Slashdot Mirror


Scientology Attacker Will Be Sentenced To Jail

OBG writes "A Nebraska native charged with taking part in a massive cyber-attack against the Scientology website will be spending the next year behind bars. 20-year-old Brian Thomas Mettenbrink will plead guilty to the charge of unauthorized access of a protected computer for his involvement in the denial of service attack, which was orchestrated by the online group 'Anonymous.' Mettenbrink's is the second successful prosecution connected to the 'Anonymous' attacks. Last year, Dmitriy Guzner of Verona, New Jersey, was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison for attacks on Scientology sites."

77 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. We are Anonymous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We are Anonymous Cowards, all your base are belong to us.

    1. Re:We are Anonymous. by dintech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not so Anonymous now by the looks of things...

    2. Re:We are Anonymous. by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is because strong anonymity works best when keeping a low profile. Disruptive actions tend to leave a wide trail.

      Wise Beard Man was right: The consequences of using illegal means in this conflict will eventually outweigh the benefit.

      (Still, jail seems kind of disproportionate. Scientology has engaged in worse online censorship-fraud without even being fined.)

    3. Re:We are Anonymous. by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (Still, jail seems kind of disproportionate. Scientology has engaged in worse online censorship-fraud without even being fined.)

      Scientology has enormous amounts of money to ensure this remains the case.

    4. Re:We are Anonymous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing the idea behind Anonymous.
      We are not Anonymous because we hide our names.
      We are Anonymous because our names mean nothing.
      We are disillusioned mundane people who are nothing and mean nothing.
      We are something only as a Legion.
      We are fans of Fight Club, but without illusions, a leader or a purpose. And with more malice.
      We are tired with the system, and break it when and where we can.
      Our only powers are numbers, variety and unpredictability.
      Losing one or two of us means nothing.

      They try to give a name to the threat, by providing the name of one of the people behind the Anonymous. That's like trying to fight avalanche by removing two rocks from it and giving them names.

    5. Re:We are Anonymous. by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Proxy? What proxy? I can buy a 3G modem of reliably dubious origin for $20 1. Change my browser agent to Red Dragon 2. Visit ****http://www.scientology.org**** 3. Repeat step 2. until knowledge and wisdom acquired (or wget if busy). 4. Setup "Chinese Democracy/Cheap Tibet" Facebook account 5. Decorate site (sic) with hotmail addresses of scientology senior members (big supporters of free speech and progress) 6. Invite scientology members to be my facebook friends 7. Post my Backstreet Boys and Boy George album torrents on Piratebay 8. dyndns, urlshortening services (route traffic to ****http://www.scientology.org****) 9. post a few badly worded (easily misinterpreted) posts on usenet (generate traffic) 10. Bored already (and I'm not even smart)

    6. Re:We are Anonymous. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (Still, jail seems kind of disproportionate. Scientology has engaged in worse online censorship-fraud without even being fined.)

      So if I murder Tony Soprano I should be punished less than if I murder your wife?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:We are Anonymous. by Chicken04GTO · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, that's very poetic and all deep and shit. Tell me, oh nameless one, those two rocks who got stuck in jail...how do they feel about being nameless and being referred to as nothing? I think they'd disagree. You are only anonymous until you really piss someone off enough to come after you, then you are an individual hung out to dry.

    8. Re:We are Anonymous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes.

    9. Re:We are Anonymous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What do I care?
      The chance it will be me next time is infinitesimal.
      I know the risk and take it with full awareness. So did they.
      And if they come for me after all, I won't cry to Anonymous for help, because I know it won't come. None of us means a thing, and if you think otherwise you are deluding yourself.

    10. Re:We are Anonymous. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The attacks on Scientology are admirable, and have shown that there's at least one way to get under the Scientologist's skin.

      But I think this might be the only value of Anonymous. Other organizations aren't so shaken by distributed attacks of this form, or those that are, have more harsh penalties. Scientology is different. They're evil, big and worldwide. They have secrets and a reputation built on secrets. They also operate within the rules of society. So while attacks like this will work on Scientology, or maybe other religious organizations, it'll fail mizerably if you target, say, the Hell's Angels.

