"Anonymous" Takes Scientology Protest to the Streets

This past Sunday members of the group "Anonymous" that has been running an attack on the church of Scientology took their battle from the tubes of the internet to the pavement of real life, staging a protest outside the central Phoenix Church of Scientology. "The protesters said they gathered Sunday in lieu of the birthday of Lisa McPherson, a Scientologist once cared for by church staffers. Her 1995 death sparked media attention and a civil wrongful death suit against a branch of the Church of Scientology. A wrongful death suit by her family was a public-relations nightmare for the church for years until it was settled in 2004. The Church of Scientology declined to comment on the Phoenix protests. It did provide a news release calling members of Anonymous cyber-terrorists."

Comments

Balanced view.

[Besna]

I've tried to take an objective look at Scientology. I am not a theist (atheist), but do think reincarnation is plausible. Something must be retained from death to birth, so that might as well be called a thetan. Much of the rest of Scientology seems like reasonable psychology as well--dualist, but without the supernatural. Certainly no obvious fairy tales, like Christian, Jewish, or Islamic miracles. I think the antagonism to psychiatry is the result of wanting to know what we don't yet--this aspect leads to unfortunate incidents such as this. If you strip away the secrecy and celebrity, there are some interesting ideas there.

Re:Balanced view.

[nuzak]

> Something must be retained from death to birth

Never mind proof, what indication do you even have of this other than your gut feeling?

Re:Balanced view.

[JamesRose]

How do you take a balanced view of a religion that wont tell you it's beleifs before you've bought into it. Where did you get the information? How do you guarentee it's accurate.

Re:Balanced view.

[cthulu_mt]

Something must be retained from death to birth Got some evidence for this? Otherwise please head to the back of the classroom.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the evil Lord Xenu and space ships that look like DC-9's?

Re:Balanced view.

[Zaharazod]

No obvious fairy tales?

Re:Balanced view.

[Swordopolis]

From Wikipedia:

"The Galactic Confederacy's civilization was comparable to our own, with aliens "walking around in clothes which looked very remarkably like the clothes they wear this very minute" and using cars, trains and boats looking exactly the same as those "circa 1950, 1960" on Earth. Xenu was about to be deposed from power, so he devised a plot to eliminate the excess population from his dominions. With the assistance of "renegades", he defeated the populace and the "Loyal Officers", a force for good that was opposed to Xenu. Then, with the assistance of psychiatrists, he summoned billions[1] of his citizens together to paralyze them with injections of alcohol and glycol, under the pretense that they were being called for "income tax inspections". The kidnapped populace was loaded into spacecraft for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). The spacecraft were identical to the Douglas DC-8 with the exception of having different engines."

The "origins" story of Scientology is total bunk that sounds like bad sci-fi written by a sleep-deprived crackhead. You can't even spin this as a parable like with Biblical accounts, etc. It's just plain trash that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you strip away the secrecy and celebrity, there are some interesting ideas there.

... not to forget: mental manipulation, extorsion, etc...

When you strip all that away, the whole house of cards falls apart (which is a measure how interesting it all is, i.e. zero).

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

don't crush his fairy tale.

I'm an xian and love intellectual honesty.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly no obvious fairy tales, like Christian, Jewish, or Islamic miracles. Yeah nothing like things supposedly during time periods orders of magnitude longer ago than the approximate age of the universe.

As wacky, maybe. Less wacky, no.

Re:Balanced view.

[cheesee]

Without the supernatural? Travelling to earth on rocket powered airplanes and huge aliens blowing up volcanoes with thermonuclear weapons? Well, I do suppose its more science fiction than supernatural

Re:Balanced view.

[jedidiah]

No. The antagonism to psychiatry is clearly a a conflict of interest.
They want you to go to them and give them your money rather that you
giving it to a shrink. You can't really read ANY of Hubbard's stuff
and not realize this.

This includes his fiction as well as his pseudo-fiction.

Scientology: Come spend your money here! ---

Re:Balanced view.

[popmaker]

Like the idea that Xenu, the giant space monster, trapped our real souls in a volcano? Plausible.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you look at a religion, what's important is not how absurd the beliefs are (they all are otherwise it wouldn't be a religion). What matters is what the people (and especially high up in the hierarchy) do. And what the scientologists do is scary. Not that they have a monopoly on being scary, radical Islamists and especially the US radical Christians (that are no worse but have the power to do a lot more damage) scare the hell out of me as well.

Re:Balanced view.

[NothingMore]

Anon doesnt have an issue with the religious views of the church. They have an issue with the church itself which is why in one of there recent videos they talk about the "Free Zone" (People who follow the beliefs of the religion but are not affiliated with Scientology) which they have no issues with.

Re:Balanced view.

[Hatta]

I am not a theist (atheist), but do think reincarnation is plausible. Something must be retained from death to birth, so that might as well be called a thetan.

Why do you suppose that "something must be retained from death to birth"? Other than energy being conserved, that is.

Much of the rest of Scientology seems like reasonable psychology as well--dualist, but without the supernatural

Dualism is supernatural.

Certainly no obvious fairy tales, like Christian, Jewish, or Islamic miracles.

Uh, what? Have you ever heard of Xenu?

I think the antagonism to psychiatry is the result of wanting to know what we don't yet--this aspect leads to unfortunate incidents such as this.

No, they just don't want the competition. It's bad for the bottom line.

If you strip away the secrecy and celebrity, there are some interesting ideas there.

Such as?

Re:Balanced view.

[91degrees]

The "origins" story of Scientology is total bunk that sounds like bad sci-fi written by a sleep-deprived crackhead. You can't even spin this as a parable like with Biblical accounts, etc. It's just plain trash that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is a for-profit organisation masquerading as a religion, the secrecy, their aggressive legal tactics, their apparent refusal to ever apologise for any mistake they've made, and their underhand tactics to get and keep recruits.

Re:Balanced view.

[Besna]

I meant that it would follow from the plausible reasoning of reincarnation. Taken out of context, it seems like I'm asserting something that I am not.

Re:Balanced view.

[onion2k]

"Much of the rest of Scientology seems like reasonable psychology" ... asking people to take a psychometric 'personality test' designed to lead them into buying into the idea and investing from tens of dollars for a book up to thousands of dollars for a course in the 'church' is far from what I would call reasonable.

As for that stuff about Xenu dropping neutron bombs into Earth's volcanoes from intergalactic DC-8s ... that wasn't an obvious a fairy tale? What do you think it was? A documentary?

Re:Balanced view.

[Trauma_Hound1]

You would think, if they could accomplish intergalactic travel in DC-8's with different engines, they would have something better than 1950/60's era cars and trains.

Re:Balanced view.

[KublaiKhan]

Interestingly, it's not the beliefs of Scientology that were being protested--if you read through some of the more recent Anonymous releases, you'll note that they emphasize that it's the organization that calls itself the Church of Scientology that's being protested, on account of its practices.

Anonymous has explicitly noted that the "Free Zone"--that is, the Scientologists outside the organization--are just fine and dandy.

O'course, the "Free Zone" doesn't charge for its teaching...

But I don't think the antagonism against psychiatry is what you think it is--I think it's more a control structure (given that the auditing, in essence, imparts a codependent relationship between the auditee and the auditor (and by extension, the CoS)). Also worth noting is that the founder, Mr. Hubbard, had a very distinct antipathy towards the profession, and which created certain aspects of Scientology specifically to counter standard psychiatric practice.

I would note that, while not a member per se of Anonymous, I do think that their efforts against Scientology are a good thing, and were carried out remarkably peacefully and with remarkably good organization.

(I've also heard there's more planned for 3/15--beware the Ides of March!)

Re:Balanced view.

[gandhi_2]

I don't know man. It sounds legit.

Re:Balanced view.

[n9hmg]

Man! Accepting even your first principle requires a large complex, and unsupported leap of faith.

Re:Balanced view.

[Atzanteol]

Wait... Which religion are you talking about again?

Re:Balanced view.

[Gideon Fubar]

of course.. L. Ron only said they look like 1950/60's era cars and trains. They were reality-retconned, because Xenu is a psychic alien who can see the future.

sheesh.. is it really that hard to work out? ;)

Re:Balanced view.

[nebulus4]

Evidence? You just know this, just like when "you drive by an accident, you know you have to do something about it, because you know you're the only one who can really help."

Re:Balanced view.

[PachmanP]

Never mind proof, what indication do you even have of this other than your gut feeling?
He said he was an atheist; he never indicated that he was guided by reason/logic/scientific method.
Remember kids,
Atheist does not imply scientist/logician

Re:Balanced view.

[easyTree]

The "origins" story of Scientology is total bunk that sounds like bad sci-fi written by a sleep-deprived crackhead.

Yep, L. Ron Hubbard, to be precise; sci-fi author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

Re:Balanced view.

[epiphani]

Easy. You talk to the people who've left it.

Voiceless

Thats one. There are hundreds, if not thousands, more. Including the niece of David Miscavish (the current leader of scientology).

Come on people, the information is out there. You can easily take a balanced view by READING the accounts of the hundreds of people who've been victimized. Look up Paulette Cooper. Shes still alive today to tell her story of being harassed and sued for 15 straight years.

Re:Balanced view.

[WilliamSChips]

Most religions(the Vatican notwithstanding) don't withhold their most sacred texts, and you can find the Bible or Qu'ran or Torah or whatever Hindus read on the Internet, usually posted by their most ardent followers. With Scientology, you can only find them on places like Operation Clambake. (Actually, for that matter, the Vatican mostly withholds texts of other religions...)

Re:Balanced view.

[JustOK]

Prove to me that YOU exist first.

Re:Balanced view.

[sumdumass]

Lol.. A religion doesn't have to be absurd. All that is necessary is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. That was taken from the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary.

In fact, there have been some people who push science as a religion. You wouldn't say science is absurd would you?

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

...I think it's more a control structure (given that the auditing, in essence, imparts a codependent relationship between the auditee and the auditor...

Much like the practice of confessional among Catholics.

Re:Balanced view.

[Hal_Porter]

Something must be retained from death to birth,

NO! When you die that's it. Your mind is just software running on the hardware that is your brain. When you brain dies and rots away, that's it. Information is lost when you die, and that information is YOU.

Incidentally if Jehovas Witnesses/Mormons/Christians approach you with pamphlets, say this in the tone you would talk to a disobedient dog whilst looking them full in the eye you can sometimes see a flicker of doubt. Fear even.

Re:Balanced view.

[mattsgotredhair]

How do you take a balanced view of a religion that wont tell you it's beleifs before you've bought into it.

I wanted to stress that you really meant that you have to buy into it. The course to actually learn about Xenu costs $750 alone! Individually the courses to become a "clear" cost over $4500!

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is a for-profit organisation masquerading as a religion, the secrecy, their aggressive legal tactics, their apparent refusal to ever apologise for any mistake they've made, and their underhand tactics to get and keep recruits.

In the beginning was the Plan.

And then came the Assumptions.

And the Assumptions were without form.

And the Plan was without substance. And darkness was upon the face of the Workers.

And they spoke amongst themselves, saying, "it is a crock of Shit, and it stinketh."

And the workers went unto their supervisors and said 'It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odour thereof.'

And the supervisors went unto the managers, saying 'It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it.'

And the managers went unto their directors saying, 'it is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide it's strength.'

And the Directors talked amongst themselves, saying to one another, 'It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very powerful.'

And the Vice Presidents went unto the President, saying unto him, this new Plan will actively promote the growth and vigour of the company, with powerful effects.'

And the President looked upon the Plan, and saw that it was good.

And the Plan became Policy.

This is how shit happens!

Re:Balanced view.

[KublaiKhan]

True, but there is one major difference between the confessional and an auditing session:

The regulations of the Catholic church are very strict that what is said in the confessional -stays- in the confessional under all circumstances (except for a -very- restricted few).

The Church of Scientology -says- that what is said stays confidential, but routinely uses any information obtained during an audit as either a method of coercing the auditee to take more auditing sessions, to refrain from leaving the Church of Scientology, or to attack the ex-Scientologist when they have left with blackmail, or ruining their reputation in the community.

This has been documented by nearly every ex-scientologist--sometimes, all three instances.

Re:Balanced view.

[cayenne8]

"How do you take a balanced view of a religion that wont tell you it's beleifs before you've bought into it. Where did you get the information? How do you guarentee it's accurate."

Well, you see...with $cientology, that's where the money comes into play.

Re:Balanced view.

[n9hmg]

Done, but I can't figure out how to prove to myself that there's anyone to prove it to.

Re:Balanced view.

[cayenne8]

"Without the supernatural? Travelling to earth on rocket powered airplanes and huge aliens blowing up volcanoes with thermonuclear weapons? Well, I do suppose its more science fiction than supernatural"

Well, still...it makes more sense, and is more peaceful than the Koran.

Re:Balanced view.

[KDR_11k]

You mean it's necessitated by the definition of reincarnation (if nothing was retained it wouldn't be connected at all and therefore not reincarnation) but that's not a really useful statement since there's nothing that indicates reincarnation may be true. It's like proving a fire breathing dragon must have a beefy arm, as long as we're talking about fiction the proof is of no use.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh. I am not a theist (atheist). Sounds like a fucking contradiction to me. Separate the a from theist and BAM!

Re:Balanced view.

[KDR_11k]

No, that's the law, at least in some countries it's punishable to ignore an accident if help was needed.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

> they all are otherwise it wouldn't be a religion.
Defining absurd something outside the realm of logic is a cop out. OTOH putting directives in the transcendent / God told me to do that, that is outside the realm of logic, is a cop out too, and the reason why religion is powerful. But it's still to be proved that all directives were artificial.

> radical Christians... scare the hell out of me as well.
Well that was the whole point, no?
Jokes aside, radical Christians is an oxymoron when applied to people that do not behave as that guy Jesus did. He said love thy enemy, stopped the disciples cutting ears off enemies, he and his first disciples were the ones who got nailed not the one extorting confessions using torture.
And it's written that hiding behind their label won't help them if their God exists.

Re:Balanced view.

[mrchaotica]

All that is necessary is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

If it's not absurd, you don't need "ardor and faith" to believe it!

Re:Balanced view.

[elronxenu]

Sorry, but much of Scientology is crap - Hubbard's ramblings dressed up as scientific research.

Scientology claims Hubbard's techniques work all the time but they don't, and are actually quite a good way of siphoning money from the user. Scientology doesn't submit Hubbard's writing for independent analysis because the organisation in fact is deeply anti-scientific. Their claims of a scientific basis for Hubbard's techniques are about as strong as those of the "psychics" who write horoscopes for the newspaper. It impresses people who have heard of Science and think its kinda cool, but who have no idea what actual Science is.

Scientology the organisation is paranoid, litigious, deceitful, cruel -- sharing many of Hubbard's personal characteristics -- and is ultimately a blight upon humanity. This is the aspect which Anonymous is targeting. Scientology kills people, it harasses, it's a bully who will plant fake evidence on you and then call the cops. It drives its members insane - and runs a forced-labour camp called the RPF.

The antagonism to Psychiatry is because it's a competitor to Scientology in the "healing the mind" market, and because Psychiatry, proceeding according to actual scientific principles, is in probably the best position to know what nonsense Scientology is.

Scientology, like many cults, preys on peoples' need to be part of a group. They use standard cult tactics like smothering new members with attention and building up of dependence upon the group. Bait and Switch is used to increase income from services as there is always another course which needs to be done, or some "urgent" problem in the member's psyche which needs to be "handled" (for a price). The auditing process provides the member with the desired "fix" of attention, and the probing personal questions of a Security Check provide Scientology with excellent blackmail material.

Finally, if you were wondering about my handle ... no, I've never been a Scientologist. But they threatened to sue me, and so I investigated them, and was disgusted by what I found. This is an evil organisation if ever there was one. Calling myself 'elronxenu' is just a small thing; they're very sensitive to the name Xenu and often self-censor it, so they'd probably refer to me in their dossier as 'elron****'. Yes, they do keep dossiers on people who criticise them. Mine is probably pretty thin, as they'd probably consider me only a minor nuisance, unlike a full-blown enemy such as David Gerard.

Re:Balanced view.

[KDR_11k]

In fact, there have been some people who push science as a religion. You wouldn't say science is absurd would you?

No but most of the attempts to equal it to a religion do so to make it seem absurd. Science does not require faith, it requires evidence.

Re:Balanced view.

[JustOK]

Your proof is...lacking something. oh yah, facts and data. Otherwise, you're just another one of the voices in my head, where everything else exists. While you're in there, check out the new stores on the mall by my medulla oblongata off-ramp.

Re:Balanced view.

[uglydog]

I don't think s/he needs to exist is order to get an answer to why "Something must be retained from death to birth." That is the statement that is used to suggest that reincarnation is possible. First, the statement assumes that birth follows death, so you are already assuming reincarnation is possible. Why must something be retained from death to birth? Then we can talk about what that something is.

Now, before you start saying 'What is death','What is birth': I don't think we need to be overly critical. The original poster used those terms without definition so I am assuming they are the standard terms used by people. For example, death could be when brain function ceases.

It's like here we are talking about Euclidean geometry and you come up and start arguing about parallel lines intersecting at infinity. All well and good, but not relevant in Euclidean geometry. There are just certain things we take as axioms when discussing a particular topic.

Re:Balanced view.

[HappyDrgn]

Those of the Hindu faith read the Sruti and the Smriti.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether you try to take my life, mind, and children using love and sweet lies, or with cruel and aggressive tactics, it's really the same thing to me.

At least Scientology is an obvious enemy. Other religions are not so plain in their motives and outcomes.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to read more about this vatican withholding thing, could you google a web site or wikipedia article for me, i cant seem to find it...

Re:Balanced view.

[sumdumass]

And when there is lack of evidence and conclusions are drawn from other evidences, you have faith, or a form of it. Faith in that the conclusions in the absence of evidence are correct or will be. But it isn't just the faith like that I am talking about, it is the people who believe it is correct because it is science and science is the true way, not because the other evidence leaves little doubt.

And yes, you can find people like this quite often on slashdot. Just look around.

Re:Balanced view.

[SolemnLord]

I'm curious as to what "most sacred texts" you think the Vatican is hiding.
The Vatican has secrets, yes (and its own top-secret archives, full of holy materials like financial records and correspondence), but salvation is only found in [the Church's interpretation of] the Bible. The end.

Re:Balanced view.

[aussie_a]

Most religions(the Vatican notwithstanding) don't withhold their most sacred texts ANYMORE. They use to. Just give Scientology as much time as the others have had and their sacred texts will be public as well.

Re:Balanced view.

[SashaMan]

Except by your method you are guaranteed to get an UNbalanced view. It's called sample bias. If you restrict your sample to only people who left the church, you are guaranteed to get a higher proportion of disgruntled (rightly or wrongly) views. After all, if you loved the church, you probably wouldn't have a reason to leave. Note this goes for many different types of groups. If you go to South Florida you would think that every Cuban despises Castro and communism. Of course, the Cubans who hate Castro the most have the biggest reason to leave, while those that love him stay in Cuba.

Re:Balanced view.

[uglydog]

My bad. I read it over, and I think the OP assumed reincarnation was possible and so it follows "something must be retained from death to birth." So OP has to explain why reincarnation is plausible. Either way, OP is just saying stuff without proof or evidence. So the onus is on OP to prove or support their point before we can respond with a rational argument.

Re:Balanced view.

[ggwood]

Ran into a guy once who was in debt to Scientology. Apparently for a massive amount of money. It was very important to him to pay this off and to give them even more to "advance" within Scientology. I did not ask him but from everything I have read the story changes as you advance. These factors, in addition to what was mentioned above combine to separate Scientology from any major religion (in their current forms).

It should be trivial to separate Scientology from real religions. Whether or not you give genuine religions a tax break on property based on this is another story and one I don't particularly care about.

Re:Balanced view.

[cthulu_mt]

Yeah, cause the EMS and a few county sheriff's cars are there already. So I do just keep driving.

Re:Balanced view.

[OldFish]

The ghost IS the machine. Grow up. Dead is dead. Gone is gone. It's your choice whether you want to face reality or not. Religion is s form of self-medication. Free mental opiates. For the fearful. For fools.

Re:Balanced view.

[Ekhymosis]

I find your lack of faith...disturbing. =)

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, my take on this is that it's a bullshit test. If you will swallow that one whole, you will believe or do anything they say. If you accept this load of crap, they know they have you for real.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

> No. The antagonism to psychiatry is clearly a a conflict of interest.

Actually, I think the antagonism to psychiatry was because L Ron didn't like them telling him he was nuts.

Re:Balanced view.

[Zorque]

Yeah, that whole space planes carrying people to Earth, gathering them around volcanoes, blowing them up with hydrogen bombs, then netting their souls with electric nets and taking them to theaters to implant lies into their memories and the souls balling up and becoming people isn't a fairy tale at all. The Marcabian race of aliens planting invisible satellite dishes on Earth to transmit false thoughts into our heads actually happens, and we evolved from space clams. You're not taking an objective look, you're taking a selective look.

Re:Balanced view.

[sumdumass]

Yes you do, if it isn't proven with facts or evidence but still plausible, it isn't absurd. And there are quite a few topics like this in science that people on slashdot have expressed as true or fact because they have the faith in science. Science is the one true way.

But lets get away from science and look at Buddhist It is a religion about a way of life and I don't think it has one absurd thing about it unless your using a weird definition of absurd. (well, I could no be as shard on Buddhism as I think I am)

Re:Balanced view.

[fireforadrymouth]

In Hinduism there isn't a text that is a must for its' followers. One can get to Eternal Bliss(tm) without reading the sacred texts. The Vedas are arguably the oldest sacred texts that are still used.

Re:Balanced view.

[revengebomber]

If you don't derive your truth from logic and observation, nor from divine enlightenment, then...

Wait, so there's a belief system out there where you can just pull truth out of your ass?

Re:Balanced view.

[Fieryphoenix]

He said the thought something was plausible. He didn't proclaim any truth.

Re:Balanced view.

[Grave]

Yes, I believe they call it politics.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

...but snide comments imply a big, hurt ego.

Re:Balanced view.

[rickb928]

"Most religions(the Vatican notwithstanding) don't withhold their most sacred texts"

Before the Reformation and Gutenberg, getting a copy of the Holy Bible meant going to your local Catholic church, where the priests were more than happy to interpret it for you. Badly, I suspect.

To this day, IIRC, your Catholic priest would prefer you ask him what it means. And a careful reading of the New Testament could leave you with the impression that the Catholic Church is, in fact, not practicing Christianity.

And to be fair, neither are many if not most TV and other Evangelists. It's so simple, unless you're asking for money.

Written by a Christian. Trying to keep it simple.

Re:Balanced view.

[renegadesx]

Something must be retained from death to birth
Too much Assassins Creed anyone?

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

prove it. Of course , we're unable to prove the opposite, too.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by the Church of Scientology International]

Re:Balanced view.

[tony1343]

Uh, no. Under Catholicism, salvation is found through faith and good works. So not the end! Protestantism faith alone matters (at least many of its denominations).

Re:Balanced view.

[nuzak]

I don't care if he said he was a pastafarian. I asked for some sort of observation independent of his belief structure. I mean, if you're claiming something could exist, it helps to know what you're even looking for.

Re:Balanced view.

[Zencyde]

Yes; but, it's reserved for the highest members of any religious organization. : )

Re:Balanced view.

[am 2k]

Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion.
- L. Ron Hubbard

Re:Balanced view.

[Adambomb]

Reading your post triggered a little tangent in my head.

Is it just me, or does the entire Scientology construct simply seem like a really really expensive, poorly written sci-fi based MMO that is ridiculously expensive to unlock new content and with which you are directed within instead of interacting with?

Explains why actors are into it, they can afford the next expansion.

Re:Balanced view.

[ThinkTwice]

I'm not on either side, but the Anonymous group seems to be practicing secrecy and aggressive legal tactics.

Who are they and who are they going to attack next?

They must have some religious views that don't agree with other religions too.

They could be worse than the group they are attacking.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Xenu story is revealed only when the scientologist has paid enough to get to OT III level (OT stands for operating thetan). It's not until you get to OT VIII (which very few ever do) that you learn:

• L. Ron Hubbard was the anti-christ, but in a good way, as well as the reincarnation of the Buddha, who was supposed to return at some point as Metteyya
• Jesus Christ was actually a bisexual pedophile who slept with underage boys and girls

For tons of fun and some incredibly bad science-fiction, you can read all the top-secret Scientology documents here. They were released as part of a court case.

Re:Balanced view.

[thomasw_lrd]

Science takes a whole hell of a lot more faith than religion. When the evidence doesn't support the conclusion, make up new trials until it does. And yes I'm a conservative, right-wing, radical christian. ,

Re:Balanced view.

[DragonWriter]

Before the Reformation and Gutenberg, getting a copy of the Holy Bible meant going to your local Catholic church, where the priests were more than happy to interpret it for you.

Well, before Gutenberg, copies of the Bible were outrageously expensive to produce, which was a factor here. (That the most common copies were in Latin, and the few non-Latin copies were mostly translations of various copies from the Latin Vulgate and of increased distance from the sources was another barrier.)

Badly, I suspect.

Well, likely "badly" from the point of view of a non-Catholic Christian (although many of the early leaders of the Protestant churches had been Catholic clergy, so maybe not).

To this day, IIRC, your Catholic priest would prefer you ask him what it means.

If you recall correctly? So you used to know the personal preferences of Catholic priests but aren't certain you remember them right? My experience is that Catholic Churches tend to both conduct Bible studies and to give out Bibles in, e.g., Confirmation classes, which is rather strange behavior if you don't want people to read the Bible.

Re:Balanced view.

[njfuzzy]

I apparently read the grandparent post completely differently. I took it to mean that *if* you accept the idea of reincarnation, the way it would work would logically require something to carry over from death to (re-)birth, and that that thing could be what they call a "Thetan".

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no balanced view asking weather "the church of Scientology is run as a cult or a religion?"m its the same as "was Hitler evil?" or "Is creationism as a valid scientific theory?", the counter arguments simply arnt there. Its a shame this didnt get slashdoted earlier, it was a combination of a geek fest (internet memes going round like there was no tomorrow), and standing up for YRO, two things people here seam to understand.

Re:Balanced view.

[mrdarreng]

...Certainly no obvious fairy tales, like Christian, Jewish, or Islamic miracles. I got one word for you, "Xenu".

Re:Balanced view.

[jmccay]

Have you tried to read Dianetics? I tried. It read like a lot of double talk. Have you ever read any Scientology documents? I got to once--before the site was shut down. It was overseas I think. It read like a Science Fiction novel. It was a weird, and these people believe this stuff. Any religion where most of it's documents are shrouded in secrecy and mystery is really a cult. Plain and simple. Scientology happens to be a very rich cult. Ever hear what happens when you publish one of their secret documents on line? You get your computer taken away from you. The use the money they suck out of Will Smith, Tom Cruise, and everyone else to keep it a secret. What do they have to hide? Now, take a look at the majority of the other major religions. You can go to a bookstore, buy a book (or two, or three), and after reading it, you can know most of what there is to know about that religion. It doesn't mean you will be an expert or completely understand the teaching, but you have access to the teaching openly without having to join. That goes for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Frankly, Scientology appears to above the law in most countries because they can buy their way around the countries. Personally, I think L. Ron Hubbard flipped his lid and started to REALLY get into his characters while working on a story, or two, which was soon followed by believing it completely. Did anyone else notice that the Scientology took a page from the Liberals play book:

'Anonymous' is perpetrating religious hate crimes against Churches of Scientology and individual Scientologists for no reason other than religious bigotry," read the statement.

That sounds similar to stuff I have heard from liberals when they couldn't debate the facts. It reminds me of HIllary's "vast right wing conspiracy" comments during her husband's presidency. Maybe Scientology should publish all there material. I don't blame these people for staying anonymous! I would too if I was boycotting Scientology. I would like to keep my stuff and not be harassed!

Re:Balanced view.

[Hal_Porter]

prove it. Of course , we're unable to prove the opposite, too.

Ok, hypothetically let's say you are an atheist and I believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn will intervene and grant me eternal life and I try to convince you that this is the case and that if you accept him as your saviour, forsaking all others, he will do the same for you. Now I can't prove the IPU exists and you can't prove he doesn't.

In that case would you believe in the IPU? If yes, what about my friend who tells you you will be saved, but only if you worship exclusively the One True God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Remember both of them won't tolerate worship of the other.

Or would you be agnostic about him? It seems like a good idea until you realise that you're actually agnostic about every deity ever proposed, even the ones that people fabricated in a couple of minutes to win arguments on the Internet. You don't believe in one of them anymore than you believe in Santa Claus actually. And it doesn't do you any good if any of them do exist because of the damn exclusivity clauses.

Or do you decide the IPU/FSM/God/Santa Claus is just wishful thinking?

Re:Balanced view.

[SolemnLord]

Well, yeah, you're right (and I knew this, growing up Catholic). The Church interprets the Bible as requiring faith and good works in order to achieve salvation. If you're not following the Church's interpretation and related doctrine, sorry, no salvation for you (although not necessarily an automatic ticket on the bullet-train to heck, either, unlike some flavours of Protestantism).

Re:Balanced view.

[PopeRatzo]

I just hope these boys take precautions. I understand these Scientology hairpins don't play. It seems people have been hurt messing with them.

If this recent infamous Tom Cruise video is an example of the emotional state of your average Scientologist, I think there's good reason to treat them as if they were dangerous and capable of just about anything.

A joke's a joke and I enjoy seeing nutballs tweaked as much as the next guy, but these folks seem to have snakes in the brain pan and enough money to insulate them from the usual rules of civilization.

Re:Balanced view.

[rickb928]

Well, the Reformation certainly shook things up. Printing presses came along at just the right time, indeed. Before that, you were pretty much stuck with going to church to hear the Scripture.

As for my recollections of Catholic priests' personal preferences, I have very few. But their doctrine is not so much a matter of personal preference (save that they should at least serve because they believe, and so their personal preference is assumed, by me at least, to agree with Papal doctrine) but of Chirch doctrine and policy. I didn't state that Catholic priests prefer that you NOT READ the Bible, but that they prefer you share their interpretation of it.

So, as a former Catholic, I'm left with several important dillemas. Do I believe that my ppriest is my intercessor before God, or is it Christ? Do I still go to Confession, or can I confess to Christ directly, or even to God? Do I take Communion as the literal flesh of Jesus, transubstantiated in the hand of the priest as I take it into my mouth, or do I recognise the elements of Communion as representative of Christ's sacrifice? The issue of Communion is an important one, and the Catholic Church stakes a lot on it. And yes, wrongly in my opinion, as you can guess.

All religions are subject to interpretation, and all I suspect get pretty thoroughly distorted at one time or another. Scientology, I wonder, isn't so much distorted. L. Ron seems to have gotten it just as he intended. Christianity is not nearly so monolithic, or course, if only because it has a much larger following. Harder to control.

In case you're wondering, I know many Catholics, and I trust in their faith, that is I believe they believe. Their Church may be flawed, but I don't encourage them to abandon it. I encourage them to cling to Scripture, and pray.

As I do you.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind proof, what indication do you even have of this other than your gut feeling?

Conservation of energy?

and on a side note... nice troll. Your question can't really be answered, got modded up to insightful and got plenty of replies.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't. But it just so happens that the latter are also very often the former as a result.

Re:Balanced view.

[ChromaticDragon]

I do believe you're on to something. However, I have always understood that the reasons actors (and a whole lot of that industry) are into this is good ole' fashion networking. Not that much different from when and why Christianity went real big after emperor Constantine converted. Everyone wanted to curry favor with the emperor and people rushed on in, Jews, pagans, all sorts of people. But these people brought on in a good number of their own practices and the church changed quite a bit.

This doesn't seem to be the case with Scientology (which actually seems a ton more like ancient Gnosticism, at least in principle), though I imagine it could be. What they need is huge and rapid influx of converts (to the point of increasing the total membership 20-fold) and another prophet or two to bring on in the updated truth. If the new prophets would hold out the "truth" free of charge, it'd likely morph Scientology on into a religion rather than the incredible parasitical oddity it is.

Until then, people have to sort of suck it on up so they can get in good with people in power in the entertainment industry. And actors are well... good at faking it.

But how else could Scientology not seem like poorly written Science Fiction given its creator (and his motives)?!? I find it so absolutely bizarre that anybody getting seriously into this couldn't do the most BASIC research into what Hubbard was doing here.

Re:Balanced view.

[budgenator]

I guess that's why their new nemesis named themselves Anonymous. These guys in Anonymous may be armatures but that doesn't mean they haven't learned from the pro's.

Re:Balanced view.

[esper]

Then, with the assistance of psychiatrists, he summoned billions[1] of his citizens together to paralyze them with injections of alcohol and glycol, under the pretense that they were being called for "income tax inspections". The kidnapped populace was loaded into spacecraft for transport to the site of extermination... ...and that is why, to this day, humans hate income taxes and fear the possibility of IRS (or other national tax agency) audits.

Re:Balanced view.

[budgenator]

It pretty well matches the rest of LRH's works; calling him a SciFi writer is an insult to the craft.

Re:Balanced view.

[ozmanjusri]

These guys in Anonymous may be armatures

They're tightly wound?

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

my definition of a "cult" is an organization that puts more value on the organization than the people within the organization.

this means there are lots of cults.

jesus was different, though, in that he valued the individual and this *really* torqued the organizations of his day.

true religion is about treating others equal to how you want to be treated (assuming sane person wants to be treated well). eternity is a long time and any kind of physical wealth doesn't even register, but how you treat others will be even more relevant 1,000,000 google years from now than it is today.

exalting an organization and, by default, its leaders, is heading in the wrong direction.

Re:Balanced view.

[DigitalWallaby]

The Marcabian race of aliens planting invisible satellite dishes on Earth to transmit false thoughts into our heads actually happens, and we evolved from space clams.

Sorry. You're completely wrong about that. The satellites and dishes are actually the property of Major League Baseball. The MLB just wants us to think we're highly evolved space clams so that we'd more receptive to wearing baseball caps without the tinfoil inserts.

Re:Balanced view.

[budgenator]

Still there is quite a bit of the religion of Christianity that doesn't make sense, or it is obvious that parts have been left out of the "official" Bible. For example to learn more about Christ's mother you'd need to go to the Qur'an, or more about his Childhood you'd need an Ethiopian Bible.

Re:Balanced view.

[ozmanjusri]

Your proof is...lacking something. oh yah, facts and data.

No, your response here is proof that you've accepted his existence, at last as well as you're capable of accepting it.

On a side note, a good sig for you might be "Those who don't read Descartes are condemned to recreate him. Badly".

Re:Balanced view.

[budgenator]

The short answer is no it's not just you, I know some people who are addicted to WOW and I've heard of some that are addicted to Co$, the biggest difference is WoW addicts tend to know WoW is fantasy and the Co$ tend to think Co$ is reality.

Re:Balanced view.

[calebt3]

Reminds me of a Philosophy joke:
A philosophy professor walks in to give his class their final. Placing his chair on his desk the professor instructs the class, "Using every applicable thing you've learned in this course, prove to me that this chair DOES NOT EXIST."

So, pencils are writing and erasers are erasing, students are preparing to embark on novels proving that this chair doesn't exist, except for one student. He spends thirty seconds writing his answer, then turns his final in to the astonishment of his peers.

Time goes by, and the day comes when all the students get their final grades...and to the amazment of the class, the student who wrote for thirty seconds gets the highest grade in the class.

His answer to the question: "What chair?"

Re:Balanced view.

[Zorque]

I'd ask for proof, but I'd really just rather see you hit some dingers.

Re:Balanced view.

[jmac1492]

Let's do a little experiment here. In fact, because it's so rare for this to happen in cases involving religion, let's scientifically disprove something using verifiable and repeatable experimentation.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Background: The Church of Scientology successfully threatened Slashdot into removing a post containing the text of a copyrighted "holy" text, and further links to the text.
Hypothesis: The Catholic Church wants to suppress its own holy text, the New American Bible. The NAB is the officially authorized translation of the Bible for use by Catholics in the United States.
Conjecture: If a Slashdot poster posts an excerpt from the NAB, along with a link to the full text, the Catholic Church will threaten Slashdot, and Slashdot will remove the post.
Experiment: I am posting the first 10 verses from the book of Genesis, Chapter One.

1 1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. 5 3 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day. 6 Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened: 7 God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. 8 God called the dome "the sky." Evening came, and morning followed--the second day. 9 Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear." And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared. 10 God called the dry land "the earth," and the basin of the water he called "the sea." God saw how good it was.

The full text of the NAB is available at http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/
Wait for priests to show up with their three chief weapons, fear, suspense, a fanatical devotion to the Pope... Can we come in again?
*crosses fingers*

I dare anyone to reproduce this experiment and get a different result than I did.

Re:Balanced view.

[fyoder]

I wanted to stress that you really meant that you have to buy into it. The course to actually learn about Xenu costs $750 alone! Individually the courses to become a "clear" cost over $4500! Some people spend more than that in a year going to a professional therapist. That's not a lot of money to become a 'clear', or 'individuated', or 'self actualized', or 'enlightened', or whatever. And for entertainment value, none of the great theorists of psychology have anything as interesting as Xenu. That's not a defense of the CoS, there's plenty you can be pissed at them about, but a $4500 therapy bill? I thought it was more than that. Are you sure that's all it costs to become a clear?

Re:Balanced view.

[IHC Navistar]

Actually, I believe that what is said during confession is not even touchable by the law. The preist is also fobidden from telling anyone what he has been told, or who told him.

Re:Balanced view.

[Darinbob]

It seems to be that the "next" level is the one that "works". When one gets to that level and superhuman powers aren't attained, then the "next" level is assured to be the one that works.

So far no one has seem to achieve the claims touted in the original Dianetics books. For all the claims of "it works" there's very little evidence presented. It has to be taken on faith, which is what makes Scientology a religion.

I have no doubt that Dianetics does help many people initially, just like any form of self hypnosis, meditation, introspection, or what not. After the amazing ground breaking results L. Ron promised for Dianetics didn't happen, Scientology started layering on more and more advanced levels.

Re:Balanced view.

[hyperball]

The antagonism to Psychiatry is because it's a competitor to Scientology in the "healing the mind" market, and because Psychiatry, proceeding according to actual scientific principles, is in probably the best position to know what nonsense Scientology is. Psychoanalysis and psychiatry are some of the best tools we have to dismantle and understand social systems* like the Church of Scientology. When you scrutinize those systems with critical analysis you can demystify, unmask and even enhance some of their methods. One of the reasons they suppress psychoanalysis would be because the CoS cannot allow itself to change into any other thing - the scam has to remain a scam, otherwise it becomes a predictable trick.

*other social systems usually include capitalism or the military complex

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

The antagonism towards psychiatry is because all the psychiatrists (rightly) told L.Ron he was certifiable.

Re:Balanced view.

[Darinbob]

[quote]The antagonism to Psychiatry is because it's a competitor to Scientology in the "healing the mind" market, and because Psychiatry, proceeding according to actual scientific principles, is in probably the best position to know what nonsense Scientology is.[/quote] I think the antagonism is because the psychiatric community were very lukewarm to Dianetics at the start and got colder over time, which made Hubbard angry that they couldn't see how much of a genius he was. Combine a big ego, a little bit of self-delusion, a little bit of paranoia, and he probably ends up assuming the psychiatric community is out to get him. Wait a few years and mix in some strange chemicals and he ends up convinced there's a huge conspiracy trying to keep our thetans subjugated.

I'm leaning towards the view that Hubbard wasn't a con-man, but that he actually believed what he told others. When he got sick he assumed there something was missing in his technology, got himself audited by others, and eventually came out with another "this is it!" level to the technology. He kept himself isolated and surrounded by people who truly believed every word he said, which only fueled his own belief in himself.

Re:Balanced view.

[hyperball]

yes, in this interview they even refer to it as "the game"

i guess it is more like an ARG

Re:Balanced view.

[JustOK]

I talk to all kinds of voices in my head each day. Doesn't mean any of them exist.

Re:Balanced view.

[MikeB0Lton]

Frankly any Christian, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, if they have the new testament they should know better. If a Protestant denomination would see it otherwise they are ignoring foundational biblical text. See below:

James 2:17-18 (New International Version)

17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

As far as the topic at hand, I find it very sad that people are so desperate to find purpose that they believe the workings of a 1950's science fiction author to be truth. Wanna get them good? Start by boycotting Cruise's films. To give him $$$ most likely means a percentage is going off to the CoS.

Re:Balanced view.

[flyneye]

No point in dyin tho.
You got a bad attitude.
You go ahead and rot.
I get my own SEX PLANET to be the God of.
If he hasn't seen your $30, you're still "Pink" to "Bob."
You don't know enough to be a pessimist boy.
http://www.subgenius.com/
Eternal Salvation or Triple your money back. I dare any other flying saucer religion especially "Church of Scientology" to make an offer like that.
They can't because its just bullshit cooked up by a moron who couldn't write decent sci-fi or hold his drugs.*poofter*

Re:Balanced view.

[schon]

If this recent infamous Tom Cruise video is an example of the emotional state of your average Scientologist, I think there's good reason to treat them as if they were dangerous and capable of just about anything. I'm reminded of this line from The Matrix:

"You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many are so hopelessly dependent on the system, they'll fight to protect it."

This is the problem with cult members - they're told that they need to be positive and loving, but the cult leaders say "hurt these people" and they do. They're too brainwashed to understand that the actions of the cult leaders are antithetical to what they preach.

Re:Balanced view.

[crashfrog]

And yes I'm a conservative, right-wing, radical christian.

I guess that explains why you don't know anything about science.

Re:Balanced view.

[rnelsonee]

Actually, I think that course might cost $10,000. Not to mention all the work you have to put into levels 1-7. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewinds

Re:Balanced view.

[gold collector]

Well it is easy to say that someone said something without giving a reference. Hardly scientific. More hearsay in fact.

a Balanced view should differentiate between the original Scientology Hubbard researched and developed and the perversion the church practices today.

It is not surprising the church is attacked so vehemently after the death of Hubbard. A new regime took over and money, not philosophy, became the order of the day. Money became supreme. The philosophy and technology is not practiced any more in the church.

How many people on this list actually know what scientology is I wonder? Not very many I bet. It is all rhetoric and criticism bandied around with no actual reference to the actual philosophy or religious practices. Not very scientific.

The only actual scientologists you will find these days are OUTSIDE of the church actually practicing scientology and improving their lives. No big money involved. No xenu crap. just ordinary people [practicing their own faith.

AND, you might be interested to know, the church does not like them either. After all they are taking business away from the church!

And the church should not be called the church of Scientology any more. Maybe the church that used to practice scientology and now practices something (god knows what) else.

And I can back this up with facts too.

Re:Balanced view.

[insertwackynamehere]

Hubbard's philosophy was to make money.

If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion

Re:Balanced view.

[cwtrex]

According to this semi recent article, Will Smith is not a member of CoS. I respect Will Smith as a person as well as his career, so after reading him say,"I don't necessarily believe in organized religion." I will sleep better next time I watch one of his movies. :)

Re:Balanced view.

[n9hmg]

it is not. The only entitity I know to know about his response is me, and I think I'm just making it up because I'm bored and lonely being the only thing in existence.

Re:Balanced view.

[evil_aar0n]

> It was a weird, and these people believe this stuff.

Not that I'm supporting COS or anything, but have you been to a Trekkie convention, lately...?

Re:Balanced view.

[lessthan]

With that in mind, let me plug a great place to get holy books The Internet Sacred Text Archive. It's a great place to go to for some of the more esoteric stuff, like the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" and the Bible in Latin and Greek. There is some Lovecraft on there too. It comes in real handy when you are arguing Bible verses and the like.

Yes, I know, this isn't strictly related to the topic, but it proves the parent's point. There are books from many religions far outside of the norm there, but no Scientology.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're DC-8's, you insensitive clod! I'm going to SUE you!

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by the Church of Scientology International]

Exactly. You can easily verify the authenticity of Scientology's Xenu documents by posting them on a website, one of their lawyers will contact you to confirm they are real the next day.

Re:Balanced view.

[elronxenu]

I agree; conspiracy and paranoia run through Hubbard and Scientology history.

Hubbard may well have believed in Dianetics (despite obvious evidence to the contrary, such as his first "clear"[*] who could not remember what colour tie Hubbard wore) but I am sure that he started Scientology as a religion for the profit and exemption from income and property taxes.

[*] A "clear" is a Dianetics term for a person who has been rid of mental aberration. Such people, according to Scientology, are supposed to have perfect memory, be able to heal themselves of disease (e.g. Cancer), not catch colds, improve their vision to no longer require eyeglasses, and so on.

Ordinary people would call such a person "deluded" if they believed they had those abilities.

Basically Hubbard just wrote down whatever came into his head, and called it Technology. He had a prolific imagination.

Re:Balanced view.

[feyhunde]

Confession is never fully broken with out the confessee agreeing to it. A priest isnt under canon law allowed to break it even in the case of eminent death resulting from the confession. He can withhold absolution and is trained in methods to get the confessee to cooperate to help police in such cases, but can not break confessional seal.

Pretty much the only time a priest make break the seal is if the issue is something that normally excommunicates the confessee or something the priest needs a more senior member of the clergy to help with. And even that requires the confessee to agree to it.

Not all states and nations respect it, mostly based off their own law history with confidentiality.

Re:Balanced view.

[Akaihiryuu]

It *was* bad Sci-fi written by a sleep-deprived crackhead. Read about L. Ron Hubbard sometime. He was drugged up on stimulants, depressants, and alcohol almost constantly when he wrote the "holy texts" of scientology. Maybe even more.

Re:Balanced view.

[aarggh]

Not having a go at anyone in particular, but why does it seem that people who have supposedly become informed as to the real intent of COS, still refer to Scientology as a religion instead of the well organised cult that it is? At the higher levels it's about the most exclusive Boy's Club there is, and at the lower levels it's a blatant parasite on the lower to middle classes. Surely part of the process of stripping away any false claims of legitimacy is not elevating COS to a level akin to religions? Granted some of the religions over the centuries have been responsible for amazingly heinous behavior, but in general most religions no matter the past, don't compare nowadays to the organised potential threat posed by COS. I couldn't imagine a scarier scenario than COS members being elected to US government. Imagine a COS member being the person elected to look after health reforms, mental illness, etc.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that free as in beer?

Re:Balanced view.

[eraserewind]

Psst... it's all made up. It will never make sense.
It was written by people who have visions and hear voices for heavens sake. The rest were pushing assorted political agendas.

Re:Balanced view.

[Fred_A]

How do you take a balanced view of a religion that wont tell you it's beleifs before you've bought into it. Isn't it only a "religion" for tax reasons since the IRS started looking into it ? Before that it was a "self help" system or something.

Re:Balanced view.

[Hal_Porter]

Well the Taliban, the Inquisition, the SS and the NKVD all believed in something bigger than themselves and it made them act like monsters. Actually I think if you don't it forces you to focus on things nearer to hand like the people around you. And also to judge every issue on its merits rather than letting some religion or ideology tell you what is right against your instincts. And it's no surprise that AA are so keen on religion - they have a lot of cult like characteristics.

Re:Balanced view.

[CmdrGravy]

I'm pretty sure you'll find that once your dead all your energy goes to feeding the worms and fertilising the soil. A lot of people go on about this when they try to justify the "something" which might happen when you're dead but they also think people have some sort of non physical energy which power them and that it is this which is then conserved, unfortunately I don't think we have ever discovered any such energy.

Re:Balanced view.

[Darinbob]

Except that Dianetics didn't call itself a religion in the early days or use the name "Church of Scientology". When it did declare itself a religion, it didn't get tax exempt status in the US and many other places (probably part of the reason for their long feud with the IRS probably).

It was strictly a "scientific" venture at the start that provided counseling services, with a very decentralized organization. Hubbard was probably annoyed at all the independent research and organizations with his Dianetics baby, so that later on he essentially declared that everyone else was wrong and competing tech was harmful, and only he and his organization could do Dianetics the right way. This despite his earlier claim that no one person or organization should control Dianetics. Of course this caused a lot of early advocates and adherents to drift away.

There had been problems with the US FDA over calling the e-meter a medical device, and similar problems in other countries, which may have prompted a pragmatic decision to call itself a "church". I suspect a lot of Scientologists don't think of it as a religion and think the word "church" is just a legal device. There aren't rituals or worship and the like. The introduction of aspects that require faith is done gradually which masks the true nature of the "self-help group".

Re:Balanced view.

[jcuervo]

unfortunately I don't think we have ever discovered any such energy To play devil's advocate, there are a lot of things we haven't discovered yet.

Re:Balanced view.

[Fred_A]

Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion.

- L. Ron Hubbard

/Or/ he could have written better stories...

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

> I would note that, while not a member per se of Anonymous

It's easy to join. Just check that little box down below that sez: 'Post Anonymously'. You'll feel much better afterwards. But you've got to buy your own Guy Fawkes mask.

> I do think that their efforts against Scientology are a good thing, and were carried out remarkably peacefully and with remarkably good organization.

It actually went off better than a lot of us expected. The biggest disappoint was the failure of any of the US national news organizations to carry anything about it.

> I've also heard there's more planned for 3/15--beware the Ides of March!

Yep. 03/13 (LRon Hubbard's birthday) was kicked around for a bit, but David has Drs appt and Dave has a big test in BioChem or something that day.

-Anonymous

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

...there are a lot of things we haven't discovered yet

Without having discovered these undiscovered things yet, what indication do you have that there are many of them?

Re:Balanced view.

[SharpFang]

Anonymous is not so difficult to find, and finding them means you passed the test of IQ necessary to join.

Re:Balanced view.

[Tuoqui]

Maybe after Anonymous defeats Scientology we can Anonymous nicely to destroy the MPAA and RIAA too? They practice much of the same scams and scummy tactics.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite Balanced view is from Frank Zappa's Joe's Garage collection.
L Ron Hoover and the Church of Appliantology. Great entertainment....

Re:Balanced view.

[dave420]

If you've researched Scientology, you wouldn't be stating this. Most folk's problems with Scientology stem from their organisational inclinations, the rules they force their members to follow (disconnection, forced abortions, etc.), and finally the lack of clinical trials for what they claim is a science. Of course it's as far-fetched as any religion, but that's the least of the problems with it.

Re:Balanced view.

[neumayr]

That quote doesn't say anything about his intentions. It's just a statement that probably made sense to him, a snide remark about the religious systems at the time.
It'd help if you gave a source of course.

Re:Balanced view.

[ultranova]

No, your response here is proof that you've accepted his existence, at last as well as you're capable of accepting it.

Not neccessarily. I often hold conversations with figments of my imagination. It is entertaining, and if I get good enough at that, I could write them down and become a bestseller ;).

Re:Balanced view.

[bytesex]

'Atheism' (as is 'agnosticism') is a label stuck onto us, who would just rather be left alone by the religious types, who cannot for the life of them be convinced that other people don't need a god or an extra label in their existence. To label yourself as such means that you're playing *their* semantic game. Or it may mean that you haven't yet understood what their label-sticking is all about; it's about having fill-in forms with a caption 'Religion' on it. So that *they* can fill in something (and feel proud and confirmed), but also so that *you* have to fill in something. And if you feel bad about that - even if it isn't because you 'miss a god' but because you just don't want to be labeled or because you simply don't know what to fill in there, then they've scored another two points. Reason like this: Am I an atheist ? No. Do I believe in God or am I otherwise religious ? No. Good - now I've confused them.

Re:Balanced view.

[Lained]

Ah man.... You shot yourself in the foot there. There's a big difference between Cuba and CoS... Well, there's one similarity... they start with the letter "C". And pretty much ends there as well.

Back on topic: Cuba isn't a good example. You're born cuban, but your not born scientologist. You have no choice but to leave Cuba if you hate Castro and his policy. You have the choice not to join CoS. In fact, you prolly will be an adult by the time you approach CoS, whilst you are a fetus and then a baby when you meet Fidels Cuba if your born there. See the difference?

I recon that the testimonies will be biased, but hey, so are snitchers, and how many investigations started with that?

One thing is for granted: if all testimonies have a common ground, a place where all the testimonies are coherent between each other and the people giving them are unrelated, then no matter how biased one can be what they are saying most times then not are true (hey, the reverse works to play two or more people that alibi themselfs with each others... get someone to break coherance and play the rest with it... so I'm not pulling rabbits out of my hat).

Re:Balanced view.

[budgenator]

it's not all made up, there more than a little bit that has been corroborated historically, more has some supporting evidence; you read it with the "voices in the head" and 'political agenda' filters on.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you'd only expect this view to be somewhat unbalanced, not rabidly so. A better analogy than Cuba might be Christianity, on the grounds that while emigrating requires a significant investment of time and money, leaving a (non-cult) religion is fairly easy given the inclination, so people are likely to leave for milder reasons and be more well-disposed to the religion after leaving. If you look at ex-Christians, some are pretty hostile to the religion, while others just drifted away gradually and keep in touch with their friends from church, and if you look on the Internet you'll find a healthy sample of both. By contrast, as far as I know pretty much all ex-scientologists denounce the church as a cult, and say their Scientologist friends (and even family) are banned from talking to them. Even taking the likely bias into account, that's pretty significant evidence.

(The data on Christianity here is UK-based - things might well be different in the US.)

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the real way to hurt the Co$ is to write to your MP/Representative and demand that their tax-free status be revoked, because they do not run the church like a religion, they run it as a business, and therefore should be taxed just like any other business selling self-help books.

Re:Balanced view.

[PJ1216]

what?

Re:Balanced view.

[Alex Belits]

More like free as in nuts.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

And nice red uniforms.. oh bugger it.

Re:Balanced view.

[15Bit]

Not read Dianetics, though some guy at a CoS stand in switzerland did try to sell me a copy after assessing my "stress levels" using what looked like a crudely made ohm meter (licking my fingers for better contact seemed to lower my resistance *cough* "stress levels" dramatically). I used to have a copy of "The Ethics of Scientology" though. It too was bloody hard going to read due to the long winded and deliberately obfuscating prose in which it was written. However, after struggling through i was forced into the conclusion that it was just a collection of ideas stolen from other major world religions and dressed up in long winded fancy language. It stands as the only book i've ever thrown in the bin.

I'm now reading Malleus Maleficarum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum). The similarities are startling.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a free bible: http://www.freebibles.net/

Or Read or download one online with thousands of actually very useful footnotes and references: http://www.bible.org/

Get a free Koran: http://www.freekoran.com/

Get a free Book of Morman: http://www.mormon.org/bookofmormon

Estimated cost to get to read all the Scientology "holy" documents: $350,000.

Re:Balanced view.

[Hal_Porter]

They believed in whatever they needed to do accomplish their goals. This is very different than using your beliefs to hold yourself to a standard. But you could do that even if you weren't religious.

I did say to control your beliefs, that you have the power to change them. But one of the characteristics of a religion or quasi religion (someone coined the term religiotic for a mixture of religion and politics) like Nazism or Communism is that you don't give members that power. At a minimum they need to believe in God, or Communism or the Fuehrer. But usually it goes much further than this and to be a member you need to share thousands of beliefs. The organisation will claim all these beliefs are the absolute truth but in practice they are often changed arbitrarily by a leading group and you must share them to be a member. If you disagree you can be excommunicated. And if you're not a member then you have much less rights should that religiotic end up taking over.

Now the AA is admittedly not very far along the cult scale, but it further along than the sort of organisations I would be comfortable with supporting are. And organisations like the AA did manage to impose their beliefs on everyone else once before, during prohibition. It wasn't as disastrous as communism or Nazism but it wasn't good. And it was only repealed because the wets could still vote. Actually in Sweden, alcohol sales are still very limited because AA like organisations have managed to lobby for it, despite the fact that the vast majority of people would prefer them not to be.

Re:Balanced view.

[jcuervo]

Without having discovered these undiscovered things yet, what indication do you have that there are many of them? Are you implying that we know everything there is to know?

Re:Balanced view.

[Nursie]

The documents ae still out there. Look up xenu.net, operation clambake, the fishman affidavit and various others.

whyaretheydead.net also makes a harrowing read.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

But, in the words of Count Dracula, "perhaps the same could be said of all religions".

What is the core difference between Scientology and any other religion? They all demand tithing. They're all based on texts that are factually dubious to say the least. They all have a top-down authority structure. They all try to use their power to control the people around them.

Frankly, I'd rather see my tax money going to Scientology than a lot of the other nutball religions out there.

Re:Balanced view.

[Floritard]

You mean like early Catholics, who couldn't know the Bible without a priest reading it to them? They didn't write the thing in Latin just to make the pages pretty. Donations brothers please!

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

God, leave it to a conservative to try to inject politics into a situation of solidarity across party lines.

Ugh. Thanks for ruining my coffee.

Re:Balanced view.

[geminidomino]

Without having discovered these undiscovered things yet, what indication do you have that there are many of them? Are you implying that we know everything there is to know? I think the more accurate implication is that, if we don't know what we don't know, then how can we quantify it?

Re:Balanced view.

[BytePusher]

Interesting thought, I was thinking about this the other day when I read this verse in John:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber." John 10:1

Re:Balanced view.

[Rosy At Random]

Are you implying you know what the things are that we don't know? And c'mon... energy? Energy has a strictly defined meaning, in that it's a conserved, dissipated quantity. In what way has a 'soul' or 'life force' or whatever been shown to exist or even be able to behave anything like that? There's no point inventing entities that can't be measured to explain phenomenona that don't occur.

Re:Balanced view.

[geminidomino]

it's not all made up, there more than a little bit that has been corroborated historically, more has some supporting evidence; you read it with the "voices in the head" and 'political agenda' filters on. So you end up with what? "In the beginning... Amen"?

Re:Balanced view.

[vortigern00]

Right ON! I have always felt a little uncomfortable calling myself an atheist, because I'm not militant about it -- I just don't think all the hocus pocus is real... and I am uncomfortable calling myself an agnostic because I'm not sure there is anything to know, whether we are capable of understanding it or not!

I like your way of thinking, man!

-Vort

Re:Balanced view.

[nuzak]

> How many people on this list actually know what scientology is I wonder?

The Operational Thetan texts (OT III being the more famous one) were penned by Hubbard's own hand, and in deadly seriousness.

It would be hilarity itself if it didn't take itself and its lawsuits so seriously.

Re:Balanced view.

[Ramze]

I don't think that's what the gp poster was implying at all -- it was a question. If there is an absence of proof or even any evidence at all, is there some logical reason/theory to suspect that there is some energy that is unaccounted for after death that could be the soul?

The conversation goes like this:

There's energy loss unaccounted for that could be the soul escaping the body!
No... we've never found any evidence for that.
We may just not have discovered it yet! We may not have the technical means to detect it!
Then... if there's no evidence for that theory, what makes you think it's even a possibility?

I would say it's a fair question. We're pretty good at detecting and measuring all kinds of energy. There is no known energy that is unaccounted for after death. What would make you believe in something like an energy escaping the body as evidence of the soul... when there's no evidence of that potential evidence?

It would be as if I proposed that there's evidence of God's existence because whatever room I'm praying in fills with a bright light (light is a form of energy), and then the scientists show up with photon detectors and see no difference in illumination in the room... after which, I proceed to tell them that I've never actually seen the light, but that the light could be in the non-visible light range and that their photon detectors might not be able to detect photons of that energy level. Or maybe they're photons from another dimension that play by different rules of the known universe, so you can't detect them. It's crazy talk. The fragile theory with no evidence has to stretch itself to the limits of believability (and beyond perhaps) just to maintain that it has a remote possibility of being true.

In the real, rational world... if there's no evidence for something AT ALL and you don't even have a plausible theory for why it could be possible, it's usually accepted to be very unlikely if not completely false.

Also, personally... I would propose that IF the soul were identifiable as a form of energy present in the body that leaves after death, the soul would have a finite lifespan of its own as an energy form. Energy can't be created or destroyed (other than conversion to matter and back), so any time this energy being called the soul did anything, energy would be drained from the soul. If it moved an object, attempted communication with someone, even had a single thought, it would lose energy in the process according to the laws of conservation of energy. Over time, a soul would use up all of its energy and cease to exist if it had no source for new energy. To extend this idea, a soul would need to enter a new body to use as a source of energy to continue to exist which would be reincarnation (or find some other source of energy). Because there are more living people now than have ever existed in the history of mankind, imagine the warfare between souls to inhabit a new body if the population drops.

Taking things to another level, if there were a "heaven" in an afterlife, every soul would need energy to continue to exist... and that energy must come from a source. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, that energy source would eventually fail to provide power -- unless you're assuming that "God" can make energy... in which case, you have a perpetual power source which would defy the laws of physics.

So... if you were to say that the soul (which would logically require an energy source to continue its existence like any other living entity) will have a perpetual source of energy in heaven, you'd make the leap from science to mystical, religious magic explaining everything. (not that I'm saying that is your position... just speaking in hypothetical terms. I don't mean to put words into your mouth or speculate on your position on religion.)

The argument gets worse:
"hey! we can use science to detect the soul as a form of energy lost at the moment of death!"
"We've tri

Re:Balanced view.

[cHiphead]

then how can we quantify it?

By making shit up.

Thats how all the religions got started, no?

Cheers.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of scientology, that's as close to a balanced view as the "church" is ever going to allow. Scientologists are not permitted to discuss the core beliefs of scientology with "wogs" (non-scientologists), and to the extent that they will discuss their religion at all, they are carefully trained to provide misinformation to soften their public image. It is a cult that engages in brainwashing and thought control. Any information you might obtain to "balance" your view of scientology from those who are still involved in the church will by definition be even more misleading than what you obtain outside of the church.

Re:Balanced view.

[capnchicken]

You should check out the BBC series: A Rough History of Disbelief it really grounded me to the thought that you don't NEED a label. Just like people who don't believe in ghosts or UFOs NEED a label. You can plug the name into any flash video site of your choosing and you can probably find the whole three part series as well as the appendices.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried to search the quote with Google?

Here's the link: (about 168,000 results)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=If+a+man+really+wants+to+make+a+million+dollars%2C+the+best+way+would+be+to+start+his+own+religion&btnG=Google+Search&aq=-1&oq=

Let's check your logic:
1. A man says that.
2. The same man creates a new religion.
3. You don't think he may have the idea of making money out of it.
Conclusion: he was probably smarter than you :)

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3631116/BBC_-_A_Brief_History_of_Disbelief_and_The_Atheism_T

23 peers currently

Re:Balanced view.

[Requiem18th]

Yeah christians are closer to the bible than catholics but the bible still refuses to be openly discussed and criticized, or at least tries to destroy the credibility of criticizers, with its smart ass disclaimer:

  Luke 10:21 "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."

  Or its anti-common sense disclaimer:

  Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

  Which warns you not to trust yourself.

  There are more anti-intellectual, anti-evidence, anti-common sense stuff in the bible. Personally I prefer Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes" which to me is the essence of every religion.

  I still commend you for not being catholic, or muslin. Really.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The course to actually learn about Xenu costs $750 alone! Individually the courses to become a "clear" cost over $4500!"

What a ripoff! I got all the same material on the South Park Season 9 DVD for about $35.

Re:Balanced view.

[Cederic]

The difference is that I think everyone else is actually trying to provide the therapy you're paying for instead of brainwashing you into lifelong servitude.

Re:Balanced view.

[Cederic]

So you used to know the personal preferences of Catholic priests small boys?

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

"A religion doesn't have to be absurd. All that is necessary is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

Like Global Warming.

Re:Balanced view.

[PJ1216]

I am uncomfortable calling myself an agnostic because I'm not sure there is anything to know, whether we are capable of understanding it or not! Isn't that the definition of agnostic?
Agnostic - Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists.

Labels exist to simplify things and make them easier to understand. its easier saying "atheist" instead of "a person who does not believe in a higher power" all the time. the same way its easier to say "pancake" instead of "a flat cake of thin batter fried on both sides on a griddle." Labels aren't necessarily a bad thing. It's like using a variable in mathematics to stand for something else that is longer or more complex. I just don't understand the big deal about being called an atheist or agnostic. To me, its on the same level of whether you call someone an engineer or athlete. It's a partial description about a very small portion of that individual's persona or belief structure.

Re:Balanced view.

[vortigern00]

Yeah, but "Engineer" describes me adequately. "Atheist" does not. :)

"Agnostic - Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists." -- And I don't think there is anything to know..... which makes me not an agnostic.

-Vort

Re:Balanced view.

[jmccay]

Apparently not everything is available: http://www.xenu.net/censored/ I got that a couple of time.

Re:Balanced view.

[rickb928]

You know, if you have a better theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything, have away at it.

I'm particularly interested in everyone's Creation story with a really good "before everything existed..." part. Physics as we express it is so lacking in this area.

Re:Balanced view.

[thomasw_lrd]

But how many upper level college science classes have you actually participated in? I've taken a few especially in astronomy and it's mostly made up malarkey. We have white dwarf stars, but the universe isn't old enough for them to exist. Where did they come from? There are multiple examples of a such occurrences to disprove almost all science. If you can't give me a mathematical formula for it, it doesn't exist. And yes there is a mathematical formula to prove the existence of God.

Re:Balanced view.

[Nursie]

As I say, try the fishman affidavit. That has some stuff in and is a matter of public legl record - cannot be censored.

Re:Balanced view.

[rtechie]

AA was formed around well after Prohibition He said "AA like". Prohibition was the result of religious pressure groups, most notably the "Women's Christian Temperance Union", similar to AA.

The primary objection most people have to AA is that in some countries attending AA is a mandatory punishment for drunk driving, etc. even though AA is a religious organization and, more importantly, does not actually work.

The Nazis were atheists, and you relate them to religion. The Nazis were not atheists. The Nazi Party was a Christian religious organization according to their charter, their leaders, and their membership. Virtually every member of the Nazi party was a Christian. Many Lutheran Christian leaders endorsed the party. Many Nazis (including Adolph Hitler) were Catholic, and the Catholic Church supported the Nazi party in indirect ways.

Re:Balanced view.

[geekoid]

Atheism - Lack of belief in god or gods.

It doesn't bother me at all. I ahve never been guilty.
Sadly, people who believe don't understand lack of belief, so they claim that even lack of belief is belief;which it isn't.

Jerks.

Re:Balanced view.

[Mahjub Sa'aden]

I call my lack of faith in CoS "budgeting".

Re:Balanced view.

[crashfrog]

But how many upper level college science classes have you actually participated in?

10-20, I should guess, mostly biology and biochemistry. I've worked for a couple of years in labs, too.

I've taken a few especially in astronomy and it's mostly made up malarkey.

Yeah, I suppose that's why it's commonly understood that your computer runs on phlogiston - science just confirms the same old theories regardless of the evidence, like you said.

I suspect if you had paid better attention in your science classes, instead of writing the whole thing off as "malarkey", you'd be better informed. As it is you're an astounding example of the kind of ignorance so closely associated with your ideology.

We have white dwarf stars, but the universe isn't old enough for them to exist.

This is nonsense, since it's by the age of white dwarf stars that we measure the age of the universe (and it's by the amount that they've cooled that we measure the age of white dwarfs.)

It doesn't take all that long for a star to reach white dwarf, so there's no inconsistency with the existence of white dwarf stars and a 14 billion year old universe. There are no black dwarf stars, and that is a function of the youth of our universe; that's probably where you got confused.

There are multiple examples of a such occurrences to disprove almost all science.

Funny, then, that you could only give one false example. I suspect all your other examples would be the same - things you've misunderstood or been misinformed about, not actual problems with the science. My guess is that you're simply not well-informed enough to actually understand what it is that science doesn't know, currently.

And yes there is a mathematical formula to prove the existence of God.

No, there's not.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

>The "origins" story of Scientology is sci-fi written by a sleep-deprived crackhead.

Fixed

Re:Balanced view.

[amRadioHed]

And I don't think there is anything to know You keep saying it but what does it mean? Are you trying to say you're a nihilist?

This is why labels are not necessarily a bad thing.

Re:Balanced view.

[PJ1216]

because I'm not sure there is i believe you said you weren't sure. therefore, its agnostic.
 
Plus, how does engineer describe you adequately? I have no clue what kind of engineer you are. as a label it leaves more questions. Atheist just means you don't believe in a higher power. its not trying to describe anything else. its not trying to be more descriptive than that. Engineer can mean software engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, biomedical engineer, hell, it could even mean you drive a goddamn train. Am I wrong in assuming you do not believe in a higher power? Cause thats ALL the word atheist implies. Nothing more. Its not making any other assumptions other than that. I mean, its like saying calling a girl a blond isn't descriptive enough of their person, therefore you can't say they're blond. Its one adjective describing one facet of a person. its not trying to describe them as a whole. its not trying to describe your lifestyle. Engineer does NOT describe you adequately, neither does atheist. Its just describing a small portion of what one person is. Seriously, I think some people wish they lived back in the 60s so they're just TRYING to find things to rebel against.

Re:Balanced view.

[geminidomino]

I'm particularly interested in everyone's Creation story with a really good "before everything existed..." part. Physics as we express it is so lacking in this area. So is every religious creation myth, for that matter...

Why does there have to be an answer to "What came before the big bang?" but not for "What was there before $DEITY?"[0]

[0] I in no way intend to imply we shouldn't look for the answer to the former, just pointing out the inconsistency in this particular criticism by the religious types.

Re:Balanced view.

[DragonWriter]

Still there is quite a bit of the religion of Christianity that doesn't make sense, or it is obvious that parts have been left out of the "official" Bible.

So? The Bible itself doesn't claim to be encyclopedic, nor (outside of certain strains of Protestantism) does Christianity generally claim that the Bible is the sole basis Christian belief.

For example to learn more about Christ's mother you'd need to go to the Qur'an

Well, to learn more about what Muslims think about Christ's mother, you could go there; that may or may not correspond to what any particular subset of Christianity believes on any given point (and on some it directly contradicts core doctrines of Christianity.) It is true that a lot of common Christian beliefs have origins in extra-biblical tradition, both on doctrinal points and on "history" of religious figures that is often tangential, at best, to religious doctrine. But so what? That's not really a problem of any kind when it isn't about doctrine, or for many major Christian groups (which openly hold out Tradition as a basis for belief alongside Scripture) when it is about doctrine.

Re:Balanced view.

[DragonWriter]

You know, if you have a better theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything, have away at it.

In what way does the Bible present a "better" theory of any or all of these things.

I'm particularly interested in everyone's Creation story with a really good "before everything existed..." part.

Why? The Bible doesn't have one of these. The concept is, in fact, logically inconsistent. You can't have a story of what events occurred before there were any entities to participate in those events.

Physics as we express it is so lacking in this area.

Physics certainly provides an explanation which is more firmly grounded, and which goes back closer to the origin of every entity it invokes. The Bible simply posits a very complex entity (God) with no explanation of its origin.

Re:Balanced view.

[darthflo]

Wrong. Scientology was all about money and lies all along. Try reading some inside accounts from back when LRH was alive, outrageous prices, billion-year sea org contracts, forced labour were all there. Did you know Hubbard made some $600m off his little Scientology project?
I mentioned lies. Bear with me for a few lines, let me elaborate: In 1934 LRH (*1911) had, according to his own account, spent 7 years in the U.S. marine corps, 6 as a civil engineer, 4 in brazil, 3 in africa, 6 enroute with his flying circus, graduated from college plus a slew of other activities summing up to eighty-four years of life experience.

You seem to be referring to some "light" free-zoning/squirreling. I respect that as a way of handling life for people in need of some spiritual guidance, but please keep in mind it's background. LRH was but a science-fiction writer. Dianetics, E-Meter auditing, Xenu and Man's evolution along the Seaweed - Jellyfish - Clam - Sloth - Ape - Man path are stories thought of by the same person.

Re:Balanced view.

[thomasw_lrd]

Points well taken.

Re:Balanced view.

[The_mad_linguist]

>I dare anyone to reproduce this experiment and get a different result than I did.

Nobody expects... that to happen.

Re:Balanced view.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Information is lost when you die, and that information is YOU.

But information is conserved. Or are you disagreeing with Hawking?

Re:Balanced view.

[rtechie]

my point is that you can't compare it to a bunch of religious zealots from the 20's that wanted to ban alcohol (just my personal opinion there). The organization today that most closely resembles the temperance organizations of old is Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), that basically lobbies for anti-drinking laws. And no, not just drunk driving laws. MADD lobbies for anti-bar zoning laws, higher alcohol taxes, a higher drinking age, etc.

As for Adolf Hitler, you are correct that he wasn't atheist, but he was not Christian either I consider a "Christian" to be anyone who calls himself one. Adolph Hitler identified himself as a Christian right up until his death. He was never excommunicated by the Catholic Church. His views on Christianity were clearly "unorthodox" and should have been cause for his excommunication from the Catholic Church, but he was not. Various Protestant groups like the Society of Friends and the Amish also have unorthodox views, but I doubt that you would refuse to call them Christians.

Turn the tables

[Quattro Vezina]

Scientology likes suing people for libel. Let's turn the tables on that. Maybe members of Anonymous should sue Scientology for libel for making accusations of terrorism.

Re:Turn the tables

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you present a hard target and that is exactly what they want. Don't make the mistake that they will play by the rules. Legal action is the least of your concerns when the Sci-Fucks get your identity.

Re:Turn the tables

[Jarjarthejedi]

Not to sound pessimistic but I highly doubt they'd win, what with the modern definition of cyber-terrorism (I'm fairly certain I heard that Anonymous had hacked the Scientology site or something) and, with the power Scientology wields in the political and judicial areas, it wouldn't be too hard for them to convince a judge that Anonymous had commited acts of cyber-terrorism.

Not to mention that would completely mess up there name, they'd have to be Anonymous (except Tim who filed a law suit on our behalf against the Scientologists) and that would make recruitment much harder :P.

Re:Turn the tables

[SirLurksAlot]

IANAL, but I'm fairly certain they would need to reveal their identities in order to do that, which would really the defeat the whole purpose. Besides, think of the hassle it would cause for them to have to come up with a new name with the same degree of awesome!

Re:Turn the tables

[91degrees]

They wouldn't win. You can only win libel damages if you can prove harm to your reputation. Anonymous aren't saying who they are. Therefore there is no reputation to be harmed.

Re:Turn the tables

[Otter]

Maybe members of Anonymous should sue Scientology for libel for making accusations of terrorism.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel in the US, and "cyber-terrorists" is a reasonable synonym for "self-important script kiddie morons".

Re:Turn the tables

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, someone did empty the database of religiousfreedomwatch.org (the Scientology organization's libel-spewing rag page)... someone almost certainly associated with Anonymous. But the difference between Anonymous and the Scientology organization is that the Scientology organization consists of legally incorporated entities, while Anonymous is just a name applied to a bunch of individuals acting alone. No one gave the order for religiousfreedomwatch.org to be injected and emptied, but Hubbard and Miscavige give all kinds of orders, and the law recognizes their hierarchy. The Scientology organization can absolutely be sued and dismantled. Anonymous can only be chipped away one member at a time.

(and no, it was not me)

Re:Turn the tables

[Anonymous Coward]

But... then they would no longer be Anonymous!

Re:Turn the tables

[marcello_dl]

Maybe al qaeda should sue scientology because it's associating "Anonymous" infidels to their movement after all the bombs and PR efforts to make Al qaeda a distinguished and prominent name.

Anyway, if people were more familiar with brainwashing techniques they'd likely be more alert when somebody tries experiments on them. And switch off TV too, hopefully :D

Re:Turn the tables

[Anonymous Coward]

> Maybe members of Anonymous should sue Scientology for libel for making accusations of terrorism.

You know, if the FBI's mail-tracking capabilities are as good as it's rumored to be, that just might work. I wonder where those "white powder envelopes" came from. If I worked for the FBI or USPS, I'd investigate that possibility. Because if I were a betting man, I'd bet good money that it was shipped to Scienos by the Scienos themselves in order to (as per Cult policy) fabricate evidence of lurid crimes against Anonymous.

Re:Turn the tables

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish we could... but they have the best lawyers in the world on their side. We'd never win.

Re:Turn the tables

[nuzak]

> Truth is an absolute defense against libel in the US

It still won't stop you from going broke defending yourself.

Re:Turn the tables

[Anonymous Coward]

What's funny is that CoS is a terrorist organization. That would be the pot calling the kettle black. Go look up fair game or Operation Snow White where the CoS actually tried to infiltrate the US Government (via the IRS) and use the information gathered there to go after critics of Scientology. These guys are nuts and must be stopped at all costs. I have posted links to torrents on more information on CoS courtesy of the Pirate Bay:

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4001297/Secret_Leaked_Scientology_Manual_(converted_to_pdf_and_zipped)
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3991803/All_Technical_Bulletins__Books_And_Lectures.zip
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3992808/Scientology_documents

We are Anonymous...

Re:Turn the tables

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem there is that libel is only illegal if it's not true, and a good case could be made that anon is quilty of terrorism, if only pretty childish variations of it.

Re:Turn the tables

[Otter]

I very much doubt that Scientology is going to go broke defending itself against a bunch of teenage forum trash...

Re:Turn the tables

[Arccot]

I very much doubt that Scientology is going to go broke defending itself against a bunch of teenage forum trash...

Whoa there! At least these people are active enough to protest on the streets, rather than sit behind a computer. Why the hate and ridicule? "Teenage forum trash?" Where does that come from? At least they're doing something they believe in, and getting the press coverage they need to get their protest across to a wider audience. 99% of the U.S. population sit on their asses and would never think of protesting anything, myself included.

Re:Turn the tables

[Otter]

Why the hate and ridicule? "Teenage forum trash?" Where does that come from?

The article here left out a few salient details. Like the death threats. I'd say these retards are pretty much the epitome of forum trash.

Re:Turn the tables

[Arccot]

Yup... that kinda changes things. It's a shame they can't seperate their legit protesting from their ass backwards attacks. Just calling the protest group something different would help. It's not even like they could have turned over a new leaf so to speak... the article was written just a few weeks ago.

Thanks for the info.

Re:Turn the tables

[lordmetroid]

What an irony, you claim you aren't anonymous... Yet you post as anonymous!

Re:Turn the tables

[Yvanhoe]

You'll have to nominatively prove that you are part of Anonymous. That could be a problem.

Re:Turn the tables

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure anon would love to do that, but Scientology has much, much more money to afford expensive lawyers. Taking it to the court wouldn't help in the long run. Hell, it wouldn't help in the short run either.

Re:Turn the tables

[elrous0]

Scientology has taken on entire governments in lawsuits. They are masters of character assassination, lawsuit abuse, etc. They have even been alleged to have trumped-up false criminal charges to have people thrown in prisons and even to have murdered people. Revealing your ideentity to them or taking them to court would be the LAST thing you would want to do.

Re:Turn the tables

[sexconker]

Scientologists with your identity are the least of your concerns when Anonymous gets your identity.

Re:Turn the tables

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say he wasn't anonymous, you flaming douche bag. He said that it wasn't him who did the database hack. Reading Comprehension, Motherfucker - GET IT!

Re:Turn the tables

[Anonymous Coward]

And how would that work? How could an "anonymous" entity sue for libel? There is no name here and thus no reputation to libel. These cowardly brats won't reveal their identities and so they have no grounds to sue for libel. In this case, given the track record of these "anonymous" spoiled brats and their cyber terrorism, the "anonymous" cure is worse than the disease of Scientology. Scientology and the anonymous spoiled brats who apparently have an excess of time on their hands, deserve each other. This is what happens to kids who grew up attending schools where everyone got a prize and nothing had to be earned. Just try to reason with these young thugs and you'll quickly be deluged with senseless semiliterate jargon that no one but they can understand. These anarchist riff raff are opposed to Scientology for entirely the wrong reasons, really have no clue what Scientology is all about and don't care at all about the real Scientology critics who have had the courage to give their names.

Not just Pheonix

[Donniedarkness]

This was happening all over the world. According to wikinews (last time I checked), there were 9200 participants worldwide (although sadly, only 40 here in Nashville).

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Therlin]

Yeah, I saw a group of 30 or so folks near downtown Orlando, across the street from the local Scientology location this past Sunday around 2 pm.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Pro777]

Mad props to the Anonys in colder climes. Toronto, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee all had subzero weather to content with and had amazing turnouts respectively.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Donniedarkness]

No kidding. In Minnesota, the weather channel reported that temperatures got as low as -40F (with wind chill).... and if I'm remembering correctly, there were 40-50 Anons there.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Flameon]

Since there's a lot of pictures and videos from these protests all over the world here's a few good links.

http://forums.enturbulation.org/
- A bit of planning, a early rough estimate of attendees around the world, post protest media being uploaded all the time.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_international_report:_%22Anonymous%22_holds_anti-Scientology_protests_worldwide
- Wikinews with pics/vids/links related to 10feb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanology
- About the project so far (sources only from credible media)

http://www.partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology
- Anonymous own wiki on the project, mainly used to gather information, results, future plans and events.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[epiphani]

Heres the rundown:

London, UK - around 500 people.
LA - around 500 people
Sydney, Australia - around 300 people.
Clearwater, Florida - around 250 people. This one is scientology headquarters.
New York - around 320 people
Boston - around 270 people
Atlanta - around 250 people. They called out the riot squad in full gear, with a helicopter. There was no incidents at all.
Washington DC - around 200 people.
Toronto - around 200 people.

In total, the estimates are around 8000 people worldwide. The aim was, of course, to get over 9000.

grip: i submitted details of these protests to slashdot twice before this took place, hoping we could get some of you folks out. *shakes fist at editor*

COME NEXT TIME - MARCH 15TH.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Devilboy666]

OVER 9000?

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

The aim was, of course, to get over NINE THOUSAAAAANNNDD!

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[XNine]

Your information is incomplete. You didn't list even a third of the actual locations. for a more complete rundown of the numbers (the most accurate), see this: http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?t=1737&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

I do think there were close to 10,000 people in attendance total. The numbers recorded were peak numbers, but a lot of people came late, or had to leave early.

Also here is an excellent site with photographs from around the world: http://anonymousmatters.blogspot.com/

Re:Not just Pheonix

[sgtstein]

Yea, thats us crazy Minnesotans. We do just about anything anytime no matter what the weather.

Heck, we even sit in Saunas at 180F-200F and then go jump in holes in frozen lakes!

Ah, the memories.
Good Luck Anonymous!

Re:Not just Pheonix

[nonsensical]

I do think there were close to 10,000 people in attendance total. The numbers recorded were peak numbers, but a lot of people came late, or had to leave early.

Also here is an excellent site with photographs from around the world: http://anonymousmatters.blogspot.com/

(registered finally, sorry for duplicate post)

Re:Not just Pheonix

[SpooForBrains]

An account from one of the London attendees

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

i submitted details of these protests to slashdot twice before this took place, hoping we could get some of you folks out.

do you realize that you are part of the cancer that is killing /b/ ?

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

According to participants posting on various sites there were closer to 1000 people at the London demo at peak times, there were apparently several hundred in Birmingham also, and presumably some in Manchester, Brighton, Plymouth, Hove, York, Eastbourne and Tunbridge Wells, the other known UK scientology bases info though I haven't heard of anything at the actual headquarters in East Grinstead, Sussex.

Either way I'm sure the UK's contribution to protesting against the 'cult of give me all your money' was well over a thousand, probably over 2 so even at conservative estimates I believe Anonymous more than achieved the goal of 9000 worldwide if that is what their goal was.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering lots of smaller protests like Ottawa (~30) and Nashville (~40?) aren't included in your numbers, we've definately gotten over 9000.

Victory will be ours my brethren.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[SuperBanana]

Boston - around 270 people

Um, bullshit. It was a crowd of a few dozen at most, from the pictures I saw (no, not by a news agency.) They were protesting on Beacon Street (I've walked by the Scientology building many a time) and there isn't anywhere near enough room for 270 people. Boston PD had four officers working a paid detail- far as I know, no other BPD presence.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

CLTV News covered the event. They're owned by the Tribune Company, so I'd expect to see coverage in the Chicago Tribune, etc. From the short news clip it looked like there were about eight people outside of the Scientology center on N. Lincoln Ave. I was suprised at that turnout seeing as how it was about 35 degrees below zero with the windchill on Sunday.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[zpeterz63]

That's over 9000!

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

ITS UNDER 9000!!!!!!!!111oneeleven

Doesn't have the same ring to it.

Posting anonymous for great irony.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Boston - around 270 people

> Um, bullshit. It was a crowd of a few dozen at most, from the pictures I saw (no, not by a news agency.)

270 people is only about 16 rows of 17.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

Over nine thousand???!

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

there were 9200 participants worldwide >9000 participants? I see what you did there...

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

Honey wake up! The internet is here.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[rickatnight11]

Small group showed up at the "church" in Richmond, VA.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

Sunday the 10th is International Anti-Scientology day. Didn't someone tell the scientologists?

Re:Not just Pheonix

[AndroidCat]

Oh no, not again...

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

Around 200 @ vancouver too.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Aphex Junkie]

IMMA CHARGIN MAH MOD POINTS

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the Encyclopedia Dramatica for "Project Chanology". There are many links there relevant to both your interests and your numbers. FTR: OVER 9000!!!!1 has in fact been reached.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Donniedarkness]

I realize that it's "OVER NINE THOUSANDDDD!!!", but this was the number taht was reported by some media outlets.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[SCHecklerX]

In total, the estimates are around 8000 people worldwide. The aim was, of course, to get over 9000.

*grin*

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Floritard]

Clearwater here. I had no idea about this.

See you in March!

Re:Not just Pheonix

[TheSpoom]

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/PROJECT_CHANOLOGY - A collection of info about the project's history, plans, and some videos. ED is one of the homes of Anon.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[ifknot]

London Anonymous flickr group: http://www.flickr.com/groups/anonymous/

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll never even dent Scientology with those numbers. The numbers you've given only match a single organization in Scientology. I just don't see how it could ever match the 5,000 groups they have.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Blu Aardvark]

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/PROJECT_CHANOLOGY

- Encyclopedia Dramatica's entry on the project

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/PROJECT_CHANOLOGY/IRL_PROTEST_PAGE

- Encyclopedia Dramatica's entry documenting the protests.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Cervantes]

Edmonton, Alberta Canada had between 50 and 100 people, depending on who you listen to.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

All Depends when you walked by. We Were there for five hours.

Re:Not just Pheonix

[The_mad_linguist]

Vegeta, what does wikinews say about the number of participants?!

</oblig>

what

[User 956]

Anonymous, eh? Cowards.

Re:what

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard its really just a bunch of ebaumsworld users...

Re:what

[ScrewMaster]

If they're in the streets protesting, they're not exactly anonymous, are they? I have to admit, they've got balls: the Church of Scientology plays rough.

Re:what

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're in the streets protesting, they're not exactly anonymous, are they?

That's why they were almost all wearing masks, or otherwise covering their faces. The true face of the internet has no face.

Re:what

[Spy der Mann]

Anonymous, eh? Cowards.

Funny that you mention that. Slashdot allows Anonymous Cowards to post precisely for the same reason: To protect them from retaliation.

Re:what

[flyingsquid]

Anonymous, eh? Cowards.

Not just that, but a bunch of drunkards. Apparently their ranks are filled with so many alcoholics, that this Anonymous group needed to start a 12-step program.

Re:what

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, some of those protesters really have balls.

But only the women. Eeeurgh!!

Re:what

[Atzanteol]

They may not be Anonymous, but a lot of them resemble Guy Fawkes.

Re:what

[Anonymous Coward]

You insensitive clod!

Re:what

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of them wore Guy Fawkes masks if the local laws allowed it.
The capcha is terrors.
</anonymous>

Re:what

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Whoosh

Re:what

[ScrewMaster]

Oh, I got the anonymous coward reference. It's just that these guys are taking on one of the most vicious modern cults.

Re:what

[Deanalator]

I got a surprisingly large amount of that on Sunday. Many people came up to me and said that they agreed with what we were doing, but it was too bad we were all dressed up like terrorists. One woman even likened us to the Taliban.

From what I understood, the whole point of rule 17 (the mask rule) was that we were not representing ourselves, we were representing a cause. Of course, after what happened to people like Paulette Cooper, and Dave Touretzky (a computer science professor at CMU), many people were afraid of retaliation from the church, but I think for most people (using my friends as a random sampling) it was a show of solidarity.

I think the most tragic thing about this is that it sounds like terrorists have now ruined the once noble image of the ninja mask. Maybe next time we can all get big smiley emoticon style masks.

I also find it interesting that the official CoS statement called us "terrorists". Where I was at, it was very civil. Towards the beginning, some jackass tried to grab a video camera from an Anonymous (too many thetans), but after that CoS members were very nice. Many of them taking our fliers and engaging in friendly conversation.

We were there to deliver information that has been suppressed by the church, to the church members, and to the general population. Attempting to "terrorize" anyone is counterproductive to freedom of information. Fear causes people to react without logic. If the church of scientology actually came to terms with their sketchy past, and confronted these problems instead of waging information warfare to deny their history, I would not have needed to go down there yesterday.

Re:what

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk shit about Scientology, then. Those who removed their masks in order to breathe may have made a deadly mistake. This is a ruthless and vile organization that will stop at nothing to silence its critics. Ahnonymity is not optional here; the stakes are almost cartoonish.

Re:what

[Maxo-Texas]

I was amazed at the boldness of that movie in these times and wondered at the time if it might be the start of the people pushing back against the wave of corporate fascism sweeping the globe.

Re:what

[shish]

I think the most tragic thing about this is that it sounds like terrorists have now ruined the once noble image of the ninja mask.

Ninjas have never been noble -- their jobs are to play dirty, backstab, and get rid of enemy leaders while avoiding any chance of an honorable war :-/

Re:what

[Deanalator]

You obviously have not seen the classic documentary "Naruto".

Re:what

[forgotten_my_nick]

While the recent spate of Anon activities is good they do have roots in terrorizing everyday people. Do some research.

Re:what

[AndroidCat]

I am learning to speak Japanese from this excellent documentary dattebayo!

Re:what

[geminidomino]

Came up snake-eyes on that roll, didn't you?

Re:what

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe next time we can all get big smiley emoticon style masks.

You mean like this?

Re:what

[__aailob1448]

Corruption of lol.

Nth post, for some small value of N!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woo hoo!! (This is a hell of a lot easier than "first post".)

P.S. Xenu says, "Wazzup?"

Photos

[Presto Vivace]

I'm sorry I didn't tag the link, but somewhere on Flickr, there are photos of the event.

Re:Photos

[Drakin020]

Here you go sir. http://www.flickr.com/photos/23637168@N05/sets/72157603887577097/

Re:Photos

[Blakey Rat]

Well, yes, but that applies to pretty much every event. :P

Re:Photos

[j0nb0y]

I love the suits. Classy.

Take Caution

[AlphaLop]

These fools don't know who they are messing with, it's all fun and games until someone drops your ass into a volcano..... :)

Re:Take Caution

[Anonymous Coward]

I was at the Tucson protest.

One of the Scientologists tried to follow some of the Tucson anons after they left, following them three times around a block in circles until they ran a red light to get rid of her.

They *do* try to pull shit like this.

Advice to the lady in the red Yaris with the fucking *ugly* green shoes: We have your license plate number. Buy a dog, and make sure you have good curtains.

Re:Take Caution

[nxsty]

Don't worry, Xenu is imprisoned forever by a force field powered by an eternal battery.

Re:Take Caution

[baKanale]

...and then nukes it!

Re:Take Caution

[elrous0]

It's no joke with an organization that has allegedly murdered people and trumped up charges to have its critics thrown in jail.

These Scientology fucks are DEAD serious.

tl;dr summary

[Anonymous Coward]

lol internet

cyber-terrorists?

[weighn]

that's a cool thing isn't it? or is it bad? Bad as in Xenu bad?

The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[eldavojohn]

The video that they forced off of YouTube can, thanks to Gawker, be found here.

As a non-scientologist, this is scary. Possibly the most scary part of it is the editing. I have no problem with people having convictions but when he talks about "fightin' the fight" and "people needing them" and "people depending on them" ... I get a little frightened that people around me think like that. You may be able to argue that it's little different than Christianity or Islam but what I really fear are the people who are part of Sea Org or offshore from the states and may have given up their rights as a civilian & American to have some sort of special standing in this group.

Whatever the case, I will not ever affiliate myself with a Scientologist and after reading Have You Lived Before This Life, I will do everything in my power to convince those that I know and love to avoid Scientology.

The thing that concerns me about Scientology is that after reading some books by Hubbard about it, I have found very little criticism of it. A book & some articles with the most notable one being Time Magazine. It seems like such an easy target. It takes seconds to find books criticizing Catholics or Muslims ... why are there so few publications attacking Scientology? There is definitely something scary about a very powerful organization and if they have people dumping money into them, I do not doubt they are capable of silencing anyone (unfortunately, even Slashdot).

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[couchslug]

"The video that they forced off of YouTube can, thanks to Gawker, be found here [gawker.com]. "

They can be restored to YouTube under sock-puppet accounts, but of course I don't advocate doing this. :)

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[KublaiKhan]

It is a tenet of the Church of Scientology (the organization; I make no judgments about the beliefs of individual members) that any "SP"--that is, a 'suppressive person', or in more plain language, anybody who criticizes the church--is to be harassed, sued into oblivion, and otherwise removed as a threat by any means necessary.

Though the CoS claims that it revoked its official "fair game" doctrine that specifically endorsed these tactics in 1968, there have been a number of scientology defectors who have confirmed that they were instructed to carry out similar exercises against those whom the CoS has declared to be "SP".

This is, by the way, one of the reasons why Anonymous has been careful to conceal its members' identities. During the protest, the Scientologists are known to have videoed the protests; and taken special effort to photograph any members of Anonymous who were not wearing a mask, any cars that members of Anonymous entered, and in some cases, cars that stopped and received literature that Anonymous was handing out. It does not take any imagination at all to determine what the CoS is likely to do with this information.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading the Bare-faced Messiah. Link to the full text at Wikipedia.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[AdamTheBastard]

why are there so few publications attacking Scientology?

This is one of the motivators for Project Chantology. The CoS attempts to silence critics through law suits and other scare tactics has pissed off a lot of young people. This includes the DMCA take down notice sent to youtube in response to the Tom Cruise video, which started this movement. These are same kind of people that got upset when Digg removed the AACS key, we all know how well that went for the MPAA.

People who speak out against the CoS are harrassed and attacked, which is why Anonymous has been urging people to hide their identity while protesting for fear of retaliation from the CoS.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[QuantumG]

It does not take any imagination at all to determine what the CoS is likely to do with this information. Of course, we encourage you to imagine the worst.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[OldFish]

Whatever the case, I will not ever affiliate myself with a Scientologist and after reading Have You Lived Before This Life [wikipedia.org], I will do everything in my power to convince those that I know and love to avoid Scientology. Uh, like I would advise everyone I know and love, and yes, even those I just like or think favorably of, to avoid ALL religions. They just ain't no good in any of 'em. None a'tall.

Besides, Scientology isn't a religion, it's a...dang I'm not quite sure what it is. Maybe it's a cult. But then aren't they all?

signed- Just a Cranky Old Fish

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[KublaiKhan]

As I said, no imagination is necessary. It's all been documented.

Standard tactics are to harass the person by picketing their house and calling them a 'religious bigot'.

Further, contact will frequently be made with the person's employer and any relatives, emphasizing the 'religious bigot' angle and any other damaging information gathered.

Lawsuits are filed to harass the person--whether or not they have any merit is immaterial, as the aim is to waste the person's time and money.

Xenu.net has documentation on this, for a start, and other repositories of similar records can be found in various places on the internet; I seem to recall that there are several .torrents of documentation archives out there which provide records of all this.

No need for imagination. The truth is bad enough.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[QuantumG]

Wait.

Standard tactics are to harass the person by picketing their house and calling them a 'religious bigot'. Do they where masks when they do this?

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[KublaiKhan]

Do they need to?

They're not likely to suffer debilitating lawsuits, accusations to their employers and relatives of religious bigotry (given that the Church of Scientology tends to isolate its members from non-Scientologist family) or, frankly, any harm at all for taking their action.

If you disagree with the anonymity of Anonymous, you're more than welcome to do so. This doesn't mean that their message is any less true, though.

I would note further that Anonymous may be, in this case, a real-life example of a Stand-alone complex--a movement that has no structure, no leaders, but unites under a common face, name, and cause. As such, the identities of the individual members is, in the end, irrelevant--much like a corporation, the cause exists as an entity unto itself.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[QuantumG]

This doesn't mean that their message is any less true, though. And again, we get back to the point, WHAT IS THEIR MESSAGE?

Other than "we don't like Scientology and here's a whole bunch of accusations that we can't prove and ha ha, you can't sue us for slander because we're anonymous!!"

Seriously, I'm asking you.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[ecavalli]

Yeah, that's their modus operandi and that's why I think this Anonymous assault is so damn genius.

Normally these kids just grief people online and create a dull (if omnipresent and shockingly well-organized) nuisance, but now they have a cause with international media attention. You can bet they're going to be out in force about this.

With a group like Scientology who relies on strong-arm tactics and litigation, and a group like Anonymous who has absolutely no compunction about going to any length "for teh lulz" and is functionally a headless, shapeless mass of unknown size about to square off, I think the best thing for the rest of us to do is sit back and watch the fireworks.

At the very least, it should be a better example of the Internet's ability to organize and drive people than the current elections have been (Ron Paul who?).

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard tactics are to harass the person by picketing their house and calling them a 'religious bigot'.

Good. Then I can make some people disappear myself.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[Anonymous Coward]

There are billions of Christians and billions of Muslims. Each religion has a long history and has had a vast influence on history.

By comparison, Scientology is a teeny little cult with no influence whatsoever. The only reason anyone even knows about them is because they have some high-profile members and they're good at making noise.

In light of this, it shouldn't be too surprising that there isn't much criticism of it. It's generally a waste of time to criticize weird cults that don't have particularly large memberships.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Something you have to understand is that Scientologists _know_ they have the answers to everything (because L. Ron Hubbard said so). If a member has any doubts, then they're "out of ethics" and have to report for additional training (at their expense). The CoS does not use the same meaning of the word ethics that you or I would. To them, ethics is doing and believing exactly what you're told. If you don't understand something, or have questions, then you are assumed to simply not understand the material; because if you did understand the material, you wouldn't have any questions.

The organization is set up so that it slowly isolates members from normal society, both physically but also mentally. Everything the CoS teaches becomes the truth and any conflicting information is actively ignored. The group as a whole forms a sort of feedback loop whereby members receive positive affirmation from the group when they do, experience or feel something the CoS wants them to feel regardless of whether or not it's true. This is why some people claim that Scientology has helped them, it's not because of the "tech", it's because they feel acceptance and safety within that group.

The church has several ways of dealing with dissent and criticism. The first is by declaring someone a suppressive person, or SP. SPs are considered to be very, very evil people as they're trying to suppress or prevent the CoS from saving mankind (yes, that's their stated mission). People who leave the church, or people outside of the church that are trying to talk someone into leaving are "declared" SP which means that Scientologists are forbidden from speaking to them about anything meaningful. If you're a Scientologist and someone is an SP it doesn't matter whether or not they're your father, mother, brother or daughter, they're dead to you. The second way is through their "fair game" doctrine which basically states that the CoS will not punish a member for anything they do towards an SP, be it harassment, extortion, assault or murder.

David Touretzky (yes, _that_ Touretzky) has some great information about Scientology available on his homepage. There's a fantastic article available that describes exactly how someone gets sucked into the cult, little by little. Note I say cult and not religion because the CoS _is_ a cult. They simply call themselves a religion in order to attempt to shield themselves from "interference" from government and to take advantage of IRS tax breaks (so they can keep more money). In addition, they have members sign contracts that absolve the church of any responsibility should something like you dying from their Introspection Rundown happen. Check out this contract they have you sign. Pay particular attention to this sentence,

I understand, acknowledge and agree that the Introspection Rundown addresses only the individual's spiritual needs and I freely consent, without reservation, and without condition or limitation, to Church members conducting the Introspection Rundown, and that I accept and assume all known and unknown risks of injury, loss, or damage resulting from my decision to participate in the Introspection Rundown and specifically absolve all persons and entities from all liabilities of any kind, without limitation, associated with my participation or their participation in my Introspection Rundown.

Notice it says "only the individual's spiritual needs", which means that it doesn't meet your physical needs and you can die from their "ritual" like Lisa McPherson did.

I could go on and on about things like church members being locked into compounds with patrolling armed guards, related organizations like Narconon treating drug abuse problems with long saunas and megadoses of niacin or actual proved conspiracies like Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout, but I'd prefer the reader follow some of the links I provided and educate themselves.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[canajin56]

It does not take any imagination at all to determine what the CoS is likely to do with this information.

Especially when you consider that the CoS has murdered at least 23 people, and got away with it through huge settlements. (One of these murder victims was the reason for this protest). And that their "fair game" doctrine repeatedly states that protesters are to be silenced by "any means necessary" and "at all costs" etc. And finally, that in the CoS's press release with regards to Project Chanology, the CoS has stated that all of Anonymous should be put to death. Their reasoning goes like this. 1) Treason is punishable by death during times of war. 2) Treason is defined as acting against your country at the behest of another country. 3) Protesting the CoS is acting against freedom of religion, and therefore acting against your country. 4) (And this is the best one) Anonymous is run by Nazi Psychiatrists (who invented Psychiatry by torturing jews during WW2) and therefore anonymous is acting at the behest of a foreign government, and guilty of treason. Being called a secret spy ring of German Nazi Psychiatrists from WW2 is perhaps even better than being called "Hackers on Steroids", so clearly Project Chanology, from this one statement alone, is made of Epic Win. Fortunately its PROBABLY all just hot air, although there were reports of protesters being trailed, in some cases all the way home, after the events, and some of the protesters who reported this have since stopped posting. Are they dead? Or did they just go to sleep? ONLY TIME WILL TELL.

Did you know that the USA is taking action against Germany for its "human rights violations" in considering revoking Scientology's status as a tax-exempt religion? Yup. That's how totally in control of the government the CoS is. The Church is a terrorist organization, and nobody is more guilty of high treason than the despicable celebrities gathering Intel and support, in exchange for an easy tax scam. To explain, Tom Cruise manages to make $10M off some movie deal. But oh snap, he owes $5M in taxes on that! But wait, if he donates all $10M to the church, suddenly boom, no taxes to pay! YAY! But now he has no $10M :( Except that as a celebrity member of the church, that money is instantly transfered into a PR account in his name. And he has sole discretion over what to do with it. Wants a new house. No problem, the PR fund can buy it. The Church still technically owns it, or he would need to pay taxes on it if it was gifted to him, but he is free to live there all the same. At the bare minimum, the treasonous celebrity members need to be locked up on tax evasion and conspiracy to commit tax evasion.

Anyways, not surprising that in spite of all of the cameras and media vans, it's not on the news, at least in Canada. 200-300 people stay out in -30c weather all day in Toronto, and CBC, CTV, cityTV, and AChannel all conveniently ignore it. Guess it's not news worthy. It would have been a perfect tidbit for their half hour section on the people braving the cold in Toronto's coldest day yet! (Vancouver had way more people show up but since it wasn't bloody -30 their attendance is not nearly so epic)

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[Anonymous Coward]

That's essentially what this is, really.

The best part is the Co$ can try to pin all sorts of questionable things that Anonymous has done on Anonymous.. except.
Though Anonymous has done many things, any individual Anonymous has done nothing.

And oh how they will regret were anything untoward happen to Anonymous. Up till now everything Anonymous has done -- even the DDoS -- has been more for the lulz than to cause any actual harm. If the Co$ were to cross that line?.. well, they really don't understand Anonymous at all if they think that would work. Anonymous is more than the sum of its parts, and Anonymous plays to win.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[Anonymous Coward]

The significant difference between Scientology and "mainstream" religions is that while the latter do have their share of cults that seek to control the lives of their members in the name of the religion, Scientology as a whole seeks to do that, and does that with centralized coordination.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[Anonymous Coward]

And again, we get back to the point, WHAT IS THEIR MESSAGE?

Other than "we don't like Scientology and here's a whole bunch of accusations that we can't prove and ha ha, you can't sue us for slander because we're anonymous!!"

Seriously, I'm asking you.

I believe their message is to inform people about the history and actions of Scientology -- ie, the criminal activities including kidnapping, harrassment, assault, burglary, blackmail, fraud, etc.

These accusations have been proven, in courtrooms around the world, these aren't hypotheticals or people with time to kill who just threw a dartboard at the phone book and decided to make stuff up and annoy the CoS for no reason. Western governments don't ban churches or take away their official legal status just because they seem a little kooky in their beliefs.

The protesters were generally pointing people to XENU.net for more information.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[Sobrique]

Differentiating between a religion and a cult, may seem to be a matter of opinion.

However it remains the case that you can find out the basis of Christianity, by going and buying a copy of the Bible, for not many beer tokens. Or just wander into a church, and ask.

They'll tell you what the religion is about. If you attend worship, great. If you don't, then ... well, ok.

Whatever your relative opinion of whether religion is bullshit or not, it remains the case that Scientology is very expensive bullshit. And is scarily fanatical in it's reaction to criticism.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[Maudib]

"You may be able to argue that it's little different than Christianity or Islam"

Indeed the most terrifying aspects of Scientology are those that resemble the other major religions. Suppression of information, the use of violence to suppress opposition, a claim to hold monopoly on "the Truth" and a willingness to place themselves above civil law. Oh and lets not forget the tendency to place beliefs before observable information...

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[elrous0]

What was Martin Luther King's message other than "We don't like segregation!"?

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[Anonymous Coward]

Quiet agree people disappearing will be fun

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[GroceryShopper]

Being a peace-loving person I'd like to state the following based on this interview:
I would like to shit in Tom Cruise's mouth and wipe my ass on his hair.
Peace on Earth

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[CodeBuster]

If they really wanted to be secure about it then they should use a rental car or public transit (even better) instead of their own real cars when they travel to and from the protest areas. Their name tag could even read "hello, my name is: Xenu". The CoS and their members are notorious and unscrupulous when it comes to harassing their critics so some sensible precautions to protect one's identity are probably in order should one decide to participate in these demonstrations.

Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes

[rtechie]

They simply call themselves a religion in order to attempt to shield themselves from "interference" from government This is an important point. Scientology originally started as a pseudoscience. L. Ron Hubbard, which is on record as saying he wrote Dianetics as a "get rich quick" scheme, originally promoted Scientology and his "e-meters" as a "wonder cure" that could not only cure all psychological ailments, but all diseases as well. He claimed it cured cancer, etc. It is only when the "evil" (from his perspective) FDA started demanding he prove his wild claims that he retreated to the LEGAL protection of religion. LRH never considered Scheintology to be a religion, he ALWAYS considered it to be a "science".

Better coverage of the London protest

[TheGreatGraySkwid]

The linked article is pretty lame. Anybody got a link to better coverage of Phoenix?

There's an LJ Account from a participant in London that's a great read; sounds like something I would have been proud to participate in!

Re:Better coverage of the London protest

[clockwise_music]

There was pretty extensive covering on the Australian TV news. I'd imagine that this was because it made good viewing - especially because everyone was wearing masks.

Here's an article about the protests in Australia.

Old joke from the Gong Show

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you steam a clam? Make fun of his religion!

(Xenu not pleased.)

Webcam uplink of Seatle protest

[Anonymous Coward]

Webcam uplink of Seatle protest: http://www.earthcam.com/usa/washington/seattle/index.php?goto=hof145fs74240

Mommm! Tom Cruise wont come out of the closet

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else thinking of that episode of south park here?

Does the author know...

[Anonymous Coward]

...what the phrase "in lieu" *means*?

"...they gathered Sunday in lieu of the birthday of Lisa McPherson..."

Re:Does the author know...

[Koiu Lpoi]

Google knows. Click the first link.

Re:Does the author know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Scientology killed her, she won't really be having a birthday. Thus a protest can certainly be in lieu of her birthday.

I thought "it was all good"...

[gandhi_2]

in this post-modern society, i thought it was wrong to attack anyones bullshit beliefs. Gay is ok, Islam is protected, you can do whatever you want, thats the beauty. "It's all good."

Scientologists can believe whatever they want. Attacking their beliefs is the same as attacking Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, what ever. There's no universal right or wrong in a post-modern world.

Before you all scream that scientology is different, remember that the ONLY difference is when the leader/crackpot was born. L Ron Hubbard, Joe Smith, etc.... Just cause they came along in the 50's doesn't mean their bullshit is any less "sacred" than Catholic Bullshit.

To be fair, no religion should get tax-exempt status.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Donniedarkness]

They weren't attacking their beliefs, but rather their practices-- charging people for their literature (LARGE amounts of money... thousands and thousands of dollars before you can learn much about it at all), their treatment of people, etc.

Xenu.net is a good place to learn about all of this.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[QuantumG]

Who gives a shit what people wanna spend their money on?

Who gives a shit how people are ok with being treated? Some people like being whipped in the bedroom, you got a problem with that?

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Eth1csGrad1ent]

Its not about attacking their beliefs...its about attacking their secrecy and the voracity with which they target their nay-sayers. It always amazes me how groups like this will fight to the death for the right to believe what they want to believe (free speech, free will) at the same time as they attempt to shut down anyone who would put forward an alternative (not free speech, no free will)

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[gandhi_2]

I don't disagree that they are full of shit. The point is: either we are a society where "it's all good" (religious pref, sex pref, pet ownership, skateboarding, whatever), or we aren't.

People decry the "religious right" pushing their Christian Values on others. Why does "anonymous" feel so inclined to attack this particular bullshit religion? Er..sorry...belief system?

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Lemmy Caution]

"Gay" is a belief? You think it's not OK to criticize attempts to implement Sharia law?

What we don't criticize are identities, or assume that religious practices are reducible to a simple body of tenets. There is a difference between criticizing someone for being Christian and criticizing them for believing that the world is 6000 years old. Obviously, there is a relationship between the two, but that relationship isn't a simple one. What it meant to be Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, etc . has changed over the centuries of those practices, and I'm pretty sure that I have more in common with most Christians today than those contemporary Christians have with 5th century Christians. Likewise with Muslims, etc.

The "post-modernism" (or, really, post-structuralism - post-modernism is more a theory of cultural history) comes in when we observe that every act of making a statement - even a "true" or well-founded statement - comes with an agenda, says more about the reasons for saying, carries their own presumptions, etc. It is caught up in the idea that "even if they really are out to get you, you still can be paranoid." "Anything goes" is actually a very old idea, when really, you are talking about a well-founded hesitation to critique other identities simply on the basis of some of their explicitly stated beliefs, rather than addressing those beliefs historically.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[king-manic]

All belief ought to be open to criticism. Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, Jehovah's witnesses, the left, the right, the liberal, the conservative, the republican, the democrat, or Buddhism are all the object of criticism. The question is why is critiques of Scientology so sparse? Because they employ tactics to silence them that are unethical. Legal harassment, physical harassment, blackmail, infiltration of government agencies. The sheer concentration of 'evil' is to be deplored without any of the redeeming public service as the other religions employ. The other religions have long ceased such behavior in the west. Why ought we tolerate it from this self help ponzi scheme?

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.... I attack the beliefs of any religious person i encounter on a daily basis and i'm a flaming liberal.

Religion is bullshit, pure and simple. No religious person has ever had a scrap of evidence to present to show it isn't.

You cannot discriminate against someone, that doesn't mean you can't call their opinion bullshit.

You have to respect their right to an opinion, NOT their opinion.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[91degrees]

It's about actions, not beliefs. Believe the world is made of squashed bananas and everyone is born with 8 legs. All fine by me.

Sue people for sharing what you claim to be the truth - Not so fine. Indoctrinate people into your religion and isolate them from their friends and family - Also not fine. Accuse your critics of being terrorists - Also not fine. Accuse critics of being terrorists and criminals - Also not fine. Using a hoax "personality test" that tests nothing in order to trick people out of their money - Also not fine.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[sumdumass]

Why shouldn't religions get their tax exempt status? the only reason they do is because of the first amendment. I don't think that should be changed any time soon.

And for Smith, many people think he was a fraud and many people reject the Mormons to a certain degree. But the Mormon fight was long ago and because they do believe in God, Jesus, and the rest of the stuff, People just don't think it is a strong fight any more. Even all the killing justified by GOD has been at least a generation out, most of it has been multiple generations out. So what we have is scientology, a secrete group that has had some controversy and a few strange deaths of people trying to run away. Give if a few hundred years and people will loosen up on them too. but until them, it is the legal cult with the fucked up principles and ways and it is in the block.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought it was wrong to attack anyones bullshit beliefs. Gay is ok, Islam is protected, you can do whatever you want, thats the beauty

But then they started reporting people as terrorists for making wisecracks about Tom Cruise missiles. It would be like the Catholics telling their followers to report anyone who didn't show up to mass as child molesters.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Laur]

Why shouldn't religions get their tax exempt status? the only reason they do is because of the first amendment. I don't think that should be changed any time soon.

Huh? Why should they get any tax exempt status, and how does it in any way infringe their first amendment rights to pay taxes like everyone else? Also, please explain how it doesn't infringe the first amendment rights of everyone else, particularly atheists and others without a formal religion, who is forced to shoulder their tax burden?

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[u38cg]

Scientologists are no different from anyone else. As an atheist, I am just as strongly against all the religions you cite; however, the one I would like to see wiped from the face of the earth first of all is Scientology.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you give a shit what people protest?

Who the fuck are you to tell people what they can and can't protest?

Some people like to shout out "WTF?" when they perceive an injustice occurring, you got a problem with that?

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Anonymous Coward]

You namby-pamby bedwetter.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[sumdumass]

DO you know what the fist amendment says? If your asking those question, I bet not.

The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; charging taxes has always been held as prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Because if the church didn't pay the taxes for whatever reason, they would be arrested.

And no, it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, you have the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof just like anyone else. The members of the church pay the taxes, the church doesn't. The only thing your missing is the church so why don't you become a member of the UUA which has a church- that doesn't pay taxes.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[ecavalli]

Certainly everyone is free to believe in whatever they want, but the flip side of that guaranteed freedom is that everyone is also free to criticize anyone else's beliefs, no matter how "sacred" they are considered to be.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[rossifer]

in this post-modern society, i thought it was wrong to attack anyones bullshit beliefs.

IMHO, post-modernists are highly-educated, effete, self-contradictory nihilists.

According to Lyotard, post-modernism can be defined as "incredulity towards metanarratives". Where metanarratives are attempts to order and explain knowledge and experience. Simple enough, I suppose. Unless you happen to notice that that definition of post-modernism is itself a metanarrative, albeit an entirely negative metanarrative.

So post-modernists should be skeptical of metanarratives (including this one). Leaving nothing to say. As such, post-modernism is an entirely worthless branch of philosophical thought. The only logical behavior that can be directed as a result of post-modernist thought is to avoid making any assertions at all.

Scientologists can believe whatever they want. Attacking their beliefs is the same as attacking Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, what ever.

Sure, they can believe exactly what they want. It's when they harm people and/or prevent free exit from their organization that it becomes very important to object and object loudly.

There's no universal right or wrong in a post-modern world.

Your assertion may be correct, but it does not substantiate your previous point. There are behaviors that more right and more wrong than other behaviors. Judged by me on the basis of their behaviors, Scientologists are more wrong than the Methodists (to just pull a random name from a hat full of religions).

Actually, IMNSHO, Scientology is pretty much as close to evil as can be observed. They do nothing but destroy.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[gandhi_2]

Lol...

Thank you. This was I was getting at. (:

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Abreu]

As other posters have noted above, the main reason "scientology is different" is because of their tactics.

Your saviour can be Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Hubbard, Maradona or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... and your beliefs can and should be protected.

However, if your "religion" is nothing but a thinly-veiled excuse for making money out of your disciples, then you are nothing but a cult.

And if a cult incurs in criminal behaivor, it doesnt matter if its Aum Shirinko or Scientology or Catholicism... the perpetrators must be stopped.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just say this. I've studied a good bit of material on their methods, and even tried many out myself - and I've learned that quite a few of their oldest and simplest practices are fiendishly effective.

For instance, well-executed repetition during conversation really does seem to lull individuals into a trance-like state - IF you can keep them from realizing what they are doing. The same holds true for encouraging another person to hold an immobile stance for a period of time (such as during meditation) - a method they use during some of their earliest training regimens.

A common practice of theirs during early indoctrination is to distract the student from analysis of what they are learning by reducing any questions to atomic principals - ie any misunderstanding obviously must be the result of a single word not being understood. I've used this myself in IT, where anyone questioning the logic of an administrative declaration is asked if there were any individual words they did not understand. This quite effectively distracts that person from their actual issue (which was dependent on the larger-scale structure of the statement).

If you study detailed accounts of their training programs, specifically those for "dedicated" members, not their general flock, you will find that it is one of the most well-conceived brainwashing regimens this world has seen. You see elements of it in military training, religious indoctrination, and even some of the more rigorous technical education programs. It's brilliant.

Of course, one of the key components is the fact that most humans are susceptible to passive manipulation of their memories and psychic makeup. Psychologists (a profession Scientology dislikes, even if the vast majority of their justifications date from the early 20th century) learned the hard way that a slightly troubled mind can easily be split up into multiple competing personalities - without even requiring cognizant complicity from the psychologist involved.

Honestly, at best, I equate Scientology with faith healing. They claim to have helped many, and they actually have. They've done so, though, in much the same way that a faith healer helps - the person has a problem, develops an utter and total belief in a specific solution, and the problem largely resolves itself primarily by their faith in that solution. This is a powerful motivator, and the cause for many changes of religion. Their reasoning, however, is horribly flawed, and reflects in on itself. Instead of identifying the more obvious and logical reasons behind what they saw over time, they instead chose more fanciful explanations - and warped their reality to fit those ideas. It's much like partisan politics, but without the external controls that any politician must survive. This is how they went from interesting ideas on the function of memory, to suddenly believing in past lives (something that you could convince most people of, if they allowed you sufficient control over them), and from there extending their beliefs to aliens, spiritual parasites, and a host of other bizarre ideas.

In other words, they helped pioneer some very dangerous areas of psychology, but without any real scientific controls, without even the most basic road map, and in a sequestered and increasingly paranoid environment that fed back on their own ideas, convolving them into something that needed very little basis in any form of reality.

They are not a group intent on brainwashing and controlling the masses, they are people who foolishly brainwashed themselves and are now caught in their own mythology. All largely because they placed their trust in one horribly flawed, but charismatic, individual who I don't believe honestly cared about them. They would disagree, of course, but it seems pretty obvious to an outsider who's read their "secret texts".

Given time, they could become something truly interesting... but only after they open themselves to outside criticism, and face down their own demons. Until then they will remain little more than a wildly successful cult, like the Moonies and others, having their time in the sun before fading into obscurity.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[PitaBred]

Because this "bullshit religion" causes real, physical harm to the citizens of the country. It's not just people believing what they want, they actively enforce punishments against people in their "religion" for not following dogma, and against people outside of the religion for ever saying anything bad about it. Live and let live is a fine idea, but Scientology isn't doing the "let live" part of that bargain.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[DragonWriter]

Why shouldn't religions get their tax exempt status? the only reason they do is because of the first amendment.

Religions don't get tax-exempt status because of the first amendment, which does not prohibit levying taxes on religious organizations. They get their tax exempt status, like other nonprofits, because they are organizations that aren't operated for the profit of any stockholder, owner, etc.; as such, they are simply a means for people to come together to use their already-taxed income for common purposes other than profit. At least, that's the theory, and there is quite a lot in the law and regulation applicable to non-profits designed to assure that it mostly works that way.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Lemmy Caution]

But the reaction to just this incredulity has been sticking fingers in one's ears and saying "LA LA LA I can't hear you," roughly speaking. To be specific, postmodernist isn't moral relativism. (It's not *not* moral relativism, either - moral relativism is far older, as is nihilism.) Postmodernism is a critique of meta-narratives, yes - meta-narratives such as the march of progress that legitimized colonialism and imperialism, or the creation of a worker's utopia (much of it is a critique of Marxism), or any number of teleological presumptions (including those that are locked up in evolutionary language, mistaking adaptation to a niche with simple progress.) One can recognize that these metanarratives are really just human inventions and that none of them are the "meaning of history," while retaining one's moral bearings.

That morality is ultimately produced by history and circumstances, rather than being something etched into the fabric of the cosmos, is not the interesting or relevant part of postmodernism. Nihilism may reside in the belief that one cannot have a morality without reference to a meta-narrative that one is "acting as if is true." Pretending God (or whatever fixed moral center of gravity you are yearning for) exists because we're afraid to imagine life without HIm or It is more nihilistic than simply acting on the basis of one's moral intuitions and producing, rather than simply echoing, fundamental values.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Jherek Carnelian]

charging taxes has always been held as prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Because if the church didn't pay the taxes for whatever reason, they would be arrested. I completely disagree. What's to stop a group of people who claim a religious belief in equity funds or any other number of revenue-generating endevours?

Where's the line between a legitimate 'non-profit' (a term with a very specific meaning that does not preclude people from getting filthy rich) religion and a scam?

The members of the church pay the taxes, the church doesn't Huh wuh? "Donations" to churchs are tax-deductible.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[DragonWriter]

According to Lyotard, post-modernism can be defined as "incredulity towards metanarratives". Where metanarratives are attempts to order and explain knowledge and experience. Simple enough, I suppose. Unless you happen to notice that that definition of post-modernism is itself a metanarrative, albeit an entirely negative metanarrative.

You seem to be confusing skepticism with rejection: to be skeptical of a class of things is not to reject everything in that class out of hand, rather, it is to question, probe, and test their support. So the contradiction you are trying to suggest is nothing of the kind. Indeed, it seems to be an example of exactly what post-modernism is in large part a reaction against in the reaction to metanarratives in general--taking a metanarrative (in this case, "metanarratives are often misleading and should be critically examined rather than trusted") that is originally useful at least within soem domain, and letting it ossify into something absurd ("metanarratives are to be rejected out of hand")--as applied to post-modernism itself.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a shit how people are ok with being treated? Some people like being whipped in the bedroom, you got a problem with that?

Yeah I'm one of them, and I say it's ludicrous to compare consensual acts to the Church of Scientology.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[rossifer]

You seem to be confusing skepticism with rejection

So do most self-described post-modernists. That proportion can be increased from "most" to "all" if we limit the set to people who aren't full-time philosophers.

Being critical and/or skeptical is wonderful. One of the first adjectives I use to describe myself is "skeptical". But this is not what the strategy of any post-modernist I've had a chance to speak with so far. All of the post-modernists I encounter dismiss instead of criticize as some sort of argumentative shortcut (presumably leaving the criticism as an exercise to the listener). The real issue is that they aren't critical of why they choose to dismiss their straw men in favor of their own preferred epistemologies.

And real post-modernist authors (the ones who don't take argumentative short cuts) spend most of their time explaining why they aren't saying much. Which is why I believe they've boxed themselves into a small and uninteresting corner of the epistemological multiverse.

So my original (humbly opinionated) description remains.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[fatphil]

Are you OK with how Lisa McPherson was treated?

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[QuantumG]

How you claim she was treated and for which the police found no evidence?

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Laur]

DO you know what the fist amendment says? If your asking those question, I bet not.

Already resorting to ad hominem in the first sentence, eh?

charging taxes has always been held as prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[citation needed]

I have no problem with donations to churches being non-profit and non-taxed, what I am really talking about here are property taxes. Please explain why it prohibits the free exercise of religion to have religious institutions pay taxes on real property just like everyone else. Maybe the government should be required to build and maintain all the churches in America, because otherwise many religions are being "prohibited from the free exercise thereof?" Is that any more ridiculous then what you are saying? Many (poorer) churches don't even own property, they meet at someones house or even at a local school, so obviously they are not being prevented from their free exercise just because they don't own property (and can't take advantage of the corresponding tax break).

And no, it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, you have the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof just like anyone else.

Freedom of Religion also includes Freedom from Religion. Forcing me to help carry the tax burden of religious institutions I disagree with does directly infringe on my first amendment rights.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[unixfan]

Hmm. It always warms my heart to see people who are willing to stand up and fight for freedom and so on. But there are a lot of stories that sound totally made up, sorta like a which hunt. If I got it right; Someone steels the church's materials and places it on the Internet. Church uses legal methods to stop the distribution. Some people feel their freedom is threatened by the church's lawsuits, even though they probably really had no business distributing it in the first place. Then it sort of snowballs.

The really odd part is that if you just look the CoS is recognized worldwide for it's humanitarian actions.
They were for a while the only non govt organization allowed on Ground Zero due the relief given to firefighters etc. Helped hurricane victims in some of the worst disasters in the world, including New Orleans. If you look you see prison reform in various places and countries which has an amazing success rate using Ron's teachings. Kids are helped becoming much better students thanks to what he developed. (Which is what interests me, being a parent myself. Plus frankly I find it fascinating. My daughter is now rated part of the top 2% in the US, after doing some courses in the life improvement center.)

I have visited many types of churches across three continents. You could easily say that I've been interested in what the world has to offer for a long time. Out of all of them Scientology appears to have received a lot of positive responses and produced real improvements all over the place.

The church is very big on learning about ethics. Which is defined as something along the line of what is helping the greatest number. Being honorable, help others, true to self and things like that. Has a book with precepts that sounds like the ten commandments. Sounds pretty decent.

As for the "thousands and thousands of dollars before you can learn much about it at all" that is simply not so. I've seen a bunch available online at typical book store prices.

The way I see it is that unless mayors all over the US, police chiefs, fire chiefs, heads of states, and citizens of all walks of life, from all over the world are all in a big conspiracy to fool everyone there clearly is a lot of good coming out from Scientology. It's hard to balance that with the allegations one can read on some of these websites.

I've spoken to a few people who were warning me about how dangerous the church is. How one could not even open the Dianetics book without being hypnotized! I mean if you are that easily hypnotized then the world is one a massive threat. (Imagine turning on the TV!) Obviously some people need a good which hunt to feel good if you ask me.

I grant that there are some law suits that don't look right, though I'm not on a mailing list which tells me why scientology is suing anyone. (Which would be interesting.: )
I would love to get the inside scoop on why the church makes some of these lawsuits, other than what seems the obvious of trying to defend something it cares about. I just don't see the evil in real life that people talk about online. Of course I've not been sued either. But I can't believe that someone walks around doing nothing but minding his/her own business and then gets sued by CoS. Unless of course the lawyers are not scientologists but normal lawyers who just like suing to earn a living! :)

For all the years that I've traveled around the world I know there are things that I'll never understand, but at the same time I know there are people who love to cry wolf. People who are fired, for example, often don't tell the real reason why. Somehow it's always the boss who's crazy. Most people who have done stupid things don't like others to know and of course people usually blame others for what they have done themselves. Human nature.

The Lisa McPherson story is another story that turned out to have more to it than what was said. It turned out that one of the coroners had severly misreported the cause of death. The church was cleared once

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, no religion should get tax-exempt status Churches usually give something back to their community. I've not seen evidence that Scientology. I mean, you've got the "Human Rights" groups who make it clear their only goal is to eliminate psychiatry. You have the Narconon which gets confused with Narcanon (Narcotics Anonymous) which is considered too dangerous for any scientific study. You have Sea Org whose members only get paid $30-$80/week with no social security benifits, no medical insurance, and NO RETIREMENT. They drain resources but give NOTHING back

----

* ABLE Inc. - See Association for Better Living and Education

* Akademie Für Management Und Kommunikation - WISE member; business front to spread LRH and Scientology in Europe [Prosperity*]

* APPLIED SCHOLASTICS - Functions as an educational organization to spread LRH courses and Scientology ethics and beliefs in their schools. All schools licensed by Applied Scholastics are Scientology schools staffed and directed by scientologists. [Sci Adv*]

* ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION - Runs some of the church's front groups and activities. Under ABLE's management, other fronts infiltrate businesses and organizations to introduce LRH's ideas and methods. Includes Applied Scholastics, the Way To Happiness Foundation, Narconon and Criminon. [Better Business Bureau] To get involved in education and community groups. Promotes Applied Scholastics and other Scientology organizations. [Sci Adv*] [NHJ]

* Athens Gold - 4,500 acre mining property near Reno, CA, taken over by Michael BAYBAK, a scientologist [TIME]

* AUTHOR SERVICES, INC. - manages Scientology's literary and financial affairs controlled by the church and influential scientologists. [NHJ] To sell and promote books, particularly policy.

Noder's note: This is the front through which the Battlefield Earth flick was managed. Sadly, John Travolta bankrolled the film (and it's *shudder* sequel) so the spectacular failure didn't even scratch the paint on the CoS coffers. I was wrong -- John Travolta did not financially back the first film however he will be doing so for the second one.

* BANCORP DEVELOPMENT, INC. - Members of the Patrons of the International Association of Scientologists (IAS) who have donated in excess of $40,000 to IAS' "war chest." [Impact*]

* BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS - Scientology publishing and printing company; puts out Dianetics and other LRH books.

* Business Success Sales and Management Training - Scientology front that lures people and businesses in with "management training" and seminars, and eventually steers them to LRH and Scientology. Members of IAS, donated to Authors Services Preservation of Tech.

* CALICCHIO & CO., SPA - IAS members who donated in excess of $40,000 to "war chest"; donated in excess of $20,000 to Author Services Preservation of Tech.

* CASA DOLCE CASA (Europe) WISE member fronting LRH tech in Europe [Prosperity*]

* Celebrity Center Kids on Stage for a Better World - Entertainment(?) and PR, "The group exists to spread the word of scientology to the rest of the world." {Celeb. mag*]

* Child Guidance Centers - Runs child Dianetics processing on children and encourages parents who are not already into Scientology to begin with Dianetics, etc. [Ch. Dia.*]

* CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY (COST) - functions as an archivist for LRH's works. [NHJ] Also functions as one of the corporations created to challenge the IRS's ruling against Scientology [Bet Bus Bur] Formed in part from assets stripped from

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[sumdumass]

Already resorting to ad hominem in the first sentence, eh?

I hardely think that is ad hominem, it is a statement of reality. As in I don't think you know what they first amendment says. It is obvious to me.

I have no problem with donations to churches being non-profit and non-taxed, what I am really talking about here are property taxes. Please explain why it prohibits the free exercise of religion to have religious institutions pay taxes on real property just like everyone else. Maybe the government should be required to build and maintain all the churches in America, because otherwise many religions are being "prohibited from the free exercise thereof?"

Well, actually, only the portions of real property that actually holds services are the portions effected but different state laws have extended that to include all of the church's real property too. But anyways, the standard of holding them tax free has been held since the beginning of the countries founding and that point was expressed in WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK. This case resulted in the US supreme court claiming that the tax exempt status might even be required under the First Amendment to avoid "excessive entanglement" between church and state and it could prohibit the free exorcise thereof. I think this was around 1970 and subsequent courts have changed it a little (actually refined it) but the basic implication is still there.

Is that any more ridiculous then what you are saying? Many (poorer) churches don't even own property, they meet at someones house or even at a local school, so obviously they are not being prevented from their free exercise just because they don't own property (and can't take advantage of the corresponding tax break).

That is exactly the point. When taxing them, your essentially putting a means test to their successfulness. You are prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless they meet your particular governmental requirement's. Some churched require actual churches, and some to differing extents see this as needing certain requirements like size and decoration wich would artificially overvalue their wealth as a means test. Religions not able to live up to it, couldn't practice their religious beliefs because of "action of the government". The court put it this way, Each value judgment under the Religion Clauses must therefore turn on whether particular acts in question are intended to establish or interfere with religious beliefs and practices or have the effect of doing so. Adherence to the policy of neutrality that derives from an accommodation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses [397 U.S. 664 , 670] has prevented the kind of involvement that would tip the balance toward government control of churches or governmental restraint on religious practice.

Freedom of Religion also includes Freedom from Religion. Forcing me to help carry the tax burden of religious institutions I disagree with does directly infringe on my first amendment rights.

That case already dealt with this. They figure that there are two types of subsidies, incidental and direct money subsidies. The court said And it likens the indirect subsidies to The Court did not regard such 'aid' to schools teaching a particular religious faith as any more a violation of the Establishment Clause than providing 'state-paid policemen, detailed to protect children ... (at the schools) from the very real hazards of traffic ....' Ibid. when citing a case about public transportation of all children to schools when they include students going to parochial schools and held that the interference is no different in their tax exempt status.

The interesting thing here is that the founding fathers didn't see this as a violation of your first amendment rights-as they intended them to be with every state having the exem

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[fatphil]

Was that supposed to be English?

An autopsy is evidence.

Do patients receiving good care get bites from small animals on them?
Did Minkoff get his license suspended for prescribing drugs to McPherson during her 'care' without seeing her?

Clue - the answers to those questions are "yes" and "no", but not necessarily in that order.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[QuantumG]

You mean the autopsy that showed the death was accidental?

Seriously, what's the problem here? People die doing crazy shit all the time. Doesn't mean you have a right to close down their religion.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[CaptainZapp]

charging people for their literature (LARGE amounts of money... thousands and thousands of dollars before you can learn much about it at all)

Then again, if somebody wants to pay 500k for some really bad science fiction, who am I to say he's wrong?

Sure some of their tactics are deplorable. Then again, Scientology is far less of a threat to society then fundamental Christians. Just look what those "inteligent design" idiots do to the science curriculums in a lot of schools.

If you're bothered by their pushiness in shoving their "personality test" down your throat, here's a free tip:

Just mention to your friendly Scientologist that he's probably not allowed to talk to you, since you get Ritalin prescribed by your psych (scieno speek for psychologists/psychiatrists) and see what happens.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Donniedarkness]

At the very least, that $500,000 should be taxed.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[CaptainZapp]

Yep, totally agree.

I don't see why any church for that matter should be tax exempt. If a church provides charitable -, or community services they should get tax credits for that (and no: informing the public about the evils of Xenu doesn't count as community service...)

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Laur]

I hardely think that is ad hominem, it is a statement of reality. As in I don't think you know what they first amendment says. It is obvious to me.

Saying that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what they're talking about and that your opinion is the only possible reality, displays poor logic and debate skills and makes for a pretty poor discussion, although you're right it isn't strictly an ad hominem.

What is obvious to me is that forcing everyone to financially support religion is in direct conflict with the establishment clause, and I think you agree with me here. What you and the Supreme Court seem to be saying is that the alternative would be worse, however since as you say it has never actually been tried in this country it seems that that conclusion is far from certain.

That is exactly the point. When taxing them, your essentially putting a means test to their successfulness. You are prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless they meet your particular governmental requirement's. Some churched require actual churches, and some to differing extents see this as needing certain requirements like size and decoration wich would artificially overvalue their wealth as a means test. Religions not able to live up to it, couldn't practice their religious beliefs because of "action of the government".

Welcome to real life, where real physical things cost money. Should the religion have to pay for the lumber and bricks to build the church, and the labor to put it together, or should all that be provided by the government (i.e. the taxpayers) to provide "free" access to religion? As my previous examples showed, NO church "requires" a large fancy tax-free building to hold their services, many make do without, although I'm sure many churches would like to think that they require such grandiose facilities, and that the government is oppressing them by not helping them pay for it.

The Court did not regard such 'aid' to schools teaching a particular religious faith as any more a violation of the Establishment Clause than providing 'state-paid policemen, detailed to protect children ... (at the schools) from the very real hazards of traffic

Now we're reduced to "please think of the children"? Just because the Supreme Court said something doesn't mean it is right or correct.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[epee1221]

Actually, he means the initial autopsy, not the one that came after some legal threats from the church.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[Ayanami Rei]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3445882&page=2

Quote: After 9/11, the church received a commendation from the New York Fire Department for its relief efforts, but critics accused it of applying therapies such as rhythmic massages that some mental health professionals considered medically dubious.

"The public needs to understand that the Scientologists are using this tragedy to recruit new members," Michael M. Faenza, the president of the National Mental Health Association said in 2001. "They are not providing mental health assistance."

In Minneapolis, the group said it's working with the Red Cross. Yet members of the Red Cross working at the disaster zone questioned by ABC News weren't aware of the Church's assistance.

They show up, use the fact that they show up to make themselves look good, and proceed to basically get in the way and hand out Dianetics, pamphlets, and generally intercept you before you think about going to a mental health practitioner to handle the shell shock. It's really slimy, like ambulance chasers.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[unixfan]

Well I know that there's an old animosity between the any Mental Health Association since the Church is not only turning over evidence on mental health practitioners that does things like having sex with their patients but highlighting their lack of medical evidence for putting children and adults on psychotropic drugs. Several thousand have been turned over to the D.A.'s office. Clearly there's no love lost between them.

The "rhythmic massages" is not at all rhythmic but one of the basic body assists which according to my understanding works with the nervous system and relieves electrical standing waves. I believe it's called a nerve assist and judging from testimonies by firefighters they felt they could not have accomplished what they did without it. Probably why they gave out the commendation.

As for the Red Cross I don't think they were even allowed in early on. That might have pissed them off since the volunteer ministers had organized a lot of support lines.

But I can see the spin which makes it sound really bad. I'd be pissed off if I read that.

Re:I thought "it was all good"...

[sumdumass]

Saying that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what they're talking about and that your opinion is the only possible reality, displays poor logic and debate skills and makes for a pretty poor discussion, although you're right it isn't strictly an ad hominem.

That would be right if that was in fact what I was doing. Instead, what was going on is how It is obvious to anyone looking at it.

What is obvious to me is that forcing everyone to financially support religion is in direct conflict with the establishment clause, and I think you agree with me here. What you and the Supreme Court seem to be saying is that the alternative would be worse, however since as you say it has never actually been tried in this country it seems that that conclusion is far from certain.

Actually, it has been tried which is why there is a court case that can be references. And yes the alternative you state is worse. Another alternative of not collecting taxes in the ways you see in conflict which would solve your concerns, the first amendment and many other issues. So don't take the alternative to be the only alternative.

Welcome to real life, where real physical things cost money. Should the religion have to pay for the lumber and bricks to build the church, and the labor to put it together, or should all that be provided by the government (i.e. the taxpayers) to provide "free" access to religion? As my previous examples showed, NO church "requires" a large fancy tax-free building to hold their services, many make do without, although I'm sure many churches would like to think that they require such grandiose facilities, and that the government is oppressing them by not helping them pay for it.

Paying for lumber and bricks it different then arbitrary costs placed by the government with the intention of manipulating religions or stopping them from starting which is exactly what would happen, on purpose or incidentally. And your illustration of what the church needs and doesn't need is proof of this. You have already deiced that without the separation clauses, you would relegate all churched to swallows in the slums of society. Somehow, that isn't the free exercise thereof.

Now we're reduced to "please think of the children"? Just because the Supreme Court said something doesn't mean it is right or correct.

No it isn't down to think of the children. Your not a moron so why are you acting like one? It is down to the simple fact that religion will always benefit from government and that benefit doesn't necessarily mean that the government or you through your taxes are supporting religions and churches contrary to the first amendments.

If you feel that strong about it, I suggest you stop whining about it on slashdot, hire an attorney and get shot down in court yourself. I mean seriously dude, if your going to ignore every sane reasoning in favor of your own, then get off your ass and do something about it besides trolling in the forums. If you are right, then you will change things. If your not, your still just as confused and pissed off so you don't have anything to lose.

Antagonism to psychology

[spun]

It comes from the fact that LRH was a high functioning paranoid schizophrenic. His first wife tried to have him committed. Plus, psychology actually, you know, has scientific experiments backing up its efficacy. This obviates the need for LRH's psycho-babble snake-oil.

Re:Antagonism to psychology

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't find that on Wikipedia. You are lying.

Re:Antagonism to psychology

[SeePage87]

His first wife tried to have him committed

No wonder the need to mention "first".

parent is myminicity link

[Anonymous Coward]

do not click

FLUNK

[Anonymous Coward]

I've tried to take an objective look at Scientology. I am not a theist (atheist), but do think reincarnation is plausible. Something must be retained from death to birth, so that might as well be called a thetan. Much of the rest of Scientology seems like reasonable psychology as well--dualist, but without the supernatural. Certainly no obvious fairy tales, like Christian, Jewish, or Islamic miracles. I think the antagonism to psychiatry is the result of wanting to know what we don't yet--this aspect leads to unfortunate incidents such as this. If you strip away the secrecy and celebrity, there are some interesting ideas there.

1) Unfouneded claim of objectivity.
2) Claim that Scientology is somehow compatible with both atheism and supernatural belief systems such as those that include reincarnation.
3) Claim that Scientology doesn't make supernatural claims.
4) Claim that psychiatry is somehow incomplete because it doesn't explain the supernatural -- but wait, who the hell brought up psychiatry? This is a total non sequitur, other than being a dead giveaway about who you're really working for.
5) Claim that there are "interesting ideas" (implying that we wogs should sign up and try for ourselves)

If you're a Scieno attempting to distract us from the topic at hand -- the long string of abuses and crimes perpetrated by the Cult of Scientology -- you FLUNK. Half rations of rice and beans for you, and six more weeks in RPF!

(If you're merely trolling Slashdot by pretending to be a Scieno, you did a good enough job to fool me, though! Well-played! :-)

Mandatory xkcd joke

[popmaker]

http://xkcd.com/154/

Protest?

[QuantumG]

Didn't the Klu Klux Klan used to conduct similar "protests"?

Seriously, this is just harassment and persecution.

Persecution of crazy brainwashed idiots, but persecution none the less.

Re:Protest?

[couchslug]

from your sig:

"When did insurgence against imperialism become a bad thing?"

So why is resistance to the psychological imperialism of Scientology a "bad" thing?

Re:Protest?

[Faust]

Honestly, this cult has a history of horrible things, and we're not talking hundreds of years ago. Once again, not protesting the religion, just the church. Actually had a few members from the "freezone", that practice outside of the church protest with us. Please stop spreading their lies, they're vocal enough.

Re:Protest?

[QuantumG]

As I said to a friend of mine who went.. What were you protesting? Who were you protesting to? At least the protest in Australia was actually about something - tax exempt status - and directed at the government. You can't protest the practices of a church to the church.. that makes not sense.

Re:Protest?

[Faust]

The message did get a bit skewed, then again, it's hard to herd a bunch of people that don't have a leader. But the main idea was to get word out and let people know what is happening. You can see from reading many of the comments people are willing to push it under the rug just because they think its a religious issue.

Re:Protest?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

By that logic, MLK was persecuting and harassing white people?

Re:Protest?

[QuantumG]

Get WHAT word out? That Scientology is a dangerous cult? No shit Sherlock.

These "protests" were not about "getting the word out".. they were about hate.

Re:Protest?

[taniwha]

first of all it's not a church .... it's a scam and a cult ....

and you can protest the behaviour of an organisation by exposing their abuses to the public so that they wont get sucked in

Re:Protest?

[QuantumG]

MLK was protesting to his government over the disequal treatment of the races. Exactly what were these idiots protesting about? A religion exists which they don't like?

Re:Protest?

[Faust]

When I think hate, I think of some type of violence, which there was none. Hell there wasn't even a threat of violence. Honestly, a majority of the people see the church as a joke and a majority of signs pointed to websites that detailed some of the church's actions. If you think this was about hate, then we obviously weren't doing our jobs.

Re:Protest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get WHAT word out? That Scientology is a dangerous cult? No shit Sherlock.

These "protests" were not about "getting the word out".. they were about hate.

So it's wrong to hate dangerous cults now Watson? Or is it just wrong to hate? If that's the case then why don't you stop hating on the haters?

Re:Protest?

[Broken scope]

Actually, It might have also been for the lulz.

Re:Protest?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Scientology organization is not a religion. It is a deceptive, dangerous cult worthy of as much hate as anyone could possibly throw at it. The Scientology organization defrauds people -- not even for a 10% or 20% tithe, but for hundreds of thousands of dollars, for as much money as it can take. The Scientology organization actively prevents people from receiving life-saving medical and psychiatric care. It tells people that their money is better spent on more e-meter auditing than on chemotherapy. When people try to leave, it harasses them, follows them, libels them, and not infrequently murders them. When people leave the organization and try to find others to practice their beliefs, the Scientology organization sues and attacks them.

Yes, there have been other religious organizations that have done things like this. And we stop them whenever we can.

You dismiss the objections to Scientology only because you have either not read them carefully, or you are being paid by the Scientology organization to dismiss them.

Your words are quite obviously not those of someone who has tried to leave Scientology, and you are deeply wrong.

Re:Protest?

[PitaBred]

Not everyone knows that Scientologists are a dangerous cult. It doesn't fall under the "No Shit Sherlock" heading for most people. Only the few who pay attention. Anonymous is trying to make it so that there are more than just a few who know and pay attention. The most dangerous thing for a cult is to have it's workings exposed to the world.

It's not hate of a religion. It's hate of a religious organization that systematically intimidates, threatens, brainwashes and misinforms people with serious real-world consequences. There's a reason they picked Lisa McPherson's birthday as a date to protest.

Re:Protest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this is just harassment and persecution. You want to talk about harassment and persecution? How about the FAIR GAME harassment and persecution of SPs?

How about the "harassment and persecution" of the people who left Scientology just so they could reconnect with their families, or because they suddenly realized it was all bullshit?

How about the PUNISHMENT and ENSLAVEMENT of people who were born into the org who are forced into RPF slave labor camps whenever they commit even the most minor out-ethics?

And how about the DEATH of dozens of people who have died directly as a result of the CoS trying to cover their asses?

I suggest you do more research on this cult, because your blind ignorance is quite blatant -- or perphaps you're just OSA... they like to pull out the Nazi card to handle PTSs.

Re:Protest?

[QuantumG]

1. Lisa dies
2. Charges are brought against those who are suspected of being responsible
3. The charges are dismissed
4. People "protest"

Sounds like a complete lack of a respect for the law.. aka the mob mentality.

Re:Protest?

[agent_no.82]

...so respect for the law is a higher value than justice? That is neither socially optimal nor logical. Please explain your repeated antagonism towards the protesters that is appearing throughout this topic.
However, it is socially optimal to eliminate the Church of Scientology. While mobs are usually too dangerous a force to cause anything productive, if the Church of Scientology were to disappear tomorrow it would relieve a great strain of frivolous lawsuits from the court system, it would relieve a great strain of mental stress from many humans, and it would crunch what would continue to be a large sink of otherwise productive resources.

From a philosophical standpoint, moral rights (as much as rights exist,) are not always the same as legal rights. What is your justification for legal rights, if not to ensure moral rights?

Re:Protest?

[QuantumG]

Cool, can we get rid of all the other religions too?

Re:Protest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse- he caused riots where ever he went. His non-violence was expressly used to incite violence.

Re:Protest?

[mdwh2]

Get WHAT word out? That Scientology is a dangerous cult? No shit Sherlock.

It's still news to much of the general public. And evidently, given the defence some people seem to be giving to Scientology, it seems to be news to some people here...

These "protests" were not about "getting the word out".. they were about hate.

Evidence?

Elsewhere someone was criticising them for shouting Internet memes, which doesn't strike me as "hate". The coverage in the mainstream media suggests that "getting the word out" was done rather well, whilst there's no sign of "hate" at all.

I'm genuinely curious what your actual point here? Do you criticise every protest that happens in the world if you don't think the cause worthy or important enough, or is the issue something else...?

Re:Protest?

[rthille]

I sure the hell hope so! The Enlightenment happened over 200 years ago. Come on people it's time to give up the bronze age myths and connect your thinking to reality...

Re:Protest?

[agent_no.82]

If you feel that all other religions are as I described the Church of Scientology to be, that's not my business.

Re:Protest?

[rbanffy]

Digg has Windows fanboys, /. has scientologists...

No place seems safe these days...

Re:Protest?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Hey, I was just protesting your logic, not agreeing with the protesters. In fact that was my point. People protest for all sorts of reasons, and thats their first amendment right. If you disagree with one group of protesters reason for protesting, that doesn't mean that all protesters are equally wrong.

I don't personally have any problem with Scientologists in general, but I *do* have a problem with people who spew logical fallacies at the drop of a hat.

Re:Protest?

[zakezuke]

Didn't the Klu Klux Klan used to conduct similar "protests"?

Seriously, this is just harassment and persecution. "Watchtower Bible v. Stratton"

Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation.

http://epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html

This means if I wanted to protest the Catholic Church, or Pope Benedict XVI, I can do so Anonymously. And you know what happens when you protest at a Catholic church? When I did, I got coffee and donuts. That's how you can test the difference between the listeners and the bigots.

I'm sure the KKK did do masked protests. That's the problem with free speech, you'll always find some hate mongering asshat group who you can't agree with. But at the same time it's a mixed blessing, if the haters want to make asses out of them selves and ruin their own cause, that is their right too. Everyone gets free speech, otherwise it wouldn't be free.

The difference is the KKK was an extreme militant group which employed threats, violence, and intimidation. They often focused on individuals and harassed people AT HOME. They wore masks to dodge accountability, not out of fear of retaliation.

One Co$ revenge picket

Anonymous's actions can NOT be described as harassment and persecution as their target was an organization. Scientology's actions can be called harassment and persecution because they target individuals.

Re:Protest?

[Anonymous Coward]

it started off as for the lulz, then the newfags made it something more involved. I was there, next to gas mask chan :)

Re:Protest?

[skrolle2]

No, it's about showing the world that if enough people stand up against the church of scientology, they can't harm you. The church's policy of harassing and silencing critics only works against small groups, it's totally ineffective against large groups, so you need to show everyone that large groups are willing to stand up against them.

Re:Protest?

[QuantumG]

or, maybe, just maybe, what you call "silencing critics" they rightfully consider "slander" or "libel" or "religious bigotry" and that's why they sue people who say these things for slander or libel and make sure they "show everyone" that the people who say these things are religious bigots. Seriously, half the people I have replied to here today are 100% convinced that CoS is not a church and don't mind telling people such. The CoS is legally recognized as a church.. handing out leaflets saying it isn't is libel. Most of the reasons put forward for why the CoS isn't a church are of the form "they do X, and other churches don't." Which is basic religious bigotry. And, ultimately, unless one of your family members has become a member, it's none of your god damn business. Live and let live.

Re:Protest?

[skrolle2]

I don't care about the faith, but the church is a greedy money-grabbing, brain-washing, isolationist, self-perpetuating and destructive movement. Reading about how former members are harassed makes my skin crawl. Reading how former members are still scarred by it many years afterwards make me really sad. Reading about how the church uses its accumulated wealth to shield itself from everything makes me angry.

No, it is my business to stop the church. I will not stand idly by.

Re:Protest?

[epee1221]

You left out a couple of things, like the church making legal threats after the coroner reported negligence as the cause of death.

All I needed to know

[boristdog]

I genereally feel scientology is as useless as any other religion.

But about 15 years ago they swindled a woman I know out of $50,000. She had inherited it when her mother died (fairly young), and she was quickly taken advantage of in her distraught mental state.

That told me all I needed to know about them. They're as bad or worse than any TV preacher asking for money.

Scientology is really no different than ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianty or Islam... And at least they updated their fairy tales to include aliens.

I'll post this as AC due to the religion trolls on /.

Re:Scientology is really no different than ...

[WilliamSChips]

If you google for a searchable Bible or Qu'ran, you will find a searchable Bible or Qu'ran on the website of a practicing Christian or Muslim. If you google for a searchable OT III, you will find a searchable OT III on xenu.net and not on the website of a practicing Scientologist.

Re:Scientology is really no different than ...

[Corpuscavernosa]

I wouldn't worry about it. As long as you're hating on any sort of religion, especially Christianity, you automatically get +5 insightful!

It's not the beliefs. It's their actions.

[Spy der Mann]

no matter how much balanced you want to be, it doesn't stop Scientology from abusing its members. Even IF what Scientology claimed was true, does that give them the right to ask for incredible amounts of money to spread its beliefs, and killing/suing whoever opposes them?

anonymous terrorist

[garlicbready]

cyber-terrorism, because just being a plain old ordinary terrorist is just so boring these days

London photos

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23636618@N05/sets/72157603884045128/

Photos from the London protests. A lot of people there.

I attended the protest

[Anonymous Coward]

And would like to point out that we were not protesting against the religion, we were protesting the Church.
Oh, and here are my pictures from Austin.

They call themselves anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

They're like hackers on steroids.

MOD PARENT UP

[SnoopJeDi]

Honestly, if I hadn't spent those modpoints on half-ass comments...

Religion is a man-made construct, social by definition and in nature. If you're looking for God, religion is a crutch.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[fonik]

And if you are looking for meaning, God is a crutch.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Ardaen]

I feel like I should be saying something along the lines of: if your trying to live, looking for meaning is a crutch... then there should be the comment about life being a crutch...

Though it often does seem that in the search for meaning the idea of a god or gods is a bit of a dead end that leaves you with blind faith. Then I've got to ask how blind faith is so different from just accepting that meaning might be beyond your ability to comprehend... Guess god gives you prettier packaging on the same product. Whee crutches!

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Khamura]

Then surely L. Ron is the Wheelchair?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[hotdiggitydawg]

Ahh, but if you're looking for crotches, I can suggest a few good websites...

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, blind faith is essentially an intellectual surrender. You give up ever trying to find the truth and satisfy yourself with a falsehood instead.

Calling something "beyond your ability to comprehend" is a very powerful statement. I would not make such statements without significant evidence. Otherwise, you may be rightly accused of having blind faith yourself.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[fonik]

I lol'd. It's too bad I've already posted or I'd give you a +1 funny.

A guarantee

[iknownuttin]

How do you guarentee it's accurate.

It's a religion; therefore, I guarantee it isn't accurate.

Re:A guarantee

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep raging against that machine, champ.

Re:A guarantee

[slyn]

How do you guarentee it's accurate.

It's a religion; therefore, I guarantee it isn't accurate.

Until you can answer the question of what was there before the big bang, and what was there before that, and what was there before that, ad infinitum, that is a debatable statement.

Regardless, Anon is not against the religion of scientiology, but rather the church of scientology (see here). To quote that website:

The CoS is harmful to society, and to its own members. Its institutional purpose is, as stated by its founder, its own prevalence and expansion, mainly in an economic way. It considers the religion, the belief, the faith to be not an end, as it should, but a means, a mere tool. Indeed, it is degrading towards its own religious base and all those who believe in it.

This humiliating manipulation alone is enough to consider it insulting at best, malign at worst. But its crimes do not stop there.It has attacked freedom of expression routinely; it has attacked freedom of religion by going against those who follow the faith but not the institution; it has attacked freedom of movement, of association, of thought.

Furthermore, it has attacked the right to life, the right to the pursuit of happiness, and all other fundamental human rights.

As an outsider looking in (as of now, I may attend the Ides of March protest), I think its an extremely interesting phenomenon. Watching news reports about anon or reading online news articles about the protests from the press gives me the sense that no one who is reporting on this (outside of practially Anon itself (ie wikinews)) has any idea of what is really going on. The fact that a bunch of (essentially) computer nerds from global internet websites such as 4chan, digg, ebaums, something awful, and probably many other sources have essentially banded together for a common cause through a decentralized network of group leadership and manages to make the news through their protest amazes me. The fact that they are able to do so while wearing V for Vendetta masks, Hello Kitty shirts, Gas masks, and looking generally nerdy all while still pulling fairly ridiculous numbers makes me swell up inside with nerd pride (hey that rhymed).

Re:A guarantee

[mdwh2]

Hello Kitty shirts, Gas masks

Rather er, interestingly, that photo was on the front page of news.com.au, but they had to censor out the word "CULT", apparentely on the advice of their lawyers... (Of course, I don't blame them, considering the CoS's past behaviour.) I can't find the image in any of the stories now, but it's still on their servers.

Re:A guarantee

[enoz]

The current headcount for the protest is still less than 9000. The largest single protests appear to be averaging around 500 anons (London, Los Angeles). For a local community protest these would be reasonable numbers, for a globally coordinated targeted protest - it is absurdly small.

all while still pulling fairly ridiculous numbers I would agree if you intended "ridiculous" as in "laughable"...

Re:A guarantee

[GTMoogle]

>>It's a religion; therefore, I guarantee it isn't accurate.
>Until you can answer the question of what was there before the big bang, and what was there before that, and what was there before that, ad infinitum, that is a debatable statement.

Not really. Every 'religion' I'm aware of makes claims that are factually inaccurate. The god-of-the-gaps is most certainly not the god in the bible, to koran, the torah, or the secret tomes of Lron. Nor is Spinoza's god. It's really just the last retreat of reluctant pseudo-agnostics.

Re:A guarantee

[Anonymous Coward]

It was organized in two weeks, for crying out loud, and because the whole idea of Anonymous is to be, well, Anonymous, can't attract the attention whores normal protests do.

Re:A guarantee

[ceoyoyo]

So the solution to what came before the big bang is to postulate something even more complex than the universe (an omnipotent being) that created it?

So where did that being come from?

Science's ability to explain has nothing to do with whether religion is accurate or not. With religion, the fact that somebody, or many somebodies, made it up and at least parts are not verifiable pretty much guarantees that any non-trivial religion is going to be wrong.

Re:A guarantee

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the only hope we've got of ever making it, buddy. or we can just pretend god is great, until that last time religion runs rampant.

Re:A guarantee

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just like to say that Anonymous started on 4chan, it's a forced anonymous image board. Also all those sites you mentioned hate ebaumsworld because they steal images from other sites and watermark them for use as their own.

Re:A guarantee

[e2d2]

Yeah but it has SCIENCE in the name! I mean anything that calls itself science must be so right? Not just anyone can add science to their name.

Re:A guarantee

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing you need to understand about "Anonymous", is that as soon as you agree with it, you are already a member. That is the entire point of the "group". It is everyone and no one. If you see injustice, you act against it. That's all it takes.

Re:A guarantee

[geekoid]

"Until you can answer the question of what was there before the big bang, and what was there before that, and what was there before that, ad infinitum, that is a debatable statement."

Well..no. All religion I've studied, none of the 'believers' actually no there own theology. So most people spouting there crap are wrong about their own theology. Catholics and evangelicals standing out the most.

Scientology's reply

[krod77]

What baffles me is to why Scientology forces websites to remove "copyrighted" material(For example that slashdot comment); they really brought about this situation upon themselves. That being said; I doubt Scientology will reply to all this activism, they are already in a bad situation and replying to it will only further the media coverage of it.

Maybe they will learn from their mistakes.

Re:All I needed to know-REFUND

[Nom du Keyboard]

But about 15 years ago they swindled a woman I know out of $50,000.

She should demand a refund. No I'm not blowing smoke. Scientology promises full refunds if you ever wish to receive one on the basis that they didn't help. While not the easiest thing to pursue, there is a group out there (shouldn't be hard to find on the net) that assists former members with this process.

Psychiatric labels

[Besna]

Psychiatry only deals with what is normal. Most religious people would be described of as normal according to DSM. This is despite believing in obviously inconsistent events. One who is schizophrenic does have real issues in occupation or social functioning (as the DSM specifies). A schizophrenic may still have a more accurate view of the world.

Re:Psychiatric labels

[spun]

Sure, schizophrenics may have a more accurate view. And most schizophrenics aren't high functioning. But that doesn't apply to LRH, who was, in techincal terms, crazy as a shithouse rat. And on LOTS of drugs, meth mostly.

Psychiatry does not only deal with what is normal. Read up Abraham Maslow and Humanistic psychology. Sounds like you're stuck back in the bad old days of Freud and Skinner. Psychology has come a long way since then, and is no longer all about getting people to fit in, but to reach their full potential. And it has scientific backing. Studies show whether or not techniques work, and therapists change techniques based on what works.

Re:Psychiatric labels

[hyperball]

Sounds like you're stuck back in the bad old days of Freud and Skinner. Psychology has come a long way since then, and is no longer all about getting people to fit in, but to reach their full potential. Psychology, at least in its Freudian version, was never a theory for normalization. If anything it was an attempt to question why we behave in a certain way and buy into social constructs - like the CoS -

That it has come a long way - True, it has been mostly discredited as a scientific theory, but it is still fundamental when it comes as a "critical theory" to probe things that are not rational - like the CoS.

The CoS falls apart immediately with just about any logical argument, yet lots of people join in. There exist the assumption that people always follow truth: Freud made a leap when he said that this is not the case, humans can act on purely unreasonable basis, hence when approaching the problem of cults like Scientology -when many people will ignore the facts and follow their "instincts" - psychoanalysis, and specially the readings of Freud developed by structuralism, are an excellent way to asses how the ramblings of an irrational person hooked on meth "work" ... and do something about it.

*theory as in critical studies is very different from theory as in scientific method.

Clarification

[cheese-cube]

As has been stated on the Raid Wiki, Anonymous is not protesting against the religion of Scientology itself, Anonymous is protesting against the organisations behind it, primarily the Church of Scientology, RTC and OSA.

Re:Clarification

[QuantumG]

How is it "protesting"? Does that word even have any meaning in the USA anymore?

Marching around in masks and yelling things does not a protest make.

Re:Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

They should lay off of Hubbard, especially after his valient two day battle against a magnetic deposit! Delusions of grandeur through this whole guy's life.

Re:Clarification

[king-manic]

How is it "protesting"? Does that word even have any meaning in the USA anymore?

Marching around in masks and yelling things does not a protest make.
Main Entry:
        2protest Listen to the pronunciation of 2protest
Pronunciation:
        \pr-test, pr-, pr-\
Function:
        verb
Etymology:
        Middle English, from Anglo-French protester, from Latin protestari, from pro- forth + testari to call to witness -- more at pro-, testament
Date:
        15th century

transitive verb 1 : to make solemn declaration or affirmation of 2 : to execute or have executed a formal protest against (as a bill or note) 3 : to make a statement or gesture in objection to intransitive verb 1 : to make a protestation 2 : to make or enter a protest


Seems like the very definition of protest!

Re:Clarification

[QuantumG]

Heh, you are aware that the definition you just posted defines "protest" to mean "protest".

Re:Clarification

[king-manic]

The word means more then one thing and one of them means to do the other. Odd but thats from meriam-websters.

Re:Clarification

[gigne]

Marching around in masks and yelling nonsensical internet memes at people who have no idea what you are talking about does not a protest make.

If you are going to try and send a message, at least make it vaguely coherent... right?

I had people ask me to go along, but quite frankly I am not sure what they are "protesting". If people want to spend their hard earned money joining Scientology, let them. If people want to lose a day standing around in a dumb mask chanting about a looooong cat, or whatever this weeks meme is, so be it.

The tax exemption status is a little annoying, but why not hit all religious institutions on that point?

Re:Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

Parts of Speech.
br> HTH.

Re:Clarification

[rigorist]

Xenu loves you, little clam!

Re:Clarification

[mdwh2]

Marching around in masks and yelling nonsensical internet memes at people who have no idea what you are talking about does not a protest make.

If you are going to try and send a message, at least make it vaguely coherent... right?

Funny, the mainstream media seems to have picked up on it and knows what it's about. Getting international news coverage I'd say is a pretty successful protest.

I'm surprised that there are people on Slashdot of all places that don't know what it's about, but that's beside the point.

Re:Clarification

[mdwh2]

How is it "protesting"? Does that word even have any meaning in the USA anymore?

Marching around in masks and yelling things does not a protest make.

Okay I'll bite - what is required for a protest? (And the protests weren't just held in the USA, btw.)

Re:Clarification

[gigne]

I think you misunderstood the message I was trying to convey. I know full well what it is about, at least in the broadest sense. What they are trying to achieve is something I am not so sure of. Anonymous made it (fairly) clear to me what they are about, but unless you get that message over to the people that matter, it is all for nothing.
The people protesting at the "church" near me were chanting messages that most "normal folk" people could not comprehend. I saw boards that said things such as "doing it for the lulz", "lolcat says no!" the oddness went on. The people I mentioned the protest to knew of Scientology, but not the reason for the protest. If you want to convey a message to people, especially people who count, it needs to say *something*.

I was just saying that a more objective approach to the protest might have a more widescale effect. I know there was absolutely no coverage of the local event in the local press. The intentions were honourable, but the message lost.

There is usually a clear message. "Bring back the troops", "more pay", "no cruelty to animals" etc.

I wrote a massive rant here, but it is late, and quite frankly, meh.

Re:Clarification

[QuantumG]

You say you know what their message was.. can you reiterate it here? Cause I still don't know what it was.. other than "CoS, we don't like you."

Re:Clarification

[mdwh2]

Obviously I can't speak for the organisers so I don't know what intent they had in mind, but I imagine a main intent was "Raise awareness about criticisms of the CoS". Given the coverage in the media, I'd say it's a job well done, even if the messages being chanted may have made no sense to someone there at the time. (Although the banners I saw from photos on the whole conveyed reasonable messages, even if the chanting didn't.)

You reach far more people through mainstream media, than random passersby - it's not like you could easily condense criticisms of the CoS into a simple chant.

Protests don't always have to be a single issue - for example, sometimes people oppose a new law (even though different people may oppose different parts of the law, or for different reasons); in this case it was opposition to the CoS.

I'm not saying it couldn't have been done better - maybe it could, I don't know - but I don't think it was that bad, or that the message was lost (and I should point out I speak not as someone involved or attending, but as an outsider who's been reading about it in the media).

Re:Clarification

[edschurr]

It defines "protest" it terms of "protest" because one is a verb and the other is a noun; afiact it is typical for definitions to refer to the noun. If you look at the noun's entry there is "a gesture of disapproval". .

Re:Balanced view.CORRECTION

[Nom du Keyboard]

Like the evil Lord Xenu and space ships that look like DC-9's?

I believe you mean DC-8's -- but without the propellers...

Oops! The DC-8 was and is a pure jet aircraft. No propellers.

The ideas can remain interesting.

[Besna]

Concealing the ideas does not make them less interesting or true. It does just the opposite--perhaps makes them seem more suspect. A sort of 'truth through obscurity' is no way to promote what you think is a reasonable worldview. Still, whatever is in those talks in dark rooms may be reasonable.

Re:The ideas can remain interesting.

[Nazlfrag]

Concealing the ideas destroys their truth. Only lies require the kind of secrecy that surround their teachings. Liars, crooks, thieves, scoundrels the lot of them.

scientology's well known attack methods

[Anonymous Coward]

LRon himself advocated "any means" to attack criticism. journalists or ex-members get treated with the full-on private investigator route, usually with their personal lives ruined. At worst, scientology will lie, cheat and steal (see breaking & entering government offices court case) to hide criticism. They will slander former members without any respect to truth, including calling them child abusers, child porn rings, etc. getting someone on the sexual predator list (which is public and notice of you is delivered by post to your neighbors whenever you move) is a brutal tactic they have used.

  Even when fully caught, they blame the perps as "fringe elements" and minimize the language (the government case is described to this day as "stealing photocopy paper" when it was the FBI's own investigative files about scientology and tax fraud). These fringe elements were the leaders of the group at the time, including LRon's wife.

  The "what are you afraid of" mantra is used once in a while to directly attack investigators or citizens. its quite scary when the local law enforcement sides with them.

  Really, there's nothing much to do except expose them as the liars, cheats and thieves they are, anonymously of course ;)

Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[khasim]

Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

The problem starts when the cult practices brainwashing and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.

That is what Scientology does.

It may START consensual, but it is a FIGHT to get out.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[QuantumG]

If there are laws being broken then attack them in court. Don't start wearing masks and practicing vigilante justice. And don't sully the name of petitioning your government for grievance by calling your outpouring of hate a "protest".

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[KublaiKhan]

The civil rights movement marched as well. Were their protests 'vigilante justice'?

Is a public airing of the truth a hate crime?

What are -your- crimes?

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[king-manic]

If there are laws being broken then attack them in court. Don't start wearing masks and practicing vigilante justice. And don't sully the name of petitioning your government for grievance by calling your outpouring of hate a "protest". They simply outspend you. Some have tried to take them to court and simply got bankrupted with stall tactics from the Church of Scientology. The church of Scientology understand and game the modern systems. That is how they get away with what they do. They don't need to win in court only cost their victim enough. They don't need to have charges dropped but simply stall. They don't need to act within the boundaries of the law simply coerce those in power to look the other way. Thus the only ethical avenue left is peaceful protest.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[QuantumG]

The civil rights movement was petitioning the government for grievances. And they took pride in not hiding their identity.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[QuantumG]

You can't "outspend" the district attorney ok? You're claiming that crimes are being committed. Where's your evidence? How is the general public supposed to tell the difference between bullshit claims made by hate-mongers and the truth if you don't even have evidence?

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[KublaiKhan]

And this movement is taking elementary precaution against the known tactics of the Church of Scientology: to attack, by any means necessary, anyone who brings attention to their shady past.

I would note that Anonymous is petitioning the government, in this case, to remove CoS's tax exemption and launch investigations into its more shady practices--and has carried out its protests remarkably peaceably; there were no arrests of any members of Anonymous, as far as I know, nor, frankly, was there any action that would require police action.

There is no hate and no shame in speaking truth, regardless of who you are--your argument should stand alone whether you are named or anonymous, if it is a good argument.

Do you debate the assertions of Anonymous? Or are you merely sowing FUD?

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[QuantumG]

I don't know what the assertions of Anonymous *are*. They seem to have no message except "we don't like it."

the known tactics of the Church of Scientology: to attack, by any means necessary, anyone who brings attention to their shady past. What means exactly? Far as I'm aware none of these "any means necessary" include breaking the law.

Every time I hear these accusations against the CoS I wonder how old the people making them are. If you slander or libel them, why are you surprised when they sue you for slander or libel. If you claim you are "telling the truth" then just calmly show up to court with your evidence and win the case.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[KublaiKhan]

The assertions of Anonymous are simple: that the Church of Scientology is harmful to its members (giving specific instances of those who have been harmed or killed by the Church); that these instances should be investigated; and that it should not have tax exemption.

And while none of the public means that have been used are "illegal" per se, many are extralegal--the filing of lawsuits, et al. Doing some research into, for instance, the testimonies of ex-scientologists will shed more than enough light on these things.

The people who accuse the Church of Scientology of all these things are not any particular age. And while truth is a defense against libel, it is not a defense against having to spend years of your time and thousands of dollars in legal fees defending yourself against lawsuits.

I would question, though, why it is that you're defending them so carefully--it's very rare to find someone online defending scientology who is not themselves a member.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[QuantumG]

The assertions of Anonymous are simple: that the Church of Scientology is harmful to its members (giving specific instances of those who have been harmed or killed by the Church); that these instances should be investigated; and that it should not have tax exemption. If there are crimes being committed, then tell the police. There is no need to protest to get the police to take an interest in crime. If, on the other hand, there is no evidence to support these accusations, then you're just engaging in slander.

I would question, though, why it is that you're defending them so carefully--it's very rare to find someone online defending scientology who is not themselves a member. I was waiting for it! I also must be black because I think blacks should have equal rights. I must be female because I think they should be able to vote. I must be Christian because I think they should be free to practice their stupid religion. I must be gay because I think the sexual activities of consenting adults is none of my business. I must be a skydiver because I think people should be free to practice dangerous sports. And yes, obviously, I must be criminal because I think everyone has a right to due process.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[Mongoose Disciple]

What means exactly? Far as I'm aware none of these "any means necessary" include breaking the law.

According to numerous accounts, the 'any means necessary' includes all manner of brutality and illegality.

Here's an interesting one if you're unfamiliar:

http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/fishman1.html

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[QuantumG]

I'll say it one more time:

If there are crimes being committed, tell the police.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[Sinbios]

I would question, though, why it is that you're defending them so carefully--it's very rare to find someone online defending scientology who is not themselves a member.

SIR! Are you a COMMUNIST?!

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[NeutronCowboy]

Either you are truly ignorant, or you're a Scientology member (and a pretty good one, too). Just in case you're unaware of the fact that the IRS caved in to Scientology, here's a link to get you started: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/irs.html

So yes, Scientology actually outspent and outmaneuvered the friggin IRS. Yes, crimes have been committed by Scientology, and have been reported to the police. Unfortunately, Scientology is very, very good with lawsuits and personal defamation, which means that no one has been able to actually kill them off.

Right now, I regard them as a bigger threat to society than the Mafia.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[Sinbios]

If I had mod points I'd mod all your posts up.

Anonymous doesn't actually care about any of the crap people hate Scientology for ("But Scientology sucks because they don't publish their teachings!" - does anyone actually care about their teachings?), they just want to stir up shit. Except a few of them get a little too into it and the result is stuff like http://www.partyvan.info/index.php/GoddessMine and http://www.partyvan.info/index.php/Habbo_Hotel. They're just doing the same thing except now they have a more publicized target that is more hated, so suddenly they become interweb heroes.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Goddamn! And you are saying through 100+ posts under this article that small groups of masked protesters are not allowed? That every crime is perfectly solved by police and court in whatever the country and situation and you can't even say anything out on the street without being marked as a religion bigot, "cyber terrorist" or "hate-monger"? Not every criticism of religion institution is hate against religion. Not to mention you ignore the messages the Anons are shouting out because you obviously can't oppose them with arguments...
Your posts are short and pointless, tell us something interesting and/or insightful, otherwise go read your OC III or whatever that SF bible names itself...

Sry for the english, i'm slavic (yea, communist, DUH!)

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[QuantumG]

So you actually want Scientology "killed off". Wow, no wonder you people get yourselves sued.

Oh, and thanks for calling me a nigger lover.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[DigitalWallaby]

I was waiting for it! I also must be black because I think blacks should have equal rights. I must be female because I think they should be able to vote. I must be Christian because I think they should be free to practice their stupid religion. I must be gay because I think the sexual activities of consenting adults is none of my business. I must be a skydiver because I think people should be free to practice dangerous sports. And yes, obviously, I must be criminal because I think everyone has a right to due process.

So. Are you or aren't you?

Do you think Scientology is a stupid religion?

I ask because your answer carefully avoided answering the question. Much like a politician does on a TV interview when he is on the spot.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[witekr]

I think the issue here is that people enjoy 'jumping onto a bandwagon', regardless of what bandwagon that is, really. People like feelings of solidarity, nationalism, and group-supported behaviour that perhaps they may be lacking in their lives. It seems the CoS and Anonymous share similarities in this respect.

I honestly don't believe many of the Anonymous protesters have originally had any personal beefs with Scientology. The motivation of joining the pack, and the opportunity to think less but feel important, is probably the driving factor behind this 'War on Scientology'.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[NeutronCowboy]

*clapclapclap* You're good. None of what you're implying or actually stating actually happened.

How's that training coming along? Made it to Sea Org yet? Are you getting bonus points for posting this crap? Or are you just trying to get out of RFP?

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[zoltankemeny]

Instead of arguing pointlessly back and forth, take a look at the proven crimes Scientology has committed and the inability of the American legal system to correct them. I quote the Time magazine expose "Scientology: the Thriving Cult of Greed and Power":

"During the early 1970s, the IRS conducted its own auditing sessions and proved that Hubbard was skimming millions of dollars from the church, laundering the money through dummy corporations in Panama and stashing it in Swiss bank accounts. Moreover, church members stole IRS documents, filed false tax returns and harassed the agency's employees. By late 1985, with high-level defectors accusing Hubbard of having stolen as much as S200 million from the church, the IRS was seeking an indictment of Hubbard for tax fraud. Scientology members "worked day and night" shredding documents the IRS sought, according to defector Aznaran, who took part in the scheme."

And yeah, Scientology can and has outspent not just the local D.A., but the federal government to the point that the Feds don't have the resources to take on such a task as cleaning up the Church. As the article states, it has 71 active cases against the IRS alone, one of which requires the U.S. to provide 52,000 documents. So yes, you are naively defending this organization on the basis of the First Amendment, but they are too powerful for the federal government to handle. Not even Christian or Catholic churches have mired themselves this deeply in the legal system. The most terrifying part of the article states that the federal government may not even have the resources to get rid of Scientology.

"Federal agents complain that the Justice Department is unwilling to spend the money needed to endure a drawn-out war with Scientology or to fend off the cult's notorious jihads against individual agents. "In my opinion the church has one of the most effective intelligence operations in the U.S., rivaling even that of the FBI," says Ted Gunderson, a former head of the FBI's Los Angeles office."

This is more than just a group of people protesting another group of people because they believe in aliens and space ships instead of talking snakes and the dead coming back to life. It's not even the "thought-crime" that's being committed (which to me, isn't a crime at all). It's that this group is too powerful to be allowed to sit back and continue to expand and conquer.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[QuantumG]

Heh, when I say "crimes" I'm talking about the claims that people have been *killed* for dissin' the curch. Yet, for some reason, there's no murder trials on the 6 o'clock news, just a bunch a crazies on the internet.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[hachete]

I don't know what the assertions of Anonymous *are*. They seem to have no message except "we don't like it."

the known tactics of the Church of Scientology: to attack, by any means necessary, anyone who brings attention to their shady past. What means exactly? Far as I'm aware none of these "any means necessary" include breaking the law.

Every time I hear these accusations against the CoS I wonder how old the people making them are. If you slander or libel them, why are you surprised when they sue you for slander or libel. If you claim you are "telling the truth" then just calmly show up to court with your evidence and win the case. As someone else noted, a very careful, almost legalistic defence of the CO$. Also, the age of the protester. Should that matter? The last sentence made me laugh, though. Clearly, this person is a lawyer or someone who has not dealt with the legal system. Logic and the legal system do not go together; money matters in law, and the rich usually win.

I don't understand why the Co$ has tax exemption. I agree with the Germans, who regard the Co$ as a cult. I go further: it's a dangerous cult with enough ex-members testifying of brutality to cause legitmate concerns. Indeed, it is these concerns that Anon was highlighting with this protest as any quick perusal of wikinews would tell him.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[QuantumG]

testifying Unfortunately not in a court of law, where the only value of testimony is that given under oath and where stuff like hearsay is inadmissible.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[king-manic]

You can't "outspend" the district attorney ok? You're claiming that crimes are being committed. Where's your evidence? How is the general public supposed to tell the difference between bullshit claims made by hate-mongers and the truth if you don't even have evidence? Interesting choice of words. A definite vested interest i see. So we know of the well documented case where critiques here on slashdot were pulled via copy right. Critique ought to be allowed under copy right of copy righted material but scientologies lawyers harassed slashdot into silence. There is the case of Lisa McPherson. A person is dead, the corners report indicated malnutrition, unconsciouses for days, dehydration and insect bite leading to a conclusion she died from neglect or confinement. She was in the 'care' of scientology.. During the criminal case they harassed the corner, they legally harassed the lawyer, and eventually a circuit judge stopped the case. There is the whole hoopla against the Andrew Morton biography of Cruise. Where they are attempting to suppress it through litigious means. If it's false simply say so. This use of the law as a weapon is contradictory to the spirit of law itself. If they aren't a harmful organization why do they suppress information about their beliefs? There is no redeeming quality to this organization. They charge for 'enlightenment', they recruit people in distress, they silence critics through shady and unethical means (the cases are well documented, Andrew Morton is going through it now), their founders were convicted of fraud, their Founder was mentally unstable enough for his ex wife to want to commit him, their founder came out and said the best scam to make money is to start a religion, their founder hung out with Alister crowley who threw him out because Hubbards followers were trying to scam Crowleys followers.

Really, it's not a religion. It's farce and an affront to justice. I see the attack the attack scheme in your posts. Not very subtle. The public domain evidence against the validity of this organization are massive.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[king-manic]

I honestly don't believe many of the Anonymous protesters have originally had any personal beefs with Scientology. The motivation of joining the pack, and the opportunity to think less but feel important, is probably the driving factor behind this 'War on Scientology'.

Many I know have harbored misgivings about that organization but just never had an outlet and were unwilling to be a single voice against them. Now there is a movement they feel more comfortable about it. I don't mean teens. These are people witnessed the shady emergence of the cult from in 60's.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[hachete]

My original point still stands: the mounting testimonies of ex-Co$ members convinces me that the Co$ is a malevolent organisation. I am not a judge, this is not a court of law. Please kindly take that talk elsewhere.

I guess you must really be a scientologist as they seem to favour legal tactics as a means of silencing their opposition. All because the Co$ took some, or several, poor (and I do mean poor) shmucks to the cleaners via the lawyers doesn't mean that the case rests there, not by a long chalk. It amuses me greatly that you think the court of law is the final bee-all-and-end-all of conflict resolution. In any society, there are other, sometimes more important, arenas in which people can make their voices heard. Often, these peaceful (and law-abiding) ways are more effective. We shall see.

For the record, I am more in favour of the tactic of making Co$ a laughing stock, ridiculing the whole rotten edifice and it's members. The attention drawn to the Cruise video was a good start. However, if there is a protest in my vicinity, I shall certainly be attending.

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[Ayanami Rei]

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, State of Florida, Estate of Lisa McPherson vs Church of Scientology Flag Service Org, Case No.97-01235
SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, State of Florida vs. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. Case No. CRC 98-20377CFANO-S

Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine.

[bhtooefr]

Doesn't work when the police (especially those in Clearwater, FL) are in CoS's back pocket.

Think about that a little. Re:Not just Pheonix

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about 4channers and their ilk.

It was a wiki.

Someone said 9200.

9200 is...

OVER NINE THOUSAND!

Bad Actors

[Nom du Keyboard]

It says a lot about Scientology - and actors - that so many actors buy into Scientology.

These are the actors from the very same tiny group of the overall population who also feel they should tell you how you should be voting, how the war against terrorism should be run, and why their opinions matter more than anyone else's do, and deserve more airtime (and make-up) than any "ordinary" citizen. The people who drop out of college, and even high school - and are proud of that fact!

Re:Bad Actors

[DragonWriter]

It says a lot about Scientology - and actors - that so many actors buy into Scientology.

I've heard that the CoS makes direct overtures to celebrities as a form of advertising, possibly including material inducements. Like much about the CoS, this is plausible but hard to sort out the truth.

Re:Bad Actors

[vux984]

It says a lot about Scientology - and actors - that so many actors buy into Scientology.

No. It just tells you about Scientology. And people I guess. But nothing about actors.

These are the actors from the very same tiny group of the overall population who also feel they should tell you how you should be voting, how the war against terrorism should be run, and why their opinions matter more than anyone else's do, and deserve more airtime (and make-up) than any "ordinary" citizen. The people who drop out of college, and even high school - and are proud of that fact!

No. Actors tell us how we should be voting because we keep asking them. We ask them how to dress, how to talk, where to eat, how to vote... we pay them to entertain us. They aren't special, and they aren't born thinking they are. We train them. We put them on TV, we interview them. We follow the minutia of their lives.

They don't force themselves on us. WE chase them. Sure, at this point its become a bit symbiotic, they use the fact we can't get enough of them to further inflate their value and the activists among them spread their views, but the fundamental issue is US. If we the public could stop caring about them... if we treated them like any other professional like a bricklayer, electrictian, IT admin, PHB, or whatever, the constant media coverage would vanish. E!TV would go away. Tabloids would print something else. Etc.

So... bottom line. Actors are regular people who after spending years in the spotlight often develop some ego issues. But its we the public that first manufacture and then nurture their defective personalities. The industry surrounding them from the media circus, to the agents and publicists exists because -we- demand it.

Now, scientology KNOWS the public is obsessed with celebrity. So they court celebrities. They literally wine and dine them, and then take them back home to (mind) fuck. The CoS wants big prime-time A-list scientologists as evangilists, and they'll do or pay whatever it takes to seduce them. Plus, once solidly hooked, they have considerable funds and assets for the church to get its fingers into to fund its next celebrity acquisition, its legal battles, and so on.

So again, if we the public could stop obsessing over celebrities, CoS would lose interest in converting them. Or, more accurately, its interest would drop to the same level it has in converting the rest of us.

Re:Bad Actors

[greyhueofdoubt]

You could be describing slashdot here. Or musicians, or politicians, or anyone. Almost everyone has opinions on those topics that you mentioned, and almost everyone thinks that they are absolutely right about certain things.

Some actors are douchebags, yes. But it's not as if they have to jostle and fight for air time to proselytize their latest cause. We (people, not ME of course...~) seek out actors. They are familiar faces to us, they are famous, we live interesting lives through the roles they play in films. If a famous person shows up at a rally, their face will be the face shown on the news and in the magazines. I don't think it's fair to say that freakin' Bob T. Famous is being a douchebag trying to tell me how to live my life when he was at a rally with a thousand other (non-famous) people who ALSO believe they know how to run my life better than I do. He gets press time for the rally because he is the familiar face there. They could show Mary M. Obscure for the publicity shot- great, 15 people know Mary. Everyone wonders who the hell this Mary is.

Actors are people, and like anyone else they are entitled to their opinions. If you want as much air time as them, then get famous or buy a news station or show your nipple during half time or something.

I'm just saying.

-b

Re:Bad Actors

[linzeal]

No it isn't they have Webpages. They treat celebrities to free room and board and sometimes take them on cruises on their private yachts. While the cost to "clear" Scientology is still 200k for the every day schmo.

Re:Bad Actors

[zobier]

The people who drop out of college, and even high school - and are proud of that fact! I'm proud of that fact that I dropped out of high school and have become successful and well educated on my own; I just didn't fit in. I don't feel that my opinion matters more than anyone else's does though.

Re:Bad Actors

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo! I agree about -our- views on celebrities. It's the same as gawking at wrecks on the road, and slowing down traffic and creating further wrecks, etc.

The general public gets what it asks for. And now the -general- public, with an "Anonymous" face, is asking for information about the way a church is being run. They are not engaging in a hate-crime. They are asking legitimate questions that deserve straight answers.

Re:Bad Actors

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that actors are also the ones with the moneys. I'd be surprised if CoS didn't court big-pocketed people like Bill Gates by now. It's just that some of the big-bucks people (no offense to the actors) have more "brains" than to throw away so much of their hard-earned income on a lie, or at least something they weren't sure about. And as the people posting above, I'm not talking about the religion itself. Anonymous's declaration of war is to Scientology what Martin Luther's 95 theses were to Christianity. The religion is not touched. It is fine and you can believe what you want. The problem is the price you have to pay for being in the religion. Price literally and figuratively. Leaving money out of the question, is the price of your freedom of thought, speech, and action the right one for being included in a society? Maybe so. But is the said society right to try to control those not part of it and those no longer part of it? No. I am anonymous therefore I am Anonymous. The Legion has a new member.

pragmatism

[Scrameustache]

paralyze them with injections of alcohol and glycol, under the pretense that they were being called for "income tax inspections". The kidnapped populace was loaded into spacecraft for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). Xenu could have saved on the space-fuel if they had air instead of paralyzing juice in their needles.

Re:pragmatism

[CommunistHamster]

In fact, why bother flying them to Earth (or "Teejeeack" as the texts call it) to kill them at all? Why not just fly them into space and depressurise the transports and eject the corpses? Is it wrong that I am thinking of a more practical way to commit interplanetary genocide?

Re:pragmatism

[Scrameustache]

In fact, why bother flying them to Earth (or "Teejeeack" as the texts call it) to kill them at all? Why not just fly them into space and depressurise the transports and eject the corpses?

Is it wrong that I am thinking of a more practical way to commit interplanetary genocide? Nope, it's never wrong to find flaws in other peoples made-up, for-profit religions.

thanks

[Presto Vivace]

nothing like photos

Where is the "vigilante justice"?

[khasim]

To me, "vigilante justice" means "hanging".

I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing people exercising their LEGAL right to protest.

You can claim it is "hate", but that's just your claim.

Do the research and see the instances of abuse by Scientologists. Including brainwashing.

Re:Where is the "vigilante justice"?

[QuantumG]

Uhh.. there is no legal right to "protest".

You have a legal right to assemble to petition your government for grievance.

They weren't doing that.

Re:Where is the "vigilante justice"?

[Anonymous Coward]

the right to assemble and petition has been expanded into non-government related spheres for, what, i dunno, like 100 years or so. don't be rude.

Re:Where is the "vigilante justice"?

[Chris Burke]

You have a legal right to assemble to petition your government for grievance.

http://usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 :
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Gee, I must have missed the part where the right to peaceably assembly existed solely for purposes of petitioning the government. I guess the Government has a right to prohibit my Bridge Club since after all we're assembling, but not to protest the government.

P.S. It's called freedom of association.

Re:Where is the "vigilante justice"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were true, going on strike would be illegal. So, no.

Re:Where is the "vigilante justice"?

[rthille]

You forget that the numeration of rights in the Bill of Rights was not intended to be a complete list. It's not a case of everything that is not permitted is forbidden. The Constitution is a list of restrictions on Government Power, not the rights of the citizens.

anonymous here

[Anonymous Coward]

not coward, just too lazy. jb255@yahoo.com

if anonymous had members, i'd have been one for two years. if a hacker is a programmer or otherwise comp-savvy individual, then i am one also. every single one of the over 9000 protestors yesterday, myself included, would be a member of anonymous. if there were a membership, the tally is somewhere between 5 and 15 million people.

i've sent dozens of emails to dozens of internet news sources, i've stated in an interview with FOX yesterday, and I keep telling the misinformed in the forums, anonymous is not a group. it's a goddamned adjective. it's a natural outgrowth of instant connectivity and free information. just the way a huge crowd in a public plaza can seem like a living thing, anonymous is a collective of people going about their own daily business, which is mostly passing the time, but can occasionally be persuaded by vocal upstarts on a soapbox. the key difference is that, when anonymous, your history and your reputation are unknown, so every statement arrives equal, and is weighed on its own merit.

someone thought it would be a good idea to raid the CoS, probably as a joke, and the idea caught on like any meme does. individuals with a real beef with the CoS weighed in, persuasively and eloquently, and a distributed, worldwide mob was born.

only a part of a percent of anonymous got out of their computer chairs. most of anonymous doesn't give a damn about the CoS. in fact, I certainly don't. i protested because this is the first time i've ever seen anybody motivate anonymous to do anything they couldn't do from home!

also, I don't understand how "anonymous is a cyber-terrorist group" makes bigger headlines than "anonymous: unprecedented scaling phenomenon associated with information networks"

lurk moar.

Re:anonymous here

[Anonymous Coward]

newfag detected stop trying to inflate your ego and gtfo please

Waking up are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good morning /. Are we awake already? These protests have taken place all over the world, from Sydney to Brussels to Clearwater, and this is just the beginning. Beware the ides of March.

To Scientology lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been authorized by our chief lizard to tell you:

BRING IT ON MUTHAFUCKA. BRING IT ON.

Second the recommendation

[_merlin]

I read that book (in the form of a paperback), and I would strongly recommend it. It's informative, balanced and a good read to boot.

Re:All I needed to know-REFUND

[king-manic]

She should demand a refund. No I'm not blowing smoke. Scientology promises full refunds if you ever wish to receive one on the basis that they didn't help. While not the easiest thing to pursue, there is a group out there (shouldn't be hard to find on the net) that assists former members with this process. Considering what they do to critics, customers looking for a refund might be in for more of the same. Then again they might use it as PR and return the ill gotten $50,000.

So you fold on the "vigilante justice"?

[khasim]

And yes, they do have a legal right to protest.

So, to summarize:

#1. Consensual acts between adults are okay.

#2. #1 becomes not okay when brainwashing is involved or when one person is restricted from leaving.

#3. People do have a right to protest such behaviour.

#4. Their protests are not "vigilante justice".

Re:So you fold on the "vigilante justice"?

[QuantumG]

Umm.. no, you don't. "Protesting a crime" is a nonsense way of saying "forming a mob". If a crime has been committed, report it to the police.

religious hate crimes - impossible!

[Alain Williams]

The Church of Scientology says a group that has been protesting against the church are religious bigots that are merely perpetrating religious hate crimes

That can't apply to the Scientologists - they are not a religion, they are a business that conns money out of those who it brainwashes/fools.

Re:religious hate crimes - impossible!

[Telepathetic Man]

What, buying your way to religious enlightenment (buying books) is not the way to do it? Hmmm... I guess I'll stop throwing money in the plate then, I never got any books for doing that.

Re:religious hate crimes - impossible!

[QuantumG]

hey are not a religion, they are a business that conns money out of those who it brainwashes/fools. Sounds like a religion.

Re:religious hate crimes - impossible!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Co$ is the organization that manages affairs for the religion Scientology. Just because I didn't like John Paul II and his crew at the Vatican does not mean that I didn't like the Roman Catholic Church. Just be cause I hated GWBush and his policies does not mean I hated the entire government (or the US, for that matter).

Somewhere in "Scientology" there is an actual religion that's no more or less goofy than many of the other cults/religions out there. That religion is overseen corrupt organization know as the Co$.

Hatred of the Co$ is to be expected given their criminal history. But this hatred should not be extended to the religion. I personally think the religion is pretty whacked, but I can say that about a lot of cults/religions.

-Anonymous

I wonder...

[SharpFang]

How comes so few are interested where does Anonymous come from.

And so many are so misguided as to Anonymous motives.

If your mother was drowning, Anonymous wouldn't move a finger. He might laugh, or throw rocks. Anonymous is the motor force behind raids on Habbo Hotel, against random journals on DeviantArt or LiveJournal, they aren't interested in any political agenda. They are a Horde, a bunch of random people interested in spreading chaos and observing its results. They dont' give a shit about Church of Scientology. They just picked it as a commonly disliked target (so attacking it will likely draw support to them) and raided it the same style they raid Habbo, except IRL. Noisy, disruptive and creative, deep chaos that has some artistic feeling to it, and they got to make a lot of fuss about it. But don't be mistaken, they could have raided Mormons, IRS, Public Transport department, Citybank or anything they'd feel like raiding, no political agenda whatsoever. They prefer extreme, weird, mysterious targets but that's not because they really hate them, that's because the public will be more interested.

Yeah, that should mark me as Fair Game to Anonymous. Rules 1 and 2 not broken though.

Re:I wonder...

[OldFish]

Maybe people don't question Anonymous because they immediately accept the actions of Anonymous as if they were their own. Possibly due to their own level of distrust of Scientology. A level of distrust that sadly should be applied to many other organizations within our shabby, ignorant culture.

Re:I wonder...

[rigorist]

Big win, little clam.

Xenu loves you.

Re:I wonder...

[jez9999]

Anonymous were attacking the CoS. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. QED.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever considered that it might have started that way, as a stupid joke and raid, and gotten out of control? That the people who were victimized by the Co$ might have found a way to turn this into the one way they might have of striking back without threat of immediate retaliation?

While I'm sure that there might be members who aren't involved in the worst of it, in the end $cientology is a dangerous and venomous cult. IANAL, but I have a very strong suspicion that if a group did the same things in the name of Satan, or Baal, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they would be hunted down and jailed.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why the CIA trained and funded the taliban...

Re:I wonder...

[wall0159]

I think your troll mod is a bit unfair, but..

You're talking about people who've shown up - on the street - to make their voices heard. This doesn't sound like the behaviour of an anon chaos group to me - it sounds like a group of citizens who care.

Re:I wonder...

[SharpFang]

Heh... Yes, it sounds :)

But it's really more like a flash mob with no real purpose, only this flash mob took form of a different kind of gathering, seeming to all "outside" like a real protest.

Same with Hal Turner, his show was made nearly impossible because of Anonymous prank-calling him during his program en masse. Hal Turner is a white supremacist, meaning a target of little public compassion, so the prank calls disrupting his program could be seen as a form of protest. But these were JUST prank calls, Anonymous loved to hear themselves on air, doing it - if you visited any of Anonymous hangouts you'd see it's ridden with racial bigotry, racial stereotypes are a dominant running gag, Not that they hate blacks, they just like to tick off the politically correct.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

4chan is better characterized as radical counterculture and aggressive towards any authority or norms. And interesting its not nerds playing rebels, its cut from all spheres of society. The humor of /b/ is not about funny things, but how anything can be funny.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

RULES, asshole!
do you know them?!?

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly it was Ebaums spreading slanderous lies.

Re:I wonder...

[bhtooefr]

Basically, someone did the unthinkable, and managed to break the personal army rule... SUCCESSFULLY.

(As only rules 1, 2, 34, and 35 maintain consistent numbering, I can't give a number.)

Hate crimes

[popmaker]

Scientology spokesmen accuse Anonymous of hate crimes. Has Anynomous hurt anyone yet, physically?

I'm guessing not, but the question must be asked.

Re:Hate crimes

[Koiu Lpoi]

No, but that doesn't stop Scientology from spreading baseless claims in an effort to make their opponents appear less credible.

Re:Hate crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous habitually blow up yellow vans. I'm not sure if there are people inside them, though.

Re:Hate crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

5 Scientologists arrested, 2 in London for assault, and several others at different sites.

3 Anonymous hurt, two because of a car hood that decided to pop off and hit people, and one hit by a bus.

Re:Hate crimes

[popmaker]

Whoa!

That kind of serves the point.

I'd never in a million years would have guessed

[Anonymous Coward]

...that looking for incest toons would eventually end up with me handing out anti-Co$ fliers on the streets.

Pornography really is a destructive habit!

--
Time to use my special 'Post Anonymously' powers one more time...

Only if you abuse the English language.

[khasim]

"Protesting a crime" is a nonsense way of saying "forming a mob".

Really? So a single person is a "mob" if that person protests?

Fascinating.

Illogical, irrational and incorrect, but still fascinating.

Re:Only if you abuse the English language.

[QuantumG]

huh? What the hell are you talking about exactly?

8000 people around the world went to churches wearing masks dude. They wore these masks so they couldn't be identified and sued for slandering the church. Sure, they didn't set and crosses on fire, but give it time. This is the beginning of the slippery slope. And for what? To give the church more evidence that they are being persecuted?

Re:Only if you abuse the English language.

[Kreigaffe]

Thing here is they're afraid of BASELESS LITIGATION

the same reason none of us want the RIAA knocking on our door

Baseless litigation, with sufficient money behind it and directed at a target with vastly lesser funds and legal power, can DESTROY lives. Even if it's completely and utterly false and obviously so, given enough money and force behind it your life will be ruined for quite a long while.

It amounts to abuse of the legal system, but hell, the RIAA's not really gotten in trouble for it yet (yet..). The CoS certainly won't.

Re:Only if you abuse the English language.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing here is they're afraid of BASELESS LITIGATION
Problem: QuantumG does not believe in baseless litigation. If Alice sues Bob, Bob _must_ have done something evil.

I bet that

[wozzinator]

...this post and all of the subsequent threads will be deleted by the Church of $cientology by tomorrow.

Re:I bet that

[X0563511]

I'm sure anonymous would take that quietly. They would have to be stupid to do that - enough crap is flying already, they don't need more people tossing it at them!

anonymous also in Seattle

[sentientbrendan]

although I don't have exact numbers

http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_021008WAB_scientology_protest_SW.accc9b6e.html

Re:anonymous also in Seattle

[juan2074]

When I drove by there on SR 99 on Sunday afternoon (around 5:00 PM), there were six of them.

I thought they were protesting the existence of Tom Cruise.

Saging a raid thread.

[Mikachu]

Don't mod me down because you don't understand.

Re:Saging a raid thread.

[Koiu Lpoi]

You're going to get modded down. One, because of referencing the rather odious practice of "saging" in the *chan imageboards, and for also referencing those imageboards at all. Also, it wasn't funny. Sorry buddy; try again next time.

Props to the Winnipeg crowd

[Xelios]

-50 C windchill is damn cold even for a Winnipeg winter, thank Xenu for Tim Hortons coffee eh?

Leaches

[Fantastic Lad]

Some, if not all, religions are templates for 'how to live'.

But life doesn't work that way. Every life is unique and the path you are on is your own. There is no template which can serve more than one person. No book or preacher can tell you how to live and thus give you an easy way through life. You have to learn how to think and experience life on your own terms.

One problem I have with religions, and Scientology in particular, is that the template has a second function; that is, to channel energy and resources, etc., to the controllers at the top. Most people who observe religion objectively understand this.

But, okay. Fair enough. People have to learn the hard way not to follow anything but their own instincts and to trust in their own experience. Wasting your life and energy following some false path is a good way to learn what NOT to do.

But where it gets REALLY gross is that many of these cults do actually have some understanding of the powers which exist beyond science. --There are definitely forces and beings which do indeed exist around us which are not recognized by today's basic sciences. --And many of these organizations can tap into this realm and thereby offer experiences to the uninitiated which they use to 'prove' the authenticity of their system. --But that doesn't mean their interpretation is correct. In fact, I would venture to say that they ALL get it wrong; you can't get it right if you're trying to cram reality into a centralist template which tries to take people's individual choice and free will away from them. Doing this automatically makes your system screwy.

And then, as a natural result, it tends to get creepy and disgusting; there are positive and negative forces in effect, and when you choose to work in a self-serving manner, (i.e., promoting religion), you align yourself with the nasty forces. --At the higher levels of Scientology, they're involved with some REALLY messed up energy work. The Fulan Gong guys are similar in this regard. --Deliberately bonding parasitic energy beings to their favored members as though having a big leach attached to your brain, feeding on you and invading your mind with its own thoughts and desires, is some kind of reward. Take a close look at Tom Cruise. There's a reason he's so off-putting and disturbing to look at these days, and there's a reason for it. It first became really evident around the time of that first Mission Impossible film.

-FL

Re:Leaches

[Anonymous Coward]

>Leaches

The word you were looking for was "leeches"

HTH. HAND.

Re:Leaches

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? That was the weirdest post I've ever read.
Tom cruise is looking sick because he has a parasitic energy being bonded with him that's using his energy and invading his thoughts? That's like a bad horror movie pitch. If you honestly believe something so irrational, I think you need help. Look to your family for some guidance.

Re:Leaches

[Fantastic Lad]

The word you were looking for was "leeches"

Yeah, I know. --There are several similar problems with my post, the worst of which was that I had intended it as a response to another thread. I typed too quickly. It's been one of those days.

-FL

Re:Leaches

[Fantastic Lad]

Tom cruise is looking sick because he has a parasitic energy being bonded with him that's using his energy and invading his thoughts? That's like a bad horror movie pitch. If you honestly believe something so irrational, I think you need help. Look to your family for some guidance.

Well, I spelled 'Leeches' incorrectly, and I would fix a couple of other points of grammar, and moreover I would have posted in the thread I'd originally intended to post in rather that this one. It's been a day of mishaps at my keyboard. --But other than that stuff, the content is fairly spot-on. If it seems irrational to you, then I think this might be because you assume I am using the same information set that you have (or one very similar), from which it would be impossible to make such statements as those I have done without indeed being irrational. However, I am not you, and I have a fairly wide sampling of knowledge in these areas, based of a lot of research and enough direct experience to validate much of that research. I don't mean to use the word 'ignorant' in a negative context, but you might do well to ask if perhaps I know something you do not rather than assume otherwise.

Telling me to get help because I happen to be talking about things you do not understand is both rude and, sadly, typical of human history.

-FL

Re:Leaches

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, original AC you replied to here.

I have studied Electrical Engineering and Physics. Not that I can prove that being an AC of course. However, from my own study and experiments during 7 years, I have seen exactly 0 (zero) evidence of energy beings. In fact, the concept of such a thing is nothing short of science fiction given the way energy actually works (whether heat, EM, Magnetism, etc). You are welcome to believe what you want, I have no objections to that. However, I would like to hear your experience with such things.

I don't want to hear "I was told" or "I read this", I want to know what you've seen and experienced. Believing something that you haven't tested yourself is only a denial (or apathy) that you're capable of figuring it out on your own. That or you've already invested in believing, in which case proving yourself wrong is not an option (see Cognitive Dissonance, this is a very common thing as it's part of human nature).

Seriously though, I'd like to know your experiences with such things, please reply back.

Re:Leaches

[Fantastic Lad]

Well! Thank-you first off for offering such a well-reasoned and cordial response.

Secondly, a word about words. . .

The internet, and indeed books and conversations, being what they are, can do nothing more than convey stories and ideas. Seeking actual evidence for such claims is, as I am sure you recognize, an intensely personal matter. I always recommend to people when they ask about the kinds of things I am about to describe, is that they get out into the world and do some of their own seeking. This is true for all worthwhile experiences, but it is especially so for the sort which live in the fringes of our modern Western world and which tend to require a deliberate decision on the part of the perceiver in order to see. The cognitive machine which is the human mind is entirely capable of editing out or simply not seeing certain phenomenon. A small case in point before I go further. . .

A girlfriend of mine was very good at finding four-leaf clovers. She could walk through a field and come out again with half a dozen or more, some even with five and six leaves. --And strain as I might to find some as well, I would be unable to find any at all. This was true of everybody else who knew of this odd talent of hers. Now perhaps she was just more observant than others, (well, clearly she was in this regard), but it confused me; I wasn't blind and it wasn't that difficult a task. I could find Waldo, so why not an extra leaf? It's not like they weren't there to find; my girlfriend regularly proved this beyond any doubt.

Matters came to a head when one day, we were in a used book shop. I'd taken a book from one of the racks and was flipping through it, reading at random, and I stopped on one page with a baffling paragraph. I tried to read through the thing a couple of times, but was unable to make heads or tales of what it was trying to say. So I turned to show her the book, (I like to write and find that bad writing is enjoyable to pull apart and discuss), and just as I was going to say to her, "Hey, check out this weird writing," she interrupted me and said, "Hey, a four-leafed clover!"

I blinked and looked down, and sure enough, sitting right on the page in front of me was an old four-leafed clover which had presumably been found by the previous owner of the book and put between the pages to be pressed and saved, and then forgotten about until the book had found its way to the shop. The reason I'd not been able to figure out the paragraph was saying was due to the fact that some of the words had been hidden by the little pressed plant sitting on top of them. And amazingly, I had very literally still been entirely blind to the four leaf clover sitting right in front of my nose.

Now maybe I was just being daft that day, but it struck me that this was perhaps as an object lesson in how the mind works. --As a culture, we are told from a very young age that four leaf clovers are hard to find, and while they are certainly far more rare than their three-leafed cousins, perhaps people are doing a little something extra to make that belief even more true than it really is.

Okay. . .

You described coming from an engineering background. --I'm the same. My father was a high-ranking Northern Telecom engineer; he'd spent nearly all his working life solving the problems presented by communications technology, working to take the world from mechanical into the new era of digital switching. --Such a life had been fruitful, and he taught his kids how to also find fulfillment through the study of and respect for science and technology. I was always, and still am, a lover of computers and tools and all such things. I learned a lot from watching my dad build additions and install walls and wiring and fixing stuff around the house. So I have a lot of respect for the physical, material universe.

However, the most important thing I learned from my parents was that direct experience was the best teacher, and that judging something before experiencing it wa

Re:Leaches

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting... A few of my thoughts:

1) The reason for your inability to see 4 leafed clovers is overall irrelevant, although a bit amusing :) Yes the mind can filter out a lot, and does so on a regular basis, but this does not have any link to energy beings beyond being one of many possible excuses for why everyone can't see such things.

2) You said "If you want to live in a universe which doesn't include 'magic' (for lack of a better term), then the Universe accommodates. The reverse is also true."

You didn't define universe. However, I will say that I agree if you mean your universe as in how you see the world. I disagree if you mean the physical universe.

3) The story about the energy crack thing that your Kung-fu guy fixed is intriguing. If such a thing happened, in my opinion it is beyond the probability of coincidence that he was able to fix your vision like that, and I would see that as proof of such things as well if I were in your shoes.

That said, I'm not in your shoes and to be frank I can't really believe it, but I find it intriguing nonetheless.

4) As for Occam's Razor - be careful, it should not be used in relation with something that is so subjective as our topic of conversation. For subjective things, people see the same thing differently, and what may seem the simplest and elegant to some will not be for others. What really matters is what you believe and what reality is. The trouble is, we usually don't know what reality is :)

That's kind of alluding back to my universe comment. In my experience, there is reality and there is our perception of reality. For instance, we perceive heat. Now maybe that's a drug that was injected to trigger your heat sensing nerves to go crazy, or maybe you're really on fire. You probably won't care - to you it's just burning. But the physical reality is not necessarily what we believe it is. If you don't see or hear the train, you probably don't know or believe it exists. But that doesn't mean it doesn't and it doesn't mean it won't hit you. However, a converse example is that if you're depressed it affects your physical self. Or maybe you just fell in love and you dance around just for the hell of it. Point being, your perception of reality is equally important, but only to you since each person has their own perceptions. The cool thing is you can willfully choose how to perceive some things. Sadly my wife seems devoid of this ability and sees my online research as procrastination. Okay, maybe it's really procrastination, but I blame slashdot ;) Hmmm, I think I started rambling...

In any case, I found your story rather interesting. I appreciate you posting back for me, and I would like to hear what you think of my reply. Also, do you still have problems with the tangled energy threads, and if so do you have them fixed by the Kung-fu guy in the same way? Did he every tell you how he gained such an ability? Other stories would be nice to hear too if you don't mind.

Re:Leaches

[Fantastic Lad]

Hello again!

1) The reason for your inability to see 4 leafed clovers is overall irrelevant, although a bit amusing :) Yes the mind can filter out a lot, and does so on a regular basis, but this does not have any link to energy beings beyond being one of many possible excuses for why everyone can't see such things.

Yeah. This wasn't meant to illustrate an energy thing, just a psychological glitch in the human make-up. --Although, my girlfriend, (no longer), was a very powerful person with regard to energy. And in fact, the way she found four leafed clovers was related to energy in an odd way, though it's one of those stories which I couldn't use for my purposes of exacting useful proof since it didn't have the right components for testing, although by that time I was convinced of the existence of this other spectrum of 'physics' as it were, so my explorations had moved beyond simple "is it real" and more into "how can it be applied?"

She could find four-leaf clovers with her eyes shut, and this was a new discovery for her. --I'd asked her how she found four-leaf clovers so easily, what her process was, and how I could do it too. She hadn't thought about it much, just that as a kid she really, really wanted to be able to find them, since she had been faced with the puzzle the same as everybody else. She said that she sort of just 'knew' where one could be found; that it felt different when she was near one. She could hold her hand over a patch of clover and feel a sort of warmth. I asked her if she could do it with her eyes shut, and she tried, and found a couple that way. (Though, I didn't have the wherewithal to do a proper test at the time; she might have seen one beforehand and remembered where it was, and it was a romantic day on a walk through an orchard where proper scientific methodology would have been intrusive.) Anyway, after a while when I was around her, I discovered that I could do it as well, but only once without looking. I don't know if I was fooling myself, but I did sort of 'feel' something too.

Oddly enough, it wouldn't work when I was on my own. --Though, one time I was by myself and really fed up with not having the kind of abilities that several of these odd people I knew seemed to have and so I spent an afternoon struggling to find four-leaf clovers. I figured that if, as I believed, you get what you ask for in life, then I should be able to access this property of the universe if I asked for it with enough diligence and the right kind of intent. I was really frustrated and didn't find anything for an hour or so, (a long time to be squating on the front lawn with neighbors wondering what the heck I was doing). --I began to get really upset and felt that life was unfair and that I was somehow not worthy. Silly. --Anyway, at the height of my desperation, I got this sudden impulse and I moved over to a patch of grass near the driveway, and found right away almost a dozen or so. --In fact, the patch of clover was just filled with them, along with many which had odd growths and mutations. I figured it was a patch which had been made toxic by oil run-off from the cars which had been parked there over the years. --I went back to the middle of the lawn and found none. --So it seemed that I got what I wanted, but only where they'd been poisoned and where anybody could have found them, and I didn't feel particularly satisfied. Still, in a manner of speaking, I had gotten what I asked for.

Like I said, interesting, but not really useful for proving anything.

2) You said "If you want to live in a universe which doesn't include 'magic' (for lack of a better term), then the Universe accommodates. The reverse is also true."

You didn't define universe. However, I will say that I agree if you mean your universe as in how you see the world. I disagree if you mean the physical universe.


The universe is the word I use instead of 'god'. --The universe contains everything we know and don't know, including w

Re:Leaches

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I want more? Nope, I think that's good. I've hit my wall, and anything else is just going to be more things I won't understand or believe unless I see it for myself ;)

Thanks for the posts though, they were both insightful and extremely interesting.
I wish you luck, and I'll return to the void of anonymity now...

Re:Leaches

[Fantastic Lad]

Cheers then!

-FL

Re:Leaches

[bhtooefr]

Fascinating posts, indeed.

I don't believe in the current existence of any higher power, and I struggle with believing some of this... but... that thing about that one woman's ability to read your emotions and thoughts resonated somewhat with me.

I don't know that it is any of this, but my best friend... we scare each other with how well we understand each other, and know what the other is going to say. She might just be very tuned into my signals, though, and me tuned into her signals, although I sometimes misread some of her signals. (Or, she's sending them subconciously, but knows she can't act on that due to her situation, but it's irrelevant. Intellectually, I know to discard those signals, however. Or at least try to. It's difficult.) And, I guess knowing what the other is going to say... we've known each other, and how we respond to each other, for a few years now... So I certainly can't say that it's anything like this, but... it did resonate with me.

Also, something rather odd... I work as a computer technician. I often get clueless newbies that can't begin to troubleshoot issues with their computers. Invariably, there'll be some odd issue that they have no clue how to begin fixing. Sometimes it's a printer not printing, or a webpage not loading. Way too many times, I'll walk into the room, and that instant, it'll start working. Or, the instant I touch the computer, it'll start working.

But, there's a twist. My best friend is one of my coworkers, and she HATES computers. One time, I was setting up a system for her, and this service wasn't starting. I had properly installed the OS and the application, but the associated service just WOULD NOT START. I tried again, and again, and again, and again. Nothing! Checked the event viewer. Just a generic error. I tried different ways of starting it. Still nothing.

So I call her to my office - she would know if there's a trick to starting this thing that I didn't know. (This service is rather buggy, and sometimes has trouble starting.)

She sits down at the computer, and does the exact same thing that I had tried the last time. I watched her. I watched EVERY KEYSTROKE. It worked. I can try to explain this one away as subprocesses finally starting by the time she got there, and then the main process starting for her, but I'm not sure.

She's the only one that's been able to do that to me, just like I do that to other people... and it's freaky as hell. (And, honestly, kinda turned me on. Hey, I'm a geek. Nothing quite like a hot chick that I was already somewhat interested in, one-upping me at being a geek.) And, she's done it a couple other times. (Don't tell me to suggest that she become a computer tech - usually, she has very bad luck with computers. :P)

Shocking!

[BeeBeard]

The article practically insinuates that a church that was originally started as a tax shelter has been involved with some sort of misdeed! But that's just ridiculous. I can practically feel my Thetan levels rising!

Panda Antivirus

[mpapet]

I made the mistake of sending a CV over to a Panda Antivirus office.

After chatting with some people, I was given a "personality test." I filled it out and left. I googled the people I spoke with only to discover they were all scientologists.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/france/france17.html

I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your linked-to video voiceless surprised me. I didn't expect to cry.

Years and years ago, I was heavily involved with the Co$. I bought it hook, line, and sinker. I thought I had the ultimate answer to everything and I was willing to fight for that with my life.

I endured grueling 12+ hour workdays and virtually no pay for a chance to save the world. I practiced how to lie effectively (they call them TRs) and due to my "get it done" attitude, shortly had an office in the International Administration Headquarters in Hollywood, the Flag Command Bureau, as a member of the Sea Org. I had a nice office with a window seat overlooking downtown Hollywood, and I wore a uniform that looked sharp and military, with epaulets on my shoulder!

It's hard to explain just how intoxicating it is to think you have the 100% right answer to all the world's problems. And, as a die-hard Scientologist, that's exactly what you think you have. You can create a beautiful world free of drug abuse, crime, insanity, and war. You just have to apply the tech.

You are on the side of freedom, of knowledge, of truth, of unlimited personal power. And anybody who gets in your way needs to be shut up and rendered powerless by any means necessary. It's that simple!

But, something just wasn't quite right. No matter how hard I tried, I could never quite do enough, or do it right enough. I had trouble getting the books and tapes to fully make sense to me. When I disagreed with what I read, I was sent to endless word clearing where we looked up every single word in the dictionary, one by one to try to find the "MU" or "Mis-Understood [word]". I had trouble getting up on time in the morning. I got sick from time to time, which is proof that I was "PTS" and needed ethics handling. I went through endless "ethics conditions" despite my very, very best intentions. They were very careful to keep me convinced that the problem was me.

It's hard to explain how frustrating it was, to be surrounded by people who are apparently "getting it" and not being able to be one of them, despite having a tested genius IQ, and being able to read just about anything *ELSE* just one time and get it immediately. I thought there was something wrong with ME. I often cried before going to sleep at night.

They had the tech, but who could explain me? When I got to work, I got lots and lots done. I was routinely commended for job well done, for quality work, for "stellar levels of production". It seemed that, when I worked, everything I touched turned to gold. Yet I couldn't make the most amazing technology in the world just make sense to me. I could read a book on mathematics, or aeronautics, or software, and turn right around and do it without any problem. (which is their test for comprehension: can you read it, and APPLY the result immediately?) But I couldn't do the same with Scientology. Something was wrong with me.

So began my fall from greatness. Slowly, surely, over months and years, I lost all my former glory. My job title drifted from the international scale on down through the organization until I finally ended up at the very, very, very bottom.

The RPF.

AKA the Rehabilitation Project Force. It's like prison for Scientologists. You are a bad, bad, dude, or something is very, very wrong with you.

You have exactly 7 hours to sleep in a crowded, slummy, cockroach infested triple-bunk in the basement. You wear black jump suits with colored arm bands. You eat only left overs. You get 1/4 the pay of normal staff. You perform grueling, hard, disgusting work from the time you get up until "personal enhancement time", where you have 2.5 hours of time to read Scientology books and tapes until bed time. You are not permitted to talk to staff "in good standing", though they are free to bark orders at you. You are not permitted to walk. (No kidding!) You must run everywhere you go, and if you are ever caught walking you are made to do push-ups or worse. You must be c

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[mcrbids]

MOD PARENT UP!

Read it. You'll see why.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what Anonymous is fighting against.

There are scientologists that practice outside of the official church, we don't care about them, they're on our side.

We ridicule all religions equally for the lulz, but if you want to beleive in them, it's up to you. We only care if you take it personally and provide ammusement when we poke you.

However, $cientology as it stands is a scam. It robs people of thier livelyhood, destroys families, cheats people, businesses and governments out of money, and KILLS. When the church as an organisation is destroyed, and Scientology (the religion, as opposed to $cientology, the corporation) is free to be practiced by it's followers, however misguided, as a legitimate religion outside the grasp of the RTC (Religious Technology Center, the branch of $cientology that charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for enlightenment.) then, and only then, will Anonymous be content.

TL;DR version: $cientology censors it's followers. $cientology tried to censor us, we didn't like this and decided to research this approaching challenger. We decided Scientology should be free, and $cientology should be held accountable for it's crimes.

Also, the protests were global, from hundreds in australia and europe and the USA, to one lone guy that showed up in Tokyo. We esimate just over 8000 people total. see the Party Van for more information.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[epiphani]

Thank you.

Stories like this, and the various others I have heard since I involved myself in this have made it feel like one of the best things I've ever done. You give me the drive to continue.

I hope you'll come out, and perhaps be able to tell your story at one of the protests next month. It needs to be heard.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a nice office with a window seat overlooking downtown Hollywood, and I wore a uniform that looked sharp and military, with epaulets on my shoulder!/

Be afraid. Be angry.

To be frank, its hard to be afraid of something that sounds so incredibly gay. But I'm happy for you for getting out. And despite the trauma, I hope that you can smile a little about being able to get out. You probably have some fascinating stories. And I am happy that you are using your experience to help those who might not be as strong.

It's hard to explain how frustrating it was, to be surrounded by people who are apparently "getting it" and not being able to be one of them, despite having a tested genius IQ, and being able to read just about anything *ELSE* just one time and get it immediately. I thought there was something wrong with ME. I often cried before going to sleep at night.

It's interesting how this happens outside CoS too. People "get it" and can't believe that others don't. Or People don't get it and can't understand why they do not. In either case, there is tremendous pressure to "get it" (or "shun it") just to fit in. Politics for instance. It's almost like self-imposed peer-pressure.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[flyneye]

Hard to believe anyone who is literate and not a scientologist modded this "I never really thought of myself as a victim." post down.Even if it was by an Anon Cow.This kind of story is the REASON for Anon Cows.
Pissed? Bitter? Damn straight I am. I belong to a flying saucer religion that CAN'T get tax free status. Diff is; Subgenii pull the wool over their OWN eyes and know it.
Hard to tolerate carnies like Elron Hoover who couldn't even write decent Sci-Fi being the bleedin'Jesus of a Tax free scam when he doesn't even amount to a wart on J.R.Bob Dobbs ass.
Somebody mod that poor Anon Cow up.I don't give a damn how you mod me.I got eternal slack.
Scinustology casualties got a fucked up life. Give em a little slack you pink bastards!

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting how this happens outside CoS too. People "get it" and can't believe that others don't. Or People don't get it and can't understand why they do not. In either case, there is tremendous pressure to "get it" (or "shun it") just to fit in. Politics for instance. It's almost like self-imposed peer-pressure.

I don't believe it's possible to convey what I was trying to say here to you. But Scientology gives you a serious mindfuck: According to them, the "tech" is perfect. This is something that you *know* can be used to make *everybody* better. It's taught as 100% workable "tech". And the only time it doesn't work is when there's something wrong with you - you are evil and don't want to admit it. You have some hidden, scary, evil desire to do terrible things.

But what happens when you dig, and dig, and dig for the evil, when you do everything in your power to purge out the wicked sins (called 'overts and withholds") and it *still* doesn't work? What if it's something you have agreed to donate, not just your life, but your LIVES for the next billion years? What if you are ready to die in defense of this without hesitation?

The degree of utter defeat and personal humiliation is all but impossible to imagine. Blowing an easy college class compares like a Christmas tree light against the sun. It's a serious mindfuck that you would really appreciate only after it was way, way, way too late.

At the first, Scientology appears to be amazingly insightful, self-evident, and workable. Simple things like practicing communication make you a more effective communicator. All carefully arranged so that you get past that "does it work" stage with little doubt, so that you can slowly accept the gradual march toward insanity. It's easy to dismiss from the comfort of your armchair, and say "that'll never happen to me". But many people have paid very high prices in the meantime to fight for your right to do this.

Legions of others have ached to share their stories, to grapple with their pain. Fear of retaliation is universal among these stories. Ex staff remember the lengths they would have gone to as staff to defend their cult. They realize just how evil, how insane, how unforgiving staff members are. Want to see some of this for yourself?

The Internet is an amazing thing. Its power to unite people around the world is simply stunning. People around the world are gathering behind the flag of anonymous. Hope is breathing where only fear and despair ruled.

Living proof: I whisper once again, one of the silent, alone, and voiceless for over 10 years...

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[chuckymonkey]

Wow, the bottom sounds scarily like BASIC training in the Army. Which is also meant to brainwash you, and it works for most people.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[thermal_7]

Congratulations on overcoming it. I really don't think you have anything to be ashamed of.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[skrolle2]

Thank you.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry to hear about your problem, but the problem WAS indeed you. YOU allowed a bunch of retards to brainwash, use and humiliate you. YOU chose to ignore your instincts. YOU let them do this to you.

This is why religion - all of it - needs to be exposed as evil. It allows good intelligent people with personal problems to be manipulated into malevolent unthinking morons. What a waste.

I wish you the best now you've learnt your lesson.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be afraid. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not Forgive. We do not Forget. The army has arrived, and Scientology will fall. We stand with you.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you very much for the inspiration. I was there on Sunday and I will be there on March 15:th.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[bcharr2]

The rage, the fear, the anger, the hatred runs deep. I will never, ever, forgive Scientology. And I will never, ever forget.

I've heard it said that "unforgiveness is like drinking poison and hoping someone else will die".

Never forget and never stop fighting for what is just and true, but please for your own sake, forgive.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will never, ever, forgive Scientology. And I will never, ever forget.

What. No Bel Air?

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[supermegadope]

"You have exactly 7 hours to sleep in a crowded, slummy, cockroach infested triple-bunk in the basement. You wear black jump suits with colored arm bands. You eat only left overs. You get 1/4 the pay of normal staff. You perform grueling, hard, disgusting work from the time you get up until "personal enhancement time", where you have 2.5 hours of time to read Scientology books and tapes until bed time. You are not permitted to talk to staff "in good standing", though they are free to bark orders at you. You are not permitted to walk. (No kidding!) You must run everywhere you go, and if you are ever caught walking you are made to do push-ups or worse. You must be careful to stay out of public view because you are "out PR"." Are you sure you werent in Fight Club?

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[krog]

There is a case for forgiving individuals who play a role in the Church of Scientology. They too were lost souls caught in the cult's net. They too may be redeemed.

As for forgiving the Church of Scientology itself... I challenge you to present one scenario in which that could bring about any good at all.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

OP here. hahahaha! Disregard that, I smoke cocks!!!!!!

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are why anonymous fights. They said so:

http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?p=38553

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want you to know, that while I was never involved with Scientology, thank goodness, I did dally with a /branch/ of the Angelican church, that while it was /tolerating/ of my /sins/, it wanted to cleanse me of who I am. I wasn't shouted at, those people are my friends, but I was told my equal attraction to people of the same gender as me, was a flaw, was something that has to go away.

I wanted to fit in so much back then. In the end, feeling flawed, I gave up trying to fit in, because I just couldn't will my Inappropiate feelings and thoughts away, and I refuse to fake it.

I dodged a bullet. You did too, you survived. You hurted, but what you did, eventually walking away, that was you refusing to fake it. Feel proud of that, and I wish you good luck.

- Georgia

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous protest is not a protest against religion. This is a protest against ATROCITY.

You are a beautiful person.

Shall we not learn from our past? Are we doomed to continually repeat past negligence? Are we to stand by and willing give up our rights of free speech through intimidation? Shall we stand by and ask no more questions out of fear of retaliation? Shall we just ignore such a large movement of extortion? This is how a fascist regime is introduced. Fascist regimes grow like mold when no one is paying attention. It latches on to the weakest areas of a society and uses it as a catalyst. Scientology has personified this today. Scientology practices are what is in question.

There are many large and looming issues that need to be addressed. The world is far from atrocity, however that is no excuse for ignoring what you can change today. Protests of Scientology shall awaken the masses out of their slumber for this subject cannot be ignored. We protest for freedom of religion & freedom from religion. We protest for the sake of truth with transparency. We protest for the very reason for choosing to become anonymous.

People will talk, people will listen, people will start asking questions. Becoming anonymous is an idea. Ideas are like the air, intangible. Ideas are everywhere. Understand that fascism is also an idea. They are wise to this and exploit it to their own advantage.

We need to hold onto the most powerful tools at our disposal - information and numbers. People will once again become aware of these ideas and take action.

Become anonymous. Join us in waking up the world.

We shall not be ignored,
We shall not be denied,

Expect us.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[msheekhah]

That was very brave of you. It takes a lot of courage to stand up and face something like that in the light of day. If you wish to talk to someone about it, go to my site, my email is at the bottom. My father was in Scientology for a short while, but had a breadth of enough other religions and philosophies to recognize the trap that lay before him. Being a cynic actually served him well in that regard. Any religion controls its people by playing on people's fears. I have yet to find more than one or two that say "you're just fine as you are, and you only need to improve if you're doing it for yourself and not us." if you wish to email me anonymously, just create a new google account.

Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim.

[bhtooefr]

Keep in mind, Anon will be taken more seriously if they refrain from the behaviors that are commonplace on /b/. Using "disregard that, I smoke cocks," even jokingly, in response to an ex-Scientologist's account, is bad for Anon's image. Keeping Anon's image in good standing with the public and with ex-Scientologists helps the fight against CoS.

XENU (s3cr3tz of scientology)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm

Once upon a time (75 million years ago to be more precise) there was an alien galactic ruler named Xenu. Xenu was in charge of all the planets in this part of the galaxy including our own planet Earth, except in those days it was called Teegeeack.

Xenu the alien ruler Now Xenu had a problem. All of the 76 planets he controlled were overpopulated. Each planet had on average 178 billion people. He wanted to get rid of all the overpopulation so he had a plan.

Xenu took over complete control with the help of renegades to defeat the good people and the Loyal Officers. Then with the help of psychiatrists he called in billions of people for income tax inspections where they were instead given injections of alcohol and glycol mixed to paralyse them. Then they were put into space planes that looked exactly like DC8s (except they had rocket motors instead of propellers).

These DC8 space planes then flew to planet Earth where the paralysed people were stacked around the bases of volcanoes in their hundreds of billions. When they had finished stacking them around then H-bombs were lowered into the volcanoes. Xenu then detonated all the H-bombs at the same time and everyone was killed.

The story doesn't end there though. Since everyone has a soul (called a "thetan" in this story) then you have to trick souls into not coming back again. So while the hundreds of billions of souls were being blown around by the nuclear winds he had special electronic traps that caught all the souls in electronic beams (the electronic beams were sticky like fly-paper).

After he had captured all these souls he had them packed into boxes and taken to a few huge cinemas. There all the souls had to spend days watching special 3D motion pictures that told them what life should be like and many confusing things. In this film they were shown false pictures and told they were God, The Devil and Christ. In the story this process is called "implanting".

When the films ended and the souls left the cinema these souls started to stick together because since they had all seen the same film they thought they were the same people. They clustered in groups of a few thousand. Now because there were only a few living bodies left they stayed as clusters and inhabited these bodies.

As for Xenu, the Loyal Officers finally overthrew him and they locked him away in a mountain on one of the planets. He is kept in by a force-field powered by an eternal battery and Xenu is still alive today.

other cults

[sentientbrendan]

What's really disturbing to me, is that neither the state nor the federal government does much about Scientology or other cults.

In Washington we have these LaRouche cultists all over the place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
  but especially at colleges, and especially at the UW. They show up on school property rain or shine, and organize various brainwashing events. What's worse, is that they try to make themselves look like some kind of political organization, but actually they're just trying to brainwash you, try to get you to drop out of school, and scam you out of your money.

Instead of doing something about it, the government and the school let them use school facilities to hold their brainwashing sessions, and let them stay on campus harassing students day in and day out.

In California, where the Scientologists are powerful, I'm told that there's a similar situation. The organization is powerful enough that the government would rather look the other way, lest they suffer some kind of smear campaign.

Re:other cults

[Nim82]

For the politicians to do anything, they need to think it will get them votes (i.e have popular support) or alternatively be of benefit to them (shares in industries, backhanders etc). Scientology is very unprofitable for anyone to deal with.

The mainstream media for the most part give them a wide berth, leading to a lack of public awareness. Out of interest I asked some older people I know what they thought the CoS was; a lot thought it was a Christian spin-off with a scientific tilt. The BBC have not yet even noted the fact 500 protestors gathered in London (let alone the fact ~8000 mobilised simulatenously around the world). Sure there were more important stories, but the fact is they managed to find far less notable filler stories to tell the world. My guess is it's a taboo subject they don't want to go near after the CoS's attack on informative Panorama investigation. Same applied with many other major media outlets who dodged it or downplayed it.

Still at least here in the UK the London Police supported the Anons, I distinctly heard one officer (after being harassed to do something by a Cultist) walk off to another and say 'fucking freaks'.

Hopefully the media will have no choice but to approach the subject as more people get involved in the movement against the crazy cult. Once they get onboard you can guarantee the Politicians will begin to notice.

Re:other cults

[metlin]

What's really disturbing to me, is that neither the state nor the federal government does much about Scientology or other cults.

Well, they aren't doing much about any of the other religions, either.

Your point?

The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers.

These guys need to protest Islam instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about picking the wrong enemy to fight. Scientology's main goal is simple: MONEY. If you don;t have it, they aren't interested in you. Considering that 99%+ of the world is poor, it's safe to say Scientology will never be anything but an affliction that pops up in affluent countries. It is an ailment of the rich. Have you ever heard of Scientology being a problem in Ethiopia? Of course not, there's no money to be made there.

Now Islam, on the other hand, is what you need to fight. Islam fuels itself with the poor. The more poor there are, the stronger it becomes.

To summarize so far ...

[khasim]

huh? What the hell are you talking about exactly?

I'm pointing out how you are attempting to abuse the English language because you don't have a defensible position.

You said:

"Protesting a crime" is a nonsense way of saying "forming a mob".

I showed that one person, by your definition, was a "mob".

So, to summarize so far:
#1. Consensual acts between adults are okay.

#2. #1 becomes not okay when brainwashing is involved or when one person is restricted from leaving.

#3. People do have a right to protest such behaviour.

#4. Their protests are not "vigilante justice".

#5. And one person protesting is not a "mob".

You have quite the track record of incorrect statements going there.

Re:To summarize so far ...

[QuantumG]

You can't just claim you are right and put it up on the scoreboard. You actually have to make an argument and so far you've failed to do that.

Re:To summarize so far ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Three boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soapbox, ballot box, jury box - use in that order. (fourth box left out to avoid giving the impression that I am advocating violence.)

Scientology's perfectly free to offer Balance

[billstewart]

Of course you're getting an unbalanced view by only talking to people who left and not talking to people who stayed. But the people who stayed aren't talking. Sure, they're saying that it's really helpful and gives them the weapons to win on the battlefield of life, and you can find out a lot of their entry-level beliefs by reading Dianetics (Buy it! Read it! Use it!), but they're basically not talking.

Now, there are other religions that are esoteric, but most of them don't pretend to also be scientific, and most of them don't have a ladder of charging you cold hard cash to get them. There are Buddhist teachings that the lamas will only teach you if you're a sincere Buddhist, and there are teachings that only make sense if you've spent a few years meditating and will otherwise distract you from the more important practices. There are Yoga positions that you really really shouldn't try unless you've been doing yoga for a long time, and any clueful teacher will tell you not to try them because you'll just tear your shoulder blade muscles. But the price isn't cash, it's practice. And there are mountains that guides won't take you to if you don't have the experience and physical strength to climb them safely - those guys *will* charge you money, but you've still got to have the skills, and they'll be happy to show you *pictures* of the mountains and recommend that you climb some smaller mountains first. Scientology doesn't want you to see the pictures of Xenu The Evil Space Alien and His DC9 Fleet until *after* your bank account's been tapped.

There are also other religions and similar types of groups that want cash up front. Transcendental Meditation wants whatever their current fee is to give you an initiation and your own personal secret mantra (which is picked from a simple list, not actually customized for you), plus you've got to offer fruit and flowers to their guru and his gods (not to the Maharishi, who just died this week, but to his teacher.) But they'll still tell you what it's about.

There are many religions and preachers that teach that you should give some fraction of your money to the church - some of them want it to help feed the poor, while others of them want it so the preacher can have a big house and a Learjet, and some of them teach about loving God and your neighbors while others mostly teach about Prosperity and how You can get it if you just Believe hard enough. Some of them are Christians, some of them are New Agers, some of them are Buddhists, and you'd think you could pretty much tell which kind are sincere, but a lot of people go in for the bogus ones anyway. (That's of course separate from whether the groups ask for some money to fix the church building's roof or pay the meeting-hall's rent or hire a full-time preacher at a not-very-high salary; if you're going to have an institution you're going to have institutional expenses.)

The price of Scientology auditing is a lot higher than the cost of office space and training volunteer quack psychiatrists to listen to you. And even if they keep some of their teachings secret until you've had the training you need to understand them, that doesn't mean they need to keep their organizational structure or finances hidden.

Re:Scientology's perfectly free to offer Balance

[figa]

That's not entirely fair. Other religions don't have to pay a massive legal retainer. Then there's manufacturing all the E-meters, and those celebrity centers don't just grow on trees. Scientology has a lot of expenses that other religions don't have to deal with, and they're up front about it. What other religion is straightforward enough to call their sacred rite an audit?

In lieu of?

[Anonymous Coward]

The protesters said they gathered Sunday in lieu of the birthday of Lisa McPherson...

I'm not a native English speaker, but doesn't "in lieu of" mean "instead of"? (Lieu being French for "place" and all.) Is this a particular idiom that I'm not familiar with, or is this another case where fancy words are used a substitute for making sense? The goal was probably to say something along the lines of "in remembrance of" or "in reference to"...

Re:In lieu of?

[Teflon_Jeff]

You are correct in your assessment.

It could have been better stated as "In lieu of a birthday celebration with clowns and cake, they decided to protest the Church of Scientology. They were then called Cyberterrorists."

Whoosh

[Sinbios]

And that, my friend, is the sound of the joke going over your head.

To clarify, I believe the grandparent is pointing out that the described harassment tactics seem to be exactly what the masked avengers are doing.

Oh noes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Being rik-rolled and treated to renditions of the fresh prince of bel air theme song is nowhere near comparable to being persecuted.

Why would you make such a comparison?

Read the revocation carefully

[IBitOBear]

If you actually read the revocation, the "term 'fair game'" is not to be used any more. Not a single word about the _policy_, just the wording.

Thise wacos are all about the literal word of wacko-one.

The paper they wave about when the talk about the recention of policy just says STFU when you do this thing.

Really. Read it. Its so obvious and nobody I have ever seen quoted on the subject has gone "hay! that isn't a policy change, its a decree of title."

Protest in Seattle too...

[klek]

They were outside of Seattle's Scientology building also. http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?t=1806&highlight=seattle

you are wrong as well.

[nonsensical]

I think you're way underestimating the numbers too:

This guy estimates over 150 people: http://youtube.com/watch?v=BbYTxS8tuxo

And he has video evidence to back it up.

Nah - Crack wasn't invented that early

[billstewart]

L Ron Ron was apparently taking lots and lots of pills during some years, but crack wasn't around until the 1980s, and he died in 1986. Some of his science fiction, such as Battlefield Earth, was written that late, but most of his work was much earlier. I don't know what he was taking, but amphetamines were popular and widely available in the 1950s, so paranoid sleep-addled drughead is potentially possible, and bad sci-fi is definitely correct.

What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. How is Scientology different than any other popular religion today?

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Christianity was Scientology

You meet a guy on the street and he tells you about his group, and they follow this guy, a lowly son of a carpenter but he had some good ideas, and they try to be more like him.

You join up, take a few classes, and you are told that if you take more classes you can do some of the things he did. "And don't tell anyone else this, but he could walk on water. You can too".

Your in it for a while, you're not getting it but you feel you're getting something out of this group. Until $150,000 you are told the first big secret. "You know this guy, he was the son of God, and his mother, she was a virgin".

And let's say you try to leave, and tell others "Hey these guys believe this son of a carpenter was the son of God" and they react "What are you nuts? That's crazy, we don't believe that".

That's $cientology

To clarify further..

[NeutronCowboy]

... the current protesters do not lie, do not threaten and do not file frivolous lawsuits. Scientology does. As a result, what Anonymous is doing is NOTHING like what Scientology is doing.

Unless the grandparent wants to argue that picketing a for-profit organization is like running the Mafia. In which case, I can't help him. Non sequiturs are impossible to argue against.

Re:To clarify further..

[IndustrialComplex]

Well, judging by a few posts up where the guy made mention that he had some lady's license plate and that she should buy a dog and heavy curtains... I'd say they at least threaten.

Show some support

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us can't make it out to any of the protests but perhaps those in the /. community could show some support by posting as AC in this and future stories about anon's fight.

Wrong question

[IdahoEv]

Until you can answer the question of what was there before the big bang ... that is a debatable statement.

I am not a physicist, but as I understand it, contemporary physics considers the dimension of time as having come into existence at the big bang along with the familiar dimensions of space. If so, "before the big bang" is a meaningless phrase.

Yes, that's weird and hard to comprehend, and outside what human brains are built to grasp. But so is much of physics; the human brain can't really get a handle on the particle/wave duality, relativity, or quantum tunneling, either. The best most of us can do is represent it symbolically with mathematics - and few enough of us can do that.

Anyway, as counterintuitive as it is, "what was there before the big bang" may be as meaningless of a question as "how far do I have to walk on the earth before I get to the end?" We don't need religion to explain what was before the big bang for the same reason we don't need religion to explain what's past the edge of the (flat) Earth.

Re:Wrong question

[wickedskaman]

You're assuming the theories of physics to be fact. The theories that science has produced and calculated against do not in and of themselves become accepted truth. The fact that contemporary physics considers time itself as having its beginning at the point of the Big Bang is a somewhat arbitrary idea. Therefore, that does not render the grandparent's question meaningless. Actually, the grandparent's point is that making black and white statements about accuracy are themselves inaccurate because these ideas themselves are debatable. BTW, I find this statement humourously ironic: "...what human brains are built to grasp..."

Re:Wrong question

[complete loony]

Until you can answer the question of what was there before the big bang, and what was there before that, and what was there before that, ad infinitum, that is a debatable statement.

Similarly it is pointless to ask, "before the flying spaghetti monster". If intelligence was involved in the process of creating our dimensions of space and time, it's still pointless to use the word "before". On the first point on the timeline of the universe, an effect must have occurred that has no prior cause, as there is no prior "time" for it to occur in.

Any attempt to explain this first effect must, by definition, be "super"-natural. As no natural process exists that has an effect, but no cause. Though I admit in some QM experiments cause seems to occur after effect.

As counterintuitive as it may be to Richard Dawkins, "who designed the designer" may be as meaningless a question as "what was there before the big bang". The existence of anything "before" or "outside" our universe can never be demonstrated by the scientific method because of reasoning along the same lines as Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

An individual who assumes there is a God may see the hand of God at work in all things. A person who assumes there is no God may see the hand of chance at work in all things. Both positions are based on an assumption that cannot be proved or disproved based solely on the observed evidence, as the bias in the way evidence is viewed by the individual is based on the individual's starting assumptions.

Re:Wrong question

[Culture20]

To add to what the others have written, I posed this question to my physics teacher more than 15 years ago (and I'm certain someone else thought of it before then):

If time and other dimensions are a result of the big bang (a change), and time is the dimension through which all change is currently measured (dX/dt), how can it be possible that a change from pre-big bang to post big bang occurred? Either change should be measured against something other than time (removing /dt from physics equations), or the current conception of a big bang is fundamentally flawed.

Re:Wrong question

[Stalyn]

Well it certainly is nonsensical to talk about "before the Big Bang" with modern physical theories like QFT and GR. However newer GUT theories, like string theory, it does makes sense to talk about "before the Big Bang". The formation of such theories centered on dealing which such questions.

Now metaphysically I suppose you could say "what came before time?" is a meaningless question because normally we associate "before" as a function of time. However what if we rephrase the question as "what exists without time?" to me at least prima facie appears to be OK. Does existence require time? I don't think so.

Re:Wrong question

[redGiraffe]

Its like the 'Who created god?' thing.

Re:Wrong question

[QuantumFTL]

If time is simply another dimension, then "before the big bang" is just another type of "outside of the universe." Who knows what's out there?

Re:Wrong question

[Gaston]

"before the big bang" isn't so hard to comprehend, even in the absence of any contemporary physics you may or may not understand.

What integer comes *before* the number zero? While this is meaningless if you are observing some tangible item like apples, if you're observing the state of any oscillating/cyclic system it's perfectly acceptable. And anyone trained in the sciences should be able to tell you that in cyclic systems, the sign'dness of any perceptible variable of any system state is relative to your point of reference.

I find it quite elegant and physicist-like to suppose that the big bang as just one state, the beginning of one period if you please, of an oscillating system.

Re:Wrong question

[Ardaen]

can never be demonstrated by the scientific method Has that been proven? :D

Re:Wrong question

[Ubukool]

ah, so the universe brought itself into existence without any cause whatsoever? This has to be the case because you assert that nothing existed before (because there was no 'before'). If something can come into existence without a cause, then everything can come into existence without a cause....this violates all laws of physics and nature so the idea that there was no time and space before the Big Bang, and no cause, is absurd.

Re:Wrong question

[Lained]

I don't find it a bit ironic, unless if taken literally. It says more about the era we live on then what you try to imply. Pretty sure during the dark ages the cleric would say something along the lines "we humble god abiding people can grasp what god intended for us to grasp when He made us". And if we ever come to a time were we can materialize stuff out of thin air (well.... not really out of thin air, but for now it will do) we prolly will be saying "zip blog zip bing bing blah click click clack pling", that rufly translated will be something like "oh shit, I'm so happy we have this machines, or else we would have to devise a way to open those ancient things called bottles just to be able to drink this soda... We surely can only grasp what we were taught to understand".

Re:Wrong question

[Lained]

oh noes... you just proved einstein right.

Re:Wrong question

[Alex Belits]

Zeno, is that you?

Re:Wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

He's referring to the fact that someone claiming to be against the idea of Intelligent Design said "built". Of course he wasn't serious, it was a joke (that's why the 'humorous').

Re:Wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

This brought to mind a question. I'm just curious (and this question may seem ridiculous to those of you who know your stuff): What makes one particular nucleus decay and not another in the same radioactive sample? Is there a cause? If there is none, does this also violate the laws of physics?

Re:Wrong question

[Culture20]

I had to re-read your statement; I thought you meant Xenu. :P
Alas, I am found out. Death to Calculus!

Re:Wrong question

[Rosy At Random]

Why do you assume things came into existence? If time is just a dimension, then the universe as a whole is atemporal (see 'block universe') and has always existed, unchanging.

You cannot create that which cannot change.

Re:Wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it when physicists create non-testable theories like this.

"I don't know" is a valid answer to most of the human race, but some how they think they are better than that.

Re:Wrong question

[Lained]

I know, that's why I said the only way to be a bit ironic is if you take the phrase literally. Also that's why I also wrote "then what you try to imply", where "imply" being that taking the "built" literally would refer to the ID belief.

Not in a very sarcastic mood today, except for my own (kidneys stones hurting like hell... wish they would be diamonds at least that stone would be worth my pains).

Re:Wrong question

[Charbox]

This is false. Physics says nothing about whether time came into existence, nor anything about what did or did not precede the big bang. The metric expansion of space is not the same as the structure of time. However, it is meaningless to talk about anything before the big bang because such information is unknowable.

Re:Wrong question

[IdahoEv]

If time and other dimensions are a result of the big bang (a change), and time is the dimension through which all change is currently measured (dX/dt),

Stop there; your premise is incorrect. Changes can be measured equally well against any variable that can change. Time is not in any way defined as "that axis along which change is measured" because we can and do measure changes through space or against many other baselines that aren't among the basic four dimensions.

Change is not what defines time to a physicist. Time is the dimension on which it appears that we are compelled to travel, but that doesn't guarantee that it exists outside some predetermined boundary as defined by the big bang.

Do you work for Scientology?

[NeutronCowboy]

No, seriously, do you?

Nobody went inside a church. Protests were taking place on public property.
There was no slander. Merely recitation of facts as evidenced by court findings and reported across the world in a variety of news papers.
They wore masks because of the well-known habit of Scientologists to completely destroy anyone who publicly or privately opposes them.
There is no burning of crosses. This isn't even the beginning of a slippery slope.
Scientology isn't being persecuted anymore than Nazis were persecuted by Jews.

Again, do you work for Scientology? Because your line of reasoning is identical to a number of Scientology press releases, anytime there is someone who publicly states their dislike for Scientology.

Re:Do you work for Scientology?

[QuantumG]

If this were the 60s, you'd be calling me a nigger lover.

Grow up.

Re:Do you work for Scientology?

[NeutronCowboy]

Not really. I'm merely pointing out that what you said was completely, blatantly false. Not only was it false, but there was no way to arrive at your level of misinformation by merely lacking information. You either made things up when you didn't have the details (see your comment about protesting inside churches), or you outright lied.

If you are in Scientology, you're following your SOP pretty well. Nice attempt at deflecting the conversation and steering it to an emotionally charged topic that has nothing to do with this.

Re:Do you work for Scientology?

[QuantumG]

Heh, dude, if I was a member of the CoS would I be saying they're all a bunch of crazy fucktards? Seriously?

It's not "an emotionally charged topic that has nothing to do with this".. it's exactly the topic. You have it in for these people and want to persecute them. Anyone who suggests that maybe you should just leave them the hell alone, you claim must be one of them, or an employee, or a friend, or whatever. The ideal of people being free to pursue whatever stupid religion they like is the issue here. Just because you don't like one particular religion doesn't change that.

Re:Do you work for Scientology?

[NeutronCowboy]

So... just out of curiosity. How did you manage to get your info so blatantly wrong that you claimed they were protesting inside the Scientology "churches"? I'd love to hear your story on that.

You didn't just claim to leave them alone. You claimed things were happening that were so far from what was actually happening that I find it hard to believe it was a mere misunderstanding.

This is not about religion. This is about an abusive group of people. Feel free to claim whatever else you want.

Re:Do you work for Scientology?

[QuantumG]

Look at the thread history dude, I never said that. What I said was "went to churches" and you misread it or something.. then you took your own mistake as fact. Kinda makes me think many of your objections to the CoS are similarly poor.

Re:Do you work for Scientology?

[NeutronCowboy]

Going to church refers to going *inside* a church and attending a service. I can't help you if your command of the english language is so bad that you can't get your thoughts across properly.

Re:Do you work for Scientology?

[QuantumG]

You're a retard. Plain and simple.

Now kindly fuck off. Seriously, Slashdot needs a kill list feature.

Re:Do you work for Scientology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as much as it needs a kick scientology troll feature. "If this was the 60's you'd be calling me a nigger lover" Jesus christ that was one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen written. You have no argument, you have posted nothing but lies and half truths and when confronted with the actual facts you have backtracked and employed really sad, nasty little tactics like the above. All you need to do now is invoke godwin by calling me a nazi and we can close this thread off and consign it to the "QuantumG proves he is a fucking idiot" bin.

I walked by the San Francisco rally and everybody there was absolutely on message, there was no violence, no harrassment and everything printed on the many different fliers i collected was VERIFIABLE FACT. Since you are accusing the protesters of libel, perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a flickr link with the material you found to be libelous - or have the OT's above you not provided that yet?

Absolutely pathetic.

Re:Do you work for Scientology?

[Michael Hunt]

You're also (evidently, by your .sig) some kind of neoconservative. This goes some way to indicating that you hold a degree of unfashionable viewpoints. As such, your unfashionable views on cults are taken by most with a grain of salt. Myself included.

Your second mistake was referring to property belonging to the RTC corporation (variously, also Bridge Publications, IAS inc, &c.) as a 'church'.

QED

Re:Do you work for Scientology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, Slashdot needs a kill list feature.

But then nobody would ever see your posts....

Fox expose on "Anonymous" from last summer

[eesti]

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=WKFOx0UYrzs

Shows "Anonymous" terrorizing kids on MySpace and inserting swastikas into online children games.

I've been in Scientology for 12 years and my IQ has increased -- a great benefit to me professionally. I am also much happier than I used to be.

Scientology is all about taking the unhappiness of a lifetime and converting it into happiness, persistence, integrity, honor and ability.

Re:Fox expose on "Anonymous" from last summer

[Zorque]

Let me guess... the IQ test was designed and administered by Scientology?

Re:Fox expose on "Anonymous" from last summer

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe I'm helping a scientologist here because I'm fundamentally against the organisation, especially after a couple of people I knew joined it and were definitely not better off (the xenu.net kind of stuff), but I also believe that everyone deserves respect and the opportunity to learn, even those that I so here goes:

Fox News, as well as you, are severely misinterpreting what "Anonymous" is. In one way Anonymous is the collective term for people posting anonymously on the internet. In another way Anonymous is simply the idea of anonymity bringing a lack of accountability. That's pretty much it. When someone claims they represent "Anonymous" they are pretty much having you on for fun.

The idea came out of the *chan boards. 4chan's /b/ board mostly. The culture around it has spawned more than a few memes. Read this for more info, though it's meant as comedy: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Anonymous

Re:Fox expose on "Anonymous" from last summer

[Carbon016]

This whole thing is about free speech online, Anonymous does not in reality give a damn about the abuses committed by Scientology, as bad as they are, it's just a ploy to get more on board. Anonymous does what it wants, and the goals tend to gravitate toward removal of censorship on the tubes. Scientology has attempted to suppress its "leaked documents" so that they could scam more suckers out of their lunch money to read about Xenu and friends, as well as gone postal over any time it is portrayed negatively in the media (look at the threats against YTMND and the issue with South Park). It may seem like this stunt and the "hackers on steroids" are necessarily incompatible, but when you understand the reason behind this entire thing it makes a lot more sense.

Re:Fox expose on "Anonymous" from last summer

[evil_aar0n]

Uh huh. And how much did it cost you? Can you tell us about OT-III?

If I want to go to church, temple, mosque, etc., it doesn't cost me a cent. If I drop out, they won't harass me. If I later say I didn't like the experience, they also probably won't sue me.

And, really: aliens and volcanoes from 75 million years ago? Dude. Try Flying Spaghetti Monster brand religion. It's lots of fun, and, at worships, at least you can get full on the pasta.

Re:Fox expose on "Anonymous" from last summer

[Anonymous Coward]

troll = +1x6
people with lots of words = 0 /fail

Re:Fox expose on "Anonymous" from last summer

[Anonymous Coward]

How much did their IQ Tests cost you? Because I can go out and buy that Dr Kiroshima brain training game for my DS for £20.

OSA PLANT

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the exact tactic Scientology has been using even among the higher-up spokespeople. What these idiots don't realize is that Anonymous is a decentralized group and that there is no membership requirement, no membership card, and everybody is exactly that: anonymous. Just because one 4chan retard made a dumb youtube video doesn't mean the whole group is forever going to be like that. They don't "get" the internet and it's going to be their downfall.

Robert Heinlein called

[David Gerard]

He wants his fifty bucks back.

classic example of wasted effort

[moracity]

Wasted effort. Just think of the REAL things that could be accomplished with all the effort being put into this publicity stunt. We're in an election year with a president and congress at lowest rankings in U.S history, terrorists are using disabled persons as bombers, and these morons are giving free publicity to CoS. In the grand scheme of things CoS is a blip. Why are these people so intent on taking violating the rights of the CoS. The world is full of far more sinister people.

This goes to show you how stupid the myspace generation is.

Re:classic example of wasted effort

[GTMoogle]

Alternatively, your post goes to show how easily people believe the television when it tells them what to fear. :)

Re:classic example of wasted effort

[EmperorKagato]

You have to start somewhere.

This has been one of the biggest movements I've seen in all history since the formation of Anonymous.

Re:Balanced view.CORRECTION

[Hal_Porter]

I believe you mean DC-8's -- but without the propellers...

Oops! The DC-8 was and is a pure jet aircraft. No propellers.

Good catch dude, in addition to be being a bad writer a crook and racist, L Ron Hubbard was also ignorant of airplane propulsion. That's it! The whole sick structure will now collapse.

By the way, the racism link would probably comes as a surprise to all the Hollywood stars who donate to Scientology.
http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/deny.htm

I'm ok with "Shit Happens"...

[NotQuiteReal]

I'm ok with "Shit Happens", but most people are not.

outside what human brains are built to grasp begs a big question.

I am too lazy to look it up, but I am sure there is plenty of discussion that substitutes "what was before the big bang" with, "what was before God".

Re:I'm ok with "Shit Happens"...

[JosKarith]

On this basis what absolute proof do you have that the universe existed before you were born, and will continue to exist after you die? Maybe the whole universe exists only to keep you entertained and bits of it appear and disappear depending on whether you interact with them or not. Or maybe none of us is _quite_ that important...

Re:I'm ok with "Shit Happens"...

[Sobrique]

No no. I'm fairly certain that the universe only exists because I will it so. And the bits I interact with are soley there for my own perverse and machiavellian amusement.

The world makes SO MUCH more sense when viewed in such a fashion.

I may or may not be that important, however if I treat as if it is so, it might as well be so.

Could probably start a religion based on that or something. Or would, if I thought it would serve my interests, by extorting money out of gullible fools. Or has that already been done?

Naah, clearly it can't have been, as I'm the sole arbiter of reality, and what I say, is. (Although imagining all this, means I'm probably about as messed up as the rest of the world)

GET INVOLVED.

[seebs]

So, don't just laugh at this.

Get involved.

They can sue a few people. They cannot sue EVERYONE.

So join protests. Write your legislators. Stuff like that.

Re:GET INVOLVED.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. And wasn't that the same logic about downloading MP3s. Go ahead and do it, they can't sue everyone.

Re:GET INVOLVED.

[seebs]

If every time you didn't download MP3s, people died, being scalded alive until their skin comes off, or chained to a bed while cockroaches feed on them, that would be totally comparable.

This isn't about whether or not you can get away with doing something entirely for your own benefit. This is about whether you care enough about the rest of the world to do something about it.

Can the CoS sue a lot of people? Maybe they can. And every time they do, it'll become more news, and more ammunition for everyone else to use to establish them as a dangerously litigious group. The second big difference (apart from the CoS killing people, or neglecting even basic medical care until they die) is simply that, in the case of downloading MP3s, a case could be made that the downloaders were genuinely doing something wrong. You might agree, you might not, but there was an honest argument there.

There is no honest argument that someone politely holding a sign across the street from a CoS building, who has even gotten a permit for the protest, is doing anything wrong or illegal. Frivolous and abusive suits are worth standing up to.

Anonymous Coward is not Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is Anonymous?

protests backfire....

[Anonymous Coward]

does anyone else think that maybe this will backfire on them? protesting draws publicity... publicity is typically how beliefs spread and churches gain members. any group of people will not grow unless new people hear about their ideas/products/cause. perhaps "anonymous" will grow as well from this.. but so will their apparent adversary, and the cycle will ever continue.

how many people who have never heard of or have limited knowledge of scientology will now look to see what all the fuss is about and at some point become interested?

i am not a scientologist... and could care less about who is or is not, but i believe this article clearly shows that both groups will need to be eliminated for the sake of good slashdotting

Exactly, CoS is a blip...

[Anonymous Coward]

...as you say. Their main goal is money. CoS is not a problem amongst the poor. Why? Because the poor can't buy the CoS sessions. CoS is a "malady" that affects the affluent, with too much time on their hands.

Not me

[Anonymous Coward]

I was too scared to protest.

Fox

[AngelWind]

Because Fox is just that much more trustworthy.

Re:Balanced view.CORRECTION

[Kinky Bass Junk]

By the way, the racism link would probably comes as a surprise to all the Hollywood stars who donate to Scientology. http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/deny.htm Somehow I doubt it.

Protest Suggestions

[Anonymous Coward]

PROTIPS:

• Protest signs should have BIG BOLD filled-in lettering that is bold enough (>1cm thick) to be visible from a great distance. I saw many signs which were impossible to read from a distance becuase they seemed to have pencil-thin letters rather than thick, high-contrast lettering.
• Thick letters probably means you'll have to make the message very short (or use a very big sign). If the message is so long that it requires smaller text to fit on your sign, then shorten it rather than write it smaller. Put your longer messages on pamphlets.
• If your message is meant for the Scientologists, try to include some Scientologese in your message to show you're informed, not just some heckler. For example:
  
  • RTC = squirrels
  • No RPF or KRs in Free Zone
  • Why does the tech change?
  • Cost to clear? Over $50,000!
  • Cost to OTVIII? Over $300,000!
  • RTC is milking you
• Make sure your message is directed at the evils of the *organization*, not the beliefs.
• Avoid very negative messages like 'hate' in "Honk if you hate Scientology". Instead try something like "CoS IS\n A CULT!\n *HONK*". Drivers only need to see the word "HONK" to know what to do.
• Chant phrases in unison. It will be loud enough to be heard inside, and very hard for them to ignore.
• Adapt what works best and evolve: Watch videos from the other cities, figure out what ideas worked best, and focus on those in the next round.
• Try to get through to as many scinos as possible, even if it's just the guy watching the security camera -- hold up a sign to the camera! Talk to the scinos taking pictures/video. Break through to them! We need to break the brainwash, clear the fog, and instill doubt. They'll either leave or keep standing there (in which case you can keep planting doubt memes).
  
  • Tell them about Free Zone.
  • Tell them they can reconnect with their family and still practice LRH tech
  • Let them know people will help them escape.
  • Tell them to convince their friends to escape too.
  • Keep talking to them until they leave.
  • Keep it positive! You're trying to rescue them.
• If you can't get to a protest site, copy some fliers and hand them out, post them on bulletin boards, slip them into apartment door creases, mail drop, leave in shopping baskets, by ATMs, with a tip, on cars, or whatever it takes to spread the message.
• Call news to make sure they show, Fax your gov reps, etc.
• BRING MORE ANONS!

tl;dr:
make sure your message is clear, learn their language, try to break though the brainwashing, stay positive

Balanced Hell

[Lord Balto]

The problem with Scientology is not in its doctrines but in its techniques, which are hypnotic, and in its finances, which are aimed exclusively at separating people from their money. And when you're all done spending a million dollars over a lifetime they make you a level 8 and tell you the Xenu story. Psychosis is not a viable religious doctrine and should not be supported by the government.

Detroit

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar protest recently in Detroit area. Google lists it but (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=scientology+farmington ) voila! The Detroit Free Press article is gone.

If you search the free press site ( http://search.freep.com/sp?aff=117&keywords=scientology )
voila! You are asked for a user name and password when clicking on the link.

It's a two day old article. I have not noticed this on any article from them before (I am local).
I did read it Saturday, but hate to paraphrase, but those solicted for comments compared protesters to communists if I remember correctly.

Re:Detroit

[Anonymous Coward]

Another interesting item to note:

unavailable article is http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880210045

the AID parameter (Article ID I assume) is YYYYMMDD + ZZZ where ZZZ is a number.

It seems that both

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880210044

and

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880210046

ARE available. Freaky huh?

XENU had GAY SCAT SEX with L RON HUBBARD!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you have fun at your next e-meter reading, SciFAG!

SHOCK! :o

[Nullav]

But aren't Thetans what the Scientologists are yanking out?

not really

[phorm]

There are plenty of ex-members of a given religion who do not feel threatened by leaving it. I myself was baptized Catholic when I was younger, but though I don't feel much respect for the policies of that particular church, I don't feel overly threatened by it either.

The stories of many who have left Scientology are quite different, and rather chilling.

So yeah, of those that left, many would likely be disillusioned. But it's like leaving the mob, it takes a lot of guts to do so, and overall it can be a pretty dangerous proposition.

Re:not really

[bheading]

FWIW my upbringing was Catholic as well.

It's not hard to go looking for examples of injustice, eg the Magdalene Laundries, an equivalent to what Scientology calls the RPF. Like Scientology, it appears that the RC church in Ireland essentially used slave labour as a source of revenue.

If you listen to hardcore Catholics talking about Padre Pio, miracles, and all the rest of it, you're only slightly less crazy than the Scientology idiots. If you want examples of avoiding justice and manipulating the legal system, you only have to look at how the church dealt with priests who were involved in paedophilia or other horrors; they deliberately moved priests around in order to avoid getting them caught, and they did not hand them over to the authorities - just like Scientology did not hand over those complicit in Lisa McPherson's death.

Of course, Catholicism does not require you to pay a fee to see the scripture. Anyone can freely copy, edit and recirculate their texts. Catholicism, in this respect, is not a scam. In many communities here in Ireland individual priests have actually worked to make their communities better and, during times when not many people were educated (or in possession of the right to vote) they were the leaders of the community.

Re:not really

[AiToyonsNostril]

Also, Catholics do not infiltrate the government and government agencies under false pretenses, nor do they tirelessly pursue and try to destroy outside critics under their "Fair Game" rules.

Don't Forget Vegas

[cc_pirate]

They were in Las Vegas too... Drove by this on the way out of town... maybe 30 people out...

Since I don't care for Scientology (or any other religion), I honked.

Had a great time in Vegas though, I got married!

Re:Don't Forget Vegas

[ABoerma]

Dude, what happens in Vegas should stay in Vegas.

Re:Don't Forget Vegas

[geminidomino]

See sig.

Re:Don't Forget Vegas

[Killjoy_NL]

Congrats on getting hitched, may you have a happy marriage ^_^

Re:Don't Forget Vegas

[cc_pirate]

Thanks! We met on eHarmony amazingly enough. That thing works...

Belief Circle Collision

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've nailed it. I also think you've nailed why these raids are likely to continue and gather momentum.

Just going through the pictures on the various photosites, I counted EFG/Guy Fawkes, Pirates, Ninjas, "It's a TRAP!", a call for Rule 34 on Xenu, Hello Kitty, Raptor Jesus, just about every meme (hell, the turnout was seriously (O RLY? Ya, rly!) estimated at OVER NINE THOUSAND)... just about every playable meme was in play.

02-10-08 was like a Belief Circle collision straight out of Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End (Hey, a link to the entire text of a Vinge novel! If you haven't read the book, drop what you're doing for a few hours and read it!), but in meatspace.

I'd go so far as to say that with the $cifucks putting out displays for their front groups, throwing out the "what are your crimes" bullbaiting technique, the "bigot" quote to the media, they got to play all of their memes too. We may have witnessed the first Belief Circle collision in human history.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

We are Anonymous Coward. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.

Cowards... or heroes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the masks?

Every mask you see is the face of a victim in whose place we stand to speak. It is the empty place where a life should be that is no more. It is the absence of a friend, a neighbor, a loved one. It is the missing critic, who cannot speak or show his face out of fear.

We are the faceless. We give voice to the voiceless. We step forward to speak for those who cannot.

For every voice silenced through criminal intimidation and the tactics of personal destruction, we step forward.

For every troubled soul who seeks solace but is left with only a treasury of lies, ruin, and loss, we step forward.

For every mother silenced for fear that her words will endanger her child still within the cult, we step forward.

For every business owner intimidated into silence, we step forward.

For every victim locked within an armed compound or re-education labor camp, beyond the reach of law and justice, we step forward.

For every death, we step forward.

For every injustice committed, our numbers are multiplied. For every critic silenced, every reputation falsely tarnished, the truths we speak are made more brilliant. For every child lost, our hearts grow more resolute. We step forward for others who cannot.

Every mask you see is the face of a victim in whose place we stand to speak. It is the empty place where a life should be that is no more. It is the absence of a friend, a neighbor, a loved one. It is the missing critic, who cannot speak or show his face out of fear.

We are the faceless. We give voice to the voiceless. We speak because they cannot.

insane

[Anonymous Coward]

scientology was made up by L. Ron Hubbard in the late 50's i believe. Hubbard was a science fiction writer, then he thought of an easy way to peddle money from weak minded fools who are insecure about life and themselves. All religion is made to help people believe that they are more then a meaningless speck in an infinite universe, that their life is more important then just being an evelutionary product. That they will live on forever. No religion makes complete sense if you read any religion's "holy book" or text or document that they base their religion on, you will find many contradicting events, beliefs, and stories. To anonymous, i say that you are a good person for taking down a church full of lies and deciet, but i also say to you that you should have larger plans. Why not take down all religions? Why not id the world of all of the lies. Christianity is no better then scientology or islam. They are all full of lies causing people to spend their entire lives serving something that has no cause and does not help them acomplish anything. The only thing you can do to live on after your death is to be remembered by the people that are still alive. Lets be remembered anonymous. Lets live on. Lets take them all down.

next

[vespacide2]

Anonymous should take on "FOX News"

Re:next

[Anonymous Coward]

We did. http://youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY

Balanced

[Mark_MF-WN]

It's interesting how when you discuss religion with people who are taking these "balanced" views, it usually takes less than five minutes for them to start quoting from their holy scriptures and asserting that every word of it is true.

Something must be retained from death to birth, so that might as well be called a thetan.

And those "somethings" float around harassing the living and causing them to have psychiatric disorders? And sitting around staring at little electronic boxes that have been proven to have no biofeedback components at all... that will somehow rid us of those thetans? Thetans that, incidentally, are supposed to have come from another planet in Boeing DC8s?

Sorry, no. Scientology is ludicrous bullshit and only gullible idiots defend it.

If you want to talk about "plausible" religions (and I'm using the word plausible VERY loosely), try Greek mythology. I'm happy to believe that some big guy named Zeus lived on a mountain, killed his dad, went around fucking bulls and swans, ate a few of his children, and threw sharp pointy things at people who pissed him off. Hell, you can find people like that living in the US right now; is it so hard to believe that a degenerate redneck like that lived in Greece 4000 years ago?

But ... alien ghosts being dumped in Earth's volcanoes to harass a race of homicidal apes by a galactic despot? That's rather less plausible. Frankly, any race powerful enough to locks ghosts in theatres and brainwash them by making them watching The Passion of the Christ over and over again, is probably powerful enough to dispose of those ghosts properly, rather than just leaving them around to inspire the aforementioned apes to challenge his authority?

Hey, I've got a religion based on the plot of Starship Troopers! Want to sign up? In it, WE live in the spirit world, ghosts of dead mobile infantrymen. Our pain and sadness is caused by the meta-ghosts of dead Arachnids. We can only find peace by arming, drilling, and training, until we're sufficiently disciplined and skilled to be recruited/promoted back into the realm of the living to take up arms against the bugs again.

Wrong!

[Anonymous Buzzword]

That is completely wrong, and likely an attempt to Karma whore with a quick uninformed search.

That is just a classification, 'Sruti' essentially means those scriptures that have been passed down directly from God to man, while 'Smriti' would be collected ancient wisdom.

There are a number of books holy to Hindu faith, primarily the Gita, the Vedas, and the Upanishads.

~IAA Hindu

Re:Wrong!

[HappyDrgn]

Nah, I'd have not checked the "No karma bonus" for higher visibility if I where looking to "karma whore". I'm no expert on Hinduism, but thanks for the additional info...

Re:Wrong!

[Anonymous Buzzword]

Sorry for the insinuation. Just got a bit worked up about the misinformation. :) Apologies once again.

Scientology vs the Co$

[Anonymous Coward]

Anon is against the Co$ _not_ the religion. The Co$ will hopefully/eventually die. And the best way to hasten that is to educate the public at large as well as the rank-and-file members. Let everyone know what it would normally cost $350,000 to learn.

Getting the tax exempt status revoked as it was before will also help the cause. Get their books open the IRS and lets see what's going on.

When the Co$ is dead and gone, there will still be believers of the religion. They will hopefully either move on or build a new Church that is the antithesis of the Co$. Tolerance of almost all non-violent cults, sects, and religions is to be expected. Tolerance of the Co$ should not be.

-Anonymous

L. Ron Hubbard? SCAT PORN? With XENU? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun at your weekly audit, Scifag!

"Honk if you think Islam kills."

[Zdzicho00]

Why I did not see protests like this?
According to: The Religion of Peace, since 9/11 more then 10541 deadly attacks were carried out by ISLAMIC terrorists.

How many people were killed by Church of Scientology?
Just want to know which one is more deadly...

/Z

Re:"Honk if you think Islam kills."

[Zdzicho00]

Dr Wafa Sultan put it right:
"Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me."
See: Wafa Sultan at Al-Jeezera TV

/Z

Re:"Honk if you think Islam kills."

[dave420]

Because that's not Islam doing the killing, but a corruption of it. The RTC, the company that "runs" Scientology, is intrinsically destructive, and has seperated hundreds or thousands of families, and killed dozens. It seeks to do more than that. If radical corrupted Islam had offices around the world, I'm sure they'd get their fair share too.

Re:"Honk if you think Islam kills."

[Zdzicho00]

"Because that's not Islam doing the killing, but a corruption of it"
Yes, I know this Politically Correct statement very well. Overused and not true.
For every Muslim which claims that Islam is peaceful is possible to point out at least one other Muslim who thinks quite otherwise.
See: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Islamophobia.htm : killing is promoted by Koran in so many cases.

Also see this book (written by prominent Islamic scholar - Fathi Yakan):
To Be A Muslim

Anyway, If you really want some organization to blame:
Check this: http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

/Z

Re:"Honk if you think Islam kills."

[Anonymous Coward]

> Just want to know which one is more deadly...

The Co$ goal isn't much different than that of radical Islam. Co$ wants to "Clear the Planet", that is, to have all 6.5 billion of us suckered into their cult at least to the level of "Clear". Those who don't get with the program are to be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow."

On the very slim chance you're not trolling, just think of Anonymous as nipping the next Islam in the bud, before it has a chance to become a threat.

Re:"Honk if you think Islam kills."

[dave420]

The Bible promotes killing a heck of a lot, too. It's not being politically correct, but realising most folks know not to kill, and those that do are corrupted in their view of the world. Ascribing it to one religion and not the other is, well, retarded. There have been plenty of Christian terrorists who've killed innocents, but in the current political climate (where vast amounts oil is/was present in mainly-Islamic countries, the problems we see with fighting between the indigenous populations and us are coming from Islamic areas. Correlation != causation, etc.). If the world was homogenous, with every person in every country living the exact same life with the exact same pressures and problems, you'd have a case. As the world clearly isn't like that, your ignorance is showing.

"Anonymous" DDoS

[fisuk]

Even though the street protests are fine and dandy (and lawful), I do have to remind that the same group did engage in a DDoS-attack against CoS. Which at least in my book nullifies any effort against CoS done by "Anonymous".

Also having masks in a public demonstration shows bad form from the protesters.

That's mainly because
1) Masks may arouse fear in the general public. Be it because of terrorism or something else, it should be considered.
2) Having masks might lessen the impact of the demonstration (in the general public). For me that only shows that the individuals who are participating in the protest do not believe in the ideals they claim to support.
3) Enforcing your own cultural ideas inside another culture is probably a bad idea. For example, like Islamist groups try to enforce their cultural ideas inside Christian cultures. Or vice versa.

Now, some of the slashdotters have noted that wearing masks protects the protesters from CoS, and that is a valid argument. I do support anonymity, and I do think that people should be free to wear masks if they want to do so, but wouldn't it be bad if you were thought to be terrorists because of that..?
(That might reflect the stupidity of the general public, but it should be considered if you really care about the message you're trying to convey.)

As a sidenote, I do not support CoS nor the religion they claim to represent.

--
I'm not Anonymous, I'm fisuk.

Re:"Anonymous" DDoS

[Anonymous Coward]

Some members of "Anonymous" did indeed launch DDoS attacks against the scientology sites. However, compared to the number of people involved today the DDoS'ers are insignificant. I, like many others, have never even heard of "Chans" until this whole movement started and we jumped on board. Major players in the anti- and ex-scientology movements are now on board and getting involved in the protests.

It kinda sucks that the movement now is associated with the movement then, but despite people outwardly saying they're not members of "Anonymous", it's guilty by association I guess.

As for the masks, I agree 110%. I'm all for concealing faces, but the weird ass guy fawks masks do not have public appeal. Personally if I didn't know what was going on, I wouldn't take them seriously and would probably be somewhat frightened. I think the people with suits and sunglasses, or just fun outfits have the right idea. But, that's the thing with "Anonymous", since there's no leadership structure, everyone's free to do what they want. Do keep in mind, for most people it's their first time ever getting involved in something like this. The enturbulation.org forums are buzzing loudly with people tossing experiences and advice back and forth about what worked, what didn't, and what to try next time. I think the March 15th protests will be worlds better than the Feb 10th ones.

Another huge gripe, and that's people protesting for the sake of protesting. It's great to see people out en masse, but not with "FREE XENU" or "THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGY DID TO ME" posters. It's not hard to do some quick research before heading out, heck enturbulation has plenty of slogans to toss on your sign that make SENSE. (Xenu = Satan, in a sense. We don't want him freed...), and, man I hate this phrase but, "internet memes" are only funny to the 10 people who get the joke. The general public doesn't find it funny, they get turned off.

But like I said, most of us are new to this, and Feb 10th was a huge educational experience. March 15th should be a great time, I hope we get some more slashdotters joining the ranks!

Protests *ALL OVER THE WORLD*

[Zutroi_Zatatakowsky]

Not just in Phoenix or elsewhere in USA.

Here's a partial list, with the protesters count:
Auckland, NZ: 30-40
Sydney, AU: 200
Brisbane, AU: 60
Plymouth, UK: 15-25
Manchester, UK: 125
CLEARWATER, FL, US: 200
Atlanta, GA, US: 200-300
Dallas, TX, US: 115
Houston, TX, US: ~75
Charlotte, NC, US: 60
Berkeley, CA, US: 15 (but mighty)
Indianapolis, IN, US: 25
Philadelphia, PA, US:135
Edmonton, CAN: 40
Montreal, CAN: 50
Toronto, CAN: 150-200
Winnipeg, CAN: 30ish
TOKYO, JAPAN: 1 (but big balls)
Oslo, Norway: 50
Milwaukee, WI, US: 30
Halifax, Nova Scotia: 20-30
Detroit, MI, US: ~100

------

Next protest is on MARCH 15th.
Check out if there's a picket planned in your city: http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewforum.php?f=21
Get informed: http://www.enturbulation.org/

Antagonism to psychiatry is the result of

[walterbyrd]

Hubbard spending a lot of time in the nut-house. He came to hate psychiatry and psychology. This hatred is expressed in his purely fictional works, like "Mission Earth" as well.

At least, that is my understanding.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Will protests add fuel to the fire?

[walterbyrd]

As I understand it, cult leaders love to impress their followers with an "under siege" mentality. When people protest a cult, that only "proves" that the bad guys are out to suppress the truth.

Re:Will protests add fuel to the fire?

[seebs]

Nope.

There was a guy who tried to incite a riot (substantial evidence suggests he was a CoS agent trying to provoke the response you describe).

Instead, we had people peacefully holding signs and singing "Happy Birthday".

No threat == no credibility for the siege mentality. We're too harmless.

Gah!

[Dragon By Proxy]

I just lost the game!

Jerk!

RTFGD

[jesterpilot]

Read The God Delusion. We are entering the post-post-modern era. Post-modernism failed. Things are whether testable and thus true or false (or unsure), or are not testable and thus not relevant. There is no reason to keep the taboo of attacking someones bullshit beliefs. A religious opinion is not different from any other opinion, so it requires arguments and evidence. All progress comes from keeping the good ideas and throwing away the bad ones. Our society completely depends on this, and this fact is getting more and more attention. Religion was always protected from this, to keep the religious from killing each other. But as society has grown stronger and humanity is rapidly becoming more peaceful, we don't need this taboo any longer. People like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens do attack religion, and they are gaining momentum. We are entering a new age of reason, but expect the religious to resist.

SCIENCE DAMN YOU!

[Anonymous Coward]

Science damn you all!!!

It was not just in Phoenix

[nicholasperez]

If slashdot editors would just take two minutes to google around, they would see that this was a WORLDWIDE event covered by local media all over. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=scientology&btnG=Search+News returns over 2300 hits.

Fishman deposition

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a fascinating series of videos from the deposition of Steven Fishman, who was kicked out of the Church of Scientology when he was indited for fraud by the federal government of the United States. According to the deposition, leading Scientologists incited Fishman to pursue the fraud in order to pay for high-level auditing. After his inditement, Fishman was urged by high-ranking Scientologiests to murder his lawyer and commit suicide. Throughout the deposition, Fishman describes a belief structure that is sheer lunacy but which he is still believes wholeheartedly. He states that the most important thing in his life is to "clear the planet" for Scientology.

qwerty

[Sithgunner]

qwerty

They were already Anonymous.

[Ayanami Rei]

That was a name that was given to them by Fox News about (18?) months ago to describe the people on anonymous image boards and/or *chans, IRC nets, and such that were griefing people IRL and online (Tom Green, Hal Turner, MySpace and LJ hacks, and so forth).

This name had been taken on in pride by its adherents as a banner of unification among these Internet communities. This war with Co$ is their latest and most ambitious project. It has also drawn in people from the sidelines who might have not agreed with their earlier tactics but would like to participate now that target is deemed worthy, one can suppose.

Not a religous organization, but charitable.

[Ayanami Rei]

The IRS allowed the Church to be considered a charitable non-profit. Religious organizations are not recognized at a federal level. Each state has differing laws about recognizing religious organizations and conferring them special statuses or protections.

Why do people even about Scientologists?

[stickystyle]

I don't get it. Why cause all the anti-scientology hub-bub?

Sure they sue people, have some bat-shit crazy ideas (IMHO) but why not just leave them alone and let there followers mess up their own life's? If we all ignored them then all we would have to deal with is just the people in the malls selling the books and thats it, right? They are really no different than any other "religion" - so why single them out to get a rise?

Just have your personal beliefs and carry on with your life. Take a hike in the woods, see a play, enjoy your own life, rather than "protesting" something that doesn't affect you personally, heck if you want to protest there are plenty of other causes that need more attention. Seems like a waste of the short time we are here to me

Or am I missing something?

Re:Why do people even about Scientologists?

[DigitalSorceress]

I think you're missing something.

There are an awful lot of folks out there (many who were members of that church at one time) who have made some very serious allegations of cult-type activities. I do not presume to know what is going on one way or another, but my gut instinct is to agree that this particular religion is quite a bit more dangerous than your garden variety crackpots.

Google around for "Operation Clambake" and/or "scientology cult".

Just my opinion, I make no claims or allegations. (The fact that I felt the need to say that should in and of itself tell you something)

Anons of the world unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

Beware the Ides of March!

Arrogance

[kehren77]

Why do we need organized religions in the first place?

To think that you know what that higher power wants and to try to convince others that you are right about what "God" wants, is just plain arrogant.

If you want to believe in a higher power, fine. That's your right. But respect my right to not believe in a higher power. Freedom of religion also mean freedom from religion.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Xenu Loves you, he is a good guy.

[jameskojiro]

The CoS is a nothing more than a disinformation campaign by people opposed to the Galactic rule of Xenu.

They use blatant lies about Xenu to build thier base up.

The aliens Xenu sent to their firey doom weren't just ordinary citizens, they were Galactic Welfare recipients and they were a complete and total drain on the Galactic Tax system. These Aliens were given several chances to get off the welfare system and were all able to work. Xenu had them gathered up and sent to processing, they downloaded their minds into a giant computer where they could spend their eternity living off free Galactic government cheese. But what to do with their bodies? Well Xenu checked and some life bearing planets were facing peril in that they were losing carbon in their biospheres, one such planet Earth needed extra carbon, so they dropped off the brain dead bodies in volcaoes so that any any alien microbes would be sterilized and the carbon would enter the air and thus the carbon cycle. Xenu is so kind to think of us!

The Galactic Communist party was pissed off because their lost a great deal of their voting base (the welfare recipients). Since citizens who have been virtialized only have 1/4 of a vote. So they have agents spreading lies so when Earth joins the Galactic government there are seeds of mistrust against the duly elected Galactic President Xenu who has won in landslide victory after landslide victory and is now in his 1,345,236th term in office. LRH was a recruited by an agent to spread mistrust of Xenu.

It's all down to politics folks.

But according to this MORE recent article:

[Ayanami Rei]

Daily News (take with grain of salt, but here's corroboration) Will Smith is giving out free auditing to the cast members of his latest film.

So, is he or isn't he???

Re:But according to this MORE recent article:

[cwtrex]

Looks like you may be right. He does appear to be sinking to the world of Xenu and thetans. :-\

Why Can't This Happen with Other Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I do applaud the Anons for doing some real-life raiding and protesting in sizable groups and behaving very civilized, why can't this happen with other issues? I mean, it seems like every other day on here there are topics that piss most of us off. Like copying electronic media when we leave/enter our own country. Sneaking in an amendment to a bill that threatens to cut funding to colleges if they don't do something against P2P traffic. Large internet providers determining what types of protocols they will not just throttle but block altogether. Or any one of the million and restrictive policies put in place by our current government.

Why aren't people out protesting those actions?

They will no doubt affect more people and more resources than CoS could ever hope for. How many of you have dealt with CoS in your everyday life not by you searching them out but by them running into you? I've had more run-ins with the pyramid schemers (Alticor with two) than with CoS (zero).

Are we doing this simply because it's easy? Do we think we can make a difference against this horrible corporation? If so, why can't we protest and provoke thought against any one of the other corporations that blatantly want to harm their customers? Sure, there's a lot but prioritize a list and pound a company a month. MSFT first, then Comcast, then Verizon, etc. Or, hell, the government. It's not hard to find ridiculous actions of theirs to protest.

Or are we doing this because it's the only way to change and get to the CoS constituents? With the government you can write letters and vote people out of office but politicians by and large are still politicians. With other corporations you can choose not to buy their products or services and urge others to do likewise. But with CoS (and any pyramid schemes, imo) it's almost as if you're not against them, you're with them as you're not providing resistance for them to brainwash or convert future customers.

*eyeroll*

[Ayanami Rei]

None of the people they terrorized were "everyday people". Not that there hasn't been collateral damage. But the targets of lulz are, generally speaking, asking for it. You never hear why Anonymous attacks anybody because that doesn't make sensational news and the affected users who have blogs don't reveal their own faults. Keep in mind that the activation energy of Anonymous is very high and people spend weeks trying to make the case to get an invasion going. The usual response is "We're not your personal army".

* Hal Turner (white supremacist, FBI informant)
* Tom Green (just not a funny guy who somehow had a call-in talk show, anon needed to make the show funny)

They also fight perceived threats to people's sanity and internet culture ... too much to list but anyone who has Unwarranted Self Importance. I.E:

* Furry that take themselves too seriously
* Fan-fiction writers that take themselves seriously
* DeviantArt (in a nutshell)
* MySpace, Youtube, etc.

At first her death was reported as very suspicious

[Ayanami Rei]

She was dehydrated and had insect bites on her hands (meaning she couldn't keep them off her). This is a textbook definition case of felony Neglect / Reckless Manslaughter. However, after a deluge of information and testimony from any expert that was willing to accept CoS's money (directed at the M.E.'s office, I might add), the original M.E. threw up her hands and a different, more sympathetic M.E. gave a revised recommendation to the D.A. 18 months after the fact.

Blood clots in the legs, dehydration and insect bites are NOT accidental. That ruling smells worse than her dessicated corpse.

Different regions had different makeups.

[Ayanami Rei]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23387891@N05/

I want to say that the DC protest (that I attended as a citizen on the street, uncounted) was probably one of the most "on-target" and organized as evidenced by videos so far uploaded, even if it was only a middling size (~150). Many passers-bye were engaged and genuinely interested, they ran out of fliers, Arnie Lerna speaking, ex-scientologists were speaking, pre-med students were speaking, not that there weren't any Anon-specific momemnts like Rick Rolling but it was more of a morale boost than a mixed message.

I think the one thing that needed to be improved was that clearly there is a division of opinion; that the organization is the problem, and that the tenets of the 'religion' are the problem. Some of us (myself included) think that both are problematic. The message was supposed to focus on the former (because that is the thing that is tangible and easier to change for the better), but many in attendance who made their own signs clearly believed also in the latter.
In any caseiIt is important for people to see that this actually matters and it is not something which is a funny folly of those zany actors in Hollywood; I am certain that this was achieved.

Some say that this was a mere practice run for the 15th of March. I hope that leadership organizing this later event, now with the experiences of one protest under their belts, can learn and improve and really have a clear agenda with an even bigger impact.

Why did Anonymous raid Habbo in the 1st place?

[Ayanami Rei]

Way back in the day (2003), Habbo was of interest only to Europeans; Habbo hotel access cards were placed prominently at checkout counters in drug stores and grocery stores for little kids and tweens to beg for in the EU. Habbo Hotel (a social networking website and Shockwave Flash chatroom of the Sulake Corporation) had yet to break into the US market. With this site you paid for the privilege to access certain areas and get private rooms with furniture and such. That children would beg parents to actually pay to sit around in an isometric 3d chatroom and wait in a line to use a virtual pool when they could beg them to take their lazy asses to a REAL POOL was a completely abhorrent concept that became known to EU and later non-EU 4channers.

The EU 4channers encouraged non-EU /b/tards to create sockpuppet accounts and come to the site to observe the stupidity and screw with the users. Thus began the pasttime of "blocking" access to the pool. Sulake, in their infinite wisdom, designed the pool such that there was only a single egress to the water and few in and out of the popular pooldeck area. Also, users can't move through each other, and you can't chat with anyone you can't see. Which means a small group of griefers has the potential a lot of problems for tweens who want to sit around, swim in a virtual pool and have slowly hunt-n-pecked tinysex.

Everyone who used habbo tended to depict and dress themselves a certain way (spiky hair, tan, whatever). To differentiate themselves, /b/tards adopted a dress code of black skin, afro, dress suit; the complete opposite of everyone else.

Eventually these little invasions drew the ire of the paid staff members at Sulake that moderated the chats. They began banning the afro'd interlopers. Pretty soon, they were banning anyone who had an avatar with black skin. 4channers posted videos documenting this phenomenon. Now they had evidence that the moderators were racists (or just lazy).

So they rallied the troops (using the videos/pictures of summary bans for being black to outrage the apathetic), and then wave after of 4channers, YTMND, etc. members launched coordinated attacks on the various congregation rooms of the chat. Moderators were swamped and couldn't ban fast enough. Habbo forums were brought to their knees by customer and invader alike, and so forth. Invasion forces began forming swastikas near exits to send a message to the site admins and users who too began discriminating against anyone who choose a black avatar.

In short, a small group of individuals were able to bait an internet community into attacking another by manufacturing a racism scenario. The original group's motives were simply to shake up a bunch of kids who were getting fat and poor via a stupid online activity. One could claim Sulake is directly responsible for the weight problem and credit card debt we now suffer! Of course that claim is ludicrious.

But it wasn't random, and there is a core of good intentions there, however horrible and bizarre the outcome.

Many similar early Anonymous activities have the same type of progression. A group of users familiar with the activities of another group they dislike encourage the rest of the community to do something about it. Nothing happens until they manufacture populist drama to sway support. This spins out of control with amusing consequences.

The large majority of the raids on DeviantArt accounts (for example) were to punish those who are utter and complete egomaniacs, plagiarists (especially), and sometimes both.

Fursecution and MySpace fuckery I don't partcularly agree with, but I understand why they don't particularly admire these communities. Not much good goes on there.

They're gotten better and more refined over time. They've successfully jailed that pedophile in Canada, got Hal Turner (white supremacist) off the air, fucked with Tom Greene and made his show funny, hounded a tax-evading dominatrix kindergarten teacher, went after a radical feminist who made hateful remarks and threats against her own son, and so forth.

Scientology is just the latest and most visible stop on the train which coincides with recent exposes, lawsuits and book releases; a public climate sympathetic to their cause.

Re:Why did Anonymous raid Habbo in the 1st place?

[__aailob1448]

Great post. I wish I could mod it up.

which is why

[geekoid]

I believe all Non profits in America should have to ahve their books open and easily acceptable. All tenants for there faith, all meeting notes, everything.
Also any mandatory fee or 'donation' should not be allowed.
If you don't want to do that, fine but you aren't getting any tax breaks.

Oh Hello Kitty Gas-mask Girl

[Nazlfrag]

Oh Hello Kitty Gas-mask Girl, standing there before the world.
With those shorts, so short and tight, Xenu-bless, they fit you right.
I sit here now, my "flag unfurled", all for you, Hello Kitty Gas-mask Girl.

- Anon

In lieu of = instead of

[Anonymous Coward]

She's been dead for 12 years, after all. The real anniversary isn't terribly important; only the message / agenda.

Kinda like how Jesus Christ was really born in April, but since the Christians wanted to convert more Pagans, they made his birthday coincide with the time of year pagans were already celebrating (solstice - December) despite being completely inaccurate; they just had a new name for the celebration. The truth of the matter became irrelevant to the agenda. But anyway, you can learn all about lies and myths of religion from the free ZeitGeist movie online.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Computers

[Fantastic Lad]

Whoa. I thought this thread was well and truly buried.

--Computers are funny, and I'm not sure what forces are in effect, but I've certainly experienced what you describe. I've built and maintained PC's for friends and they tend to behave well for me. --And more than once have I made them stop misbehaving simply by standing in front of them. I don't think this kind of thing is unique by any means, as your story would suggest. Though, I've never really done any measuring to see if it's just an observational bit of mental pattern building where really there is nothing special going on, or if there is some kind of reality bubble surrounding certain people which makes computers work better.

Beats me, but I've definitely noticed the effect more than once.

If there's an actual force at work, then my first thought would be that it's simply another aspect of belief and intent affecting the behavior of reality. --I've certainly found that intent changes the behavior of larger events. Why not micro-events?

-FL