The movement, defined in France (as well as in Israel) as a cult and four of its leaders received fines totaling 600 euros, the senior officials also received suspended prison terms * Prof. Binyamin Beit Halami from the University of Haifa who researched Scientology said he reached a similar conclusion in a study based on the cult's publications
The French branch of the Scientology sect or the Church of Scientology as it calls itself was found guilty of defrauding its believers and its leaders were sentenced to fines of 600 euros and a suspended prison sentence. However, the court did not invalidate the continuation of the organization's activities in France, due to the inability to do so through the law that existed when the lawsuit was filed.
Yesterday, Tuesday, a court in Paris convicted the sect on two charges of "organized fraud" and, as mentioned, imposed a fine on the movement and its leaders, as well as suspended prison sentences on four of the organization's leaders. The leader of the French branch of the Scientology movement, Alain Rosenberg received a two-year prison sentence for Tannai and a fine of 30 euros.
Two institutions of the movement - the Celebrity Center and the Spiritual Association of the Church of Scientology were asked to pay the fine for taking money from the cult's believers in the XNUMXs.
George Pena, president of Milivudes, a French organization working against cults, told the France 24 television station that he hoped the sentence of a fine and a suspended sentence was appropriate and that he hoped Scientology activities in France would cease. Pena anticipated that in the future, if Scientology engaged in further illegal activities, the courts could order its dissolution.
The complaint was filed by two plaintiffs who paid the sect 20 euros for various courses and were required to purchase study materials and additional products of the sect worth 49,500 euros.
Scientology is officially considered a cult in France, but claims to be a legitimate religion and denies any connection to embezzlement. A lawyer for the movement said that he intends to appeal this.
The Scientology movement was founded in 1954 by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, and was recognized as a religion in the USA. Her friends include celebrities including Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Lisa Marie-Presley.
The movement, which also operates in Israel under different names such as "The Way to Happiness" or "The Association for Prosperity and Peace in the Middle East" is known mainly for its uncompromising war on what it calls psychiatric drugs - drugs like Prozac or even a much more common drug - Ritalin given to children and adults suffering from problems attention and concentration.
According to Wikipedia, starting in 1963 Hubbard published a series of letters in which he claimed that 75 million years ago a tyrant named Zenu[19] arrived on Earth from space. He planted alien souls in volcanoes and then bombarded these volcanoes with hydrogen bombs. After the destruction of life on earth, the spirits of the aliens who were killed in the bombing remained, and these clung and still cling to humans and behave as mental parasites. They are called "Body Thetans" and the most advanced stages of Scientology treatments deal with their elimination. These are the main points of the religion and from them is also derived the opposition of the movement to psychiatric drugs. However, in order not to discourage new entrants, these principles are presented only to old believers who are not afraid that they will withdraw following the information.
Scientology Officially recognized in Israel as a sect. In Israel, their activist is well-known - Odette Schwartz, who in the TV programs she presented on Channel 10 several years ago and in her articles in her column in Maariv tried to promote the sect's agenda, and in particular the fight against the drug Ritalin. For this Schwartz was reprimanded by the Second Authority for Television and Radio.
Prof. Binyamin Beit Halami, researcher of religions at the University of Haifa, who published in 2003 a comprehensive document on Scientology, after Amina claimed to him that it was a religion, and it turned out that it was an organization that did not fit this definition at all. It should be noted that another study by Prof. Beit HaLachemi was cited in Richard Dawkins' book Is There God?
"Even if we sit for hours and look for something bad to say about Scientology, it won't be enough. The reality is more serious," Prof. Beit Halami said this evening (Tuesday) in an interview with the Hidan website.
"The bottom line is that they are crooks. It is a fact that the title of my article Religion or racket? Meaning is it a religion or a scam business that takes money out of people. Since this article was published in a German journal for the study of religions, in 2003, no one has tried to challenge what it says, nor have they tried to sue me. "
"I had an argument with researchers who claimed to be a religion and together with my colleagues I went to conferences and presented the data, most of which are taken from official publications of Scientology."
"I reviewed throughout history the ways in which they present themselves and I show that some of the time they disguise themselves as religion, while in other cases they distance themselves from religions and look for secular disguises. They are the champions of human rights disguises, and they have endless front organizations. A few years ago, an ad was published in the newspaper along the lines of: 'If your rights have been violated during psychiatric treatment, please contact us and we will help you.' They do it everywhere in the world. One of their characteristic things is the concentration and uniformity. You go to any branch in the world and come across the same materials."