      The success has has increased the profile of the Anonymous concept so much that every 15 year old kid is secretly a "member" of sorts. The end result is that the membership is so corrupt with noobs that it couldn't do it again. So maybe not only are these kinds of organizations anonymous by nature, but one-time-use.

    11. Re:We are Anonymous. by Bragador · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you kill Hitler you should be punished as much as if you kill your wife?

      See how it goes? That's why we have judges so that they can decide how hard a person should be punished.

    12. Re:We are Anonymous. by Bragador · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe my example didn't inspire you enough. My other choice was to give the example of someone stealing to feed his family vs someone stealing for greed.

      Motive is important when deciding the punishment. At least, it is in my country.

    13. Re:We are Anonymous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      His name was Robert Poulsen.

    14. Re:We are Anonymous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is no king so how could anyone be a pawn?
      If you are a deluded idiot, you are a self-deluded idiot.
      If you are cannon fodder you chose that role by yourself.

      Just because you share a common goal doesn't entitle anyone to give a shit about you.

    15. Re:We are Anonymous. by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Funny

      So if I murder Tony Soprano I should be punished less than if I murder your wife?

      As Tony Soprano is a fictional character, then yes.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:We are Anonymous. by testadicazzo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's not a question of beliefs. If Scientologists were harmless crackpots running around telling people that lord Xenu is behind everyone's problems, then attacking them would be pretty reprehensible. But Scientologists are a harmful, scary cult, invented by a con artist, that teaches people they don't need doctors, they don't need psychotherapy, they just need to give the church of scientology assloads of money and they'll be healthy, happy, and will live forever, for example with the case of Lisa Mcpherson, or with the case of Lindia Waliki , and others.

      Because the church of scientology is enormously wealthy, and has a lot of rich and powerful members, they successfully censor and defame Scientology critics over and over. The Church of Scientology has been subject of credible accusation of human trafficking, and has harassed critics of the church (see "Operation Freakout"). It has infiltrated government agencies (see operation snow white) for which several scientologists, including hubbards wife were conficted. Scientologists consider enemies of the church to be "fair game", by which they mean that attacks on opponents of the church fall outside Scientology ethics. For example, in "Penalties for Lower Conditions", Hubbard states that opponents who are "fair game" may be "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.". Some months later Hubbard recinded this policy saying: "The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This [policy letter] does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.". Read the language carefully...

      The church actively, aggressively, and very successfully courts celebrities, which gives the church a veneer of legitimacy, and successfully spreads their word. A non-violent, extra-legal attack like that by Anonymous can be seen as an act of civil disobedience, in which a large group of relatively poor and powerless (compared to the COS) individuals break laws in order to strike back at a more powerful institution which is enormously harmful. Presumably the main purpose of the attack is generating interest in the evils of Scientology, i.e. using extralegal means to combat their giant, well funded propaganda machine. Considering the well-document, harmful nature of the COS, I would assume that this is the reasoning of Dr. Evil.

    17. Re:We are Anonymous. by joebok · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?

      Fat Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?

      Bart: No.

      Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?

      Bart: Uh uh.

      Fat Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?

      Bart: I guess that's okay.

      Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?

      Bart: Hell, no!

  2. Justice by nawitus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, if you beat up somebody, you'll probably get less jail time than refreshing a website several times using a script?

    1. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      SciFag Inc. does NOT have millions of brain dead slaves.
      Actual data suggests a mass exodus of customers (thanks to Anonymous) and they have now between 50k and 200k idiotic followers. Worldwide.

    2. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But if you're affecting millions of people, then yes.

      Stop Scientology lies. There aren't a million in the cult world-wide.

    3. Re:Justice by delinear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just like you would get a "little bit" longer sentence if you beat up millions of people.

      You'd get some badass bragging rights, though.

    4. Re:Justice by erroneous · · Score: 3, Funny

      [meme]
      Only one man has ever literally beaten up millions of people.

      And the jail has never been built that could hold Chuck Norris.
      [/meme]

      --
      erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
    5. Re:Justice by shilly · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given their well-known homophobia, you could have chosen a slightly more appropriate insulting name...

    6. Re:Justice by geegel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Huh? Last time I checked they had tremendous traffic going to their site.

