can, just as you were trying to do in my guestbook {anonymously} before I banned you from *posting* there.
The only thing you have done successfully so far is to prove my points.
But I have no quams about showing people for what and whom they are, so by all means keep trying.
It only adds more evidences to my hypothesis concerning Gor{eans}.
Re: Speaking of made up philosophy
Wow, I am Gorean? I had no idea! What am I supposed to do now? Where should I go?
I'm not necessarily ignorant, I would have to say I am temporarily stupid. I stumbled across your area after doing a search on EZboard for a topic that was completely unrelated. It was a faux pas for me to start any kind of conversation/discussion/debate(?) with a complete stranger on the web. I have always felt that the only people who use the AOL/internet chatrooms are the pathetic, lonely, losers of our society and you have proven me right. Having taken a look at my own actions I have dipped dangerously close to what you are and I don't like the reflection I am seeing. You aren't a better debater, 99% of the time the only reason you appear to win a debate with people posting here is because you browbeat them to death. You decide before you even sign on "I wonder what rubbish and utter nonsense has been written on my board today." and you never fully read the posts before you start in on your attack. As I said before, you have no people skills whatsoever. Therefore I call you a liar, Dean Baker. There is no Dean Baker on any registry of physicians or researchers in all of Canada. You are no physician. You are not this well educated, affluent man you claim to be, and chances are you juggle your bills allowing things to slide so you can keep your precious internet connection going because without it, your meaningless life would be nothing without your fantasy. This is your life. It makes you a larger than life being and fills you full of your own pseudo-importance. My mistake in posting here was feeding into it and wasting my precious energy on the likes of you and the others who feed off this type of communication.
the ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 983
(3/11/02 21:29) Reply
Re: Speaking of made up philosophy
So that's why you hid in the guestbook and made an account after I banned you.
You found the board but hid in the guestbook?
I see.
So I appear to win 99% of the debates, thanks.
That must actually mean I am winning most, and that you and others are losing.
But it is hardly about wining or losing for me, it simply is about the truth.
Still waiting for you tell tell me why circumcision is barbaric and others similar things are not, or how female genital mutilation is the same or even close to circumcision.
As for attempting to find out about be, {read Stalking} you obviously did not look very hard. You are not the first, probably will not be the last, but others have found me.
That is to say before I undertook certain actions.
After a number of attempts to stalk me, as you did, recieving unwanted and unsolicited, mailings{post}, email including viruses, and phone calls at my home and office, I have taken certain protocols to better protect myself. The scariest being some girl from NY calling me at home to tell me how good looking I am, thanks 'gain Mel for reminding me about that pic.
Frankly it is very disturbing to come to a realisation that persons are taking extraordinary measures to find me.
I sincerely have to wonder at a person's stability that would do that. Hence the measures I have undertaken in the past year.
I'll have to juggle my bills a bit more while I'm enjoying this fine Cuban cigar, guess I'd better sell my Dupont lighter too, simply hilarious.
What's next going to call the size of my manhood into question.
Saying this, it sounds like thou protesteth just a bit too much and it appears you know of what you speak concerning the of juggling finances.
Google was accused Wednesday of effectively removing from the Internet a Web site that is critical of the Church of Scientology after it deleted links to some of the site's pages from its search engine.
The popular search company said it removed the links after it received a copyright-infringement complaint from the Church of Scientology. Andreas Heldal-Lund, Webmaster of the site Xenu.net, said in a Usenet posting that the complaint demanded that Google take down a large number of references to different parts of Xenu.net.
Digital rights advocates said the Church of Scientology's takedown request is noteworthy because it underscores potential conflicts between the DMCA and free speech.
"The danger is that people will attempt to silence critics under the guise of copyright infringement," said Fred von Lohmann, an attorney with San Francisco's Electronic Frontier Foundation.
www.xenu.net/
In the Xenu.net case, the removed *links* led to pages that contain material copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. www.xenu.net/
On his site, Heldal-Lund defends this use of copyrighted material, saying that he believes Scientology survives "through the protection afforded it by copyright laws in a way that copyright laws were not designed to address."
A representative for the Church of Scientology could not be immediately reached for comment. www.xenu.net/
Google Restores Web Page Critical of Scientology
Fri Mar 22, 3:10 PM ET
By Elinor Mills Abreu
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Google (news - external web site) Inc. restored a Web site critical of the Church of Scientology on its Internet search engine on Thursday while free speech advocates slammed the company for removing the site in the first place.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies 
