Slashdot Mirror


Scientology Injunction Denied Against "Anonymous"

Anonymous writes "A circuit court judge has denied the Church of Scientology's second request for an injunction against protests by the internet group "Anonymous." The Church sought to prevent Anonymous from protesting on the birthday of the Church's leader, the late Ron L. Hubbard. The petition filed by the Church listed twenty-six individuals allegedly affiliated with Anonymous, but "accidentally" included others who merely work near the location of the first protests held in February and did not participate in them, such as a Starbucks employee. Furthermore, the Church failed to show that any of those listed actually committed any wrongdoing."

486 comments

  1. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I win!

    1. Re:Yay! by utopianfiat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who modded this offtopic? You don't even realize how true it is.

      Are they even listening to themselves? Do they realize how stupid they sound? "A group known as Anonymous"- you mean that guy that had attributed to him poems, quotes, and the rickroll?
      Anonymous is Anonymous. Seriously. Say what you want about "lol *chan" but the truth is 'Anonymous' is not linked to 4chan. Anonymous itself is a person, who wishes to keep their identity hidden. "Anonymous", as a group, simply refers to the collective nature of people who wish to conceal their identities. THAT'S IT. IT WAS A JOKE. "Anonymous does not forgive!" IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE THE PERSON'S NAME CAME UP AS ANONYMOUS, NOT BECAUSE ANYONE WHO ASSOCIATES THEMSELVES WITH THIS GROUP IS UNFORGIVING. Christ, will these fuckers ever get it through their thick fucking heads that this isn't some terrorist group? This isn't some fucking Jihad against Scientology! It's a bunch of pissed off nerds who got a bunch of other nerds from around the world to protest a cult, THAT'S IT.
      The media are a bunch of fuckups.

      --
      +5, Truth
    2. Re:Yay! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      so if I leave a suitcase with innocent articles in it near a scilon building, call them the next day and play the audio from an famous youtube video that says "we are Anonymous, we do not forgive, we do not forget" would it be my fault they think it's a threatening phone call and assume they have found a bomb?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:Yay! by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's totally unreasonable for the media to think that when a bunch of people act as a group, name themselves as a group, release material under a common name, write their name capitalized as a proper noun, that these people are actually a group.

    4. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you really shouldn't play Devil's Advocate, because you suck at it.

      Notice the GP said terrorist group. And yes, it is unreasonable for the media to publish information that is factual incorrect or based on a poor understanding of the actual issues. Notice I didn't say uncommon, just unreasonable.

    5. Re:Yay! by Goaway · · Score: 1

      I ignored the "terrorist" part because it was obvious hyperbole, not backed up by fact.

      And there's really nothing overly factually incorrect in what is being published. Simplified, sure, incorrect, not so much.

    6. Re:Yay! by utopianfiat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I understand where you're coming from but my complaint is against something deeper. It's like someone committing acts in the name of "x" and everyone immediately assuming that anyone who believes in "x" is a dangerous terrorist. Yeah, a bunch of douches calling themselves anonymous have done stupid shit (mostly prank phone calls and hacking photobuckets. OH NOES!), but calling "Anonymous" a terrorist group is basically saying that anyone who wants privacy must be a mass-murderer. It's idiotic.

      --
      +5, Truth
    7. Re:Yay! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Reading further down thread it's pretty likely that the incident was not caused by a prank, but was likely more of a CoS Operation FreakOut style tactic to send a bomb threat to themselves for publicity value

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:Yay! by mrogers · · Score: 1

      You're not a real group until you get tax breaks.

    9. Re:Yay! by RWEDOINITRITE · · Score: 1

      Why should the media view us as a threat? What about freedom of speech? What about freedom of petition? What about the freedom to stop dangerous cults in their tracks? Scientology is NOT a religion, it is a CULT. Freedom of RELIGION does not apply to CULTS. If Anonymous is such a threat to security, why were the police practically encouraging us when we were out there? They listened to us! They took our flyers! They nodded and smiled and were glad for us to be out there. I know that the general media views the police as incompetent dunderheads, but they're the police for a reason. We are doing the right thing by protesting Scientology.

    10. Re:Yay! by neoform · · Score: 1

      I am Spartic.. er.. Anonymous!

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
  2. IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IRL raids are not anonymous' forte. I still don't see anything coming of them. Some of us perceive ourselves as having the power to make a difference. I doubt that, because our numbers are too few.

    1. Re:IRL raids by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Anonymous protests of Scientology convinces those who are in with doubts to act on those doubts.

      Eventually the Scilons can't keep it up and it'll collapse.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, all those ex-scientologists coming out of the woodwork telling their tales of abuse because they felt empowered by the actions of Anonymous sure don't mean a thing. The mounds of leaked documents and emails exposing the illegal conduct of the "church" aren't worthy of comment. Or exscientologykids.org popping up to tell the tales of the children of cult executives who grew up inside the organization is kind of a pointless story. And the massive amount of public awareness of all of those things, all as a direct result of Anonymous showing support to those trapped inside a horrific cult is just a bunch of hooey. Oh, yeah, and those who have gotten out of the cult as a direct result? Pshaw.

      Yup, you're right, might as well not even try.

    3. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So are you protesting the church or the organization? If the former you are not allowed. If you don't agree with the church, don't participate it is that easy. If the latter then by all means, protest the organization but remember to separate the 2.

    4. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you stupid or drunk? It should be obvious by the context what exactly I'm protesting. If you're not capable of basic reading comprehension I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

      I will, however, waste my time insulting your intelligence. Because that's fun.

    5. Re:IRL raids by NekoIncardine · · Score: 1

      I'm going to be polite and assume you meant "the religion or the organization". It would not be cool to protest Christianity, but it is PERFECTLY okay to protest Westboro Baptist Church. By the same vein, it's not cool even among Anons to insult Scientology itself - but the CHURCH of Scientology (as opposed to the Freezone)?

      --
      Omeg La. Rofl Leh.
    6. Re:IRL raids by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      It's sometimes hard to seperate the two.

      For example, protesting the Church of Mormon is to forget their holy book says that black people are black because of sin and they can become white with prayer. Freezone scilons are just that, free. They discard everything the church has to say about restricting freedoms and as such have a similar but yet distinctly different faith. Just like the sect of Mormonism founded by Joeseph Smith's relatives who broke with Brigham Young.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    7. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      By the same vein, it's not cool even among Anons to insult Scientology itselfSpace DC-8s, an evil alien ruler shipping tons of frozen aliens to Earth to be killed, then all of those aliens, or Thetans, invading humans en masse to cause all the 'pain and suffering' we have today. Honestly, I'd like to think of it as a pulp novel written by an opportunistic Sci-fi writer than a holy text. As such, it's open season on both the money-grubbing, life-ruining 'Church' and that circus of a religion.
    8. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it is quite OK to mock the scientology "religion". It's even allowed to ridicule Christianity and Jesus.
      There is nothing magical about religion that makes it exempt from attack and ridicule.

      It is NOT good that you can't attack something because it is a "religion" and would ONLY for that reason deserve respect. People's deeply held beliefs are not OK just because they are deeply held beliefs, they can just as well be ridiculous, and wrong. The fact that you ridicule them isn't even necessarily respectless, not challenging people's delusions, and leaving them with these ridiculous beliefs can be much more respectless.

      And before you ask, yes, I'm a religious man, and I wouldn't mind at all if you mocked and attacked my religion.
      I'm not Christian, but I don't see much reason to attack Christianity as a whole. I do occasionally challenge some denominations and churches, or just single people's interpretation.
      Scientology on the other hand, I mock completely. You can say dianetics is the basics of the religion, and the church is a seperate thing. I don't thing I have to tell you why I attack the church. So that leaves dianetics. I see no reason I couldn't mock it, it's just pseudoscientific psychological nonsense. It's a lot of stupid ideas and conclusions mixed with some interesting ideas. It's not worthy of respect just because it's claimed to be religious.

      (I claim this post is a basic religious text of my religion, it represents my deeply held religious beliefs. It was directly inspired by God and therefor it's content is unchallengable religious dogma, and absolute TRUTH. You cannot deny it.)

    9. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, and:

      </blockquote>
    10. Re:IRL raids by Teun · · Score: 1

      Please don't be an idiot (or literally The Devils Advocate) and allow Scientology to continue their ludicrous claim of being a religion.

      Without a clear disclaimer Religion and Scientology don't even belong in the same sentence, as a minimum it'd be bad grammar.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    11. Re:IRL raids by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eventually the Scilons can't keep it up and it'll collapse.

      You can't know much about how religions work then..

      Did you know for example that it now appears that early Christians, far from being blamed for Rome burning, weren't even considered relevant, and many 'confessed' and were punished simply in order to obtain their martyrdom?
      This was a big deal for them, since it meant all sorts of rewards and stuff in heaven. Apparently the Roman administration weren't at all keen, but a confession is a confession, so they were executed.

      The point is, religions, even really stupid ones, thrive on the kind of treatment that would make normal folk think twice about carrying on.

    12. Re:IRL raids by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point is, religions, even really stupid ones,
      Please give me a list of the really "smart" ones, the ones based on truth and integrity, rather than lies, superstition and greed.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:IRL raids by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would not be cool to protest Christianity,
      And exactly why not?
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:IRL raids by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please give me a list of the really "smart" ones, the ones based on truth and integrity, rather than lies, superstition and greed.

      You got me..

      Actually, note that I said really stupid ones. My default position is that all religions are stupid, or at the very least anachronistic in modern times. They served their purpose in prehistory (holding Egypt together for several millennia), but we just don't need such social control systems any more.

      They persist because they give some people a means to power which otherwise they would not have, while to others they give a framework within which they can at least claim to understand the world/universe.
      Both reasons provide more than enough motivation to disregard the reality, i.e that they are worshiping an imaginary friend, whose proof of existence, even if it were true, is only available via a process of chinese whispers from thousands of years ago.

    15. Re:IRL raids by name*censored* · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Religion also offer hope for people, especially regarding the afterlife. Also, most modern religions are based on the idea of charity/peace/social harmony/etc (some interpretations may vary from this). [/Devil's Advocate].

      On the flip side of the coin, religion is also a powerful method of control (as you pointed out). Atheists are probably the most important element, as they provide a strong, effective safeguard against any exploitation. For this reason, I think that in a perfect world, religion and atheism shouldn't be in conflict. Moderate religion requires atheists (and moderate sensible theists should realise this), and moderate atheists have no natural quandary** with religion - science doesn't merit it's claims on their popularity.


      ** If there weren't mitigating factors, such as socially/legally enforced one-size-fits-all morality. YMMV.

      --
      Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    16. Re:IRL raids by isorox · · Score: 0, Troll

      It was directly inspired by God

      Presumably if God created the universe, and set the start location and position of everything in the universe, understands quantum mechanics, and have a grand unified theory tattooed on it's arm, then he is directly responsible for every action in the universe

    17. Re:IRL raids by gambolt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's compare the bible and Battlefield Earth. One is a disjointed and confusing work of cult propaganda. The other is Battlefield Earth.

    18. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this a higher or lower standard than that to which you'd hold, say, Dawkins?

    19. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might be a bit old for anonymous, but I do remember alt.fuck.the.skull.of.jesus.

      sorry, can't find the ascii art

      Are you trying to tell me that anonymous is politically correct?

      Jesus Christ. I thought I'd grown up but am I going to have to come down there and teach you a lesson in trolling?

    20. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Look. Some of us have been battling Scientology online since 1994. They are not the fucking rotary club. They are the largest cult in the world and they kill people. They extort their members for all the money they can get so as to finance lawsuits against anyone who points out that they are the largest cult in the world and that they kill people.

      They were also the first ones to use the courts to try and get a web page taken down. Depending on who you ask, that may or may not be worse than the fact that they are the largest cult in the world and they kill people.

    21. Re:IRL raids by BlackCreek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, it is quite OK to mock the scientology "religion". It's even allowed to ridicule Christianity and Jesus.
      There is nothing magical about religion that makes it exempt from attack and ridicule.

      It is NOT good that you can't attack something because it is a "religion" and would ONLY for that reason deserve respect. People's deeply held beliefs are not OK just because they are deeply held beliefs, they can just as well be ridiculous, and wrong. The fact that you ridicule them isn't even necessarily respectless, not challenging people's delusions, and leaving them with these ridiculous beliefs can be much more respectless.

      I agree with your post. I assume you live in the US. Since the majority of the Slashdot seems to be there. I found it interesting because it touched an issue that is hot right now in The Netherlands. Where there is a law that makes an offense to mock religious belief. People are right now, trying to strike it down, but the "Christian parties" are against.

      Since the prime minister of the country belongs to one of these Christian parties, it is still uncertain whether this will work out.

      I found it quite funny to discover that, since it makes ridiculously hypocritical all the talk about having Mohammed in comic cartoons that took place in Europe. I mean, everybody was "pro" support for freedom of speech, but now two major political dutch parties (including the prime minister) seem to see this law as an entirely different story.

      Funny, eh?

    22. Re:IRL raids by OzoneLad · · Score: 2

      Presumably if God created the universe, and set the start location and position of everything in the universe, understands quantum mechanics, and have a grand unified theory tattooed on it's arm, then he is directly responsible for every action in the universe Launching class-action lawsuit against God in the name of all humans past, present and future in ...3...2...1
    23. Re:IRL raids by Peaker · · Score: 3, Funny

      For example, protesting the Church of Mormon is to forget their holy book says that black people are black because of sin and they can become white with prayer.
      Its true! Just look at Michael Jackson.
    24. Re:IRL raids by The+PS3+Will+Fail · · Score: 2

      "It would not be cool to protest Christianity"
      Why?

      "it's not cool even among Anons to insult Scientology itself"
      Why

      You've given no compelling reason why these are sacred cows. Religions are, in addition to many other things, supposedly guides for life. Why is in "not cool" to attack this guidance being offered?

    25. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The point is, religions, even really stupid ones,
      Please give me a list of the really "smart" ones, the ones based on truth and integrity, rather than lies, superstition and greed. Buddhism? Particularly Zen Buddhism?

      Talking about the real stuff, not hokey "Crystals and Magic Mantras" crap.
    26. Re:IRL raids by phoenixwade · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's compare the bible and Battlefield Earth. One is a disjointed and confusing work of cult propaganda. The other is Battlefield Earth. Let us not forget that one has occasional passages of pretty prose, the other is Battlefield Earth.
      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    27. Re:IRL raids by Broken+scope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, Anons stated goal is the exposure/downfall of Scientology as a business. More specifically the church itself and the Religious technology center.

      They don't really give a damn if you want to believe in the bullshit. They just don't like how people have to pay to get to see the bullshit.

      --
      You mad
    28. Re:IRL raids by Broken+scope · · Score: 2, Informative

      The anon raids are against the church as an organization, not individual members themselves. Anon offers no opinion on the actual belife,, they just don't like business side of the church.

      --
      You mad
    29. Re:IRL raids by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      One has been made into a bad movie, and the other has been made into a bad movie with John Travolta.
      Up your nose with a rubber hose...

    30. Re:IRL raids by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      "The point is, religions, even really stupid ones, thrive on the kind of treatment that would make normal folk think twice about carrying on."

      That's the "Us vs. Them" mentality that every good cult^H^H^H^Hreligion has to install in its members. Once they have that, they have something worth fighting for and the people feel a sense of power since they are now directly involved with the outcome of the world. The polarizing effect of this mentality thrives under criticism since everything you could possibly say negative about the cult^H^H^H^Hreligion is considered a natural part of what any infidel will say about it.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    31. Re:IRL raids by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The hope goes both ways, it'll also work for pacifying a populace by promising that by suffering they'll go to heaven, making them less likely to rectify that suffering (especially when it's caused by people in power).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    32. Re:IRL raids by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Strange, the first thing that comes to my mind when reading "us vs them" is "Democrats and Republicans"...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    33. Re:IRL raids by fatalwall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I once used to agree with your view on religion as well. However your view lacks many other aspects that you really need to look at. Before you can throw religion to the curves maybe you should study religion a bit more from a sociology point of view. You will find that religion is not only empowering of the "leader" but empowering of the members. Check out the works of Weber. Yes it will be difficult to accept that religion is needed however that is where all the studies point.

    34. Re:IRL raids by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Do what the British did and register yourself as a "jedi".

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    35. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what you need is to sue some bible publishers over the mockery of other religions in the bible.

    36. Re:IRL raids by dfenstrate · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, it wouldn't be 'cool' in the James Dean/rockstar sense because it's so utterly overdone. Yawn. Protest christianity. It's such an utterly safe and mundane practice that doing it means nothing.

      No christian churches label you an 'oppressive person' and send their office of special affairs after you. No christian churches will rile up their congregation over real or percieved insults. You won't see them screaming in the streets, holding signs that say 'death to those who insult christianity.'

      You won't even get punched by a believer if you stand in front of a church screaming jesus was a zombie.

      Protesting christianity is about as cool as yelling at the old dog laying in the corner because he dug a hole in the back yard. The offense you protest is barely worth mentioning and the dog isn't going to be affected by your protest enough to even get up.

      Now, is it 'cool' to protest christianity, as in 'okay'? Sure. There's just no point.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    37. Re:IRL raids by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Japan's history is replete with examples of Buddhist sects battling each other, including Zen Buddhism.

      There's a pilgrimage around Shikoku visiting 88 numbered temples plus a dozen or two unnumbered temples (I did parts of it by bicycle a few years back). There are two temples claiming to be #30, with the government choosing one then the other depending on the political mood. Other temples have waged war with each other over the years (the pilgrimage started 1200 years ago, I think)

    38. Re:IRL raids by Magic5Ball · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As another poster states, Buddhism and many of the other Indian and Far East religions would be up there for integrity and non-greed. I would have said Taoism which has less legacy in the stack and enables somewhat more open implementation and criticism. Many of the tribal animism religious frameworks lack the interfaces to express greed.

      Depending on how one defines truth, lies or superstition, all of the major religions could be viewed as being deficient in the scientistic sense of cause and effect. I would argue that the sanctioned availability and relative accessibility of the entire runtime documentation set to the lay practitioner, combined with the freedom to implement appropriately localized versions without impediment from the issuing bureaucracy, would provide sufficient conditions for a religion to be considered truthful in practice.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    39. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They served their purpose in prehistory [...], but we just don't need such social control systems any more.
      Yep, gotta love this enlightening age of ours where every one takes care of each others, politely circulates around with smiles and eager to help you if you have car troubles or need to know the time. Everyone has a meaningful life. No more social problems, poverty or hunger.

      Funny thing is, it's after having a Scientologist boss (applying personality-crushing method in the workplace) that I realized that perhaps Christianity has a lot of bad in it's history, but also a lot of good. I rather have a Cristian neighbor, friend or boss than a scientologist any day.
      Even many Agnostics (like me) has a life goal to amass money and power (big jobs), they evaluate life thru big houses and what you drive.
      I think you are wrong saying "we just don't need such social control systems any more". Do you really think this is because of the way we teach kids in school and at home? Get out a little, try to get to the level of the poor, the lost, the uneducated and you might realize they are looking for meaning. Leaving churches pushes a lot of people into worst things like Scientology.
      My father in law is a big religious man, extremely kind and generous, and often get exploited for it (never refusing to do an unpaid service), but he is a very good man at the core. A few years ago I would have laughed at him, but today I realize he does more to create a better world than I do. His values transfered into his daughter is why I am with her. (Even if I still hate to stand in church).
      Truth is, their is good and bad everywhere, religious or not; life is what we make of it as a social group, and the current education system we have does not create a decent social environment.
      Note that I am not offering any solutions, that's not for a few paragraph on a forum ;)

    40. Re:IRL raids by halovaa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you know for example that it now appears that early Christians, far from being blamed for Rome burning, weren't even considered relevant, and many 'confessed' and were punished simply in order to obtain their martyrdom? Can you please post a source on this assertion? Tacitus thought that Nero was the one responsible for blaming the Christians:
      http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_15#44
      although I'm not clear what he means by 'all who pleaded guilty', whether that refers to pleading guilty to setting to the fires or just pleading guilty to being a Christian.
    41. Re:IRL raids by Nimey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Discordianism. WE at least know we're all full of shit, and revel in it.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    42. Re:IRL raids by thegnu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By the same vein, it's not cool even among Anons to insult Scientology itself - but the CHURCH of Scientology (as opposed to the Freezone)?