      --
      right...
    7. Re:Justice by ildon · · Score: 4, Informative

      In 4chan terminology, "fag" is just a suffix that means "person" or "people".

    8. Re:Justice by mea37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the more annoying displays of bias is to desribe the act you think should be more severely punished as what it is, and then describe the act you think should be less severly punished in terms of a series of constituent actions. Bonus points for effectively lieing about what actions make up a DoS attack.

      A more apples-to-apples comparison would be "so if you tap someone on the back a few times, you'd probably get less jail time than refreshing a website a few times with a script".

      Also, punishments for assault and battery vary widely with circumstances, so I'm not sure you can say that you'd get a lesser sentence without being a lot more specific.

  3. gullibility test by chentiangemalc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Scientology Gullibility Test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IQQE04_TCM

  4. Heroes, not criminals. by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why do we bother traveling around the world to fight religious extremist terrorists when we can do it right in our own back yard? And then to put people in prison for it... Okay, I suppose Anonymous' activities probably caused some unintended network congestion outside their specific targets, but hey, I'll take "lag" over "DU syndrome".

    "Now, at home they'd hang me, here they'll give me a fucking medal, sir."

    1. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by nacturation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Scientologists aren't popular because their beliefs are corny or stupid, or because the "church" engages in fraudulent practices and is known to abuse members; that doesn't mean that individual Scientologists are religious extremists or bad people. Scientologists are just a popular group to hate right now.

      The fact that they do it under the guise of religion and get tax breaks and perks because of being a religion is what is offensive. I'd have no problem if they called themselves the L. Ron Hubbard science fiction fan club, but to do it while not paying taxes and while enjoying protected status as a religion makes no sense.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by xtracto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it should be wise to separate Scientologists in two kinds. The first are the "officers" of the "church", akin to the priest in catholic religion.

      IMHO, those are the ones who are engaging in fraudulent and misleading activities. The second type are the "followers"; my belief is that this is desperate and naïve people whose despair has gotten to the point that they choose to approach to this scamming community.

      The problem is that the CultoS are so good at what they do that people really follow their orders of "not seeing your family forever!!" and other stupid orders.

      Is like the "Flagellants" Christian groups who think hurting yourself is going to help you improve your image against God. Officers who promote this are assholes, followers who put their trust in the officers are naïve, weak and need help.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't forget they try to get YOUR tax dollars to pay for recruitment through Narconon and Criminon and even broke into the IRS and wiretapped the place, so as far as I'm concerned they are RICO bait and deserve to be treated no better than any other criminal organization.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Scientologists "terrorists" at the very least.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

      terrorism/trrzm/
      1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
      2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
      3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

      scientology has used violence in the past and openly threatens and intimidates both members and critics into silence.
      "Religious extremist terrorists" is pretty close, although the "religious" part is legally incorrect in some countries.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keeping in mind that Scientology's attack is based on instilling fear in their victims, why do you consider calling them "terrorists" a stretch? Scientology isn't just unpopular, they're criminals. Their "religion" is a tax evasion scheme for rich members and Scientology preys on the weak and gullible with a classic scare tactic where the cure is always just one more (costly) step away.

    6. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by Fizzl · · Score: 2, Funny

      RAMIREZ, TAKE DOWN ASSTHETANS WITH YOUR KNIFE

      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like whimpering Lorem ipsum dolor foofaa

    7. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by Mikkeles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do the phrases "hellfire and brimstone" and "eternal damnation" ring a bell?

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    8. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by The+Creator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that they do it under the guise of religion and get tax breaks and perks because of being a religion is what is offensive.

      Of course any law that gives religious organisations tax breaks is offensive on it's own. Organisations should simply be taxed on profits -
      regardless of their motives.

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    9. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by ultranova · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Scientologists "terrorists" at the very least.

      No it isn't.

      More importantly, though, if you justify acts of violence by saying "oh, they're extremists" or "oh, nobody likes them," then perhaps next time you'll be in the group that gets acted out against.

      Violence? We're talking about making a website not load here. It's scientology that practices violence.

      Scientologists aren't popular because their beliefs are corny or stupid, or because the "church" engages in fraudulent practices and is known to abuse members; that doesn't mean that individual Scientologists are religious extremists or bad people any more than the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim means that all Muslims are terrible people. Scientologists are just a popular group to hate right now.