Their interest in registering as a church is that as such they do not pay taxes and the term religion inspires respect in many people, and it really solved a lot of problems for them financially. In the US, the income tax authorities fought them for quite a few years. Suddenly something happened and the US IRS just gave in to them.
According to Prof. Beit Halami, on several occasions (some of which are also quoted in the article) the leaders of Scientology expressed themselves as saying that the Nazis were victims of psychiatry, and that at Villa Van Anze where the final solution was decided, all those present were psychiatrists.
33 תגובות
satanic cult dangerous erin e cheryl r karyn kasian mather satanic cult tampa fl dangerous caution notify authorities immediately dangerous to damsels in distress entrapping cheryl r mather exploiting enslaving drugging very cruel
Watch on YouTube the fascinating story of the actor Jason Biga about his entrance and exit from Scientology.
He definitely convinced me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNUjMz9-W2I
Sent to Caleb Myers messiahs in tampa fl to friend tomer kol
Messianic Court of Justice Caleb Meyers head of the Shemen Sect Sassoon Father Guru and the whole family. In Israel and abroad it engages in a mission that bites our children and threatens the families of the Court of Justice for the Messiahs. Caleb Myers is connected to the office of Yehuda Reva. Caleb Myers is connected to the Knesset of Consulates and more. So if your children have fallen into the Shemen Sassoon cult of the Myers family, talk to the walls of the people. The children of the Jewish families there is no law and there is no justice even a law against sects in the Knesset the people have fallen asleep they need to wake up and quickly a second holocaust sect of messiahs similar to the sect of David Cyrus and more sophisticated under the auspices of linked offices lawyer Caleb Meyers the guru of a sect of messiahs it is unbelievable that a friend of Manu Kalisher will tell and many other gurus who work in Israel and abroad
The sect of messiahs and all the various names. After the elimination of all the mafias, crime and evil, the name was changed from a bakery to a sect of Jews, Messiahs, redemption, Jehovah, kings of kings, Scientology, Sassoon oil, and more. This is not a religion. Everyone needs to eradicate a phenomenon from the root so that it doesn't grow and grow and then it's really hard to internalize it
Cult of evil all disconnection and lies from deception all cults sent to tomer kol tampa fl guru of the cult cheryl r mather knneth b mather tampa fl their son ran away from them
Every sect, every religion, every practitioner of religion, everything is a lie and a lie, God is a concept and not a material thing,
This is also the case in the books of the great rabbis, such as, as a taniya, by the old Rebbe of Lubovitz, because God does not have a body
and nothing real,
That's what they say in the Thirty Principles, every life is good
autumnal:
Every person in all his actions tries to promote his own agenda.
There is no other possibility and therefore there is nothing wrong with this - just as there is no information in this statement unless you mean to say that he is trying to promote an illegitimate agenda or is using illegitimate means.
Therefore your statement was unnecessary and insulting.
After all, it is clear that when I say something against religion, it means that I have an agenda against it - just as it would have been clear, if I had said something in favor of it - that my agenda is in favor of it.
You said that God was not added to the religion.
I will not argue with you about what you meant when you said that God was not added to the religion. I interpreted it a certain way and you meant something a little different. OK - so we almost agree on this point. I have already mentioned that what is necessary for religion is something broader than belief in a natural being and that any belief that good and bad or legal and illegal are dictated by something external to the human race will fit.
It could be race theory or Marxism just as much as it could be the Torah.
I do not mean that these teachings were not written by a human hand, but rather that they claim that there is something outside of man that determines the principles of morality.
I said there are several types of laws earlier and I demonstrated this with the parable of Hitler and Einstein so that it can be clear to you that the conclusions you reached from reading Wikipedia were my conclusions from the beginning.
Again - it goes without saying that there are different types of laws and it is clear that the laws of nature are another type that you did not mention.
I just said something that is convenient for you to forget at the moment, and that is that religion requires a law (yes - a law of the religious type, but a law nonetheless) and therefore - when you say that God preceded religion - you are not talking about the development of religion but about things that developed regardless of religion and were appropriated by religion when it was founded (And it will be founded with the establishment of its laws because without laws there is no religion and without God there actually is).