      First off, Scientology isn't a Church. They charge admission, and they're a for-profit organization. They're not recognized as a real religion in Belgium, Russia, Canada, Greece, France, Germany, the United Kingdom. It's respected here in the US because anyone with enough money to purchase a free ride gets one in this society. CoS have loads of power.

      I was talking about the Catholic Church with someone the other day, and they were arguing that you can't condemn the religion as a whole. I maintain, however, that if the Pope gets to tell you you're not Catholic, it's organized enough to criticize as a whole.

      What I think you CAN'T criticize is an individual's drive for spiritual growth. If their religion involves slandering people and destroying their lives (CoS) or protecting child molestors (Catholic Church), then please, criticize them. In other words, while the person's spiritual practice may be above reproach, the dogma is just a set of ideas and ideals just like any atheist would have. For example:

      (I'm not really picking sides, just giving examples)
      Religious - God says you should be nice to poor people
      Nonreligious - The best interest of humanity dictates you should be nice to poor people
      Religious - Abortion is wrong because God says so
      Nonreligious - Abortion is wrong because it's unnatural to kill your own progeny

      I think that what people call religious belief is just dogma. And atheists have dogma too. If dogma is above reproach, we are in a world of shit, my friend.
      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    43. Re:IRL raids by zsau · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny; we have similar laws here in the Australian state of Victoria. Christians generally oppose them, largely because it has made it harder for them to state their reasonably-held opinions of Muslims. (I mean, if you believed in one God the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, then surely you think Muslims are wrong, don't you?)

      It's worth noting that free speech doesn't exist here except inasmuch as it's politically difficult to pass laws banning certain forms of speech. The state of Victoria has a charter of rights which merely states that the Parliament must consider such issues, and the Australian federal government has nothing even remotely similar.

      Yet we join forces invading Iraq and Afghanistan saying we're giving them freedom.

      This experience has cemented the view in my mind that there's no such thing as "god-given" or "constitutional" rights; the only rights we have are the ones we make sure we keep.

      (To our credit, we were one of very few democracies that made it through the first half of the twentieth century without a disruption to the process — including changes of government (whichever party was in power in (September) 1914, 1917, 1940 and 1943 all lost the election); even the UK suspended elections.)

      --
      Look out!
    44. Re:IRL raids by BlackCreek · · Score: 1

      what you need is to sue some bible publishers over the mockery of other religions in the bible.

      It would not work. To be fair, people have failed to enforce this law for quite a while. The law itself is from the 1930s. In the 60s somebody had described God as a donkey or something, and how he had had sex with the donkey/God.

      They tried to prosecute this guy, and failed. My point is that the very same people that so strongly defended people's right to mock Islamic faith, on the grounds that freedom of speech comes first, are right now trying to keep this law as valid.

      The wikipedia has a good resume of the story but in dutch http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godslastering#Wet_inzake_smalende_godslastering_.281932.29/ and this is the google translation of it http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGodslastering%23Wet_inzake_smalende_godslastering_.281932.29&langpair=nl%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

    45. Re:IRL raids by dfenstrate · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They served their purpose in prehistory (holding Egypt together for several millennia), but we just don't need such social control systems any more.

      I'm not so sure about that. Without God, you must explain moral codes in practical terms. The most basic (lie, cheat, steal)are easy enough. Some of the less obviously explained moral codes are both very important and not easy to explain the practicality thereof. (Envy, gluttony, etc.)

      Humans are not fundamentally morally superior now as compared to 5,000 years ago. The only thing that has provably changed in that time is the societal indoctrination methods, and churches are the majority of those methods.

      Churches, God, and Sin are ways of imposing codes of behavior that have been show to be successful over several millennia. The concepts of 'God' and 'Sin' are necessary to impose these codes of behavior, because you can't argue with God and you better do what he tells you.

      If you were once again a child, or once again a teen, or once perhaps still are, how often do you recall arguing with your parents over some matter? That you were unconvinced by their stance?

      They had at least two decades more of life experience than you to learn life lessons, and perhaps you might remember they were correct much more often than they were wrong.

      But you still argued with them, because you didn't understand the value of their experience and you had to learn some of the same lessons the hard way, just as they did.

      Well, assigning the most basic of these life lessons as commandments from God, with whom you may not argue, and who will punish you eternally for consistently failing to obey him, removes them from the 'negotiable' list completely. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not murder. Don't try to screw your neighbors wife. Don't make babies with someone you're not committed to. Don't be envious, etc.

      Any one of these things, when broken, will gain the perpetrator a momentary advantage that is plain for anyone to see. In the long run all are detrimental to both the perpetrator and the society around him. Convincing everyone that God would burn you in hell for eternity for doing any of them made folks decide that the momentary gain wasn't worth the fire.

      Much less obvious is the long term benefit to society when everyone obeys these rules. Both explaining the full logic of why that is so, and getting the student to accept your and societie's experience is a damn near impossible task with an empty slate of a child or a hormone-driven teenager.

      Further, there are countless adults who fail to grasp the utility of the religious rules and traditions we live by. If they are religious, they may yet follow the rules and their lives will be satisfactory, and their impact on society a net positive.

      If they are not religious, and do not accept that those traditions and rules exist for reasons they do not grasp, then they will behave as they see fit- leaving ruin in their wake, as lessons learned hundreds or thousands of years ago are tossed out as the baby with the bathwater.

      So, allow me to try to summarize if you've made it this far:

      Religion is a way of passing down millennia of hard-learned lessons in a way that leaves no room for argument.
      I would go into the lessons besides 'don't lie, cheat, murder or steal', except you might argue with me about those topics, proving my point while convincing yourself I'm anachronistic.

      Western civilization lies atop a massive carefully-built structure of unnatural behaviors that enable the tremendous intellectual and material wealth we enjoy today.

      That behavioral structure is so carefully crafted and re-enforced that we forget that it is unnatural, and in forgetting that, we disparage the tools with which it was carefully built and must be maintained.

      We are not naturally better than folks 5,000 years ago. We are only better because of the methods our ancestors derived to make us internalize their hard-learned lessons early in life.

      Incidentally I do believe in God, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing the anthropology.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    46. Re:IRL raids by c · · Score: 1

      > Where there is a law that makes an offense to mock religious belief.

      For a secretive cult like Scientology, that sort of thing is a two-edged sword. Basically, they only get the protection if they're willing to go to court and claim that they hold a particular tract as a religious belief. I'm sure you can think of which "stories" to start with...

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    47. Re:IRL raids by momerath2003 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, protesting Christianity has been in vogue of late.

      --
      I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
    48. Re:IRL raids by BlackCreek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny; we have similar laws here in the Australian state of Victoria. Christians generally oppose them, largely because it has made it harder for them to state their reasonably-held opinions of Muslims. Do you know if anyone has had success prosecuting people in your state using this law? In the Netherlands people had failed to use it in the last 10 or 20 years (AFAIK).

      This experience has cemented the view in my mind that there's no such thing as "god-given" or "constitutional" rights; the only rights we have are the ones we make sure we keep. I couldn't agree more with this.

      Whenever I complain about lack of privacy in modern Europe, people have often said abuses like you describe would never happen, but if it did, OOOOHHH, there would be so much trouble, OOOOHHH, governments would fall OOOOHHH.

      Well, when it became public that all European financial transactions logs were being leaked to the US. There was not that much of a big deal, there was a judicial order for it to stop (from Belgium's supreme court), they didn't stop, a point from which the issue was said to move to a "legal grey area".

    49. Re:IRL raids by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I went to see the movie out of the curiosity of watching a train wreck. I never read the book, but, one part of the movie that I found sorta funny was how humans who barely knew how to work fire learned enough in flight simulators to fly combat in Harrier jets. For those of you who don't know the Harrier is the most difficult fighter to master mostly due to the complexity of its V/STOL nature. Also many critics regard it as being unstable and prone to breakdowns. It has the highest fatality/loss rate of any jet in the military with almost 1/3 of Harriers being lost to accidents. With over 45 fatalies in mostly noncombat conditions, the Harrier has been named by some as the Widow-maker.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    50. Re:IRL raids by Tikkun · · Score: 1

      I'm not Christian, but I don't see much reason to attack Christianity as a whole.

      Here are your two options with Christianity:

      1. Eat the body and blood of (or be saved by faith in) a man that died and came back from the dead, and was born from a virgin, and the dad was some almighty creator who is also his son will bring you an eternal happy afterlife?

      2. Spend eternity in hell suffering.

      I'd say that such a world view is worth mocking just as much as the CoS.
    51. Re:IRL raids by BlackCreek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Religion is a way of passing down millennia of hard-learned lessons in a way that leaves no room for argument. I would go into the lessons besides 'don't lie, cheat, murder or steal', except you might argue with me about those topics, proving my point while convincing yourself I'm anachronistic.

      You assume that these rules are compiled with the purpose of benefiting most of us. That is not necessarily true. Many religious rules (or civil laws) we have were written to, for instance, maintain status quo, which in many cases is nothing short of "Cleptocracy" (e.g. "I, the king/high priest, and my buddies will take as much as we can from you the peasants").

      The book Collapse by Jared Diamond is filled with data about systems of belief being drafted with lots of different purposes.

    52. Re:IRL raids by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      The other is Battlefield Earth. Yay... the rat bastards will inherit the earth. And the DVD will be on sale for $2.99, and the book 1004 pages.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    53. Re:IRL raids by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      The case of wacko Jacko supports the Nation of Islam belief that white people were created from black people by a mad scientist.

    54. Re:IRL raids by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      Well there is Buddhism. As an Atheist I always thought of it as the only religion I could follow as it doesn't force you to believe in a creator.

    55. Re:IRL raids by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You'd better substantiate how they "kill" people.

    56. Re:IRL raids by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      "Religions are like farts. Yours is ok, but everybody else's stink." Paraphrased from something I heard a kid say while my parents were watching Picket Fences.

    57. Re:IRL raids by Zakabog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm confused, what I think you're saying is "People follow the rules more easily today because they think god is going to send them to hell"?

      Well that doesn't make sense, I would say less people today believe in god than they did before. Although I would go on to say that we're morally better off now than we were back then. We don't stone people to death, we don't chop limbs off thieves, we don't have slavery anymore.

      You also seem to assume that people are still afraid of the fire. I don't think that's true anymore, especially considering the church sex scandals. If the clergy isn't afraid of going to hell, then who still is? Plus think of all the religious people who end up cheating on their spouses, although what's morally wrong with having sex with multiple women? According to biblical moral codes it's a sin, but if my wife doesn't care that I have sex with the neighbors wife where's the harm?

      I would say that religion was created to keep people in line (they were more easily afraid back then so when you told them they were going to hell for sinning they really believed it.) Although as a moral code for today it's no longer working. Especially considering that the pope just released a new list of sins, and the church is guilty of at least two of them (excessive wealth and widening the gap between the rich and the poor.)

    58. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't protest the religious beliefs themselves, however bizarre they may be, because that does nothing to help those within the cult. If we were protesting their beliefs, it would be the equivalent of directly insulting the individual members of Scientology. This makes it nearly impossible to get individual Scientologists, or even members of the general public, to listen to our message. By revealing the hypocritical and power-hungry nature of the upper levels of the Scientology organization, we stand a better chance of our message reaching individual members.

    59. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sauce or GTFO.

    60. Re:IRL raids by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Without God, you must explain moral codes in practical terms.

      No, you don't. You can easily have moral dogma without religious dogma. Didn't your parents ever tell you to do something "Because I said so!"

      At a certain point, you do, because the person will outgrow "what Momma said", but people can also outgrow "what God said." So you'll need to understand in practical terms, anyway.

      The most basic (lie, cheat, steal)are easy enough. Some of the less obviously explained moral codes are both very important and not easy to explain the practicality thereof. (Envy, gluttony, etc.)

      Envy and gluttony are easier to explain, I think, than lying, cheating, and stealing. Envy is just going to make you unhappy, or cause you to do something stupid, especially in the case of a woman, where there are plenty of women you could chase who aren't already in a relationship.

      Gluttony is even easier -- if you are a glutton, you'll become fat, and you probably don't want to be fat -- if only out of vanity.

      But what about lying? Or cheating? The only way this can work is if you can make a case for the Golden Rule, which is tricky. Since you seem to be talking about indoctrinating children, they're not going to get empathy until about age six or so.

      And stealing only works because of the possibility of jail time -- again, without the Golden Rule.

      Much less obvious is the long term benefit to society when everyone obeys these rules. Both explaining the full logic of why that is so, and getting the student to accept your and societie's experience is a damn near impossible task with an empty slate of a child or a hormone-driven teenager.

      Not at all. My parents did that to me, both as a child and as a teenager, and I turned out alright.

      Now, they did start with saying it's "bad", but no connection was ever made with religion. The only things that they told me to do because God told me to were religious things -- my Bar-Mitzvah, for instance -- and even then, an alternate explanation was ready (tradition) in case I questioned the religion.

      But seriously, even explaining the consequences to society is absurdly easy. "What if everyone littered?" And if they don't listen to you about that, they won't listen to you about God, either.

      Religion is a way of passing down millennia of hard-learned lessons in a way that leaves no room for argument.

      And considering how some of these lessons are no longer relevant -- and, indeed, some of them have been dropped completely -- I still don't see it.

      One example: Pork is not kosher, perhaps because of certain -- worms, I think? -- which used to be a real problem. In the modern world, we can keep most of our food reasonably clean, so I see no reason to continue that tradition. But the problem is, since the only reason we got was "God said so," we don't really know if that was the reason -- so the only way to preserve that knowledge is to also preserve the ignorance ("The world is flat! ...Ok, it's round, but it's the center of the universe!") because, after all, who are you to decide what part of what God teaches is false?

      And that's another problem with religion -- why not just pass down the lesson with the reason? After all, if you say "Do as I say because God said so, and no arguing," you've lost as soon as the person decides to argue -- which means that those who leave religion are almost certainly going to lose a few of those lessons.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    61. Re:IRL raids by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      You assume that these rules are compiled with the purpose of benefiting most of us. That is not necessarily true. Many religious rules (or civil laws) we have were written to, for instance, maintain status quo, which in many cases is nothing short of "Cleptocracy" (e.g. "I, the king/high priest, and my buddies will take as much as we can from you the peasants").

      The book Collapse by Jared Diamond is filled with data about systems of belief being drafted with lots of different purposes.


      Can you point out where I defended every religion, every where, at every time? Of course some of them are sh*t. A thinking adult should be able to discern which practices were a net benefit to society, and which practices just screwed the lay people.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    62. Re:IRL raids by SMS_Design · · Score: 1

      "Well, assigning the most basic of these life lessons as commandments from God, with whom you may not argue"

      While you would look mad arguing with your imaginary deity, you can still do it.

    63. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "Lisa McPherson", quotes included.

      Then tell me the Clams don't kill people.

    64. Re:IRL raids by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      That's the "Us vs. Them" mentality that every good cult^H^H^H^Hreligion has to install in its members. Once they have that, they have something worth fighting for and the people feel a sense of power since they are now directly involved with the outcome of the world.


      Judaism and Christianity are very much at odds with the idea. "Treat everyone as if they were God himself" was preached from the beginning in Genesis. (For example, that man is made in "God's image" is the reason given for the prohibition against murder.) It's taught in the Mosaic temple rites if you know where to look and you know how they differ from the Egyptian temple rights that Israel was used to. (In Egyptian temple rights, priests served the gods. In Israel's, they performed exactly the same actions, but to serve each other.) Jesus taught from the Jewish scriptures. When he said, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me," it was a restatement of this universal, timeless principle. The story of the Good Samaritan was a forceful illustration of this to people who Just Did Not Get It, and is still very much in use today among people who try to.

      In other words, in Judaism and Christianity, there is no "Us" and "Them" - only "Us". The fact that you have missed this - especially with regards to Christianity - tells me you don't know much about practicing Christians or Jews.
      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    65. Re:IRL raids by flieghund · · Score: 2, Informative

      No christian churches label you an 'oppressive person' and send their office of special affairs after you.

      Well, not anymore, anyway. I seem to recall this thing called the Spanish Inquisition. Nowadays no one expects it, but at one time it was the "office of special affairs" for the most prominent Christian church.
      --
      "I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
    66. Re:IRL raids by ozborn · · Score: 1

      Without God, you must explain moral codes in practical terms.
      You have to explain moral codes in practical terms anyway - at least for the rest of us. Assuming the existence of a powerful/all-powerful entity who created/may have created the universe doesn't make that entity a moral authority anybody has to listen to. The entity could be an asshole for instance or there may be rules or facts that entity is unaware of.

      Religious rules have utility in social control all right - but that isn't a good thing. The world you describe is a pretty horrible one to me, where the ancients (prophets, believers, old social norms) have it figured it out as good as we are ever going to get. I see there is little or no room for social progress in your world.

    67. Re:IRL raids by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Without God, you must explain moral codes in practical terms.

      No, you don't. You can easily have moral dogma without religious dogma. Didn't your parents ever tell you to do something "Because I said so!"

      Yes, and I obeyed since they were bigger than me, at least until I was out of their sight, after which I promptly ignored their words. You aren't bigger than me, so I would not bother even pretending to obey.

      Anyway, this message chain is stupid. People usually behave because they have social instincts, with empathy and submitting to pack leader as the most important ones. Trying to derive moral codes is simply an attempt to rationalize the resulting behavior, to make it seem noble, rather than what it actually is: merely obeying your instincts.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    68. Re:IRL raids by TallDarkMan · · Score: 1

      The point is, religions, even really stupid ones, thrive on the kind of treatment that would make normal folk think twice about carrying on.

      That's only the half of it... You also have the clergy subtly teaching the congregation to trust the authority figures and what they say (preach), thus ingraining a sheeple mentality, not only into the congregation, but into society at large too. This is why the majority of the normal folk in the USA thinks:

      [terrorist threats are everywhere*] = [gov't can be excluded from law to "protect us"]

      ( * Interestingly, this also comes from the gov't...)

      So when the gov't starts to erode laws that protect the people's freedom(s), the sheeple look the other way, (heck, they'll support the gov't in doing it!) rather than carrying on.

      (IMO) Religion is one of the top reasons critical thinking is less evident in the general population... (another being television, specifically news media)

      --
      Will draft for food...
    69. Re:IRL raids by unboring · · Score: 1

      Buddhism?

    70. Re:IRL raids by Planesdragon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Please give me a list of the really "smart" ones, the ones based on truth and integrity, rather than lies, superstition and greed. Christianity, Bhuddism, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Shinto...

      Very few religions are based on "lies". Many may be based on "falsehoods", but that's something else entirely.

      You'll note that I did not include "atheism" in that list, not because it's not a religion, but because it is based on neither truth nor integrity, but rather arrogance and rebellishness.
    71. Re:IRL raids by budgenator · · Score: 1
      > Where there is a law that makes an offense to mock religious belief.

      For a secretive cult like Scientology, that sort of thing is a two-edged sword


      we could start with

      No doubt you are familiar with the Revelations section of the Bible where
      various events are predicted. Also mentioned is a brief period of time in
      which an arch-enemy of Christ, referred to as the anti-Christ, will reign and
      his opinions will have sway. All this makes for very fantastic, entertaining
      reading but there is truth in it. This anti-Christ represents the forces of
      Lucifer (literally, the "light bearers" or "light bringer"), Lucifer being a
      mythical representation of the forces of enlightenment, the Galactic
      Confederacy. My mission could be said to fulfill the Biblical promise
      represented by this brief anti-Christ period. During this period there is a
      fleeting opportunity for the whole scenario to be effectively derailed, which
      would make it impossible for the mass Marcabian landing (Second Coming) to take
      place. The Second Coming is designed, among other things, to trigger a rapid
      series of destructive events. ...

      For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me take the
      opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic
      Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition
      to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of
      temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and
      other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings
      inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man
      still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting.

        L. RON HUBBARD as reported in
      US District Court, Central District of California
      Fishman Case No 91-6426 HLH (Tx)

      that should rile up the Christian Fundamentalists quit a bit
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    72. Re:IRL raids by carnivorouscow · · Score: 1

      Even a cleptocracy is preferable to chaos. It's easier to deal with a specific group of greedy bastards who maintain a body of laws (however imperfect) than what Hobbes referred to as the state of nature.