      Scientologists are a popular group to hate because they constantly engage in activities that are undeniably evil. The comparison to Islam is deceptive; scientology is a single organization, while Islam is not. Not every muslim answers to Osama bin Laden, while every scientologist answers to David Miscavige.

      --

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

    10. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could you please not refer to those nuts as fags? The majority of gay people are not very found of religious fanaticism and we'd rather not be lumped together with the Scientology bullshit.

    11. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fag n. 1. An extremely annoying, inconsiderate
      person most commonly associated with Harley riders.
      2. A person who owns or frequently rides a Harley.

    12. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am the poster of the message you are referring to and I am lesbian myself. Don't worry. It's not meant to be an insult to LGBTIQ persons. Within Anonymous, everything and everyone is a "fag" at times. It's a meme.

    13. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do the phrases "hellfire and brimstone" and "eternal damnation" ring a bell?

      Only when I think of the Southern Baptist and extremism churches I have visited. Not all churches or sects use fear and terror to spread a message or control their constituency. In fact, some of the more popular churches I have been to used a more, 'Brave New World,' method to keep their constituency faithful. By preaching love and happiness and flowers and feely-goody candy they shoot their followers full of addictive endorphins every Sunday and have, thus, convinced a large swath of people that they have been touched by God's hand and should spread his message with bias.

      Of course, those are the other extremes. Something that I think a lot of slashdotters fail to take into account regaridng modern religion (especially the major three Abrahamic religions) is that the mass majority of churches (Christian churches at least) and their followers do not fall into the typical, 'wide-eyed, irrational, holy rolling, evolution hating, close minded idiot' stereotype that is so fun to group the Jesus freaks into. In fact, most of the churches I attended while growing up and surveying throughout high school and college had a pretty consistent, reasonable routine to them:

      1) "Good Morning."
      2) Play some fun music and sing and dance (kind of weird unless, you know, you pay attention to the activities of most folk in the shower).
      3) Preacher says, "Don't be a dick this week. Perhaps you should apologize if you were a dick last week."
      4) More music.
      5) The end (usually accompanied by donuts or other goodies).

      That's really it. I am not saying that religious zealotry is not a problem...it really is. However, I think it is disingenuous to paint the mass majority of religious folk, at least in the United States, as a bunch of unreasonable nut job terrorists. When it comes down to it, I think Christianity and Islam and Judaism's original laws were drafted from the essential doctrines of, "Don't be a dick," and, "Don't be a dumbass." Unfortunately, the relative common sense place of these laws at the time they evolved (~2,000 years ago) caused widespread adoption, even by some political institutions (The Roman Catholic Church), and were, thus, corrupted over time by the promise of power and elitism.

      It's a sad evolution to be sure, and trying to maintain a 2,000 year old doctrine without evolving it to modern society's needs (as in, science, homosexuality, etc.) is foolish. However, I think that tragedy comes more from a few corrupt and douchey individuals at the top, than some widespread terrorist conspiracy to keep the, 'sheeple' in line while making a grab for power.

      But, as always, feel free to disagree.

    14. Re:Heroes, not criminals. by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You should watch more Scientology documentaries. Its members are consistently under the delusion that they are being criticized or attacked (even before Anonymous) by "criminals".

      In their delusion, Scientology censorships are just their ways of fighting criminals to protect their "religious freedom".

      Just like how Islamic Fundamentalists (Taliban) abuse their freedoms of social control and power to take a way social freedoms of the societies they oppress.

      Terrorists or freedom fighters both have a tendency to take away freedoms.

      In that regard, Scientology is no different than any other terrorist organization.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  5. An by rarez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As the one's who stood up for us all.
    The one's we can tell our children about.
    The good guys not the bad guys.
    They are victims and Scientology is and always will be a cult and more to the point. If Anonymous always needs to hide they're faces it's quite obvious they have reason to be frightened.

    Lest we forget the one's who take them on they are our neighbours, our friends maybe even your family.
    Keep up the work guys and gals!

    --
    The grass isn't always greener on the other side. Take the time to water your own grass and it can be just as green.
    1. Re:An by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's not a good guy. He's ruining other people's properties to achieve a political purpose.

      The people running www.xenu.net, which documents the cult's criminal behavior in candid detail, or who published "The Scandal of Scientology" or "A Piece of Blue Sky", now _they_ are good guys.

  6. Seriously? by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    inb4 should have been behind over 9000 proxies.

    As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.

    The State and Capital depend on religion to keep people focused on social wedge issues so they don't question the fundamental power structures of our society. Poor Americans vote for tax cuts for the rich, ecological policies that will make the world unlivable for future generations, and imperialistic wars, all because the candidates supporting such insanity also pander to "faith" by attacking science and LGBTQ folk. Unfortunately, the most victimized sectors of the working class are also the most exploited by religion. Each generation passes the meme on to the next. We can only end this vicious cycle of enforced irrationality by attacking the source.

    No Gods!
    No Masters!

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    1. Re:Seriously? by Extremus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.

      Dangerous phrase.

    2. Re:Seriously? by jandersen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions

      Ah, well, that is where it gets problematic, isn't it? There is no universal, objective standard for "good ethics", and in extreme cases we have people such as the terrorists of all denominations, who feel they have the ethical right to kill innocent bystanders "for a higher truth". Evil is evil, even if you use the excuse of a good cause.

      Of course I understand the sentiment - it is galling to see a large organization like Scientology, that is considered a criminal organization in many countries, get any sort of victory, however small. But we are only as good as our deeds; and a crime is still crime, even if it is committed against criminals. This is the price you pay for being good.

      And anyway - criminals like Scientology are always going to win if you play by their rules and fight them with their own dirty methods; they have much more experience in that game.

    3. Re:Seriously? by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      O I admit it's a dangerous idea. I just think it's worth the price. I believe that our freedom and survival as a species depends on doing away with irrational faith and building an educated participatory society. When you seriously start challenging hierarchy, you can expect the powerful to react. Let's specifically look at historical precedents for throwing off the yoke of reactionary religion. The democratic Spanish constitution enacted in 1931 established complete separation of Church and State in what had been a theocratic monarchy for centuries. It excluded the Church from education. This was one of the major reasons for the rise of Franco's fascism. In the first weeks of the Spanish Civil War, the fascists slaughtered teachers from the secular schools (as similar right wing forces had done to Francisco Ferrer, founder of the anti-authoritarian and anti-clerical modern schools decades earlier).

      We need to be prepared for these kinds of reactionary forces if we are serious about liberating ourselves. There is a lot of violence hidden behind modern respectability. Tacit threats. Our current complacency exists because we are afraid to act and are unprepared for the consequences. Get the fuck ready. Organize.

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    4. Re:Seriously? by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since you're trying to oppress (even if legal and morally right) someone, I as an "ethical person" have the RIGHT to use force on you? What's the criteria?

      I don't propose oppressing anyone. I propose giving young people the right to free association. This means taking away the parent's right the keep youth as chattel. Adults should not be able to have title (custody) of other human beings, if such title gives them to right to indoctrinate and censor. So...when young people come together to learn (as they inevitably will...youth are extremely curious as long as church and school don't kill it), they do so under a free environment. Parents should not be able to impose compulsory church, and the state should not be able to impose compulsory schooling. Learning should be free, voluntary, and open.

      As to the larger question of when to use force...that's really quite easy in theory. You can deliberately cause harm as long as the harm you cause is less than the harm you are preventing by employing such force. Easy in theory, not so easy to work out in practice...but hey, that's the problem of civilization.

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    5. Re:Seriously? by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      However irrational religions are, they serve also usefull purposes.
      Useful for the elite.

      If the shift would be to[sic] rapid, you'll get chaos and the world reverting quickly to a state worse than before the shift.
      You're on slashdot and you don't see how self organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid, can work? Hierarchy and exploitation are chaos. Democracy and freedom could give us more peace and order.

      the gods are...completelly real...as constructs which proved hugely beneficial during our evolution; they wouldn't be so prevalent otherwise.
      Once again, beneficial to those in charge, not the rest of us. Pie in the sky when you die; That's a lie!

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    6. Re:Seriously? by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While the messenger to which you're replying is ineed, hm, "overboard passionate", your critique of some of his points isn't as solid as you might think...

      Taking it...no, not to the absurd at all, explain to me why we have laws against child labour. How do they harm the family? Or, other way around, why people are so obsessed with dismissing sexuality of their teen children?

      "Right" of parents to do things is not an absolute. You ned to find better argument than that.

      Religion with which you are likely most familiar with does actually much more rightous thing than not proposing tax cuts for the rich - it promotes, as one of its basic virtues, disregard of material wealth. Which is of course completelly ignored by most of its adherents. There's importatnt lesson here - what religion claims and what it actually does, promotes are two different things. That it accepts generous, relatively speaking, donations from the rich and doesn't condemn them does ring a bell...

      And Catholics promote spread of HIV by disregarding scientific evidence that "abstinence sex ed" is not effective. Heck, you even have priests advising against proved effective measures. Yes, that's "only one thing", right now (Vatican seems to be reconsidering its position regarding condoms)...but acceptance of science generally evolves over time to avoid having religion in a position of ridicule and contempt.

      I do hope and expect that more and more people will find other means to fill that existencial void (though, ironically, that requires IMHO being actually more convinced in the continuation of your being after you cease to exist, more than in the case of most "faithful")...and hey, we might even help with that.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:Seriously? by EatHam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.

      Ethical people generally are not hyperbolic idiots or religious or anti-religious fanatics, therefore do not assert a right to use force to influence people's religious beliefs.

    8. Re:Seriously? by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, taking it to the absurd
      Exactly. Your slippery slope shit is fallacious.

      group who think that lima beans are a threat to the world.....using violence against lima bean growers
      Lima beans are not a threat to our existence as a species. They are actually pretty good for your health. Apocalyptic, dogmatic, irrational faith is a major threat in a age of WMDs. It is also a barrier to having a participatory democratic society. If everyday people are going to make important social decisions, they need to not be totally fucking ignorant and crazy.

      ...the state gets involved...
      I don't support the existence of the state. The state is a monopoly on the use of force. The use of force depends on the ethics of situation. It should never be reserved to a particular institution to use as they please.

      Um, so which religions teach tax cuts for the rich?
      Actually there are Evangelical Christian churches that preach that kinda "cross of gold" bullshit. But...that wasn't my point. My point is that by focusing on homophobia and etc bigotries, the churches have gotten the working class to ignore their class interest and support a candidate simply for having conservative social values.

      ...Catholics...
      Catholics in the USA tend to ignore the bigotry that exists in the church and vote their economic interest. There are even left wing members of the clergy. But the USA is mostly protestant, not Catholic.

      Social contract theory
      I never was given the option to sign any social contract! I doubt most people would choose the organized oppressive violence of the state, the exploitation of capitalism, and the lies of religion if given a choice. Most people would choose anarchy: peace, freedom, self organization.

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    9. Re:Seriously? by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People can believe whatever they want. But face it, few freely choose their religion. Most just go about beliveing whatever their parents foisted on them.

      We need to acknowledge that we live in a society. We no longer live in hunter gatherer tribes. Two parents are not longer sufficient to raise a child. It take a whole society. Whatever material and ideas that the parents give to their offspring, they got from the larger group. Whether we like it or not, child rearing is already a part of mass society. We need to stop allowing parents to use the violence of restricting necessities (affection, food, shelter) to indoctrinate youth into religion. Young people are given the choice: have faith in some crazy shit, or give up your whole support system. We need enough public social support for youth (food, personal care and relationships, shelter, education, etc) in order that they be free to disobey their crazy parents.

      Then we will see quite the revolution!

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
  7. Re:Terrorists by GrubLord · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know that it's such a stretch to call them terrorists, really.

    As I understand it, Scientologists use scare tactics to convince people that they are infected with ancient alien souls which are causing health complaints, and then take advantage of their victims' vulnerable (and gullible?) state to extort money.

    That qualifies as terrorism in my book.

  8. Re:everyone click on this link: by MasterPatricko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    *whoooosh*

    Sadly, the mad hordes of slashdot are not the force they once were - the only sites that get /.'ed these days are people hosting stuff off their home computers.

    --
    I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
  9. Why exactly did Anonymous do this? by ddxexex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone here on /. knows Scientology is evil. But why did Anonymous do something stupid with a denial of service attack? Now the Scientologists can say Anonymous is a terrorist organization, get rid of all its critics using the PATRIOT act and get some good PR too. The only way Scientology will be defeated is if there is some major internal schism or everyone realizes they're not the nicest religion out there.

    1. Re:Why exactly did Anonymous do this? by kshade · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only thing that needs to happen IMO is the police/the feds raiding "gold base" to free the slaves. After that they should be declared a criminal organization.

    2. Re:Why exactly did Anonymous do this? by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Now the Scientologists can say Anonymous is a terrorist organization

      Oh, yes... they can smear the reputation of Anonymous. I think the phrase someone once coined for that was 'pissing into an ocean of piss'.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  10. unauthorized access of a protected computer by florescent_beige · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In some ways you can think of a person's brain as a computer.

    When can we expect Scientology types to go to jail for fucking with peoples' heads?

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    1. Re:unauthorized access of a protected computer by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In some ways you can think of a person's brain as a computer.

      Think about a banana

      Did I just have illegal access to a computer system?

  11. Re:Terrorists by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As I understand it, Scientologists use scare tactics to convince people that they are infected with ancient alien souls which are causing health complaints, and then take advantage of their victims' vulnerable (and gullible?) state to extort money.

    That qualifies as terrorism in my book.

    Really? Most reasonable people would refer to these practices as "conning", "hustling" or maybe "extortion".

    Can we save the moniker terrorism for when people arbitrarily gun down/gas/bomb innocent bystanders please?

    And to put things in perspective, Scientologists claim you have an alien inside you causing health problems. Christians claim you're going to burn in the fiery pits of hell for eternity. Creepy cunning cult? Yes. Terruhrists? Nah, not really.

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  12. How do you define a religion? by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Informative

    To me its just a bunch of gullible people believing some texts that have little if any supporting evidence (and in many cases evidence against).

    So scientology is a crock. You think the abrahamic religions which believe in a magic garden with a talking snake and a man made out of clay and a woman made out of a rib make any more logical sense??

    All religion is rubbish , it just depends how many people believe the rubbish which defines whether a particular belief system is classed as a religion or a wacky cult (which ironically all religions started out as).

    1. Re:How do you define a religion? by pla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So scientology is a crock. You think the abrahamic religions which believe in a magic garden with a talking snake and a man made out of clay and a woman made out of a rib make any more logical sense??

      The Abrahamic religions at least have the defense that they didn't know any better back then, then glossing over the utterly absurd foundations of their religion with some fluff about moral lessons.

      Scientologists know, in their founder's own words, that they follow a religion written as a work of sci-fi on a bet that he could create a (somewhat) successful religion. Their "morality" consists of nothing more than "make money and give it to us, oh and destroy our critics by any means necessary".


      Not to call the former any more valid than the latter; but when I decided I could no longer believe in my familial religion, no one systematically blackmailed my boss at every job I've ever held to get me fired and make me generally unemployable.

    2. Re:How do you define a religion? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      There is a reason the "big three", hinduism and Bhuddism have lasted so long.

      Is it because they were founded a long time ago?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Has anyone jailed the pope yet? by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After all, the catholic church is probably responsible for more misery in africa due to its attitude to contraception than any other single institution.

    All religions fuck with gullible and/or insecure peoples heads. How is scientology different?

    1. Re:Has anyone jailed the pope yet? by fiendie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think most higher-ups in the catholic church at least believe in their own crap, I'll give 'em that.

      Scientology seems to be more of a concerted effort to extort money from gullible people.

    2. Re:Has anyone jailed the pope yet? by Rycross · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, the pope also decrees that sex outside of marriage is also a sin, so obviously they're not really following the teachings of the pope, are they? Seems to me that if you have no issue having sex, then you shouldn't have issues wearing a condom. I'm inclined to doubt the prevailing wisdom that Catholics, and the pope, are responsible for the AIDs epidemic in Africa.

      Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic, so don't take this as promotion of organized religion. I just don't like scape-goating.

    3. Re:Has anyone jailed the pope yet? by Conchobair · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't know Catholics very well. Let's talk facts then.

      In Catholicism, having sex for ANY reasons other than creating a child is a sin. That is why they are not supposed to use condoms. In a fully Catholic ordained sexual situation it ONLY can be sex between a married couple who are were both virgins before getting married and doing the dirty with the intent of creating a child. Most likley this does not account for the cases where AIDs is spread, unless they recieved AIDs from a non-sexual way to begin with, which would not have been prevented by condom use.

      That said most Catholics don't follow the rules very close including the one about condom use. In addition Cathoilics account for less than 50% of African Christans and less and 17% of the overall population, so I don't think the Pope can be held responsible for the AIDs epidemic by any reasonable means.

  14. Yet again... by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet again, in the USA the more money buys the "better justice".

    And the Co$ has gobs of money.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  15. Re:movies... by Lillebo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    [citation needed]

  16. Unfair? by therufus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, if I start a cult and force my members to kill people I see as a threat I'm absolved of punishment. But if I make your computer system go haywire for 10 minutes, I'm sentenced to jail time?

    Well, [sarcasm]I can see how that's fair![/sarcasm]

    --
    You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
  17. Stupid by Errtu76 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't agree with Scientology at all, but if you('re stupid enough to) get caught DoS'ing their site you deserve to go to jail.

  18. OT-VII William "Rex" Fowler Murders Software Dev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To pre-emptively counter the usual no-worse-than-Catholicism thought-terminating cliche, here is a very fresh anecdote about an OT-VII from a WISE software development house. Dude uncovered a pattern of embezzlement where his boss sent several $200,000 - $250,000 payments to CoS. Boss set dude up with the promise of a check and capped him on his son's birthday. There is a mystery briefcase, too. It may contain Marcellus' soul.

    http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/1st-degree-murder-rev-william-rex-fowler-scientology-minister-charged-60161/

    Adams Co. business owner thought to be victim now charged in death of former co-worker

    The owner of an Adams County software company has been arrested and charged with the murder of his former business partner.

    William Rex Fowler was charged with first-degree murder in the Dec. 30 shooting at Fowler Software Design that killed Tommy Ciancio, 42, the Adams County district attorney and sheriff said today in a news release.

    (...)
    Employees of the software company, which reportedly had suffered financial difficulties since 2008, related in part to the transfer of as much as $200,000 to a church or charity by Fowler, told investigators that Ciancio arrived around 10 a.m. Dec. 30 to collect his check.

    (...)
    Investigators say the gun was registered to Andrew Hyung Fowler, 26, who lived at 1413 L. Ron Hubbard Way in Los Angeles, when it was purchased. In interviews with police, Andrew Fowler said he gave the gun to his father for Christmas in 2007.

    Police also found a briefcase and a typed note, dated Dec. 30 and signed by Fowler, that advised there was nothing confidential in the satchel and that it should be given to his wife, Janet.

    When Janet Fowler was interviewed by detectives, she told them she wanted the briefcase returned immediately.

    "It is important to me and my church. It is religious material and I want it now," she said to investigators. "Even if you looked at it, and read it, you would not understand anything in it. Because it is way above a normal person and you would not know what it meant. I want it back right now."

    Janet Fowler also reportedly told investigators that her husband "is a Scientologist and would not have gone without a fight. He would have grabbed a gun in a struggle and would not have let someone shoot him."

    She also told investigators that Ciancio had sent e-mails to Rex Fowler, threatening to hire an attorney and sue over money he said was owed him.

    Adams County officials said Fowler is in custody, but would not say where he is being held. He was last at Denver Health Medical Center, but his name no longer appears on patient rosters.

  19. In the slammer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Inmate: What're you in for?
    Guy: I beat up millions of people.

    [and everyone edges away]

  20. Re:Wow, that got... by jbezorg · · Score: 3, Funny

    True but I think his point is that the identity of the victim can have a huge impact on motive, good and bad, and motive does have impact on the punishment of the crime.

    i.e. In retrospect, killing Hitler would be considered a good thing by many and the motive justifiable.

    It's an extreme, yes, but just because someone mentions Hitler it doesn't mean it's automatically reductio ad Hitlerum.

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull