Slashdot Mirror
Internet Group Declares War on Scientology
Darkman, Walkin Dude writes "An internet group calling itself Anonymous has declared war on the Church of Scientology, in the form of an ominous posting to the YouTube site. 'In the statement, the group explained their goal as safeguarding the right to freedom of speech. "A spokesperson said that the group's goals include bringing an end to the financial exploitation of Church members and protecting the right to free speech, a right which they claim was consistently violated by the Church of Scientology in pursuit of its opponents." The press release also claimed that the Church of Scientology misused copyright and trademark law in order to remove criticism from websites including Digg and YouTube. The statement goes on to assert that the attacks from the group "will continue until the Church of Scientology reacts, at which point they will change strategy".' It should be noted that Slashdot users have had interactions with Scientology in the past as well."
I had dealings with them about 10 years ago. I ended up paying GBP30 for a course just to get out of the hard sell and even though I never did the course the often phoned and wrote letters of about 5 years after.
See the Operation Clambake pages for more details to their activities. http://www.xenu.net/
Scientology and all its offshoot cults like The Landmark Forum are brainwashing users of people. Money money money.
Precisely. This "war" will amount to very little. The CoS is loaded with the cash of the gullible and foolish. Anonymous also fails to realize that most people don't give a crap about stuff on the internet outside of email and maybe some major news sites. It'll be amusing to watch, though.
LRH's scam shows how easy it is to start a new religion that survives and gains passionate adherents after the death of its founders. Most people couldn't do it, but a few individuals have the kind of personality that can pull it off in the right social environment. In fact, we have enough recent historical data on cults that turn into competitive new religions (for example Mormonism and Baha'i, both founded in the 19th Century) that I don't think it's even all that mysterious how older religions like Christianity & Islam could have originated through normal social processes. (We don't have to postulate "supernatural" causes to explain their existence, in other words.)
Yeah, I just read the last article about it. That doesn't make sense when I compare it to any other religion I've encountered. Christians and Jews and Muslims and all, they freely post their scripture and encourage people to memorize, recite, share...it's the word of their God. If it is the truth, as Scientologists believe, why wouldn't they want it to be spread? It's like even they know it's all a sham, for making money and not about truly helping people.
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
Considering those openly opposed to Scientology wind up harassed, publicly smeared, thrown in jail, or made dead due to the Fair Game policy, I don't blame them.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Why single out one specific 'religion'? I saw the Tom Cruise interview video last week - it really didn't seem all that fundamentally different from listening to an evangelical Christian. Different terms were used, but the mindset was mostly the same. Watch Jesus Camp if you haven't already. Not much difference between the main camp director's mindset and Tom Cruise's.
creation science book
Which is to be expected. Anyone who actually supports individual freedom is sure to be popular among the unpopular and oppressed minority groups; they have the most interest at stake in protecting basic rights like free speech. Those who only hold and/or express popular opinions don't require such protection.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Ron Hubbard - the founder of Scientology - has been quoted as saying that if you want to get rich, you start a religion. ( http://www.faqs.org/faqs/scientology/skeptic/start-a-religion-faq/ ) Well, that's what he did. You have to pay just to learn about it and the deeper you go, the more you spend. It's designed to dupe people into giving the Church of Scientology gobs of money. I truly feel sorry for anyone that's been sucked in by it. It's like believing that Star Wars is real (the movie, not the missile defense system...).
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Granted, this e-hissy from Anonymous is unlikely to take down the cult or even deal it serious damage, but it does serve to highlight how the traditional big media outlets have been legally hogtied.
Our usual media sources can't report on allegations of abuse because they've been very effectively muzzled by CSI hyper-litigation. They try to keep this fact close to the vest, but Anonymous' efforts are making it plain for all to see. This is a valuable service.
Also, any organization that exploits copyright law in order to silence critics should get a kick in the shins, even if that's all it amounts to. It's still a potent message: "We don't condone gag orders, and we'll fight back however we can, even if it is a David versus Goliath situation."
Glib as it may sound, raising awareness is key here. And an end unto itself.