    73. Re:IRL raids by UncleTogie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Suffering will exist with or without religion.

      M'personal spiritual beliefs compel me to try to ease some of that for those around me, while acknowledging that I can't save the world from suffering. No control freaks needed.

      "Religion" does NOT have to be a power-mongering scam....

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    74. Re:IRL raids by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      But if you have to be a thinking adult to determine what is a net benefit and what screws the lay people, then what purpose does the religion have? Your original argument seemed to be that they were sets of rules that thinking adults simply did not make this determination, rather accepting it as a net benefit because God cannot be argued with.

    75. Re:IRL raids by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      In other words, in Judaism and Christianity, there is no "Us" and "Them" - only "Us". The fact that you have missed this - especially with regards to Christianity - tells me you don't know much about practicing Christians or Jews. It should have told you much about "practicing Christians or Jews" and what they don't know about their own religions.
      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    76. Re:IRL raids by KaizerttheBjorn · · Score: 1

      The point is, religions, even really stupid ones,
      Please give me a list of the really "smart" ones, the ones based on truth and integrity, rather than lies, superstition and greed. Buddhism. Most other religions have had wars fought for their sake. The leaders of most other religions live very affluently, Buddhist leaders live humbly with no material possessions, eating rice and beans for their meals. Buddhism does not worship any deity. It's only purpose is a path away from suffering. It has molded over time to not conflict with scientific laws, while still keeping the basis of the religion intact. What other religion does that?

      I converted from atheism to Buddhism.
      --
      Boycott shampoo! Demand the REAL poo!
    77. Re:IRL raids by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      Not every agnostic evaluates their lives through money and wealth, they just see it as a means to freedom.

    78. Re:IRL raids by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      Cute, but registering as a pantheist or pandeist would be much more fun.

    79. Re:IRL raids by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 1

      Oh heavens. Is that what they did in the movie?

      I'm not enough of a masochist to willingly endure seeing Battlefield Earth as a movie. Experience has taught me many times there are amazingly few books that turn out even as good as the book. One strange example was a short story turned into a good short film "An occurence at Owl Creek Bridge". Then are the things where they really do use the book as the script (eg. The Last Unicorn and to a much lesser degree Harry Potter books). These are noteworthy exceptions. Usually things get bastardized in horrific ways (sigh... The Firm anyone or for a much more tragic SciFi example Starship Troopers).

      But Battlefield Earth was clearly something that wasn't going to turn out good as a movie.

      In essence, the entire concept was automated, accelerating training in a wide variety of subjects, not just flight simulators. A more worthy movie based parallel would be the accelerated, automated learning of physical fighting styles in the Matrix. If I remember correctly, the humans started being weasels in the sense that once they got going learning stuff they kept absorbing more and more and pestering their masters to get access to more and more stuff (in more subjects) ostensibly to help them do their job but really because they started figuring out they could probably eventually rebel if they were prepared.

    80. Re:IRL raids by version5 · · Score: 1

      Humans are not fundamentally morally superior now as compared to 5,000 years ago. The only thing that has provably changed in that time is the societal indoctrination methods, and churches are the majority of those methods.

      Isn't that a bit like saying we aren't fundamentally more educated today compared to 5,000 years ago, that the only thing that has changed is societal indoctrination methods and schools are the majority of those methods. You are saying that if you took away social structures, human beings would revert to some primal morality, so there's a presumption that there are two things here -- humans and society -- that are basically distinct and separate, humans are "natural" and society and therefore morality is external and "unnatural". Perhaps this is an artifact of your religious commitment to the idea of basically sinful humanity, but I think this distinction is a flawed one.

      You've said humans haven't changed, society has. But humans are fundamentally social animals, and we have been for hundreds of thousands of years. Isn't it strange to speak of "unnatural" society when the tools to interact with other humans and form bonds -- language, empathy, etc. -- are built into our genes? How much more natural can it get? Unlike most other animals, a human infant is helpless at birth, and can't survive without the intervention and co-operation of its parents, and where we find rare cases of infants being raised outside of human society (feral children), we find that they aren't even recognizably human. So to ask the question "What would humans be without society?" is to fantasize about a radically different creature that could not and does not exist, like saying "What if lions didn't live in a pride?" Well, they wouldn't be lions then. If I can give a completely ridiculous analogy, it is also like asking "What if humans didn't have heads?" and pointing out how terrible this would be because then we couldn't eat. This is true, among other things, but it doesn't point to the inherent unnaturalness of human heads.

      But if we should accept the naturalness and benefit of society and religion, we must also accept that secularization is yet another natural moral development, going one step beyond what religion can offer. There are two apparently competing claims here, and we must dissolve the antagonism. On one hand, there is no doubt that religion prevents some people from being immoral in some respects, but at the same time, religion enables certain immoral actions that can only be corrected by the broader, deeper morality of the secular paradigm. At least one way of resolving this apparent disagreement is by pointing out that there is a developmental logic in both the personal and social domains such that the traditional religious moral structure is appropriate, and perhaps at some point they graduate beyond that to a superior secular alternative, which is superior in the sense that it preserves what is right its predecessor and builds on it to correct its errors.

      --

      "It's Dot Com!"

    81. Re:IRL raids by The+PS3+Will+Fail · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Holy fuck - how fucking stupid are you? Look back at my comment: where do you see me stating that Anonymous was protesting the fucking religion and not just the church? Answer, fucktard: I didn't. I was replying to the fucking moron that claimed that religion is some sacred cow that can't be attacked. I asked why that was the cause because if I think a religion's tenants are fucking stupid, I am going to say so. You're a fucking shit heel that thought you had some great fucking information so you were determined to post it, regardless of whether or not it had any bearing on the fucking flow of conversation as it was occurring. I hope you get diarrhea today you piece of trash.

    82. Re:IRL raids by stuporglue · · Score: 1

      You won't even get punched by a believer if you stand in front of a church screaming jesus was a zombie.

      That's not guaranteed

      Christians are people too, and come in all flavors. Punching you for that kind of behavior would be against most of their principles...but people don't always follow their principles.

      --
      https://www.facebook.com/digitizeicm -- Show your support for the digitization of the Iron County Miner newspaper archiv
    83. Re:IRL raids by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Funny

      And decent poetry! If you'd like to really charm a date, the "Song of Solomon" is some pretty hot material, even if it is a bit risque for a first date.

    84. Re:IRL raids by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      wasn't your point that religious rules are great because they are accepted without reason? now you are telling us that we should use our heads and determine which ones are usefull to society? Great contradiction.

    85. Re:IRL raids by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      The church IS the organization.

      I believe you meant to say "beliefs" and instead typed "church".

      The Church of Scientology is complete and utter garbage -- all of it.

      The BELIEFS of Scientology? Also garbage -- but people can believe garbage if they want. Millions, billions of people believe all kinds of crazy things and call them religion. That's no big deal.

      It's just when those crazy beliefs are used to justify awful abuses of people and of the law that it becomes a problem.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    86. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    87. Re:IRL raids by GreatDrok · · Score: 1

      I have a simple rule that I hold above all others. Always tell the truth. Religion claims to be the truth but won't back it up beyond saying you have to believe without proof.

      If religion (any religion out of the thousands that exist or have existed) is a lie then it breaks rule number one and breaking that rule cancels out any other benefit it might have. Use all the long words and persuasive arguments you like but unless you can prove what you say is the truth you are pushing a lie. True or false, which is it?

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    88. Re:IRL raids by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

      Religion is a way of passing down millennia of hard-learned lessons in a way that leaves no room for argument.


      You're a pretty clear thinker and have a decent grasp of some of the effects of religion, but I think you're incorrect in this statement, which presents this as the raison d'etre of religion ... in reality it's a side effect or a use of a pre-existing structure. Religion does not exist for this functions, it was just co-opted to serve that role in some cases. It exists, instead, because of basic genetic and evolved tendencies of human psychology.

      I strongly, strongly recommend you look up and read "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer. I think you'd get a lot out of it - I'd say I learned more from that book than from any other five or six books I've read in the last decade.
      --
      I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
    89. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They are finally told what Scientology is all about, then die of uproarious laughter?

    90. Re:IRL raids by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Those would be the people who block traffic on Highway 52 so that their brothers and sisters leaving the meeting at the Chisholm Baptist church may exit the parking lot?

      Or any number of similar behaviors from members of other Christian church members.

      Seems a bit us vs them to me.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    91. Re:IRL raids by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Did you know for example that it now appears that early Christians, far from being blamed for Rome burning, weren't even considered relevant, and many 'confessed' and were punished simply in order to obtain their martyrdom?

      For the record, you're mixing up a range of disparate incidents. The Christians most definitely were blamed by the imperial administration for the fire of Rome in 64 CE -- and, it is always possible, correctly. (Look, I'll even cite a source: Tacitus Annals 15.44.)

      I'm willing to believe there were incidents of Christians fessing up just to become martyrs (in principle; since you don't cite any proximate sources I feel no obligation to think about it much), but only decades or centuries later, and certainly not in connection with that incident.

      And what on earth do you mean by "it now appears"? Is there new evidence?

    92. Re:IRL raids by zsau · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Islamic Council of Victoria sued a Christian group over things they said during a service; I don't know what the Muslims wanted to get out of it, but apparently five years later the result an agreement that everything was all happiness and roses. I'm not aware of any other attempt to sue under this law, but in this particular case the law was much more divisive then just letting religious people speak; after the Islamic Council began to sue Catch the Fire Ministries, various Christian groups turned up to Muslim services to try and find any possible cause for them to sue in response.

      On the other hand, under federal law Albert Langer was sent to jail for describing a way to vote in federal elections that was valid at the time.

      --
      Look out!
    93. Re:IRL raids by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      David Weber? like Armageddon Reef

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    94. Re:IRL raids by sma11s101 · · Score: 1

      You won't even get punched by a believer if you stand in front of a church screaming jesus was a zombie.
      I would like to see you go try that outside of a babtist church in the south. Pictures would be appreciated.
    95. Re:IRL raids by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure about that. Without God, you must explain moral codes in practical terms

      You're making a common mistake in assuming that ancient gods were the same as the modern single god thing.

      Gods back then were, by and large, manifestations of natural forces. You could be a right barstard, but if you paid tribute, it was all cool. There was no 'moral control', it was a means of helping the society cope with the world around them.

      It's only modern delusionists (oh sorry, I meant religious types) who see god as in watching our every move and damning us if we do anything wrong.

      This always struck me as odd when I was a kids. I mean, he creates the universe in all its vastness, oversees the creation and destruction of entire galaxies, but he's going to get pissed if I want to have sex before I'm married, or want to have sex with a woman someone else married? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

      Sure, the other guy might get annoyed, but what would god care? Assuming he existed that is. Sounds pretty insignificant on the cosmic scale to me.

    96. Re:IRL raids by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      1914, 1917, 1940 and 1943 all lost the election); even the UK suspended elections.) In their defense, is WAS raining bombs.
      I blame Von Braun.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    97. Re:IRL raids by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      Of course its a different issue. The Mohammad cartoons didn't offend the those in charge, thus they are free speech.

    98. Re:IRL raids by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Why don't you wise up and compile your own religion from scratch?

      You can include Jesus, Abraham, and even Mohammad, and you can even throw in a few other names of people who aren't very common knowledge, but I'll leave that kind of research to you.

      There are plenty of people worldwide who don't use store bought religion. By labeling them wrongfully, you're being just as offensive as the "religions" you dislike.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    99. Re:IRL raids by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There are plenty of people worldwide who don't use store bought religion.
      By definition, all religions are, as you say, "store bought".

      Many have developed a spiritual and ethical system based on their own experience and exploration, but that's not "religion".

      Here's an easy rule of thumb: To be a "religion" there must be the organized collection of money.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    100. Re:IRL raids by littlekosh · · Score: 1

      All I want to do is respond with tl;dr, but that was actually interesting so thanks.

      --
      655321
    101. Re:IRL raids by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      christians are seen everywhere as good and friendly people
      Like those folks at the Westboro Baptist Church.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    102. Re:IRL raids by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Trying to derive moral codes is simply an attempt to rationalize the resulting behavior, to make it seem noble, rather than what it actually is: merely obeying your instincts.

      Maybe so, but it also helps to turn it into something I can communicate, and maybe convince others of.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    103. Re:IRL raids by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      A kleptocracy is not preferable to chaos. Kleptocracy is stable and can last indefinately, while chaos is highly unstable. Any time chaos occurs, it quickly breaks down into some form of order, as it easy for thinking people to make order out of chaos. Therefore, there is certainty hope for change. I'd much rather pick brief chaos followed by hope rather than be stuck in a kleptocracy my whole life.

    104. Re:IRL raids by insomnyuk · · Score: 1

      where is it written that you can't argue with God? People say it, but I recall in the book of Job, that he does in fact argue with God. Abraham bargains with God to save the city where Lot lives. Read your bible before you start pontificating. I'm just using the Bible as an example because I come from a Western, specifically evangelical Christian upbringing. Context matters to me, but it's other people that say you can't argue with God.

      Sure, you can argue with God, but will that really work out? I rarely even win arguments with myself!

    105. Re:IRL raids by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      ... or have a heart attack when they realize how much money they pissed away finding out.

    106. Re:IRL raids by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Well if the US experience with "flag burning" is any indication. Expect the number of Mohamed-like cartoons about Christianity and the number of Christian tasteless jokes to explode to the stratosphere. That's what happened with the American Flag in the US, once idiots like Pat Buchanan wanted to ban "flag burning", everybody who disagreed with him burned, peed on, and shit on -- theirs. And then, when they ran out of American flags to burn, they started making little mock-up copies of the Constitution so they could do the same to it (which ironically, also seemed to upset the Pat Buchanan idiots -- even more).

    107. Re:IRL raids by renoX · · Score: 1

      >And atheists have dogma too.

      "And some atheists have dogma too" there fixed for you.

      I note that in your example of nonreligious dogma, the abortion example was quite contrived: 'unnatural' isn't much of a justification!
      So apparently it isn't that easy to find nonreligions dogma..

    108. Re:IRL raids by ckedge · · Score: 1

      I was going to partly agree with you - as I recalled that the vast majority of people have such paltry IQs and couldn't reason their way out of a wet bag. For them - yeah, maybe they do need some artificial emotionally based fairy-tale construct to constrain their behaviours as adults.

      But then I completely convinced myself you are totally wrong, mostly with my second argument below:

      > Without God, you must explain moral codes in practical terms.

      EVERYTHING can be derived from one single easily understandable principle - "You are free to do what you want, except for those things which would trample someone else's freedoms." All our 'morals' and rules are derived in a way as to maximize happiness in the world, starting from that one point. The ultimate expression of our "basic morals", our principles, is our Constitution (I'm Canadian, and I fucking love that puppy, the people who wrote it took the best balance of ideas from everywhere as of 1982. I would rather a court case be tried in Canada than anywhere else in the whole world.)

      I would agree that it does take some logical reasoning abilities that a decent fraction of people *might* not have. However, you'd agree that 4 year olds don't have deadly sharp logical reasoning skills just yet, not really complicated ones, so please read on:

      > Religion is a way of passing down millennia of hard-learned lessons in a way that leaves no room for argument.

      When western parents teach a 2-6 year old what is right and what is wrong, do they immediately and primarily use religion? No. It's flat out plain "correct and discipline", with a basic explanation as to why they can't do what they want to. There's no religion involved at all. When young adults are moulded in school, is the primary tool religion? No, heck religion isn't even ALLOWED in there.

      I argue that religion is NOT the primary method of teaching morals and right and wrong to the young of the modern western world.*

      Religion is a relic from a bygone era, that is kept around SOLELY via a few of humankind's greatest weaknesses - weaknesses that are themselves a relic that probably served us well when we were apes and Neanderthals.

      (*) There might be exceptions in more in the fundie parts of the USA, but most westerners don't grow up in the Religious heartlands of the US, they're an *exception*.

    109. Re:IRL raids by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      If you believe Dawkins then the most common religions have rules that help them propagate. Essentially they are diseases of the mind.

      Though most of the rules are about allowing people inside the religion off common sense morality. E.g. as an atheist I'd would consider raiding a peaceful nextdoor tribe for slaves and gold to be morally wrong. But the Quran and the Old Testament are full of the 'good guys' doing just that. What's really is sad is that when people question the morality of it, the religious leaders explain that God wills it. In Latin 'Deus vult' is how the Pope launched the crusades, which were theoretically about liberating lands invaded by the Muslims. In practice the crusaders at least once attacked lightly defended Christian cities when the Muslim ones proved too tough a target. None of this really bothered them of course, since the Pope had given them a pardon for any sins they committed. Some believed they would go to paradise if they died fighting.

      Actually, the more you read about the crusades, the more they remind you of the more noxious versions of Islam, where pretty much any atrocity is allowed in Jihad and you go to paradise when you die.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    110. Re:IRL raids by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I rather have a Cristian neighbor, friend or boss than a scientologist any day.

      Christianity - not as bad as Scientology. Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it ;)

    111. Re:IRL raids by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Without God, you must explain moral codes in practical terms.

      Even with a belief in God, you must still explain moral codes. Why is it that a religion says stealing is wrong, but other things aren't wrong? Why is it that all these religions which all supposedly base their morality on God come up with sometimes completely different answers? Why is it when someone bases their morals on the Bible, they cherry pick (so homosexuality is wrong, but they don't stone people to death for working on Sunday)?

      In all cases, a person must have some method - independent of the concept of God - of judging right from wrong.

      "God says so" isn't an explanation.

      Now sure, I see your point that religion can be used to control people with little room for negotiation. The flaw is however is that those in charge of the religion are just as fallable as those people you are trying to control.

      Yes, without religion an individual might decide through reason and evidence that perhaps working on Sunday shouldn't be punishable by death. But with religion, that individual can reach a position of authority, and declare whatever he likes to be wrong because that's what God supposedly says. God is far from non-negotiable - on the contrary, people not only argue with it, they outright declare for themselves what God supposedly thinks.

      We now have a system to keep the population in control - it's called the law, and we also allow people to debate what those laws should be based on reason and evidence. The problem is that religion sticks around like a sore thumb, allowing people to support or challenge laws simply based on what they claim their religion says.

      Given how common violence and murder was in the past, it's not clear religion did a better job. The rise of secularism in places like Europe has not been accompanied by a rise in crime.

    112. Re:IRL raids by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      We still have blasphemy laws in the UK too (solely for Christianity), though thankfully the Government now looks like it is finally going to repeal them.

      People refer to it as a dead law anyway, but it's not clear that anything's happened since it was last used (in the 70s) that would mean it's now dead - we're not talking one of those laws that hasn't been used in centuries. Also, people are still today using it to try to bring prosecutions against people (e.g., against the BBC for showing Jerry Springer The Opera) so there are issues such as the cost of legal defence, and the chilling effect where threat of prosecution causes people to self-censor.

    113. Re:IRL raids by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      That might be true in some contexts, but not others. Try being a US Politician who criticises Christianity, versus one who criticises Scientology. Consider the support for teaching Creationism in schools, versus the support for teaching Scientology beliefs as fact in school. Consider the stigma (especially in the US) of identifying as an atheist, versus someone who doesn't believe in Xenu. Consider the controversy that in the US the pledge shouldn't have included "under god", whilst only a crackpot would suggest it should be reworded to suit Scientologists. Consider in the UK that atheists arguing against prayers in state schools are labelled as being un-British and wanting to destroy religion, yet it is accepted to criticise Scientology, even when they go nowhere near schools with young children. Consider that most of the arguments against people criticising Scientology apply to all religions ("It's a religion, you can't criticise their beliefs!")

      What you are referring to is the reaction of the believers themselves - but amongst the general population, criticising and ridiculing Scientology seems far more acceptable than doing so for Christianity.

      And although they are a minority of Christians as a whole (though not necessarily fewer that Scientologists in absolute numbers), there are (at least here in the UK) Christian organisations that will get offended over perceived threats when you offend their religion, and even try to make legal threats against you.

    114. Re:IRL raids by thegnu · · Score: 1

      I note that in your example of nonreligious dogma, the abortion example was quite contrived: 'unnatural' isn't much of a justification!
      So apparently it isn't that easy to find nonreligions dogma..