Michael,
Sorry, I couldn't resist:
First of all a clarification - I did not claim that God is essential in religion, but faith in nature.
I don't know any religion that does not meet this criterion (which in my opinion is a necessary but not sufficient condition for defining a religion). including New Age cults. And the religions of the East (of course they have laws, for example the Buddhists prohibiting harm to living beings).
Second, as this discussion shows, religion is a term that has many definitions. When you say that religion is a law, you refer to the etymological interpretation of the word. I am quoting from Wikipedia: built into the original language - it is 'law'...which developed from the initial meaning of the Persian and Indo-European word: "data", i.e. 'given', since the law is seen as a fact that cannot be contested: in such an examination, see and purify". The meaning is not what we call today "law".
Third, I quote you Michael: "I'm talking about the type of religion that bothers me...when I attack religion - I'm not attacking a word but an essence and the essence I'm attacking is the one that especially characterizes monotheistic religions"
In my first response to this discussion with you, I claimed that you are trying to promote your agenda here.
well, l rest my case
Nice:
There is a difference between the Torah and the Bible.
In the Bible - starting from a certain point - there are also historical facts.
The story I am arguing for is completely consistent: Josiah was and invented Moses. Moses was not.
And in consistent things, Nice, you can believe it!
Today's Judaism takes away not only money (for the whole mechanism that we all pay for and most of us have no need for - of religious services and for financing all those whose idleness is their art) but also lives (by evading the army).
As far as I'm concerned, this is a far greater damage than the one caused by Scientology.
Nice and autumn:
Nowadays religion does not change.
It is true that at certain stages it changed (after all, it had to go from a state of non-existence to a state of existence and you don't have a bigger change than that) but since the holy books were signed there has been no change.
Rabbi Gershom also did not change the law in a substantial way.
Although he added a prohibition, he did not prohibit anything that was previously a mitzvah.
After all, religious people compete with each other for severity and there are many jokes about this matter - so Rabbi Gershom added more severity.
There is nothing that the Torah forbade and that someone after it permitted.
It makes me laugh that they bring me examples of religions without God after I am the one who said that God is not an essential part of religion - and I said it after Setoi said yes.
Does this not match my definition?
On the contrary! Only with my definition it is consistent!
I don't have enough knowledge about all the "religions" of the East and some of them may not be religions.
As mentioned - "religion" means "law" and a system of memes that does not have laws is not a religion in the usual sense of the word and if you want to call it a religion then I say that I have no problem with such religions.
All in all - when I talk about religion - I'm talking about the kind of religion that bothers me.
If someone decides to include a coffee mug in the definition of religion then that particular type of religion won't bother me.
If someone decides that the definition of religion also includes the Jordan River then I will agree that it is specifically a religion that was not founded.
All these definitions are not interesting for me.
When I attack the religion - I am not attacking a word but an essence and the essence I am attacking is the one that especially characterizes the monotheistic religions.
Expanding the term "religion" to include "religions" for which this attack is not relevant is not a productive act because it simply confuses the discussion.
Then come people who believe in Judaism (and not in any other religion) and use claims that would be justified with regard to the new term of religion but are clearly not justified with regard to Judaism - to defend Judaism.
Avi Blizovsky,
A problematic example because Jesus did not exactly found the Christian religion, Moses is a character who is not sure that he really existed and Muhammad bought slaves and freed them in exchange for them joining his religion and fought and killed people who did not join his religion, in short none of the examples show who-knows-what charismatics In my humble opinion.
Michael Rothschild:
First of all, to the best of my knowledge and understanding - religious laws do change. After all, today's Judaism works mainly according to the Tosheba, which has many additions and changes, some of them large, compared to what is written in the Torah. A small example, polygamy - once it was allowed, today it is forbidden. The law has changed.
Secondly, I presented Judaism as a relatively new religion in the context of the idea of a single God.
An example of a religion that I understand does not coincide with your definition:
Buddhism and Jainism are religions that include beliefs in the supernatural (souls) but do not have a God who is a being, or who is an authority, or who is some kind of providence as in our idea of private providence. The laws are those related to the harmony of a person with himself and the environment. The worship, as far as I know, is not part of the precepts of the Buddha himself or of the god he does not have.
And in my personal and unfounded opinion, just an idea: the religious laws in my understanding are broadly divided into two: social laws and ritual laws. What we call between man and his friend and between man and his God. These and these develop in my opinion naturally and not out of someone's desire to control someone else, at least in their origin. Even in animals (for example monkeys) there are social rules and there are superstitious behaviors. And even among the Beh, there are leaders and those who are led. That's why I think that the origin of religions is ancient and not based on a founder who wanted to rule.
And another final thought: I agree that the religions we know (you and me) such as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, are religions that will be founded. But I think that regarding older religions, maybe even Judaism, it would be more correct to say of them that they are an *institution*. That is, the leaders collected the laws and beliefs of the people of the time and united them under one roof. As tribes used to unite naturally, and when the population grew, it was necessary to establish cities and then states. But just because a city was founded, does not mean that every human society will ever be founded by someone, some have developed naturally. And I don't think cities were founded by people who wanted to use them to achieve their goals by exploiting their residents, but of course I may be wrong...
Come on, it was fun but I'm moving on to the next article, see you 🙂
Admittedly, I'm a little ashamed to stick my head in among the tall people who have commented here. But my heart is with Michael Rothschild and my mind is with Fall. A clear distinction must be made between the beginnings of the development of religions and well-informed and deliberate additions that were also made, but in later periods and throughout the years, see Mishna Talmud, Halacha and Other Vegetables or Sharia in Islam. Michael, it is impossible to believe in the Bible for one reason and I am quoting "according to its own story it was founded at the height of Mount Sinai" and also what you wrote according to the more reliable evidence that it was founded by Josiah of the Sefer Torah the source for this is also in your book in the book of Chronicles the accepted biblical criticism of Most scholars consider the development of the Tanakh to be from four sources and is known as the certificate theory. The other side of the coin is that because over the years people have added laws upon laws in a deliberate manner, whether to humiliate women or strengthen the status of the collective at the expense of the individual or to strengthen a few individuals at the expense of everyone, there is a hard feeling towards The religion and all the attempts to reform the religion usually stemmed from this feeling from the so-called conservative neologism reformers up to and including Jacob Malkin. To Sim I just want to comment that the real enemy in my opinion is Scientology in that it psychologically forces people to pay what they don't. Religion psychologically forces people to stay in it but not pay money!!
Scientology is much more than "fraudulently spending money". She enslaves her believers to her, blackmails them mentally and physically, in the organization to fight sects they will tell you about shocking cases in which they broke people into pieces - exactly the opposite of what they claim to do.
He who guards his life - and his money - will stay away from them.
autumnal:
The laws are memes just like Hitler is a person (see previous example). I didn't say they weren't memes. I only said that among the memes of the religion there are some that are meant to serve the purposes of its founders and there are some that were introduced just to support others.
The laws of religions do not change.
They are written in the holy books for the world and every time someone decides to be holier than others he raises the stale ones from the obscurity.
The compromise of some of the religious with the advanced world outside of religion is exactly what I said - a compromise.
Not everyone compromises on something and everyone doesn't compromise on everything and the results are disastrous.
I explained the difference between democratic methods of enacting laws and methods that entrust them with a being that does not exist in reality so that they cannot be changed and I do not intend to repeat it even if you ask the same question a thousand more times.
The kibbutz had a dogmatic element, but since it was founded by decent people, the element of a super policeman was not included in the dogma. Therefore the example has changed and the kibbutzim of today are no longer the kibbutzim of the night.
In contrast to systems of laws that derive their authority from constant discussion between humans, religious systems derive their authority from an "objective" source of authority as far as humans are concerned. It could be God and it could be race theory.
Of course, only the religious legal systems interfere with me (just as I said - of the person named Hitler and the person named Einstein - I prefer the second person and I do not decide to say that we are not a person just because the first one was a person).
I presented evidence that Judaism claims (albeit wrongly) to be the oldest religion in the world and that you present (completely wrongly) as a newly founded religion.
I assume that of all the religions that were born (I used this word even though it is clear to me that they were founded) after Judaism, you will not argue either.
How far back do you want me to go? After all, your entire "argument" is based on the self-evident fact that if we go back far enough we will reach a time about which there is no information and about which I will not be able to "prove" anything. After all, you also have no idea about the religions of ancient tribes.
There were and still are, obviously, collections of ancient rituals for which the name religion does not fit.
These rituals originate from superstitions of various kinds, but as long as the person engages in them himself and does not impose them on others, it is not correct to call them a religion.
Of course, the various religions also incorporated such rituals into their content, but again - like God - this is not the reason for their existence.
As soon as a meme system that derives its authority from a source other than the current society of humans ceases to be a matter of personal choice and justifies the enforcement of its laws, it becomes a religion.
Sadna Daraa is clear and if all religions, for thousands of years, are founded - this was the case before.
Fall, in this context I have to hang myself in high spirits - Prof. Michael Har Segor once said in a lecture I attended - that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were very charismatic people, and therefore succeeded in creating new religions.
Michael Rothschild:
A. The laws are also memes. They develop and change, some disappear and new ones are created... both in political regimes and religions.
B. Beliefs make religion a religion and not just a system of government/regime. What is the difference between a secular kibbutz and a sect? Both are societies with internal rules (and all kinds of strange social behaviors), but a sect/religion also has faith.
third. If you claim that the origin of religions is in their establishment for the needs of leaders, you will need to present something to support your opinion. Judaism is a relatively new religion, in this context. I'm talking about the ancient tribes. Show me a shred of proof that the first human leaders "sold" lies to their tribemates for their own purposes.
And those who want examples that the relationship between religion and God is not necessary (even though the name of God is very useful for religion, as mentioned) are welcome to view this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
autumnal:
I just now read the last sentence you wrote and saw that I could have omitted all the phrases that maintain equality between the sexes.
Anyway, this line describes the response it was written in much better than mine.
autumnal:
Thanks for the compliments and scores.
1. Religion is a word of Persian origin and means "law". What defines this religion are its laws and beliefs are just memes that the founders of the religion used to create a self-preserving meme complex.
2. The laws of democratic countries are in the hands of a group of people who are re-elected every time and therefore they are constantly changing. They are not frozen in formalities to allow the establishment of an establishment on them. Likewise in totalitarian countries. I clarified how the laws were created to explain to the one who responded before what religion is. There was (at this point) no intention to say anything bad about religion, but only an explanatory intention. Imagine if I wrote a sentence like "Hitler was a bad person" and you would answer me "So what?! Einstein was also a man!" This is roughly what you do in sections b and c.
3. The ancient religions were established/founded and did not develop. The collection of beliefs and stories may have evolved, but the religions were essentially founded. If we take Judaism, for example, then according to its own story it was founded at the height of Mount Sinai and according to the more reliable evidence it was founded by King Josiah who planted the book of the Torah in the temple so that the reformers would find it.
4. Your paragraph betrays the fact that you think like me. You wrote "*also* in Scientology the goal is to make money, controlling people is a means". I couldn't have said it better only because the article is about Scientology I wrote "also in religion etc"
5. God was added to the religion and precisely for the reason I said. That the origin of belief in God of some kind is earlier is clear. In general, all the words used by the religion existed before it, but for some of them - like God - it poured a special content, and in Judaism this content belongs to the super policeman who makes sure to observe the laws of Judaism.
6. Regarding the analysis you do of my information and motives - only the description "shame and disgrace" suits him.
Michael Rothschild:
You are also wrong and misleading, and dare to write it so emphatically!
Where does your claim that "religion is a collection of laws enacted by people who wanted to use it to achieve their goals" come from?
One of the stupidest, in my life. And usually you write smart things.
A. Religion is much more than a set of rules. It is also a collection of (naturalistic) beliefs and rituals.
B. Every collection of laws was enacted by people who wanted to use it to achieve their goals, including the laws of the State of Israel.
third. Even in totalitarian regimes, laws were enacted by people who wanted to use it (in this case - the state) to achieve their goals, and it is not about religion.
d. The ancient religions developed, not established. And this is important because if you explain the purpose of religion (its purpose, its function, whatever you want) you have to look both at different religions in the world and also to go back to the origins of religion, as far as possible, in the ancient man.
God. Even in Scientology the goal is to make money, controlling people is a means.
and. God was not "added to religion", and you should know that. The origin of the belief in supernatural powers is much earlier, and it is likely that it was not added in order to control people, but for other reasons (I have psycho-evolutionary explanations, but they are a bit long). And of course it must be remembered that at first they believed in spirits, demons, etc. and then they switched to idols and only at the end did our "one" God come (if you don't count the devil and the angels and the cherubim and the seraphim, of course).
In conclusion, the picture you paint as if religion is a conspiracy of some genius who wanted to control people and therefore invented a mystical creature and a book of rules, in my opinion stems from ignorance in this area and an attempt to advance your agenda on this issue. And you are so opposed to ideological distortions in science... I think this was a response that was off topic.
There is more chance of reactions from postmodernists in disguise
Shhh:
It is not about "certain" people who took advantage of Scientology to fraudulently spend money, but it is indeed part of the principles of this dangerous sect. To. Ron Heard, a science fiction writer who wanted to achieve the American dream and get rich, realized that the best way to do this was to found a religion.
If you ask me, the difference between a religion and a sect is only the size, that is, the extent of the believers. And in this regard, Scientology may already be called a religion. Officially, the bard registered it as a "church" in the US and it is recognized as a religion, with the motives being, among other things, to avoid paying taxes (since a religion is a "non-profit organization" by definition) and to gain the legal protections due to a religion (not entirely sure what that means , but I guess it's a little harder to accuse religions of fraudulent acts than just a company that tells religions to potential customers).An organization in Israel The organization avoids calling itself a "church", both in order not to scare the Jews, and also because missionary work is prohibited by law.
What's more, Scientology does meet all the criteria that define cults (for example, as can be seen in the Wikipedia entry).
post Scriptum.
I count to 10 and I'm sure comments from Scientologists/Scientologists in disguise will start appearing here.
We can't allow some people to do some things, that's all.
All religions are a form of self-delusion of people who have difficulty coping with life or who have been brainwashed that God exists.
There will always be people who will take advantage of religion to exploit other people for financial needs or idols, for example the stone throwers from Jerusalem or the communist faith and of course extorting money from people.
The Cult of Scientology does not spend money fraudulently.
The founder of Scientology said that the best way to become a billionaire is to found a new religion.
That is why the Scientology cult extorts money from people in a declared and clear way. Some people prefer not to see the truth.
Of course there is no reason to treat someone who has no reason to treat him
Avi:
You are completely wrong.
Religion is a collection of laws enacted by people who wanted to use it to achieve their goals.
Of course, one of their goals was order in the group that they were exploiting, which is why they also enacted social laws (some of which are clearly immoral, such as, in Judaism, the commandment to kill Sabbath breakers and homosexuals).
They added God and all kinds of other lies about the origin of the world for two reasons - one is as a "source of authority" and the other is to serve as a "super policeman who does not need to be paid and everyone is afraid of him and believes that he sees everything".
To Michael and Hanan,
I agree that there is an analogy, but it seems to me that Scientology is on another level. From what little I understand of the sect's principles, its essence is brainwashing and exploiting its power to achieve its goals, while in religion the same thing happens only because there are people (and I mean a lot of people/organizations) who cynically exploit religion to achieve their goals, while in its essence religion (at least the religions I know) Established for more social purposes (satisfying the human need for answers to existential questions - where did we come from, where are we going... etc.).
At the time, the Scientology sect managed to introduce branches into the Ministry of Education and directly into the schools.
One way or another, I see no difference between the Scientologists and any other religious activity. There is no lack of organizations in Israel (some of them official), which specialize in taking money from the public (at least some of them taking advantage of distress, innocence and false promises).
Not that I am in any way comparing Scientology to science
I am against Scientology but I am not familiar with the details, if part of Scientology's beliefs is to fraudulently extract huge sums of money from people for the benefit of others, then Scientology is a wrong thing, but if the point is that some people used Scientology's views and beliefs to deceive others, then there is no place to call the article "Scientology Fraudulently took out a lot of money from her believers"
Tomorrow a certain scientist will fraudulently extract money from people to finance some of his research and people will be able to say "Science has fraudulently extracted a lot of money from innocent people" - one should be careful with statements of this kind
The truth is that the religion or racket question is funny because the official religions also fraudulently extract money from people.
The only difference is, of course, that they are older, and therefore the number of babies who were captured (and who pretend to be released from captivity) is greater.