Yours,
Cheeseburger Brown
Suppressive and Proud
These stories are free but worth money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy
Paul disavowed the writings in a response to the New Republic article, saying that the quotations do not represent his beliefs, and that he has "never uttered such words and denounce[s] such small-minded thoughts." He again noted that he accepts "moral responsibility" for not paying closer attention to writings published under his name.[116] In a subsequent interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, he said he did not know who wrote the articles and stated he "[repudiates] everything that is written along those lines." Blitzer told Paul that he was "shocked" by the newsletters, because they did not seem to reflect "the Ron Paul that I've come to know, and the viewers have come to know" over the course of several interviews during the campaign.[117] David Gergen, CNN senior political analyst, commented "I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that'."[117][118]
In the interview with Blitzer, Paul asserted that racism is incompatible with his beliefs and that he sees people as individuals--not as part of collectives. He also dismissed the attack as an attempt to accuse him of racism by proxy, claiming that he has collected more money among African-Americans than any other Republican candidate.[117] Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), defended Paul, saying that he has known him for 20 years, saw him as a "free thinker", "very intelligent and very informed", talking about "real issues" that "invite attacks on him", who was "correct in what he's saying", and that knowing his intent, he believes Paul has been misconstrued and taken out of context.[119] Former LA Times editor Andrew Malcolm noted that Paul got second place in the January 19 Nevada Republican caucus despite the recent reports about the newsletters.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The definition of a cult is quite simple. A cult hides it's core beliefs from it's members a religion does not.
---------
This space for rent. Call 1-800-SIGADVT to place your ad.
The Co$ gives me one more compelling reason to use "$" in a mocking fashion!
I also like to think of $cientology as a good example that illustrates the origins of religions. Whether you're talking about Christianity or Star Trek, it's just another example of a charismatic individual using his fantastic imagination to come up with an utterly baseless and bizarre explanation for the way things are. And then convincing the masses that he somehow knows what he's talking about, and deserves their money and allegiance for sharing the knowledge with them. All it takes is to follow the money to see what the real game is.
I don't care how hard their sell was.
Either you can simply ignore them, or they're actually doing something illegal, and you can stop them.
I don't see why you felt the need to fund them.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
tell the scientologists that the RIAA are planning to clone Xenu from some evil thetans that were surgically extracted from Britney.
That might work if the people who ran Scientology actually believed in their own garbage. I don't believe they do. I believe the whole organization is a money making scam.
-mcgrew
PS- yes I got the joke, I'm just in a bad mood today.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I don't know that hatred of a pyramid scheme is bigotry...
~S
Umm, I vote, and I do value the Republic and freedom, I just happen to disagree with Ron Paul. For that "crime" I've been vilified by Ron Paul supporters (both online and local), called everything from a "sheep" to a "fascist".
Newsflash: Just because we don't embrace 100% of the libertarian platform doesn't mean that we don't believe in freedom. Ron Paul is doing us a favor by putting his ideas out there for the public debate but he has zero chance of winning the election. Blame the media for that all you want but at the end of the day one has to ask himself if the American people are really ready to embrace his ideas.
There was a reason why we got away from the gold standard and laissez-faire economics to begin with. I love him for his positions on civil liberties but the 19th century called -- they want their economic policy back.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Does the phrase "Hotdog down a hallway" mean anything to you?
Believe me, the RIAA are delightful sweethearts next to the CoS. The RIAA may sue you; but they won't hire private detectives to dig up dirt on you, have you thrown in prison on bogus charges, publicly smear you as a child molester, lobby the Vice-President to impose sanctions on your whole country, or have you killed.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The City ought to revive the idea of charging fast-food restaurants for their garbage strewn all over the streets and apply it to those passing out the pink-paper "Are you bi-curious..." umm, I mean "Are you curious about yourself" tri-fold flyers. On any given day in Powell area, one can find locals and tourists just dropping the damned things once they realized what they've been proffered.
It's one thing to find chewing gum wrappers and fast-food containers and such on the streets, but ideas peddled and then rejected are a CLEAR sign that some one or some organization is going beyond free-speech guarantees. With TV, one can change channels or turn off the TV, and there is no immediate or sighted pollution. Even the ad sponsors can't (without digital connections) determine who is switching off their ads or just ignoring them and instead multi-tasking during commercial breaks or going to the bathroom between programs.