      I think it's a fine justification, if that's what you believe. I know people who do believe that cutting yourself up is to be avoided at almost all costs. I suppose unnatural is bad wording.

      As for non-religious dogma:
      1. Patriotism
      2. Social Policy
      3. Economic Policy
      4. Foreign Policy
      5. General Life Values (what is important in life? Money? Stability? Freedom of expression?

      "And some atheists have dogma too" there fixed for you.

      Not all religious people have dogma, either. In composition, the word "some" in that context is an empty word, because that's what the sentence already meant. But I appreciate your desire for specificity.
      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    115. Re:IRL raids by thegnu · · Score: 1

      Not only child molesters, but also genocides. Ask your favorite search engine about Von Wernich the catholic priest who is been convicted for genocide in Argentina and still can give misa (I don't know the English word, it may be something like miss o mass. It's the act to gather people, preach and the other stuff involving the Christian Sunday ritual)

      I agree that atheism hasn't the same organized structure as atheists, but you've taken what I said out of context. I'm saying that if you can't attack a dogmatic belief such as "god created the earth in seven days," you can't attack a dogmatic belief such as "black people are inferior."

      Neither has any basis in any fact, and is the result of being taught rote memorization of bullshit. Retort?
      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    116. Re:IRL raids by thegnu · · Score: 1

      Not only child molesters, but also genocides. Ask your favorite search engine about Von Wernich the catholic priest who is been convicted for genocide in Argentina and still can give misa (I don't know the English word, it may be something like miss o mass. It's the act to gather people, preach and the other stuff involving the Christian Sunday ritual)


      The word is indeed "mass," for what it's worth.
      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    117. Re:IRL raids by renoX · · Score: 1

      >>"And some atheists have dogma too" there fixed for you.
      > In composition, the word "some" in that context is an empty word, because that's what the sentence already meant. But I appreciate your desire for specificity.

      I thought that saying 'atheists have' meant 'all atheists have' not 'some' but English is my second language, so I probably made a mistake..

    118. Re:IRL raids by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Religion says you don't have to fix your suffering, after death everything will be fine. A world view that doesn't include a (pleasant) afterlife creates a much stronger incentive to improve the conditions.

      Especially slaves are much easier to subdue with religion, religion tells them that they'll be rewarded if they keep suffering and punished if they free themselves by killing their master, even if they can defeat the master. Without religion their only choice for improvement would be to get rid of the master and if they have a chance they're more likely to take it.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    119. Re:IRL raids by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      Uhh, yeah.
      Evangelists: who are they preaching to?
      Them

      Fred Phelps: who does he hate?
      Them <fill in the blank>'s

      Jews: Who do Jews(and Muslims for that matter) call the "satan"?
      Them(a "satan" is an adversary, or an "opposite" since they don't believe in the Devil, per se)

      Christians: Why do they need a Satan?(capital "S" meaning "The Debbil")
      To create a "Them"

      These are only a few of hundreds of examples I could give you where this mentality is created and encouraged.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    120. Re:IRL raids by Broken+scope · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Actually I'm pretty sure I hit the wrong reply. My bad.

      Enjoy your web rage and your early death due to stress.

      --
      You mad
    121. Re:IRL raids by The+PS3+Will+Fail · · Score: 1
      The end result of either explanation is that you're fucking stupid.

      Go kill yourself.

    122. Re:IRL raids by Antaeus+Feldspar · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear. The Freezoners tend to be pretty decent people. Most of them got into Scientology because they actually believed Scientology's promise about how "our goal is a world without war, crime and insanity." And most of them get out because they catch on that the Church of Scientology isn't living up to those lofty goals. Those who still practice the belief system after they get out of the organization generally do so in a general moral, socially positive way, trying to keep true to "Hubbard's ideals". So what if the evidence shows that L. Ron Hubbard himself didn't live up to "Hubbard's ideals"? It wouldn't be the first time that someone trying to live up to a role model did far better than the role model actually did.

      --
      If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
    123. Re:IRL raids by fatalwall · · Score: 1

      Max Weber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber
      He was one of the first to notice that the assumed trends of religion were actually the complete opposite. AKA The number of people attending churches has increased significantly instead of decreasing as everyone believed.

    124. Re:IRL raids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their is good and bad everywhere

      "there".

    125. Re:IRL raids by jwo7777777 · · Score: 1

      Religion says you don't have to fix your suffering... You're right, proper religion is about fixing other people's suffering. See James 1:27. (a paraphrasing for the lazy: Pure religion is to look after orphans and widows in their distress...)
    126. Re:IRL raids by thegnu · · Score: 1

      I thought that saying 'atheists have' meant 'all atheists have' not 'some' but English is my second language, so I probably made a mistake..

      Well, I should have been more specific. People tend to interpret however they feel like it, but generally, if you don't say all or some, it's a toss-up. So you weren't wrong to make sure I meant what you thought I meant. As someone who also speaks two languages (Spanish being my second), I'd like to congratulate you on your excellent spelling and grammar. I couldn't tell it was your second language. :-)
      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    127. Re:IRL raids by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      Kindly note that I never claimed they didn't. I asked for substantiation. Get a grip.

    128. Re:IRL raids by carnivorouscow · · Score: 1

      Even stable forms of Government don't last forever and bad forms of Government incite revolution. After a revolution a single form of Government replaces the old one and typically the new form of Government is more progressive than the old one. When a society is in chaos a push towards order often takes the form of battling warlords, each attempting to overpower the other and the region lives in constant conflict than can stretch out for decades (think Africa). If one warlord finally seizes power the new nation typically becomes a dictatorship with the supreme ruler taking as he pleases. Looking at the last few thousand years of human history societies tends to progress in jumps from chaos into regimented order then relaxing into a more liberal society, falling into decadence then collapsing. In the chain of societal progress a chaotic society doesn't jump from chaos into a democracy, it moves from chaos to a dictatorship.

  3. Grab Your Masks! by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 3, Informative

    Get out there, show how fed up you are with these people. It's not hard to protest; just show up, wear a mask, and stand on the sidewalk.

    --
    ~ C.
    1. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Click on "Post Anonymously", idiot.

    2. Re:Grab Your Masks! by LM741N · · Score: 1

      I think masks are now illegal. Scientology would just sue you as John Mask instead of John Doe.

    3. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      So use a pair of Groucho glasses and a Santa Claus beard.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    4. Re:Grab Your Masks! by KodaK · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes. Masks are illegal. Halloween is now outlawed.

      (To be fair, yes, some locations have laws against protesting in masks, or in any way that would obscure the face. However this varies greatly by location and there's certainly no blanket "masks are illegal" law like you're suggesting.)

      --
      --J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
    5. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Hon Ed Lollington has ruled masks legal.

      Scientology vs various John Does, Jane "Gasmask" Doe, Xenu, LisaMcPhersonWasMurdered, TravoltaIsGay, John Desu, Desu Desu, Desu Desu Desu Desu Desu et al, proceedings of the Internet Court 2008.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:Grab Your Masks! by quokkapox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except "these people" haven't done anything to directly harm me or my family or friends.

      I'm more concerned about the fundamentalist Christianists and Islamists (yes, in that order, at least here in the U.S.).

      Most people know the Scientologists are nuts. But most "moderate" religious people tolerate the extremists among their ranks.

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    7. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't wear a mask. Masks are illegal in many states, unless you are part of a theatrical performace, under 16, or have a qualifying medical condition to wear one. Scarves over the face may have to come off too. Wear huge sunglasses, wigs and hats. Those are legal.

    8. Re:Grab Your Masks! by cuantar · · Score: 1

      Normal by your standards. Americans sometimes seem pretty fuckin' weird to people from other cultures. It's not exactly normal to have a belly roll in Japan, for example.

      --
      Legalize it.
    9. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most people know the Scientologists are nuts. But most "moderate" religious people tolerate the extremists among their ranks.

      Yuo Fail. Most don't. Most Muslims (at least, two with whom I work) don't want to murder me. Most Christians (I work with dozens of them) deplore Fred Phelps and his ilk. Teh J00z? Couple of them at my office. They don't eat pork, they do drink wine. Buddhists? They think all us Abrahamic folks are a little strange, but if that's our way of following the Path, then we're entitled to it.

      When it comes to tolerating extremism, the Scilons are right up there with the asshats from Afghanistan.

      The Scilons can go right ahead and believe in the Xenu story. It's not much weirder than the creation myths of any real religion. All Anonymous is asking is that they stop trying to kill the people who think differently. No violence, no coercion, and why does their God need a battalion of copyright lawyers anyway?

    10. Re:Grab Your Masks! by sg_oneill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the US at least, theres good reason as well to believe that anti-protest-mask laws are probably unconstitutional. Anything that limits anonymous speech probably is a violation of the first amendment, since losing anonymity can have a 'chilling' effect.

      Not sure if its tested in court.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    11. Re:Grab Your Masks! by code601 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can someone spent a few seconds and explain the need for the masks and hiding your identity during the protest? Thanks

    12. Re:Grab Your Masks! by LaskoVortex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your point is taken, but aren't belly rolls revered there?

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    13. Re:Grab Your Masks! by MoparMark · · Score: 1

      So everyone shows up wearing the V for Vendetta masks right?

    14. Re:Grab Your Masks! by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1

      What is a belly roll?

    15. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      explain the need for the mask

      They are so the cult doesn't make you a target.

    16. Re:Grab Your Masks! by ortholattice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except "these people" haven't done anything to directly harm me or my family or friends.

      You've heard it before: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist. ..."

      I'm more concerned about the fundamentalist Christians and Islamists (yes, in that order, at least here in the U.S.).

      And these should be protested and exposed just as vigorously. Especially the first, since they have voted into office the current leaders who are destroying our economy and our country's future with this inane war, if they haven't already done so. Oh, and our privacy and freedom too, while we're at it.

    17. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Threni · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > I'm more concerned about the fundamentalist Christianists and Islamists (yes, in that order, at least here in the U.S.).

      I'm more concerned about street crime than global warming, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing about global warming. Or does worrying about Islamists (whatever the hell that means) take all your spare time?

      > But most "moderate" religious people tolerate the extremists among their ranks.

      You're full of shit.

    18. Re:Grab Your Masks! by DKlineburg · · Score: 1

      Won't be able to do that if this legislator has any say.

      --
      Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
    19. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Oligonicella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll bet neither have the fundie Christians or Islamists done anything directly to harm you and yours. "Nuts" and murder, extortion, false accusations, kidnapping and other activities are worlds apart.

    20. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Dan541 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think masks are now illegal. Scientology would just sue you as John Mask instead of John Doe. Huh? If masks are illegal then muslim veils must also be illegal since its a form of mask.

      ~Dan
      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    21. Re:Grab Your Masks! by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Informative

      The cult of Scientology has a long and documented history of harassing critics. It's just prudent for your own safety and the safety of your family to keep your identity hidden. They also film the protest activities from their buildings and disguised surveillance vehicles so if you're not wearing a mask the Co$ will start a file on you, they have an entire agency that does this.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    22. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Can someone spent a few seconds and explain the need for the masks and hiding your identity during the protest?

      Thanks annonimity aka free speech
      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    23. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Grimbleton · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, a Guy Fawkes mask.

    24. Re:Grab Your Masks! by ddrichardson · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the rampant arrests and huge police resources that Halloween would require...

      --
      A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
    25. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about anyone else but I think Guy Fawkes was a pretty bad choice considering the rest of the film. His attempt to get a catholic government doesn't really strike me as having much to do with freedom.

    26. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The group likes to proclaim that they are anonymous, everybody and nobody. Its kind of the message. I'd say its protected speech.

    27. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Curtman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Watch the code of conduct video before going to protest please.
      Scarves are better than masks.

    28. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Curtman · · Score: 1

      explain the need for the masks and hiding your identity during the protest

      It's pretty tough to be anonymous without one.
      These people are capable of anything. Look what they did to Tom
    29. Re:Grab Your Masks! by mpe · · Score: 3, Funny

      The cult of Scientology has a long and documented history of harassing critics. It's just prudent for your own safety and the safety of your family to keep your identity hidden. They also film the protest activities from their buildings and disguised surveillance vehicles so if you're not wearing a mask the Co$ will start a file on you, they have an entire agency that does this.

      It might be interesting if the Anti-Defamation League were to find itself at odds with the CoS. If nothing else it would be good entertainment to watch two groups with a history of using similar tactics fighting with each other :)

    30. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Geminii · · Score: 1

      For $agency in CoS FBI CIA US_govt any-govt ; print "The cult of $agency has a long and..."

    31. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't stop until they either:
      a) Stop getting tax exceptions.
      b) Stop running their religion as a business.
      That is all (for me, at least).

    32. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll bet neither have the fundie Christians or Islamists done anything directly to harm you and yours. Then I'll speak for him and say the same, because they did to me. It's been a while, but let me tell you, xians and scientologists aren't half as different from each other as both would like.

      Or, as Bill Maher would say: I don't care what kind of crazy you are.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    33. Re:Grab Your Masks! by moxley · · Score: 1, Informative

      Parent should not have been modded as flamebait - it makes a good (if slightly redeundant) point and does not seem to be inviting scorn.

    34. Re:Grab Your Masks! by gambolt · · Score: 1

      actually, they have.

      If you or anyone in your family ever suffer from mental illness or addiction, getting treatment could be significantly harder than it should be because the Scientology has invested millions upon millions of hollers into propaganda and lobbying to make it more likely that you'll pay them $5000 to deal with the fact that you're possessed by ten million year old aliens.

    35. Re:Grab Your Masks! by gambolt · · Score: 1

      hollers and dollars

      I'm still not sure that Firefox spellcheck is a net gain

    36. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Ogre332 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Christians and Muslims have been doing exactly those type of things since they were founded. Don't get me wrong, the Scientologists are nuts, but so are the Christians, Muslims, and any other religion you can think of.

      --
      Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
    37. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if it's legal in your city. In some cities, it's illegal to wear masks.

    38. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Kierthos · · Score: 2, Informative

      As part of their documented history of harassing critics, may I refer you to Operation Freakout?

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    39. Re:Grab Your Masks! by metlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll bet neither have the fundie Christians or Islamists done anything directly to harm you and yours. "Nuts" and murder, extortion, false accusations, kidnapping and other activities are worlds apart.
      Yes, they have. They have passed laws that are keeping in with their religion that are offensive to my person. And their religious beliefs and actions are changing the landscape of this country, the world, and how nation-states view freedom and liberty. What's your point?

      "Nuts" and murder, extortion, false accusations, kidnapping and other activities are worlds apart.
      Would you rather prefer terrorist attacks, invading other nations in retaliation and killing hundreds of thousands, instead?

      Scientology is bad, but there are other religions that have been around a lot longer and are a lot more harmful to society and civilization as a whole.
    40. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think masks are now illegal.

      Then what's Rocky Dennis going to do?

    41. Re:Grab Your Masks! by quokkapox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bet neither have the fundie Christians or Islamists done anything directly to harm you and yours.

      Yeah, I suppose preaching hatred against gays, so they get spit on or cursed at or their friends get beaten up on the street, that doesn't count as "direct" harm.

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    42. Re:Grab Your Masks! by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2, Funny

      http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Ides_of_March

      lol, they think 'anonymous' is an alien race. You can't make this stuff up:

      http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Marcab

    43. Re:Grab Your Masks! by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Of course that was when the were only a few individuals actually actively opposed to their largely fraudulent and criminal behaviour. Now that the number of people that are actively working against the the activities of Co$, it's makes it much more difficult for them to engage in that costly and time consuming behaviour.

      The other major change is the internet for not only putting on public display their harassing and threatening tactics but also for offering the existing members and victims of that organisation an alternative.

      It is always important to reinforce the message that the activities are not against the law abiding members/victims of that organisation but against the organisers of the scam as well as those members that engage in criminal activities and knowingly support the duping of the innocent believers.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    44. Re:Grab Your Masks! by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that this was the first chance that many of the 'V for Vendetta' fans were waiting for. Something where they could reenact the crowd from the movie. It was bound to happen some time or another, but I would have thought it would be more appropriate for protesting a government action, rather than some cult.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    45. Re:Grab Your Masks! by pandaba · · Score: 2, Funny

      Reading all those "versus" links almost makes me want to form a new corporation, calling it Xenu, Inc. And then using the corp for anti-Scientology activities and hoping they would take me to court so that the case would read:

      Scientology v. Xenu

      That would be a thing of beauty.

    46. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It might be interesting if the Anti-Defamation League were to find itself at odds with the CoS. If nothing else it would be good entertainment to watch two groups with a history of using similar tactics fighting with each other :)

      You obviously have no idea how far the CoS goes or you wouldn't even make that comparison. To someone I know personally they have hired folks to go around their neighborhood informing people that the guy was a convicted sex offender and they were informing them according to Megan's Law (not true). They called the news and told them he was under investigation by the FBI for terrorism (which they reported on the air but wasn't true). They looked at the return address of all the mail and sent anyone who sent personal correspondence a threatening letter. They called his ISP and tried to get everything he'd put up removed. They contact his employer and told them they'd be sued unless he was terminated. What was his crime? He put a copy of some text up on his website that was purportedly one of the higher-level training manuals for Scientology discussing Xenu et al.

      I have no problems if people want to believe in Xenu, or even that submitting to weekly lie detector tests and giving the CoS lots of incriminating evidence is the way to salvation. But when you start attacking your detractors and ruining their lives, you cross the line into a violation of the principles of free speech and free association, and thus it's very anti-American.

    47. Re:Grab Your Masks! by thewiz · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should also grab your torch and pitchfork.
      Burning kooky religious nuts has been in vogue since before the Middle Ages.

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    48. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Donniedarkness · · Score: 1

      Some places actually do have a ban on masks, with exceptions made on Halloween, of course.

      --
      Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    49. Re:Grab Your Masks! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Except "these people" haven't done anything to directly harm me or my family or friends."

      Yet, that you know of...hence the need for exposure of Scientology as a confidence game masquerading as a religion.

      I don't like ANY superstition gaining power, but opposing the IslamoNazis and the Christian Taliban does not exclude opposing Scientologists. Fight them all. They deserve it!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    50. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Sure they have, and they continue to do so. The attack on science is just one obvious, current, relevant, example. Scientology is silly, to be sure, but the damage it does to humanity pales in comparison to Islam and Christianity. The AIDS in Africa/condom fiasco is yet another example. I know, various Christian groups have differing views, etc., but as long as they all choose to self-identify under the same banner, I'll choose to think of them as a cohesive group. The nastier folk in that community are sheltered by the nicer folk for this reason - see Sam Harris:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#Moderation

    51. Re:Grab Your Masks! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >I'll bet neither have the fundie Christians or Islamists done anything directly to harm you and yours. "Nuts" and murder, extortion, false accusations, kidnapping and other activities are worlds apart.

      Well the IRA tried to blow up my mother at the Ideal Home Exhibition in Birmingham. She got away unscathed but she saw someone's foot blown off. That's the catholics for you.

      --
      Evil people are out to get you.
    52. Re:Grab Your Masks! by smolloy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IRA violence is political, not religious. That they call themselves "Catholics" is neither here nor there. I bet, if you were to ask the nutjobs who planted that bomb, they would claim to have done it for political/nationalistic reasons. Not religious. Yours is a good example of the evils of extremism, but a bad example of extremist religion.

    53. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Glyphstream · · Score: 1

      How does something get modded -1, insightful?

      --
      Sig unrelated.
    54. Re:Grab Your Masks! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >IRA violence is political, not religious.

      It's just violence. Nutjobs will take whatever justification they can. They melded both catholicism and nationalism into their worldview. They both count as tribal groupings that foster violence.

      --
      Evil people are out to get you.
    55. Re:Grab Your Masks! by anti-human+1 · · Score: 1

      Nah, I think you're on to something here. From now on, I won't do anything for 'lulz', its now for 'hollers and dollars'.

      Bless you, sir.

    56. Re:Grab Your Masks! by ashridah · · Score: 1

      Well, if you'll recall, the movie/books did present the governments as having severe religious overtones to the rise of power. They basically manipulated the people into having a large amount of religion-based fear to get into power.

      There were talks about religious extremists and terrorists being one and the same in the movie at least, if memory serves.

      And scientology has allegedly been trying to nose it's way into politics in a lot of places

    57. Re:Grab Your Masks! by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Religion isn't doing squat to harm anyone. People use religion to justify all sorts of wrongdoing, but one can hardly blame Marxism or atheism for China's actions in Tibet.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    58. Re:Grab Your Masks! by smolloy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whilst it's true that nutjub violence is often justified by religion and politics, this isn't the case for the IRA. Their particular brand of hate has only ever been justified by politics. I've never heard a "justification" for their violence based on Catholic dogma, and I lived in N.I. for the first 20 years of my life.

    59. Re:Grab Your Masks! by metlin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Religion isn't doing squat to harm anyone. People use religion to justify all sorts of wrongdoing, but one can hardly blame Marxism or atheism for China's actions in Tibet.
      To quote Steven Weinberg -- "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

      Sure, people do good and evil things immaterial of religion - but systematic harm to society by converting perfectly, normal good people into doing things that are harmful to society? No, that's something only religion can do.
    60. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 1

      hollers and dollars

      I'm still not sure that Firefox spellcheck is a net gain I beg to differ. You've just accidentally defined the proper unit of measure for propaganda:

      "Why don't people accept our beliefs? You'd think that the 2.5 megahollers a year we put out should be having *some* effect".

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    61. Re:Grab Your Masks! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Because stupid people agree with it? ;-)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    62. Re:Grab Your Masks! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      That is not a point of view I spent an entire military career defending, it's unfortunate but even in America people sometimes have to assert their right to free speech Anonymously to protect themselves and innocent third parties.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    63. Re:Grab Your Masks! by budgenator · · Score: 1


      Scientology is bad, but there are other religions that have been around a lot longer and are a lot more harmful to society and civilization as a whole.

      True but most religions are making progress at marginalizing the radical fringe elements even if it's three steps forward and two steps back; I don't see where the scilons are even trying to reform themselves. All we want is for them to learn to play nice with others, you basic kindergarten stuff that five year olds do.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    64. Re:Grab Your Masks! by godless+dave · · Score: 1

      Are you forgetting a couple skyscrapers that used to be in New York City?

      Are you forgetting that it's legal to discrminate against gays and lesbians in much of the United States?

      Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians have done quite a bit of direct harm.

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    65. Re:Grab Your Masks! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      I know in Canada a law was upheld in or around the '30s that banned wearing a mask in order to intimidate someone. The intent of the law was to keep Klansmen from being anonymous.

      (source: some documentary I watched on a history channel a few years back)

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    66. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PROTIP: LURK MOAR

    67. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Henry+Pate · · Score: 1

      In Florida masks are illegal and wearing one is a misdemeanor.
      Here's a news relating to it

      Then only the criminals will wear them! Genius!

      I wonder if anyone can find the actual law so we can see if this would apply to burkas/veils/helmets/floppy hats/etc.

      --
      Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
    68. Re:Grab Your Masks! by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      And these should be protested and exposed just as vigorously. Especially the first, since they have voted into office the current leaders who are destroying our economy and our country's future with this inane war, if they haven't already done so. Oh, and our privacy and freedom too, while we're at it.

      Hi welcome to the USA

      Maybe you would be more comfortable in Soviet Russia where of course Religious Hostility practices You.

      This brings up some of the issues with the whole Anon. thing. As a movement to call them on their suppressive methods, it is good; but as a protest against religion, it is a slippery slope.
      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    69. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I don't know about anyone else but I think Guy Fawkes was a pretty bad choice considering the rest of the film. His attempt to get a catholic government doesn't really strike me as having much to do with freedom. Any possibility of toleration by Great Britain was removed at the Hampton Court conference in 1604 when King James I attacked both extreme Puritans and Catholics. The plotters realised that no outside help would be forthcoming unless they took action themselves.

      Think about that next november, when you're eating turkey.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    70. Re:Grab Your Masks! by RWEDOINITRITE · · Score: 1

      Scientology is not a religion, Scientology is a cult. It has been declared a cult by the government, and it is widely accepted as a cult by the general population (excluding the Scifags themselves). To me, allowing the deaths of your followers by not allowing them the things that would help them stay alive, or sucking away the funds of your followers, qualifies something as a cult.

    71. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was going to say it was because someone modded it overrated, but looking at the moderation, this hasn't happened:

      Starting Score: -1
      Moderation +1
      50% Insightful
      50% Underrated
      WTF? I don't have any modifiers, and there are at least two +1 mods, and no negative mods. Maybe the "Insightful" mod posted after modding.
    72. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Can't you get disposable companies in America? In the UK you can buy a company for a hundred US dollars or so. If someone sues you and wins you can just just bankrupt it. The directors at the time can't serve as directors of another company, but that is not really an issue for most people. They have limited liability against lawsuits though, not more than their initial investment.

      In the UK you could easily set up a Xenu, Ltd and make sure that it is the target of any lawsuits. I'm not sure but I think Private Eye magazine may have used this as a way to be able to minimize the damage from being sued for libel.

      The other cool thing you can do is to make sure that information that Scientology doesn't want into the public domain is read into legal documents which are publically accessible. The AACS scored a spectacular own goal by including a URL that contained the 09 F9 key in a DMCA takedown notice that was supposed to stop people spreading that key

      http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/notice.cgi?NoticeID=7180

      If you got all this stuff absolutely right, they'd know that sueing you would be counterproductive and not do it, just like the AACS eventually stopped going after people who spread the 09 F9 key.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    73. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, magically this group of religious wackos became 50 percent of the voting population and then dwindled back down to a minority of christians. /sarcasm

      Seriously, Just because the current president garnered much of the "fundamentalist christian" votes doesn't mean that they are to blame for his taking office. No one in this country becomes president without a large amount of independant, centrist votes. That is by definition how the two-party system works, It's basically an upside-down bell curve going from left to right. The people with the power are in the middle because the far left and far right are totally predictable and cancel each other out.

    74. Re:Grab Your Masks! by saitoh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correct, Virginia (in the US for those who aren't) is one such location. At the Richmond event, police were at least humane enough to warn protesters about the law before any actions were taken (none reported).

      --
      We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
    75. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Accordion+Noir · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some anti-mask laws in various places in the USA's stated intent is to prevent the Klu Klux Klan (white supremacist group) from using anonymous mass parades to terrorise their opponents. Recently these "klan laws" have been used to threaten protesters wearing giant puppets parodying the US Army's School of the Americas at domonstrations in Columbus, Georgia.

      --
      "Ruthlessly pursuing the idea that the accordion is just another instrument."
    76. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ``I'll bet neither have the fundie Christians or Islamists done anything directly to harm you and yours.''

      You're not from London, I take it? My father-in-law got off the train one stop before it went bang.

      I don't suggest running that argument in New York, either.

    77. Re:Grab Your Masks! by mpe · · Score: 1

      >IRA violence is political, not religious.
      It's just violence. Nutjobs will take whatever justification they can. They melded both catholicism and nationalism into their worldview. They both count as tribal groupings that foster violence.


      Not that there is anything special about catholicism here. Politics hiding behind religion has been (and continues to be) used as justification for all sorts of acts of violence.

    78. Re:Grab Your Masks! by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Two sides of a coin. I've seen religion "convert" ordinary, self centered people into doing things that are wonderful, helpful to society. Religion has driven some people to go to war, persecute people with AIDS, etc., and others to build hospitals, raise money to fight AIDS, etc. For you to be so blind to the good side shows such a strong bias that I would go so far as to call it dogmatic.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    79. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Antaeus+Feldspar · · Score: 1

      That's a load of garbage. The topic of "belief systems that have led good people to do evil things" does not begin and end with religion. Or do you think that the only people who supported the regime of Nazi Germany were those who subscribed to the religion that the Nazi Party tried to cobble together? Do you actually expect us to believe that out of all the millions of people who in some small way made willing contributions to the evils of the Third Reich, not one of them was an atheist?

      --
      If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
    80. Re:Grab Your Masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding your signature, replies are hidden when you click on the subject of a post. You may have to click twice, as sometimes the first click shows more replies. Sincerely, Anonymous

  4. Rope by snowful · · Score: 1

    Give 'em enough of it and they will end up hanging themselves. I think they are their own worst enemy. They don't bother me.

  5. Re:Scientology is NOT being attacked by Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your pain. It amuses me.

  6. OMG Evil in the courthouse!1!!1!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The judge is teh Xenu! Evil thetans rule the Earth! Tom to the rescue!

  7. Germany got it right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Scientology is a cult, pure and simple. I always thought it would be a fascinating exercise to research the lobbying efforts that got them tax-free status in the US and Canada.

    1. Re:Germany got it right... by AuMatar · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And the difference between a cult and a religion is.... ?

      THe only answer is "The number of followers". Hate them for their actions, fine. But they're no less- and no more- plausible a religion than Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:Germany got it right... by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, I would say that the Church of Scientology is both less plausible of a religion then those you mentioned, and less of an actual religion (and more of a business).

      Bypassing the obvious science fiction elements of Scientology, there is this simple fact.

      You have to pay (out the nose) to be a member in good standing in the Church of Scientology. While other religions have practices of tithing and/or charities, they are not required in order to progress in the understanding of the faith.

      In Scientology, you have to pay to take the courses that ultimately give you the Xenu/volcanic explosions/thetans story. You have to pay many thousands of dollars before you get access to this "knowledge".

      Show me the secret books of the Bible or the Qu'ran that only the followers who have ponied up tens of thousands of dollars get to see. You can't. There aren't any such books.

      IMAO, Scientology is at best, a business designed to empty the wallets of the gullible. At worst, it is a scam and an extortion campaign.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:Germany got it right... by Ai+Olor-Wile · · Score: 5, Interesting
      First: Anonymous is not protesting the beliefs of Scientology. Anonymous is protesting their actions, and the amount of money they make off of their religious stuff. For these reason, Scientology is often classified as akin to pyramid scheme or something similar (obviously not an actual pyramid scheme) rather than a cult. Most so-called cults tend focus their effort on enslaving their followers to perform menial labour rather than spending time farming their members' current sources of income.

      Second: The technical, traditional meaning of "cult" strictly refers to the priests and priestesses of a god or goddess in a pantheon. Aphrodite had a cult, Isis had a cult, and, at one point, your friend and mine, Jesus had a cult (he had about three hundred followers on a commune at one point, if I recall.) By contrast, a religion may include more than one god and encompasses those who simply believe as well. The media term "cult" generally refers to what academics call a "dangerous NRM" (new religious movement). "Dangerous NRM" supports your statement that it is a real religion and not something fundamentally different, but it is important to note the "dangerous" part. Wicca is a non-dangerous NRM. Heaven's Gate is a dangerous NRM. The difference is best related through a number of techniques that dangerous NRMs frequently use:

      • Physical barriers or a social hierarchy which prevent leaving.
      • Financial dependence (and exploitation) of members.
      • Isolation (especially physical) from non-followers.
      • Sometimes, psychological control tactics, such as never allowing an individual member to be alone (where they might think for themselves and realise that This Is A Bad Idea) or hypnotic controls that encourage a trance-like state (physical exhaustion + certain rhythms = bad)


      Another strong indicator of an NRM is the presence of a single, charismatic leader figure, like David Koresh or Jim Jones. (Both of whom eventually killed most of their followers, but were extremely well-respected by them. Jim Jones was even respected by main-stream Christian religion during his life time.) For this reason, and possible other reasons, Christianity actually satisfies both the traditional and modern definitions of "cult" (although whether that is a dangerous or non-dangerous NRM is another topic entirely.)

      Books are great like that.
    4. Re:Germany got it right... by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 5, Informative

      Show me the secret books of the Bible or the Qu'ran that only the followers who have ponied up tens of thousands of dollars get to see. You can't. There aren't any such books.

      As a matter of fact, according to Jewish Halacha Law, it is ILLEGAL to charge money for the teaching of the Torah. The knowledge this work contains belongs to the whole world.

    5. Re:Germany got it right... by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Informative

      IMAO, Scientology is at best, a business designed to empty the wallets of the gullible. At worst, it is a scam and an extortion campaign.


      That pretty much describes all religions. Read up on religious history, money and power almost always flows to the church.
      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    6. Re:Germany got it right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than a business, to me the CoS appears to be a totalitarian state within a free state. You have your cult of personality (Elron), internal labor camps (don't remember what they're called at the moment, Ethics something, look it up at xenu.net), a private navy (Sea Org), and even an intelligence organization (used to be the Guardian Office, I have no idea what they're called now).

      They've just replaced the cudgel with the lawsuit (for those outside the organization), and exclusion (for those within). And it's not so clear they are above the use of brute force either, when you take into consideration Fair Game (again, re-euphemized with a name I don't know) and the entire McPherson affair.

    7. Re:Germany got it right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except, and here's the thing some of you are failing to grasp: Scientology, at its core, is abusive. It's structure is such that it systematically strips its followers of their free will, and thus their cash.

      I'm a god-hating atheist too, but as much as I dislike traditional religions (for different reasons) the abuses of Scientology, in this day and age, are almost as bad as the Inquisition in its day. The difference is that, again, in this day and age, we can do something about it.

      Just saying "it's just as bad, oh well" is a lazy cop out.

      Besides, this isn't about their beliefs, this is about the abuses they perpetrate. The "fair game" policy, the special tax exempt status, the disconnection policy, all of that stuff adds up. They're worse than you think, especially if you're still at the "meh, they're silly" stage. They're much, much worse.

      Yes, fundamentalism is bad, we're all aware of that. But most fundies aren't near as bad (when all aspects are considered) as the CoS. I'll concede that those that kill for their religion are more reprehensible -- but then again so would most regular people who are in those religions. In the CoS, Hubbard's way is the only way. It's an enitre religion of fundies who want to "clear the planet" -- and this includes you, by the way.

    8. Re:Germany got it right... by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No. You missed the point of designed. Others have eveolved toward that direction by the fact that inherently greedy people gravitate toward structures and manipulate them, but SciFientology was designed as a scam.

    9. Re:Germany got it right... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are also plenty of fascinating documents in the Vatican Library, including the Dead Sea Scrools, which are not available for public review. The "Kabbalah" also involves keeping interesting secrets from the uninitiated.

    10. Re:Germany got it right... by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

      There are such books. There are books in the Vatican library that only the anointed pope may open.

      They probably deal with Jesus smoking dope

      If Scientology didn't make itself this huge juicy target I wonder if they'd attack any of the more longstanding religions, which deserve it even more imho

      --
      *DrugCheese rants*
    11. Re:Germany got it right... by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You miss my point. Yes, there may be books that only the Pope is allowed to read.

      Those books are not "required" to be a good Catholic.

      The Church of Scientology has a carefully organized series of classes that are required (and increasingly expensive) in order to progress through the ranks of the church laity (any person not a member of the clergy).

      You have to spend many thousands of dollars in the Church of Scientology before you learn about Xenu or what thetans "really are".

      How much money do you have to spend to read the Bible?

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    12. Re:Germany got it right... by Whiteox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a god-hating atheist too, How in God's name can you be a god-hating atheist?
      You can't hate God if you're an atheist, because if you're an atheist, then you shouldn't believe in God in the first place.

      Goodbye. Hand you card in on the way out...
      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    13. Re:Germany got it right... by Talgrath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but you don't necessarily have to PAY to get access to them; you either have to have the necessary scholarly chops (ie, a doctorate in literature or theology) or you have to be high enough ranking in the church. Generally, neither of these require you to pay money to the Catholic Church (high-ranking priests, in fact, have a salary); though they might require that you have some sort of insurance or pay a safety deposit (in case you damage/destroy the document).

    14. Re:Germany got it right... by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the laity in the Catholic church does not have to read those to understand the Catholic dogma. They aren't required texts in the same manner that the OT courses in the Church of Scientology are. And the CoS charges many thousands of dollars for those classes before you can officially learn about Xenu and so forth.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    15. Re:Germany got it right... by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Never thought the person as a retard. Just being a logic-nazi.

      If you hate God, then you believe in God.
      I hate God, and one day I will put up a website about all the reasons for why he should be punished for his sins, which are infinite by the way. It doesn't make me an atheist however! That would be playing into his hands......

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    16. Re:Germany got it right... by Curtman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't hate God if you're an atheist


      You can hate the idea of God. It's offensive to me that we should worship a wrathful dictator, especially a fictional one who occasionally relays his wishes through a select few.
    17. Re:Germany got it right... by rjames13 · · Score: 1

      You expect people on slashdot to comprehend posts before they start a pointless argument?

      Hand in your card on the way out.

    18. Re:Germany got it right... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Show me the secret books of the Bible or the Qu'ran that only the followers who have ponied up tens of thousands of dollars get to see. You can't. There aren't any such books. Not in the same sense, no. But the vatican library is vast, contains a lot of stuff that is hard to find outside, and from what I have heard, access to the interesting parts is far from free or easy.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    19. Re:Germany got it right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you self-diagnosed aspergers yet, you literal-minded moron? Ever heard of hyperbole for effect?

    20. Re:Germany got it right... by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Please note, this is the third time I've had to refute this.... Those secret Vatican vaults full of documents? It's not required material. Using Catholic Christianity as an example, it is possible to gain a great understanding of the beliefs and tenets of that faith simply from the Bible. You don't need access to any secret materials held by the Vatican. Furthermore, the Catholic Church is not the sole distributor of the Bible.

      In Scientology, the OT materials are trade secrets and copyrighted. To progress in the understanding of the beliefs and tenets of Scientology, you have to take courses that run many thousands of dollars in cost, and that are only available from one source, the Church of Scientology.

      Yes, all religions have documents that are not readily and freely available to the laity. Show me another religion that protects theirs through civil law (trade secrets and copyrights) and that charges thousands of dollars in order to progress in understanding. (As a note, within walking distance of where I live, there are three churches that offer free Bible study courses, and that's not counting the nearby university organizations that do the same.)

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    21. Re:Germany got it right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself.
      Personally, I most definitely *do* protest the teachings of scientology.
      And christianity, and islam, and religion in general - but especially scientology.

    22. Re:Germany got it right... by STrinity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, other religions have expunged the part of the record that shows they originated as a money making venture.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    23. Re:Germany got it right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most so-called cults tend focus their effort on enslaving their followers to perform menial labour rather than spending time farming their members' current sources of income.
      Look up SeaOrg. Enslavement for menial labor is exactly what they do to punish members on their way to becoming SPs.
    24. Re:Germany got it right... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      How does this get 4 Insightful exactly? In the good'ol US of A, if you are an atheist even your president considers you not to be a 'real citizen' and a 'god hater'. Do you get it, it's not that the GP 'hates god'. It's that he is surrounded by people who believe that atheism=god hating.

      By the way, I am an atheist, I don't 'hate god'. I do not like the fact that religion exists is such an integral part of human development.

    25. Re:Germany got it right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how, pray tell, can you be a God-loving believer, when there is clearly no such thing as God? Stupid much?

    26. Re:Germany got it right... by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      A cult is an unpopular religion.

      A religion is a popular cult.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    27. Re:Germany got it right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never thought the person as a retard. Just being a logic-nazi.

      You could try being a little less abrasive next time.

    28. Re:Germany got it right... by denttford · · Score: 2, Informative

      (-1, Uninformative.)

      I know several people who have used the Vatican's library, none were Catholic, all were doing proper academic work (i.e. not God's work), all had access to manuscripts 500-1000 years old.

      The "Kabbalah" mostly hides in plain site; there are plenty of publicly accessible places to buy texts that been considered heretical even by most Jewish mystics throughout the centuries, if you know where to look. Jewish mysticism's tradition of hiding relies less on lack of publication and more on illiteracy in rabbinic Hebrew/Aramaic, ignorance of traditional law and homily, ignorance of the multifaceted and particular use of the preceding in allegory. Most modern day "mystics" are plenty happy about writers like Crowley and Berg (well, they don't like Berg the man, rather the nonsense he peddles) because it keeps the curious masses away.

      Oh, and knock yourself out with the Dead Sea Scrolls. They're not in Italy. You can review almost all of it now. The secrecy rule disappeared almost 40 years ago. They're also kinda boring.
      Admittedly, a cheap printing of the whole thing as text would be nice, but any decent university library will have DJD.

      So, pretty much, there was nothing correct in your post.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    29. Re:Germany got it right... by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 1

      Whiteox wrote:

      How in God's name can you be a god-hating atheist?

      You can't hate God if you're an atheist, because if you're an atheist, then you shouldn't believe in God in the first place.

      It is not necessary to believe that Darth Vader actually existed in order to hate the man who obliterated entire planets. Nor is it necessary to believe that that the Flood or the Ten Plagues ever happened or that the entity claimed to be responsible for them exists in order to hate it, either.

      Cheers,

      b&

      --
      All but God can prove this sentence true.
    30. Re:Germany got it right... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Oh? Try getting the documents of Galileo's trial, or a printing of them. And while the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly published, they were secret for a long time. At the time of the invention of the printing press, printing of the Bible was very strictly controlled indeed, lest heresies spread. And just try getting access to the Gnostic documents, those not accepted as part of the Bible, especially alternative works for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

      So there's a long, long history of control over core documents, even of having secret internal documents. So it can't be the only criteria for defining a cult, or for irritation with Scientology. It's their mis-handling of criticism and especially of exposure of their inner beliefs that makes them dangerous and marks them as a cult.

    31. Re:Germany got it right... by dtmancom · · Score: 1

      I'm a god-hating atheist too, but as much as I dislike traditional religions (for different reasons) the abuses of Scientology, in this day and age, are almost as bad as the Inquisition in its day.
      How can one claim to be an athiest AND claim to hate God?

      Unless I don't understand what the word 'athiest' means...

    32. Re:Germany got it right... by denttford · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sigh.

      Please stop posting.

      Just because you can't google image search for every text you'd like does not mean they are inaccessible. Sometimes, if there is no facimile edition of the text, or reputable printing, you actually have to go to the library where they are held and work. Shocking, I know. It's called scholarship. I also can't help but notice that you have shifted your argument from the current state of affairs to a "long, long history."

      In any case, I suspect you like things with "secret" in the title, so perhaps you should order this? Should you actually want to try some real work, fill out one of these out and go to a reading room.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    33. Re:Germany got it right... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Perhaps part of the problem is that I'm older than you, and remember when these documents were much harder to obtain. I'm delighted they're more openly available now. But this doesn't eliminate the history of having secret inner documents. The difference is that these documents are not secret internal doctrine.

      For historical fun, take a look at the unofficial gospels involving Mary of Magdalene, and their historical repression along with other "heretical" documents. And history counts.

    34. Re:Germany got it right... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It is not necessary to believe that Darth Vader actually existed in order to hate the man who obliterated entire planets.

      FYI, if someone told me that they hate Darth Vader because he's a person of somewhat less than perfect ethical standards, I'd propably consider them nuts.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    35. Re:Germany got it right... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Talk about an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    36. Re:Germany got it right... by Whiteox · · Score: 1
      I really am not being abrasive. That's in your mind.

      "I hate the very concept of supernatural beings, it is silly and makes no sense, and people who believe in it are idiots". is being abrasive.
      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    37. Re:Germany got it right... by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1

      And while the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly published, they were secret for a long time.

      Secret, eh? They were lost in some caves by the Dead Sea, hence the name Dead Sea scrolls. They were no secret. They were simply lost.

    38. Re:Germany got it right... by virmaior · · Score: 1

      i see the point you are making. but 'cult' doesn't have traditional and technical definitions. It has a historical definition and a sociological usage. The former [historical] refers to the examples of Isis, etc. That's what cult meant when people used it in the past. The latter [sociological] refers to a cluster of distinct but essentially similar groups that use techniques similar to what you've specified.

    39. Re:Germany got it right... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      That's not what I'm referring to and you know it. Their translation and publication was held up for decades. They were discovered in 1947, a group of priests and scholars were reviewing them with great excitement, then in about 1953... silence. For decades, with only a few "safe" documents released.

    40. Re:Germany got it right... by krazytekn0 · · Score: 1

      This practice is nothing like scientology. Various portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls have gone on display all over the world, a digitized version of them is available to researchers, etc. They are full of duplicated content anyway. Also, as far as I knew, the Vatican doesn't even have the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I could definitely be wrong here.

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
    41. Re:Germany got it right... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      There are distinctions: the Dead Sea scrolls eventually were published, though it seems to be severely redacted, and the decades of secrecy cast some doubts about what may have been edited out. And the concern seems different: the concern is about heresy, or schisms. Kind of like the Scientologists get so upset if former members try to modify and use their source materials: apparently they call it "squirreling".

      The point stands. Having secret inner documents is nothing new.

    42. Re:Germany got it right... by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1

      You have to spend many thousands of dollars in the Church of Scientology before you learn about Xenu or what thetans "really are".

      While there's a helluva lot valid criticism towards the COS I don't believe that the cost argument is really valid.

      If some dupe wants to spend 500'000$ to read some really rotten science fiction, who am I to say he's wrong? Other people spend fortunes for gambling, substance habbits, sex, etc. I don't feel morally superior in any way, shape or form to judge such behaviour either.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    43. Re:Germany got it right... by krazytekn0 · · Score: 1

      My point still stands that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not under the control of the Vatican though, the Isreali government currently holds them. Saying that they are "secret" documents of a religion is like saying that all the dinosaur bones that are not available for public view in various basements and storage facilities are "secret" They aren't being kept a secret they are just being protected from harm, and used as sources of study. They also don't constitute "beliefs" of higher-level jews that are not available any other way. Also you can buy a digitized copy of all the portions of the scrolls that have been scanned for relatively cheap. The reason that the entirety is not yet digitized is again because of the delicate nature of documents that are thousands of years old and not because some church doesn't want you to know what they say. Also Catholicism != "All Christians" Christianity and Judaism do not require your membership in a church, they only require your study of freely available materials and application to your life. The fact that there are some scam artists who use Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Buddhism or etc. etc... Is just a symptom of the human nature that all of these religions are trying to tame. While the entire "religion" of Scientology is about paying money to advance.

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
    44. Re:Germany got it right... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Try again. Much was published: however, the material in Cave 4 was held by the Dominican Order in Jerusalem. What doesn't show up in the Wikipedia article is that Dominicans are particularly noted for their subservience to the Vatican, and for scriptual conservatism, unlike the Franciscans or especially the Jesuits.

    45. Re:Germany got it right... by Tom · · Score: 1

      As I said: Not in the same sense.

      But, while you're at it, please note that several hundred years ago, this wasn't true. The Catholic Church used to be the "sole distributor of the bible", and you had to join it in order to learn the language it was written in. While after Luther the cat was out of the bag and they had little choice, don't forget that for hundreds of years, the Vatican was as protective of its "secrets" as Scientology today - but in a different way. It wasn't the stories per se that were kept secret, but the church maintained a monopoly on interpretation with fire and sword. In a sense, trademarks and copyright law are today's more modern versions of those tools.

      In the words of Bill Maher: All religions are batshit.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    46. Re:Germany got it right... by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

      Oh I agree with your point, and I understand how Scientology takes advantage of people. I as just trying to point out that it wasn't unique as an organized religion that attempts to gain power of people by the use of secret universe-unlocking knowledge.

      Which in turn turns out to be bad science fiction

      --
      *DrugCheese rants*
    47. Re:Germany got it right... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      He hates the idea/concept. The evil bastard who is described in the Bible, and which is forced on people all the time.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    48. Re:Germany got it right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a god-hating atheist too,
      How in God's name can you be a god-hating atheist?

      Perhaps he hates the concept of God?

    49. Re:Germany got it right... by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Concept of God???
      That is a tautology of sorts.
      There is always a 'concept of god'
      The very act of being self-aware provides the 'concept of god'.
      I'll even go further, that atheism the AC claims to have, is really a form of agnosticism being in this interpretation, that the non-existence of god is a concept of replacement.
      So what replaces god? Physics? Scientific methodology?
      You cannot argue non-existence of god, because we are self-aware. Being self-aware awakens us to hierarchy. Hierarchy of Being always leads to some form of Absolute. Call this absolute God, Universe, Physics, Evolution of Being or whatever. There is always a concept of god.
      To be a true atheist is saying that existence is 'godless' - totally and utterly godless. An atheist therefore cannot hate the concept of god.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    50. Re:Germany got it right... by bentcd · · Score: 1

      So there's a long, long history of control over core documents, even of having secret internal documents. So it can't be the only criteria for defining a cult, or for irritation with Scientology. The primary difference between the Scientologists and the Catholic church in this regard would be that the latter withheld documents completely (there would be no way to get at them) because they thought they contained erroneous or damaging information while as the former is holding back documents (temporarily) in order to milk their followers for money. Current CoS behaviour is more akin to the Catholics' (long since deprecated) practice of selling divine pardon etc.: no more and no less than a way of monetizing faith.

      Of course, the CoS seems to have been set up with this one goal first and foremost in mind while the Catholics did this more as an aside (or accidentally perhaps, if you want to be nice). This distinction may be useful for making value judgements concerning the two organizations :-)
      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
  8. no point of attack by yurivr · · Score: 1

    With nothing concrete for the CoS to attack, they will hopefully hang themselves and save us the trouble. I predict a swelling of Anonymous' ranks and copycat groups in the near future.

    1. Re:no point of attack by LM741N · · Score: 4, Funny

      We've had anonymous groups for decades- Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Codependents Anonymous, Marijuana Anonymous, Anonymous Anonymous.

    2. Re:no point of attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I predict a swelling of Anonymous' ranks and copycat groups in the near future.

      Anonymous is...anonymous. How could you tell a copycat group from the real thing? That's kinda the point, you know.

    3. Re:no point of attack by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah right, you can imagine the meetings -
      My names Smoker2 and I'm anonymous ... no, wait !?!
      ... dammit !

    4. Re:no point of attack by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      The copycat groups won't follow the pacifist policies of Anonymous.

      Or, rather, copycat individuals (who are actually Scienos) trying to blend in won't follow them.

    5. Re:no point of attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Narcanon, a recruitment wing of the Co$.

    6. Re:no point of attack by budgenator · · Score: 1

      No they'll just spend a lot of effort punching water, just like Microsoft vs. Linux.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:no point of attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incidentally Narcanon is a Scientology based organization. Not to be confused with the real Jungian Narcotics Anonymous.

    8. Re:no point of attack by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget - Masturbators Anonymous, Porn Addicts Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous (I'd love to know where they meet...), and my personal favorite - Caffeine Addicts Anonymous - I'm not just the founder, I am a member.

    9. Re:no point of attack by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Anonymous For people addicted to recovery programs?
      --
      Property is theft.
  9. In other news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    In Adelaide they submitted a march of their own to the council, nullifying our permit. It went ahead anyway, with well over two hundred attending: News story, Gallery.

    We're never going to give them up, never going to let them down.

    1. Re:In other news: by quokkapox · · Score: 4, Funny

      We're never going to give them up, never going to let them down.

      Wow, an inline rickroll.

      Fuck. I just now got ABBA out of my head, and I was going to go to sleep. Take a chance on me. FUCK.

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    2. Re:In other news: by cartman · · Score: 1

      You are the dancing queen, young and sweet, only seventeen /
      Dancing queen, feel the beat from the tambourine /
      You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life /
      See that girl, watch that scene, dig in the dancing queen

    3. Re:In other news: by deniable · · Score: 1

      Thanks, now I can't get Cartman singing Dancing Queen out of my head.

  10. Re:Scientology is NOT being attacked by Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sage goes in all fields

  11. Button pushing by Derosian · · Score: 1

    Scientology's button pushing doesn't work so well when they can't find the machine the button's on.

  12. Touched a nerve? by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An "injunction against protests"? In the US? Wow! They must have really touched a nerve. Keep it up!

    Of course CoS had any sense at all they'd just ignore the whole thing until it blows over... but I'm counting on CoS to blow it way out of proportion. Which is exactly what Anonymous wants.

    This could be an interesting showdown, especially if the protests continue to be disciplined and, well... funny!

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  13. Masks !?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you, some kind of coward, afraid to link your identity to your words and deeds?

  14. Scientology playing dirty by DKlineburg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here is what Wikipedia said:

    This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
    It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since February 2008.
    It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2008.
    It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since February 2008.

    I would have a hunch, that the "Church" itself is causing the problems on the page. First The war starts. They impose there beliefs and pull web pages from Google. I have seen a few things that they have done to try and put "Anonymous" in a bad light. I wish I could find the link, and maybe someone out there knows it. It is of a group of protesters getting arrested. The "Church" said it was "Anonymous". This was quickly debunked they the comments around the article, and found that the pictures where taken from a real protest elsewhere, and not an "Anonymous" protest. All and all i think the "Church" is a bunch of bull and don't play fair with others.

    I'm now prepared to get buried by the "Church" for my negative comments against them.

    --
    Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Scientology playing dirty by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I would have a hunch, that the "Church" itself is causing the problems on the page. that's been happening for some time. that article may be the most contriversal article short of muhammad.
      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:Scientology playing dirty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen a few things that they have done to try and put "Anonymous" in a bad light.

      Do they not understand that the point of an anonymous enemy is that they must fight a phantom? Do they not understand that they can not measure the size of their enemy and they can not know who it is? Do they not understand that anyone can join against them at any time simply by being anonymous? Can they not see that no one and every one is against them? It will be their fear and paranoia that ultimately destroy them as they look at the faces of anonymity all around and feel consuming distrust of everyone. This hell drives one to great turmoil and eats one from inside out--for them, this hell is a reality.

    3. Re:Scientology playing dirty by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Here is what Wikipedia said:

      This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
      It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since February 2008.
      It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2008.
      It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since February 2008.
      Most of those tags are due to the use of Scientology's own web sites as references on the page. i.e. they aren't WP:Reliable Sources except in very narrow uses and they're not third-party secondary sources. A lot of unsourced Scientology fluffy PR needs to be combed off of the article.
      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Scientology playing dirty by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I dunno, the Wikipedia articles on most things have those sorts of tags. "More references", "better references" and "please clear it up a big" are basic policies. It's just as likely to be legitimate editors as Scientlologists.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  15. In Germany, scientology is not a church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    In Germany, scientology is not called a church, but a company. I think the greed parameter built into scientology makes it a company. /AC

  16. Wikipedia featured article is... by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 1
    The south park episode "Trapped in the Closet". Hmm. The Xenu conspiracy is growing!!

    On a more serious note though one wonders how long before they flip completely and emulate Aum Shinrikyo or Jim Jones...

    FBI etc keep a *close* eye on them.

    Andy

    1. Re:Wikipedia featured article is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a more serious note though one wonders how long before they flip completely and emulate Aum Shinrikyo or Jim Jones...

      The people in charge are much too interested in making money for that sort of thing.

    2. Re:Wikipedia featured article is... by Bieeanda · · Score: 1

      They probably keep a close eye on the FBI themselves, if their infiltration of the RCMP years ago is any indication.

  17. They are forgetting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What alot of 'anonymous' are forgetting is that they _must_ only be protesting the organization Scientology, not the religion. If they keep that up it will keep them out of harms way.

    1. Re:They are forgetting. by Loligo · · Score: 1, Informative

      >They're about one step above the average 4-channer.

      Uhh... "Anonymous" IS a bunch of 4chan'ers. Or at least started there.

    2. Re:They are forgetting. by Faylone · · Score: 1

      True, but they're above average. Also, while this started with *chans, it has indeed expanded beyond just them.

  18. The Church of rice_burners_suck. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Church of Scientology. Hmph! How a religion can be invented so easily by someone who wakes up in the morning one day and just feels like making one up.

    I am hereby inventing a new religion. My religion shall be called rice_burners_suck, and its adherents shall be called rice_burners_suckers. One important parameter of a religion is how many deities its adherents believe in. This is a religion of a unique type, where instead of zero, one, or multiple deities, the number of deities is negative one. This concept is often difficult for newcomers to grasp, since when counting anything, one must begin at one and proceed through the positive numbers. However, we believe that a person must work towards achieving faith in God, and believing that there is negative one of Him is part of achieving that faith.

    Besides, if God can do anything, then He can choose to be counted in negative numbers.

    1. Re:The Church of rice_burners_suck. by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      the number of deities is negative one

      Um...you forgot the father and the son: ±sqrt(-1).

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    2. Re:The Church of rice_burners_suck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah? Well, my religion has i!

    3. Re:The Church of rice_burners_suck. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      This is a religion of a unique type, where instead of zero, one, or multiple deities, the number of deities is negative one.

      Actually, wouldn't Scientology count as one ? They are, after all, supposed to be opposing an evil god-like being (Xenu), so they worship a negative number of deities.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:The Church of rice_burners_suck. by SoapBox17 · · Score: 1

      You have inspired me to start a religion in which there are "i" deities.

  19. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I don't doubt that there certainly are some idiot anons, the general consensus is that the CoS has been making up the vast majority of the threats themselves. The video they like to quote listing the threats was flagged and removed due to the actions of legions of Anonymous (and others.)

    This is exactly the kind of "fair game" tactic that Anonymous are protesting. Their method of dealing with criticism is "always attack, never defend" and thus their words should never be trusted.

    This is a pattern of behavior consistent with the actions of the CoS that has been going on since the 1950s. Critics are harassed and threatened. Do yourself a favor and google "operation freakout" and read up on what they did to Paulette Cooper when she tried to write a book on the Church in the 1980s.

  20. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Informative

    You are aware of Operation Freakout, are you not? Wherein, among other criminal activities, Scientologists basically sent bomb threats to themselves with circumstantial evidence incriminating an author, Paulette Cooper, who wrote a book which was critical of the Church of Scientology?

    I'm not saying that any or all of the death threats that the Scientologists are receiving are bogus, but there is already an established history of them attempting to manipulate the courts against people critical of them.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  21. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by dbIII · · Score: 1

    On the other hand it is hard to decide whether some of the deaths caused by the cult are murder or manslaughter. I would say both groups have barbarians in their ranks.

  22. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hey folks... if you bother to read the article it explains how Scientologists are getting death threats from this group. Lies. Vicious lies and slander.

    Now excuse me, I have a couple of, uh, "cocktails" to prepare for Tom Cruise.

  23. RIAA run by the church of scientology by gorbachev · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The petition filed by the Church listed twenty-six individuals allegedly affiliated with Anonymous, but "accidentally" included others who merely work near the location of the first protests held in February and did not participate in them, such as a Starbucks employee. Furthermore, the Church failed to show that any of those listed actually committed any wrongdoing.""

    OMG! I think I get it now!

    RIAA is run by the church of scientology!

    That explains everything!

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  24. Whats wrong with america? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why did the Scientology cult get the status of a church there? If you are an american, you should ask your politicians, what can be done to undo this error.

    1. Re:Whats wrong with america? by muuh-gnu · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Why did the Scientology cult get the status of a church there?

      They didn't. Being a church isnt a kind of a legal status, so everybody can call himself a church. Even text editor users. To make it a legal title you first would have to define what a church is, and scientology then easily would change their business practices and methods to meet this new definition. In the end, you'd gain nothing.

    2. Re:Whats wrong with america? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      When did a bunch of adolescents with too much time on their hands get to be in the news every few days and on the front page of Slashdot.

      Adolescents? Seems like you have information the rest of us don't. Care to share?

    3. Re:Whats wrong with america? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I don't see why a church should get tax exempt status if my fan club cant get tax exempt status why should gods?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    4. Re:Whats wrong with america? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Church of Scientology has tax-exempt status in the United States (which is interesting, as members of the CoS infiltrated the IRS, among other government agencies), which they use as "proof" that the U.S. government considers them a religion.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    5. Re:Whats wrong with america? by kaos07 · · Score: 1

      Eurgh, grow up. They aren't some secret organisation but bored teenagers from 4chan.

    6. Re:Whats wrong with america? by kaos07 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How the hell is this offtopic? The discussion is about the Church of Scientology and "Anonymous". I'm pointing out that Anonymous are a bored group of people with too much time on their hands and there's no reason we should take a bunch of 4chan'ers seriously.

      On the other hand a post by "Anonymous Coward" making a joke gets modded interesting? Has Slashdot been infiltrated?

    7. Re:Whats wrong with america? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's no reason we should take a bunch of 4chan'ers seriously.

            And why not? Is there something inherent about 4chan that means that anyone who participates should not be taken seriously? What is this defect, I ask, that automatically makes their opinion less worthy than someone else's - say YOURS?

            Do I detect a hint of hostility, nay jealousy even because a post that you, in your narrow minded view of the world, believe in was modded down, whereas a post which you personally find unattractive is modded up? Why should we respect the opinion of someone who instinctively rejects any rationale not in line with his own?

      Has Slashdot been infiltrated?

      Anonymous is legion. Anonymous never forgets.

    8. Re:Whats wrong with america? by STrinity · · Score: 2, Informative

      They didn't. Being a church isnt a kind of a legal status,
      Yes, it is. Government recognized churches get tax exemptions. And Scientology is a government recognized church.
      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    9. Re:Whats wrong with america? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you know, they said the same thing about the war protesters in the 60's. Bunch of bored long haired pot smoking teenagers. Who happened to change the world, for a while, and make people realize that "war" isn't this noble, romanticized thing, and "war" isn't always "The Answer", and "dying for your country" wasn't necessarily the highest sacrifice a citizen could make, especially when the reasons for the war were all wrong. Gee, public opinion sure changed after the protests started, and the peaceful hippies started getting teargassed, beaten with clubs, and even killed.

            So what if a bunch of "bored teenagers" take it onto themselves to open the world's eyes to the pervasive FRAUD that is "Scientology"? At least they're trying to DO something about the situation, instead of sitting on their asses playing computer games all day. What have YOU done to improve the world lately?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Whats wrong with america? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      If there's no legal implications, then how do churches get to evade taxes? Sounds like a great deal if anybody can declare a church.

    11. Re:Whats wrong with america? by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

      That's not a legal status, it is a taxability status. Establishing your tax free eligibility doesn't make you a church or not.

    12. Re:Whats wrong with america? by Harin_Teb · · Score: 1

      Actually Scientology is not a government recognised church. It is a corporation that sued the IRS, negotiated an undisclosed settlement agreement and as a result is now treated as a church for tx pruposes (who knows what else was in that agreement?)

    13. Re:Whats wrong with america? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      They can Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization will get you pointed in the correct direction, I look forward to the latest congregation of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:Whats wrong with america? by kaos07 · · Score: 1

      I entered a program to study a Bachelor in Renewable Energy Engineering. Something a bit more tangible than wearing gas masks and running around screaming about religion.

      Just because you sit on your arse and read Slashdot all day whilst sucking Anonymous' cock doesn't mean everyone else does

      .

    15. Re:Whats wrong with america? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Big fucking deal, I have a medical degree and at least 20 people are alive per week that wouldn't be if it wasn't for me.

      Are we done waving our e-penises yet?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    16. Re:Whats wrong with america? by kaos07 · · Score: 1

      ROFL.

      I wasn't bragging, you asked a question and you got an answer you didn't expect. Grow up.

    17. Re:Whats wrong with america? by FreedomToThink · · Score: 1

      They only gained Tax exempt status the last time (after having it removed once already) after one of the biggest legal turn arounds in American history.

      http://www.coslobby.com/

      http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/nytimes/nyt-irs-030997.htm (New York Times article)

  25. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hey folks... if you bother to read the article it explains how Scientologists are getting death threats from this group.

    Good. The CoS is known to be involved in murder, torture and sexual abuse. Forget "non-violent" protest, get stuck in there.

    Photograph them. Follow them. Follow them home and photograph them entering and leaving their houses. Keep shouting "Murderer!" at them, if you can. Harass them. Make their lives hell.

    Don't waste your time griefing in Sadville, do it In Real Life. Make the CoS thoroughly miserable.

  26. Um... by Perseid · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not normally a summary-nazi, but it's L. Ron Hubbard. Not Ron L. Hubbard.

    1. Re:Um... by ruggerboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dammit, now I have to get all these "Elron" birthday invites reprinted.

  27. The ides of March by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ides of March are afoot. Tomorrow is the day.

  28. MOD PARENT OLDFAG by mdenham · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Er, I mean, go sage yourself.

  29. Re:How'd the get the starbucks employee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, that's actually one of the things they do -they video tape everything and then comb through the footage looking for anything (identifying clothes, distinctive features, license plate numbers) they can use to identify their Suppressive Persons (ie their critics).

    Posting anonymously to prevent an IRL karma hit. :-/

  30. I would not be the least bit surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the suitcase mentioned in the article had been planted by the CoS itself to direct a public backlash against Anonymous. You can say I might need to loosen my tinfoil hat, but these sorts of tactics are precisely what the CoS does. They are extremely good at social and psychological engineering. These people are not stupid. They are unbelievably dangerous. Attempts to discredit them by mocking their beliefs in space aliens coming to Earth on DC-10s is a double-edged sword, because it then becomes far too easy to dismiss them as idiots, and not take them seriously. Their vast financial resources speak to the contrary. Now, posting as AC, I'm *sure* to get comments about my tinfoil hat.

  31. at least other religions don't SELL crappy sci-fi by someone1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And they usually don't apply lie-detectors on you.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  32. Does Annymous exist? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    It seems so loose nit that just about anyone could claim to be part of anonymous. It's hardly an organisation. More the name of a movement. A bit like Lolcat or rick-rolling or any of other countless memes.

    1. Re:Does Annymous exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous isn't something you join it's something you participate in.

    2. Re:Does Annymous exist? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Okay. But I think I do get it. Either that or I don;t get how I don't get it. Like the other reply said "It's something you participate in", so if I got a mask and went to the local Scientology centre to protest, I too would be Anonymous.

  33. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous wouldn't really kill anyone. It's all a big gag on squares like you.

    *ahem* I mean, ANONYMOUS DOES NOT FORGIVE. GET YOUR DOGS, AND CURTAINS, LEST YOU LIVE NO MORE!

    In the interest of journalism, look here, especially the "random" board.

    In before rules 1 and 2.

  34. The Judge's ruling reads as follows: by rlanctot · · Score: 1

    "Denied, sir! You are the Mayor of Deniedsville! You are also teh suk. Get yourself a law degree, and a clue."

    Baliff: "You've just been served!"

  35. Waitaminute: by larien · · Score: 1

    The lawsuit alleged that Scientology churches around the world have been bombarded with harassing phone calls, obscene e-mails, bomb threats and death threats by members of an amorphous, loosely knit group that calls itself Anonymous. Then there's stuff about a suitcase being left, potentially as a bomb threat. If member of this group are doing this, they're stepping over the line from protest to harrassment. No matter what you think of Scientology, that is illegal.

    The court throw out the case because they couldn't prove that the individuals identified were explicitly connected to any illegal activities, not because they thought the activities were "OK".

    1. Re:Waitaminute: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the bomb threat was left by the Scilons, they also are planning on attempting toinfiltrate the protests and turn things violent. but like any other large group they cannot keep secrets from anonymous, anonymous is everywhere.

    2. Re:Waitaminute: by Kierthos · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, it's possible that the judge was aware of Operation Freakout, where, among other things, the CoS sent bomb threats to themselves, but made it appear as though an author, Paulette Cooper, was responsible for them. You see, she wrote a book that was critical of the Church of Scientology... so that made it "fair game" to ruin her life.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  36. Sydney Protest Footage by essence · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Sydney Protest Footage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dang...the user not found

  37. ..because they are against everything "geek" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been on the net since gopher was cool and I'll tell you that the Scientology virus is the *worst* infection it's ever gotten. The hell with RIAA or the MPAA, they've done nothing compared to the trampling of net ideals the Scientology jerks have done.

    They started by taking down anon.penet.fi, and they've been getting worse every year. The hell with all their supposed abuses, and cult like activity. It's messing with the geek stuff that pisses me off.

    Get off my f*ckn net! On my f*ckn net we don't tolerate: censorship, copyright abuse, trademark abuse, bogus DMCA notices, intimidating lawyer letters, or stripping our anonaminity for no good reason.

    People have been scared to fight back for nearly 20 years. No more!

    * Posting anon not because it's cool, but because these jerks still scare me enough not to use my nick.

    1. Re:..because they are against everything "geek" by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Get off my f*ckn net! On my f*ckn net we don't tolerate: censorship... Does that include "f*ckn" self-censorhip?

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    2. Re:..because they are against everything "geek" by eataTREE · · Score: 1

      Yup. I was there, too, and I remember. They threatened, laughably enough, to sue the entire Internet... and they would have, too, if such a thing had been possible.

      The core of what is wrong with 'fundamentalist' belief is the thought that goes like this: 'we are right, and therefore everything we do to further our cause is justified'.

  38. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by nickspoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. Non-violent, lawful protest is the best way to go about it. If you start harassing members of the CoS personally, you are no better than they are and, more importantly, you would lose an important defence in court: that you have the right to peaceful protest. If that's all you are doing, legally they can't touch you.

    As soon as you start harassing them, you lose that important benefit. This is why the protests were strictly peaceful and calm. If anything, a peaceful protest hurts them more because there's nothing they can do about it, and it looks to the world like the Scientologists are unable to defend their "Church"'s system from a bunch of people from the internet.

  39. say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Dead Sea Scrolls are in Israel.

  40. Are you a scientologist troll ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Because if you were a bit more "neutral" and at least had a look at the web sites of anonymous (enturbulation.org i think) you would have read that on their FAQ they EXPLICITLY require all protest to be peaceful and all remain on the legal side. If there is any death threat that can only be from idiot. Or maybe from the scientology itself , as they are known in the past to have sent THEMSELVES bomb threat, and PLANTED evidence at the home of an author (see paulette cooper WIKI operation freakout). Did I mention operation snowwhite (see wiki) ? I can only think of one things : you are a scientologist troll...

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Are you a scientologist troll ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Speaking of planting evidence.
      It looks very much like the 'Church' of Scientology made up the bomb threat against them this time too.

      http://forums.enturbulation.org.nyud.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6939

    2. Re:Are you a scientologist troll ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, someone brought up the bomb threat video, time to add this :

      Msg 2 the FBI & Scientologists & Anonymous Supporters & All.

      "The Church of Scientology has alleged in an injunction for protection from harrassment filed with Clearwater county officials today, March 12th, that they suspect a group of peaceful protesters calling themselves "Anonymous" will try to murder a prominent leader of the Church named Heber Jentzsch, on or around Thursday, March 13th, 2008. They have used this allegation as the basis for their request for a restraining order against peaceful protesters, which is in violation of every American's "right to peaceful assembly."

      Anonymous has no intention of harming this man, or any other member of the Church, in any way, shape or form. However, Anonymous fears for Heber Jentzsch's physical safety. [b]We believe he is being detained against his will by the Church, possibly at the Hemet, California Gold base Scientology location, which is a secure armed compound. He has not been seen publicly for nearly five years, that we are aware of currently.[/b]

      The Church of Scientology has demonstrated before that they will not hesitate to cause harm to critics or even church members, if it furthers their agenda. They have been legally implicated in the deaths of dozens of people, both critics and church members alike. Anonymous believes Mr. Jentzsch is in danger of being injured, imprisoned or even killed by the Church of Scientology, so that they may place the blame on Anonymous and thus shift attention away from illegal activities within the Church that Anonymous is presently working to expose.

      Anonymous is very concerned for Mr. Jentzsch's safety. We strongly urge the FBI to investigate and, if at possible, locate and place Mr. Jentzsch in protective custody as soon as can be arranged. Thank you for your consideration.

      -Anonymous "

      Emphasis mine.

      This message was sent to the FBI shortly after the 2nd announcement (in the mentioned court dox) from the CoS regarding Mr Jentzsch. Anonymous was already wary after the first, as only those deeply involved with the CoS in the past even knew who Mr. Jentzsch was. After this 2nd Announcement we all genuinely fear for Mr Jentzsch's safety.

      The only people who would EVER gain from Heber Jentzsch being harmed are those he holds evidence against in his memory, being those from the Church of Scientology.

      PROTECT HEBER JENTZSCH!!
    3. Re:Are you a scientologist troll ? by coren2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, but of course, If I do not brand these people as babykillers and psycho cultists the rest of Slashdot brands me a troll and flamebait.

      Im just sick of the massive groupthink of Slashdot, and I am willing to not immediately jump upon the hater bandwagon.

  41. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by jimicus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Photograph them. Follow them. Follow them home and photograph them entering and leaving their houses. Keep shouting "Murderer!" at them, if you can. Harass them. Make their lives hell.

    For every one person you can find to do this, the CoS can find five who have many more years experience of behaving like this and getting away with it. And the people who the CoS find won't stop at following you home and photographing you.

  42. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by toriver · · Score: 1

    Yes, since that removes him from the CoS "soldiers" who appear to have moderated down various posts in the thread...

  43. Everybody do the False Flag Shuffle! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Until, that is, until your False Flag attack is copy-catted by those who get the wrong idea and perpetrate the attacks for real. But that's even better! --'Cuz now you get all the press and none of those nasty embarrassing loose threads leading back to HQ. Works in Gaza for one dippy religion, worked in Washington/New York for another, so why not for Hubbard? They've tried it before.

    The only reason the Scientologists aren't getting away with it is that they're small fry; they don't have enough members infiltrated into the media and government to really do any big damage, like. . , throw national elections and start wars, for instance. --Not that they shouldn't be called out for what they are, mind you. Better to nip these things in the bud before they take over the universe. Too bad Christianity, Judaism and Islam weren't invented when there was an internet around to help out in the pruning. --Of course, if they had been knocked out of the game early, the PTB would simply have distributed some fliers with Buddha or somebody on a cross and warped all of his followers until they became the army of gun-toting lunatic sheep you need in order to keep the world inflamed.

    This whole planet is like one giant cartoon show with bad punch lines and dead batteries in the channel flipper.


    -FL

  44. I think you're wrong by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    It's actually L. Ron Hitler.

    1. Re:I think you're wrong by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you're confusing him with Ron Hitler-Barassi.

      Ironically he performs exclusively masked so no one knows his real identity.

    2. Re:I think you're wrong by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      No but that looks pretty cool. L. Ron Hitler was actually the name of a band as well out here in L.A. Apparently they broke up the band after getting legal threats from the Co$.

  45. They operate a slave labor camp. Reason enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The scienos operate their own prison and slave labor camp system, where their elite Sea Org members who step out of line get sent to be rehabilitated by labor at the RPF camps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_Project_Force . And though not all of their labor "rehab" projects keep them prisoner by lock and key, they often coerce their prisoners into staying by blackmail, using the massive files of confessions they accumulate via auditing sessions, and "freeloader's debt," where they get retroactively charged for all the auditing they received for free, which often amounts to tens of thousands of dollars worth.

    In the 70's, they infiltrated the US government using over 5,000 of their agents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_snow_white.
    Although this effort was uncovered, leading to their secret take-over by elements within the IRS who operate the whole racket for profit behind the scenes (which many people don't know about) their infiltration of France was successful to this day.

    Earthlink is a front company for the Church of Scientology. So is Helio, the cell phone company. Google "Scientology front companies" for a shocking list; they are constantly trying to spy on and infiltrate and subvert whatever they can with no regards for ethics but the advancement of their own power.

  46. Their cameramen patroled public transit on 2/10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Make sure you be careful: they have cameramen staked out at public transit locations to try to photograph people with their masks off; they'll try to match you by your clothing, identify you, and harass you to no end. Some guys in London found out the hard way. Their practice is always to stay under the threshold of proof. If they can throw a brick through your window and if you can't prove they did it, they'll do that.

    They're planning on disrupting the protests with staged violence by anons. Make sure you catch it all on camera if you attend.

  47. Scientology vs. Synanon by LM741N · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Scientology is a lightweight compared to Synanon in its heyday in the early 70's. It went from a respectable drug program to a wacky cult. Everyone was compelled to shave their head and they were also compelled to change sex partners every night and then the next day report on what it was like.

    These are the people who put rattlesnakes in the LA DA's mailbox. I think the Synanon founder was sent to prison for attempted murder on that one.

    They also at one time had over 100 attorneys working for them and would sue anyone just like Scientology. They even won a lawsuit for defamation or libel against Hurst Publishing. It had never been achieved before. They had a tactic where in lawsuits they would depose people for hours asking them stupid questions like "what has the consistancy of your stool been lately?"

    Just wait. Scientology will eventually get nutty enough to do something similar to the rattlesnake bit and then they are done for.

    1. Re:Scientology vs. Synanon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Off topic:
      After Synanon fell apart there were a ton of people with no place to go. Many ending up going to Alcoholic's Anonymous. In some parts of the country they basically invaded AA meetings in large numbers.

      The structure of AA is set up by a form of democratic voting called "group conscience". Basically voting. The Synanon people were able to come in & change these AA meetings in some fundmental ways, such as letting anyone talk (even drunk/stoned people), round table chats, a more group therapy approach. Many of these screwy ideas remain today in some AA groups in those areas that Synanon was popular.

      People visiting these groups from other areas are shocked to see how things have changed from what they are used to.

      Posted anonymously of course. ;)

    2. Re:Scientology vs. Synanon by LM741N · · Score: 1

      Around 1970, the founder of Synanon (I forget his name) realized that he had an organization worth millions, and the only way he could control it as a charitable trust was to turn it into a religion. Of course he would be the head of it. And in order to exert more control and retain only the most fanatical followers he did the head shaving, the sex stuff, etc. Couples who were in the organization left.

      After the 1960's there were many more normy's in Synanon than drug addicts or alcoholics. The addicted were basically treated like dirt or slaves. Much of this was due to the "Personal Growth" movement of the late 60's as communal organizations like this appealed to a great number of self described "hip" people

      The only relevance that Synanon has to AA is that its founder was an AA member before he founded Synanon. The culture of AA is completely different than the program of AA which is The Big Book in its entirety. There are all sorts of things which are said and done in meetings that have nothing to do with that book ie AA. Just look at all the cliches. The only one I know that came from Synanon is the saying "Today is the first day of the rest of your life."

    3. Re:Scientology vs. Synanon by Zorque · · Score: 1

      The Scientologists have already killed some of their own followers, some in very creepy ways. They have their own private navy that operates in international waters. They tried to pin a bomb threat on author and critic Paulette Cooper. Time Magazine ran a cover story on how dangerous they are. They're also responsible for the single biggest infiltration of the US Government at any time in history. I'd say they're a little crazier than Synanon.

    4. Re:Scientology vs. Synanon by Zorque · · Score: 1

      Whoops, hit submit too early. I meant to mention that bomb threat was directed towards Henry Kissinger himself, as well as several middle eastern consulates within the US.

  48. But... by FreedomToThink · · Score: 1

    where is the "FairGame" tag ?

  49. To support the ides of March from your desk.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    check out this firehose story, and click the + top left to give it your support so the /. editors write it up!

    http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=573326 "Church of Scientology violates Federal Law"

    You'd never guess who might be voting THAT one down ;o)

    1. Re:To support the ides of March from your desk.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent (and firehose) up, it's all very well posting Anonymous 'WINS', but the really important things is to write up the Church of Scientologies CRIMES !

      They have been waging a many decade long censorship war AGAINST the poeople and the press to stop the truth from being known.

      DO YOUR PART, GET THE WORD OUT THERE.

    2. Re:To support the ides of March from your desk.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is it that shlashdotters would rather down vote because someone tried to solicit votes for a story, and they don't care or didn't read the content?

      Or has it suddenly dropped to purple/black rapidly after being highlighted here because something else is going on?

      I mean, what American wouldn't want an investigation into illegal political shenanigans from a supposedly non profit organization.

  50. A FAQ on Scientology AKA Church of Scientology by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can find a very detailed explanation here. Basically, questions like what is scientology, what is the e-meter, and last minute news about scientology, can be found there.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  51. Re:Scientology is NOT being attacked by Anonymous by gambolt · · Score: 1

    which makes them different from Hal Turner how?

  52. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, perhaps not that many. But if you look at their history of harassment of Paulette Cooper, the author, for whom Mary Sue Hubbard and her personnel got convicted for planting fake bomb threats to discredit Paulette, you get the idea of how far they will go. It's a bad game to play, because it lets them pretend that you really are evil for harassing them and plotting against them.

    This troubles me about "Anonymous". Threatening a vindictive bully with vindictive bullying can just encourage them.

  53. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    What are you calling the other group of "both groups"? Critics of Scientology? Or everyone else in the world?

  54. relevant sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for more info, check these out http://www.lisamcpherson.org/ - she was murdered by scientologists in 1995 http://www.scientology.org/ - they try to look so innocent http://www.churchofmyconology.com/ - hilarious parody or scientology.org (posted anonymously so they don't try to sue me)

  55. The Bible v. Battlefield Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes... and it's quite telling that (judging from recent events/pronouncements) many people, including extremely well-connected and -funded "religious" and "opinion" "leaders" can't seem to tell the difference between the two. Or between, say, cair.com or pcusa.org and goatse.

    As has been pointed out countless times and proven countless more, whenever the State becomes involved in religion - or vice versa - both suffer tremendously. We're seeing that yet again now in the Middle East and in what once was the United States of America.

  56. CoS: The new Bush? by Doug52392 · · Score: 0

    I've been following all the Scientology stories for a while now, and I've arrived at the conclusion that Scientology wants to be the new Bush, destroying civil liberties and scaring everyone into doing stuff (and not doing stuff, like expressing their First Amendment right to freedom to protest).

    They got control of E-bay for a day??? Wtf? Then they try to violate American's First Amendment rights just to prevent a group from expressing their opinion about Scientology? BS!

    I guess CoS learned from Bush and his PATRIOT Act :)

  57. L. Ron, not Ron L. by garylian · · Score: 1

    Sheesh, I know they are one of the punching bags of /., and deservedly so, but can't you get the nutbag's name right?

    It's L. Ron Hubbard.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

  58. Wisdom by mcspoo · · Score: 1

    Wisdom... not following a religion completely made up by this Nebraska guy who we hardly even know. I find it difficult to follow a "church" that remains nothing more than the result of a bet between L. Ron Hubbard and Issac Asimov. Did L. Ron win the bet by creating a religion? Or did he create a cult? Is there a difference?

    1. Re:Wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bet was between Hubbard and Robert Heinlein. The bet resulted in the Church of Scientology on Hubbard's side, and "Stranger In A Strange Land" on Heinlein's side. "Stranger In A Strange Land" is one of the masterpieces of the entire genre of Science Fiction. The Church of Scientology is a grift operation on a massive scale.

      And the bet took place after an LA Science Fantasy Society meeting. LASFS is celebrating its Diamond Jubilee year this year.

    2. Re:Wisdom by ZJVavrek · · Score: 1

      Do you have any details on this bet? Things that I can point to as reputable, rather than just "I heard it on slashdot"? Actual hard details about Hubbard or Scientology seem to be hard to find, due to Scientologists wanting to give the "real" story of it.

  59. Cut their write-off by stabiesoft · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally, I'd like to see ALL religions lose their tax write off. They have all become soo political that I don't understand why the religion of ? should enjoy tax benefits when others pay. If the donors don't get to write it off, I suspect funding for all religions might drop like a rock. I also think the churches should have to pay prop taxes etc. Most these "dream" churches have millions of bucks in property, buildings and in the case of the mega's, planes, schools, etc. Let them pay like for profit. I can't tell the difference between non-profit/for-profit anymore except a couple of "praise god's".

    1. Re:Cut their write-off by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd like to see ALL religions lose their tax write off. They have all become soo political that I don't understand why the religion of ? should enjoy tax benefits when others pay. If the donors don't get to write it off, I suspect funding for all religions might drop like a rock.

      Agreed. Pay your taxes and donate what you please with what's left. Being able to deduct donations from the taxes you pay means that the rest of us have to pick up the slack; we pay a bit more taxes to cover for the amount that went from you to the church instead of the state. In other words, if the donations are tax deductible, then you are effectively donating other people's money.

      Yes, that's right people: your money is being put into Scientologists coffers. You are being made to fund Hubbard's little scam. You are paying for the lawyers Scientology uses in its censorship campaigns.

      And of course the same is true for all other organizations. Any donation which is tax-deductible is actually paid by every other taxpayer combined. That's something to think about. And I have to admit, it is a pretty clever loophole to allow the state to donate taxpayer money to religious institutions while not appearing to do so :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  60. Zen Buddhism by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The one that teaches you not to take religious authorities for granted. The one that teaches you to learn to trust your own intuition. The one that rejects scriptures in favor of personal experience. The one whose focus on efficiency and minimalism contributed so much to the success of Japanese industry after WW2. The one which took the ideo of non-violence, and, realising that Japan's military class would not be deflected from war, created a cult of military honor in which it was wrong to kill women and children.

    Not the wacky California fake Zen, the real thing (which can be hard work). Greed is contrary to Zen. Lies are contrary to Zen. Superstition is contrary to Zen. Personal truth and integrity, and the search for direct perception of the core of things - that's Zen.

    I would also add the Episcopalians, the Reform Jews, the Sufis, the Quakers and the Unitarians, all of which have a history of attracting very intelligent people, but Zen was the first.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  61. Re:Frist p0st 4 teh lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, if you were to actually post something funny relating to first post and the summary, you might get modded up.

  62. Do you dismiss evolution/natural selection? by big_paul76 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You been reading C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity"?

    The reason I ask is, 'cause you kinda make a similar argument.

    "I'm not so sure about that. Without God, you must explain moral codes in practical terms. The most basic (lie, cheat, steal)are easy enough. Some of the less obviously explained moral codes are both very important and not easy to explain the practicality thereof. (Envy, gluttony, etc.)"


    C'mon, this one's a no-brainer. Take the seven deadly sins for example.

    Every single one of them, you're probably better off not doing.

    So there's an "evolutionary advantage" to behaving a certain way. Those individuals who behave "ethically" generally have an advantage over those who don't. Now some of those situations are debatable, like, for example, in the short term, if we're in the middle of a famine, there's an (at least in the short-term) advantage to me if I steal your dinner.

    However, a community/population/tribe that behaves "ethically" has an ENORMOUS advantage over a tribe of sociopathic anarchists (for example). So those tribes that behave in a way that we'd call ethically, when they go to war with that hypothetical tribe of sociopathic anarchists they kick ass and take wallets.

    Nothing mysterious here, just natural selection/evolution. There's no reason to assume that religion is necessary for a society to develop an ethical code.

    "Humans are not fundamentally morally superior now as compared to 5,000 years ago. The only thing that has provably changed in that time is the societal indoctrination methods, and churches are the majority of those methods."


    Hold the train there, we might be "morally superior" to our ancestors from 3,000 years ago when armies would invade and slaughter entire populations (although I suspect that the residents of Dresden or Hiroshima or Fallujah might argue with you on that claim), how 'bout comparing ourselves to our pre-agriculture ancestors?

    Pre-agriculture societies generally tend to have values more similar to what we'd call today "democratic values" like equality and freedom and all that good stuff. Plus, they generally won't do things like let someone die for lack of medical care if somebody lacks funds the way we will today.

    I guess what I'm saying is, given the history of the 20th century, when 100 million humans were killed by other humans, (about 60% of them civilians to boot) you're on very shaky ground to assume that humans in our current form are "morally superior" to anything.
    --
    The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
    1. Re:Do you dismiss evolution/natural selection? by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hold the train there, we might be "morally superior" to our ancestors from 3,000 years ago when armies would invade and slaughter entire populations (although I suspect that the residents of Dresden or Hiroshima or Fallujah might argue with you on that claim), how 'bout comparing ourselves to our pre-agriculture ancestors?

      Our current morally superiority is not inherent in our biology, it is the product of our traditions and cultures that have been honed in the past millenia.

      I think you missed or misinterpreted the 'inherent' part of my statement. Let me rephrase it: Our biological brain structures today do not lend themselves to a higher morality than the brains of our ancestors 3,000 years ago.

      Further, when you're comparing ourselves to our pre-agriculture ancenstors, you're just making things up, or parroting things other folks made up. The history of pre-agriculture societies is little more than our best guess on the meaning of cave drawings, arrowheads, and wishful luddite thinking about 'noble savages' we've found in north america and africa. The only reliable history we have about pre-agriculture societies comes from our advanced mercantile forbears running into them, and at best, learning their language, learning their oral history, and hoping it vaugely resembles something that actually happened when they finally wrote it down in books you probably haven't actually studied. Zinn's 'A people's history' doesn't count- there are first hand sources that can be found, because western civ has actually kept records for hundreds of years.

      I guess what I'm saying is, given the history of the 20th century, when 100 million humans were killed by other humans, (about 60% of them civilians to boot) you're on very shaky ground to assume that humans in our current form are "morally superior" to anything.

      The world is not one culture, so it's nonsensical to say we (the world) are morally superior to civilizations 3,000 years ago, because there are societies that exist today that have learned, collectively, nothing in the past 3,000 years.

      Further, when comparing the various morality different societies produce, it makes sense to compare them to the REAL alternatives, not to some utopian society no one has ever seen but you somehow imagine you could produce, should everyone listen to you.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:Do you dismiss evolution/natural selection? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Our current morally superiority is not inherent in our biology, it is the product of our traditions and cultures that have been honed in the past millenia.

      ...

      The world is not one culture, so it's nonsensical to say we (the world) are morally superior to civilizations 3,000 years ago, because there are societies that exist today that have learned, collectively, nothing in the past 3,000 years. Aren't you contradicting yourself?
      And how do you throw the "moral" values of "the world" all in one basket? I'm pretty sure the moral values of somebody well-off in the western world are not very congruent with those of somebody fighting for survival in Africa for example.
    3. Re:Do you dismiss evolution/natural selection? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Nothing mysterious here, just natural selection/evolution. There's no reason to assume that religion is necessary for a society to develop an ethical code.

      No, but the question of whether an individual should abide by an ethical code is answered a lot easier with religion. Game theory shows us that if everyone else is ethical except me, I can benefit.

      Pre-agriculture societies generally tend to have values more similar to what we'd call today "democratic values" like equality and freedom and all that good stuff. Plus, they generally won't do things like let someone die for lack of medical care if somebody lacks funds the way we will today.

      Indeed: they'll let everyone die for lack of medical care because they haven't invented it yet in any real way. Which goes to show that even an immoral civilization is better to live in than a moral hunter-gatherer tribe.

      To take another tack, hunter-gatherer tribes weren't especially tolerant of freeloaders, either, whether they can't or just won't carry their own weight. Yet one of the central beliefs we have in modern civilization is that freeloaders should still be cared for, especially if they're freeloaders due to some sort of mental or physical disability. (And this completely ignores the fact that someone like Stephen Hawking can contribute uncountably more to a civilization than he could to a pre-agricultural society.)

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    4. Re:Do you dismiss evolution/natural selection? by viva_la_toast · · Score: 1
      I guess what I'm saying is, given the history of the 20th century, when 100 million humans were killed by other humans, (about 60% of them civilians to boot) you're on very shaky ground to assume that humans in our current form are "morally superior" to anything.

      Actually, although we're led to believe we're in the middle of a global crime wave, this isn't actually true. I dislike the view that humanity is on a downturn, because it propagates the view that we are falling angels rather than rising apes. Not only is this a largely religious view, it's also rather depressing, so I'm going to argue against it.

      Think about the ease with which capital punishment was thrown around in Europe up until a few centuries ago, for example. 500 years ago, if you insulted the king, you'd be torn into pieces while still alive. Now, a guy in Texas can murder and rape half a dozen people, and we still protest his death by lethal injection. Why? Because our society abhors violence. You might point to the actions of the CIA, with torture and worse being condoned by the most powerful government on Earth, but it is not a fraction of what had been done to perceived 'traitors' in the past. You might point to Iraq and Darfur, and all the other atrocities that have been committed in the last two centuries alone, but you know what? If the murder rate of 'peaceful' hunter gatherer societies (which you seem so quick to idolize) had continued into the 20th century, the death toll via war would be around 2 billion, rather than a hundred million.

      The thing is, we have more information now that ever before. The horrors around the world are blaring from our television screens everyday. But if you had a news feed of the past, it would be a hundred times worse. We lack the information, so we like to paint the past as a picturesque and happy time, but it wasn't. It really wasn't. The 'good old days' are a lie. You think there wasn't murder, rape and genocide? You think that these things didn't happen even more when we lived in caves and had to fight and wage war to gain the resources to survive? When death was an everyday occurrence (remember: no medicine, no concept of sanitation or viruses, wild animals on the prowl, starvation a constant threat), do you think murder would be the taboo it is today? With rival tribes living side by side, do you really think that "kill of be killed" situations didn't crop up all the time?

      Peace is profitable. We are finally learning that. Cooperation is in everyone's best interest, and since (like all) humanity is a self serving species, it will prevail in the end. And no, our DNA hasn't changed much over the last 20 thousand years, but our society has. We are morally superior (at least, according to our own moral code, ha), because our morals lead to a stable society, and a stable society propagates. Ideas are subject to evolution to; good ideas dominate in the end.

  63. My introduction to Scientology by angrytuna · · Score: 2, Informative

    My first introduction to their practices was a Time magazine article my friend dug up from 1991, when I was trying to figure out what they were all about. It won an award, and is worth a look for those folks to don't understand the vitriol. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865,00.html

    --

    It is a solemn thought: dead, the noblest man's meat is inferior to pork.

  64. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 0

    This troubles me about "Anonymous". Threatening a vindictive bully with vindictive bullying can just encourage them. Which is why Anonymous is not using vindictive bullying.
  65. anonymous.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An acquaintance of mine told me three or four days ago that he was approach by someone through the broker sedo.com about selling his domain name...anonymous.net. The initial offer was in the tens of thousands. Turns out other anonymous domains are up for sale as well. http://www.sedo.com/search/searchresult.php4?start_search=1&linkurl=&language=us&keyword=anonymous&cc=net&kws=2&cat=%25&price=%25&listing_type=all&age=%25&len=%25&no_idn=1&checkeddomains=1&checkedprojects=1&visitors=%25&rel=1&pagesize=25&search_language=e&search_type=advanced I wonder who might have offered that much money for a domain like that?

  66. Pictures of the Philadelphia Protests by christoofar · · Score: 1

    The Church of Scientology's tallest building... an old skyscraper in Philadelphia, is the site being protested right now.

    A good representation of every type of hipster art student in Philadelphia has shown up.

    I live in the 13 story apartment tower next door in the pictures (where it says Deena's Shoes), so I get to hear shouting while I'm trying to eat my lunch and play XBOX.

  67. "Praise God" pretty important, but you might like: by patio11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    * Largest hospital system in the country, accounting for over 20% of visits in 20 states. 5.4 million patients, 100 million visits (15 million of them emergency room). Includes some amusing trivia like "treats more AIDS patients in NYC than anyone else"
    * Largest non-governmental primary/secondary education provider in country. Educates about 2.5 million students (including about 320k non-Catholic kids), many of them poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Routinely outperforms local public schools, but subsidized almost entirely from those donors, not from the public purse.
    * 9th largest charity in country is closely affiliated
    * Second largest donor to Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, after government.
    * Various other accomplishments which you could fill a book with. Universities, museums, immigrant rights lawyering, food banks, conservation programs, urban renewal, subsidized housing, child care, adoption, foster homes, yadda yadda yadda.

    That's just the Catholic Church. Yeah, some of the property the Church owns is worth gazillions because it was cheap to buy stuff in downtown Chicago over a hundred years ago. And the Church certainly isn't immune to mismanaging money. But would you really want to spite them just to win a few points against Scientology? And, non-trivial question, if you successfully caused the donations to the Catholic Church to drop like a rock, are you willing to pay to educate those kids, patch up those patients, and feed those hungry? Because all of them are going to end up backstopped by public assistance, and the bill for that goes to you, not to me.

  68. christianity and morality by sentientbrendan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >Churches, God, and Sin are ways of imposing codes of behavior that have
    >been show to be successful over several millennia. The concepts of
    >'God' and 'Sin' are necessary to impose these codes of behavior

    The truth is that religion and morality have nothing to do with one another and never have. If they did, this would be a very different world considering how common religion is, and how uncommon morality is. Religions give lip service to morality, but the truth is it never goes any further than that.

    If you consider most of the violence that's going on in the world right now, it is led by religious men preaching that murder and mayhem are good things. You can say that they don't represent the "true meaning" of their religion, or that their religion is different than your religion, but they are representative of how religion is practiced in the real world.

    It's easy to be a saint in a rich country with police that *enforce* the law, when you don't really have a choice, and in those places you often see holy men positioning themselves as defending public morality (although what they consider public morality is often ridiculous). In regions of the world that are chaotic on the other hand, holy men are always the first to rally a mob and start some violence.

    This is true of Islam, and of Christianity. No one who has studied any European history could claim that Christianity has promoted morality, or that it has ever been about anything more than power.

    The true source of morality is reason, and the true source of public order is the law and the police force to enforce it. Without those two things, everything goes lord of the flies pretty quickly, whatever your religion is.

  69. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Looking at the earlier post or the article summary would indicate that the other group calls themself "anonymous".

  70. Re:"Praise God" pretty important, but you might li by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    Dontcha think that maybe its a problem that alot of health care is done on the basis of a donation? Personally, I'd like to see health care as a citizen's right, like most other westernized countries.

  71. Maynard James Keenan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck L. Ron Hubbard and fuck all his clones

  72. Re:"Praise God" pretty important, but you might li by PPH · · Score: 1

    So, apply for tax status as a nonprofit and/or charitable organization.

    Reserving a special tax category for churches places the government in the position of having to determine what is and what is not a legitimate church. A violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, IMHO. If a church cannot operate its charities as a nonprofit, then the tax code needs to be modified for all such organizations regardless of whether they profess beliefs in rocks, trees, space aliens, or imaginary old men with white beards.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  73. Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites by ragerover · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I met Paulette Cooper in the mid-'80s after she wrote an article about COS for Reader's Digest. The Scientologists made her life miserable, and even my tangential association with her led to problems for me that, I suspect, were caused by the COS. The harassment and persecution of her would be called terrorism today.

  74. Buddhism's a much bigger raft than just Zen by billstewart · · Score: 4, Informative
    Zen's an appealing form of Buddhism - pure, simple, difficult, uncluttered; if I were a Buddhist that's probably the form I'd pursue. But Buddhism's much broader than that, picking up all sorts of local cultures and pre-Buddhist religions and random other stuff along the way. Tibetan Buddhism incorporates a lot of Tibetan Bon religion, with all kinds of scary demons, mountain spirits, prayer flags, and the like. The Pure Land Buddhists worship Amitbha Buddha, also called Amida, hoping to enter the Pure Land in the next life as a result of their devotions; you'll see Jodo and Hongwanji missions spreading that. In a rather opposite direction, there are the Nichiren Shoshu people who chant their Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo to get their wishes granted. I'm inclined to suspect that Zen is more austere than what the Buddha himself believed...


    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  75. Mask laws have been used to harass Muslims by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Mask laws in the US were mostly originally written to deal with the KKK, though some may have been written about masked robbers and similar criminals.


    But they have occasionally been used to harass Muslim women; I think the case I saw in the press a few years ago was in or near Detroit (not surprising, since that's a heavily Muslim-immigrant area.) Of course, police don't hassle people for wearing ski masks there in the winter time...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Mask laws have been used to harass Muslims by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I see no problem with that if I can't wear a mask in public then No One should be allowed to wear masks in public.

      ~Dan

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  76. Re:"Praise God" pretty important, but you might li by OakDragon · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd like to see health care as a citizen's right, like most other westernized countries.

    I don't know about the other westernized countries you're talking about, but in the United States, rights are special things, not granted by the government. We see rights as given to us by our Creator... oops, sorry, I forgot I shouldn't say that... we see rights as natural things, like sunlight. Now, a government can come along and block out our sunlight, a la Mr. Burns, but that is an infringement on our sunlight; the government does not actually provide sunlight.

    So, if the government were to disappear, Americans would still have their natural rights. We would have our right to free speech, to bear arms, to freely associate, etc. But if the government provided health care, and said government disappeared, so would the health care.

    (I know, not all Americans see rights as I have described. I have used this as a rhetorical device.)

  77. Was about time they lose the game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep!

  78. This one is funny... by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

    I know there are a million of these, but this one is actually is pretty funny... (maybe not highest prodcution quality but it's pretty well cut the further you get along)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SJWj4i5HVU

  79. Pictures of London Protest. by Amphetam1ne · · Score: 1

    Happened to be in London yesterday and grabbed a few shots of the protest. http://gallery.amphetamine.org.uk/v/Scientology+Protest_+London+2008-03-15/

    --
    I only buy pepper spray that's been tested on anti-vivisectionists.
  80. clipboard, i hate you by thegnu · · Score: 1

    I didn't mean to quote someone else, by the way.

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.