What that coarse-throat preacher and his megaphone gets up on his Powell Street pulpit condemning gays, heretics, non-Christians and so on, he's blabbing and making noise (apparently, he's within ordinance as SFPD never takes him down, since his Mr. Megaphone is not amplified via a generator or exceeding some decibel level, I guess...), he is making noise pollution, but at least one can walk away.
Flyers dropped or abandoned mean the message contained is simply not wanted. The content doesn't matter, unless it's pron, I guess, in which case we generally DON'T want the stuff face-up for kids and sensitive/easily-offended types to see. I guess I'm just sick and tired of seeing religious/belief paraphernalia on the street because its CONTENT is utterly rejected by 90% of those into whose hands it was stuck or taken out of sympathy for the pushers of it.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Agreed, but have you have noticed that Mormons tend to be really nice people? I'm serious. It's like Romney -- no one can really find fault with him except to say his hair is too perfect, that he's just a successful businessman, or that he's Mormon.
:) But see, that's the thing. As a Mormon, I know lots of good Mormons who really, really shouldn't be president.
I'm a Mormon, and while I appreciate the kind generalization, I definitely find him lacking on a number of fronts, including his ability to say anything inspiring during faith-related discussion or respond coherently to attacks on that front. There's also the fact that his about-face on several issues seem so conveniently timed it seems likely he's being phony... plus there's his endorsement of (and being endorsed in return by) Ann Coulter, plus the "double guantanamo" statement he made that, and in general a willingness to engage in a kind of republican political rhetoric that was never really high to begin with but is really, really starting to show its wear. Then there's the point that we've already elected a single-term governor from a family dynasty with political connections who has experience in business and managing a sports franchise, and that didn't really didn't work out so well, now, did it? All in all, I'd have to be pretty desperate to vote for him.
He does seem like he's probably a good Mormon, though.
Mormons, at least in my experience, tend to be shiny happy people that don't really bother anyone. Even the ex-Mormons I've met seem to have few bad things to say and if they do, you can't help but notice there's a certain lingering nostalgia in their eyes. That's not to say their beliefs aren't loony, but if members of cults were as benign as the typical Mormon, I wonder if anyone would notice, or care.
There's two things that I think make Mormons like this. One is that the religion itself is seen very much by its members as a serious spiritual practice as much as anything else -- its cosmological aspects are tied up in that, and it has sociopolitical implications, but it's not a cosmology or sociopolitical blueprint first (there are times in its history when that has been less true, especially the first 60 years, but that's another point). My experience suggests to me that people who have a faith that they take seriously as a spiritual practice tend to also be as you describe -- nice, happy shiny people. This isn't to say I don't think Mormonism has anything particular to distinguish itself, but I think this is the most important element. Having a serious spiritual practice of some kind is grounding and can inspire a real tranquility knowing you have a strong idea about your place in the world and working to play that part as well as you can. Combine it with basic rules of common decency and you get good people.
The other thing -- Mormons have long been different enough (and indeed, for some portion of their history, genuinely persecuted and hated) that they really, really want to be accepted and legitimized by mainstream society. There's also a religious desire to be a "light of the world", "city on a hill" (Matthew 5:14-16) in their communities. It adds up to a desire to excel and succeed that's probably a tad beyond the protestant work ethic, and I think when that combines with the basic decency and spiritual grounding, it does produce people that are respected in their communities.
This is, however, a generalization, and as an insider, I see this community of mine as far from perfect. In particular, I've seen a lot of that desire to be legitimized and excel turn to elitism, materialism, and a misplaced sense of destiny that can border on a naive entitlement (interesting considering there are specific and serious warnings about this hazard in Mormon canon). And the collapsed quasi-Mormon cosmology that passes for political philosophy in staunch Republican Utah can be really, seriously crazy. I say all this partly to acknowledge it's not all shiny happy people
Tweet, tweet.
Yes, that's right. EST was founded by the guy who co-founded Scientology with L. Ron Hubbard. My recollection is that he and L. Ron did it on a bet. Landmark Forum is what they renamed EST after the followers undertook what was essentially an employee buyout. They moderated some of the more abusive practices of EST, but much of the language has a direct heritage to Scientology. For instance, they still talk about "getting clear." A "Clear" or "Theta Clear" is what a Scientologist aspires to be.
The interesting thing about Landmark, Scientology, and other cults is that a person's susceptibility to them has nothing to do with intelligence. Very smart people fall prey to them, too. The ability to resist is far more predicated on how emotionally stable you are. But if you're well-adjusted already, there's little chance you'd be interested in Landmark or Scientology in the first place. It's a rather self-selected group that Scientology and Landmark target; when people walk through their door they're pretty certain the person has some kind of issues or weak spots, and all they have to do is probe until they find them and the person breaks down. Then they pounce.
If your father is tangled up in Landmark, the worst thing you can do is to try to get them to stop or make them feel like you oppose what they're doing. That plays into the sense of alienation that cults try to create between their followers and their friends and families. In other words opposing what he's doing would accelerate his abandonment of his relationship with you.
The best thing to do is be loving and supportive without getting sucked in yourself. Try to be and remain his window on normalcy. Of the people that I've seen escape from Landmark and Scientology, it's because their friends and family stayed engaged and supportive. Eventually they realize how weird the group think is and also come to the conclusion that being a Scientologist or Landmark member hasn't solved their problems either. They grow disenchanted on their own.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I kiiinda like Obama and realize the "he's a muslim" chain emails are very dishonest, but I don't really think there's anything wrong with being a Muslim so long as you don't think Jihad=kill those you disagree with. I do not appreciate my truthful comments being lumped in with that sort of obvious smear, and you kinda owe me an apology for suggesting my claims are on that level.
But let's permit Ron Paul to explain his views on Obama, who we all can see is clearly a BLACK PERSON.
"[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists--and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."
Chief, I understand your skepticism. After all, I accused a man of accepting donations from neo-nazis. That's so horrible it's tough to believe. Anyone who would accept support from nazis is totally unfit for anything good. I can't believe I almost forgot a link, since apparently this is first you've heard of it: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/
And I also accuse Ron of writing racist hate-speech, and lying about it. That's pretty damn extreme, as far as accusations go. Anyone who wrote the things I refer to is a monster, and any of Ron's supporters who would actually attempt to hide the truth, as this fucker does: http://revolusion2008.blogspot.com/2008/01/conscience-of-ron-paul-supporter.html, is also a monster. Worse than most Scientologists, possibly. And anyone who knows about Lisa McPhereson knows that Scientologists are monsters too.
I'm a bit surprised that a slashdot reader is unaware of these well-worn, practically old facts. I don't watch TV news often or listen to talk radio, so maybe this stuff isn't as well known out there as it should be. I feel as though a demand to prove what is as obvious about Ron is akin to demanding proof of the moon landing or 9/11 being caused by terrorists. I don't think every assertion that slams a monster like Ron Paul must have citations. I'm just having a conversation, not building an indictment.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php this is one expose that was pretty well written. The author was actually a fairly outspoken Ron Paul supporter. Gave him money, helped organize efforts, etc. But unlike some, this supporter stopped supporting Ron Paul when it became obvious Ron Paul is a monster. This is not someone who is biased against Ron Paul, this is someone who was biased in FAVOR of Ron Paul's presidential promises.
Some actually say Ron didn't write that stuff. But Ron's bank account paid for the publishing, and Ron signed the checks. Could a normal sane person pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to print racist stuff signed in the sane person's name? Also, why don't you actually read the newsletter: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pdf/RonPaul-december1990.pdf
The author of the hate literature seems to believe he is married to Ron Paul's wife and grandparent to Ron Paul's grandkids and represents Texas's 14th congressional district (Paul's district). That's not hard to explain, because Ron Paul is the author of this newsletter and all the others that say:
"The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics."
"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained
Free speech is free speech when it is a spoken 'opinion', however, free speech ain't free with it is the false statement of facts used to obtain money. That is generally considered as fraud and has some rather substantial costs associated with it, so not always free ;).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen