Internet Group Declares War on Scientology 891
Darkman, Walkin Dude writes "An internet group calling itself Anonymous has declared war on the Church of Scientology, in the form of an ominous posting to the YouTube site. 'In the statement, the group explained their goal as safeguarding the right to freedom of speech. "A spokesperson said that the group's goals include bringing an end to the financial exploitation of Church members and protecting the right to free speech, a right which they claim was consistently violated by the Church of Scientology in pursuit of its opponents." The press release also claimed that the Church of Scientology misused copyright and trademark law in order to remove criticism from websites including Digg and YouTube. The statement goes on to assert that the attacks from the group "will continue until the Church of Scientology reacts, at which point they will change strategy".' It should be noted that Slashdot users have had interactions with Scientology in the past as well."
Ctrl+F "4chan" (Score:2, Informative)
War?? Riiiight (Score:2, Informative)
Anonymous? Really? (Score:4, Informative)
'Anonymous' is actually... (Score:4, Informative)
Really, this is a joke. Channers will raid/invade just about anything, and Scientology is just their latest target. This is the exact same group behind the 'hackers on steroids' thing that Fox News reported on. Any claims they have about righteousness are just a way to justify their 'lulz'.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
The story posted after the comment was removed had a full disclosure, included the text of that comment and had _lots_ of anti-Scientology links, including Operation Clambake [xenu.net]. That was the best Slashdot could do, considering the threat of legal action.
Re:Why not declare war on religion in general? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Scientology is pervasive (Score:3, Informative)
He stopped participating in the Landmark Forum shortly thereafter.
Re:'Anonymous' is actually... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I've been asked, "Have you ever met an SP?" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I've been asked, "Have you ever met an SP?" (Score:2, Informative)
From the cult of wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Person [wikipedia.org]
Re:Anonymous? (Score:3, Informative)
Warning : this is Fox News, some of your neurons may die.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
DC-8s, you mean. DC-10s existed only on paper when Hubbard wrote the tripe revered by the Scientologists as OT III.
Re:Anonymous? (Score:4, Informative)
No, it stems from the imageboard software used for 4chan (and its predecessors) having anonymous posting as the default state (and sometimes the only accepted state for posting). "Anonymous" as a sort of collective entity took that moniker and ran with it.
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Informative)
We can only look at their behavior recently.
I am in no way defending Christianity.
Here are some great Cult clues:
Do they want to separate you from your friends and family?
Do the harass?
Do they use 'deprivation' techniques ion recruits and/or memebers?
Is it personality based?
Do they punish people for questioning doctrine?
Do they dictate diet or eating schedule?
Do they believe they are above the law?
Do they believe they are a cure all?
Do they cost money or goods?
Do the 'sequester' people?
Just a few indicators, generally based on to degree. Example:
One could say the catholics dictate you eating schedule by dictating a wafer during mass and fish on Fridays.
I would say yes, that is an indicator but it's different then someone who tells you when to eat everyday and severely punished you if you slip.
I am an Atheist,and I recognize the difference between Cult and religion.
Re:'Anonymous' is actually... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's not a church (Score:2, Informative)
two quotes by Hubbard that say it all... (Score:5, Informative)
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. (1952)
Re:It's not a church (Score:3, Informative)
The most accurate definition in that list, in my opinion, is: "The word cult is a derogatory term used to express disapproval or those who hold beliefs other than one's own."
This is certainly the manner in which "cult" is used in the parent post.
Some other notes about the parent post:
A cult "Keeps true beliefs secret from recruits . . . "
I don't know much about Moonies, Scientology, or the Salvation Army, but I do know quite a bit about Mormonism. Here are my thoughts applying this to Mormonism, though I think it could easily apply to any other religious sect.
(1) People say, "you are Mormon--that means you believe [for example] 'Satan is Jesus' brother.'" But how can you say that person beleives that. All that means is that you heard that some Mormon taught that once somewhere, it means nothing for that individual's personal beleifs. You can't keep a person's true beliefs secret from that person. You can keep a religious leader's beliefs secret from his followers, but that doesn't mean those secret beliefs are the beliefs of his followers (secretly, somehow, without them even knowing it).
(2) Where do antagonists to Mormonism find these "secret" Mormon beliefs anyway? Who lets the secret out? Is it still a secret afterward? With regard to Mormonism, I can tell you where--people like to take stuff out of context from the Journal of Discourses. Then people say "did you know that you believe [fill in the blank with something weird]?" Whether or not I believe that "doctrine," it's hard to call the Journal of Discourses secret. It's out of copyright and freely available in full online. And if you want to find the juicy parts, just ask any anti-Mormon where to find them.
So, I disagree with the parent. I do have my own little definition for what I think of as a "cult." I try to be open-minded about what people may believe, and I get on peoples' cases when they speak badly of Judaism in general or Islam or whatever. However, I have a difficult time keeping my mind open to religions that require its members to close their minds. For example, if a religion requires that its followers not view media (newspapers, internet, TV news, etc.), or if learning about another religion (from outside sources) is viewed with disfavor, or if they discourage learning through normal routes (school, college), then I tend to believe that religion is afraid it will lose members to teachings more in line with that individual's beliefs if that person were allowed to look around--or in other words, forcing closed-mindedness implies that the closed religion is lacking something important and doesn't want its members to find out.
Mormonism doesn't fall into this category, but I really can't speak for those other groups because I don't know much about them.
Many religious books are copyrighted (Score:2, Informative)
This is not to prevent distribution though. It is to protect the integrity of the work.
The scholars who do these translations don't want someone taking their hard work, changing a few words here or there, and putting it out under a new label.
Imagine "The New International CowboyNeal Bible" where Exodus 20 started out
2 "I am the LORD your God CowboyNeal, who brought you out of the pre-computer age, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:1, Informative)
EBAUM'S DID IT
Yes! This is important!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's not a church (Score:3, Informative)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html [umich.edu]
http://www.ibs.org/niv/booklist.php [ibs.org]
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Informative)
That misinformation, as far as I know, comes from a misunderstanding of a passage in the Book of Mormon which describes a curse under which the Lamanites fell. The curse was losing the privilege to have the priesthood among them. The darker skin which they recieved at that point in time was simply a mark so the Nephites would be able to recognize them and avoid mixing with them (similar to the Jews being told not to intermarry with those of other faiths). Later, when the two peoples mixed freely, the curse (lack of priesthood) was removed, but the dark skin was not.
I am unaware of any official doctrinal "reason" that black people (i.e. from Africa) are black. It was, however, not confined to just blacks, but as far as I know, no non-white people was given the priesthood before 1978, and the priesthood was extended to all people at that time (see Official Declaration 2 [lds.org] for more information). It is also useful to note that the priesthood was limited to a select group of people for the entirety of the Old Testament (descendants of Levi and, more particularly, Aaron) and part of the New Testament. More information on this topic can be found here [jefflindsay.com].
It comes to mind that Bruce R. McConkie may have said something to the effect of what you claim we believe in his book "Mormon Doctrine", but that book is widely known to contain many inaccuracies.
As for plural marriage, please see Official Declaration 1 [lds.org] which provides a clear explanation of the reasons the Church renounced that practice. I should note that God is free to command his people, and free to rescind those commands - and this is not a belief unique to Mormons. I simplify, but Christians in general believe God rescinded the Mosaic Law when Christ replaced it with a higher law - effectively taking a law He had given and replacing it with another. To protect His restored church, He commanded that the practice of plural marriage cease, as described by Wilford Woodruff in Official Declaration 1, specifically in the excerpts from his address to the members of the church at the bottom of the page.
The idea of plural marriage is not unique to Mormons either. Many prophets of the Old Testament had multiple wives, and they were blessed by God for it (according to the Bible). Any who say God has never supported plural marriage have not read the Old Testament. The entire House of Israel - that is, the Jewish people - is descended from a man with four wives, Jacob (a.k.a. Israel). That means Jesus Himself is a descendant of a plural marriage. If God did not approve of plural marriage at all, at any time, it seems he would not have promised great blessings to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and then fulfilled them through the descendants of their multiple wives.
You are free to dislike other religions, and you are free to argue that their doctrines are invalid or stupid or whatever, but spreading false information about them is equivalent to Microsoft's FUD campaign against Linux.
Re:RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
One, a long list of neo-nazi organisations have been outlawed, scientology has not.
Two, where do you get your numbers? 2 mio is totally bonkers. A couple hundred thousand is what I'd guess, and I live here.
Three, both the government and the media talk about neo-nazis a lot more than about scientology.
Wherever you got your opinion, you should return it for a refund.
Re:The war (Score:5, Informative)
As a matter of fact, yes [wikipedia.org].
Re:NSFW (Score:3, Informative)
Scientology, convicted in court. (Score:5, Informative)
Operation Snow White [wikipedia.org]
Operation Freakout [wikipedia.org]
Re:Anonymous? (Score:2, Informative)
If you do a bit of research, you'll find that it's way, way, way, way, way, way, WAY too late for them to not screw up the lives of other people.
Re:The war (Score:3, Informative)
The parent is an obvious troll, but since the moderators are apparently taking a vacation...
Public schools are clearly a state issue, not a matter for the federal government. Personally, I'm against compulsory attendance, much less compulsory participation in activities with religious overtones such as you describe, but this is not something a U.S. President has any actual authority over. Talk to your state government if you're so upset.
You are drastically over-simplifying the issue. There are two issues here: (a) there are at least two people involved in an abortion, the mother and the child, and there remains significant debate over whether the mother's right to control her body should trump the child's right to live. I'm not going to state my position one way or the other, but Ron Paul is hardly the only pro-life/anti-abortion candidate.
To the best of my knowledge Ron Paul does not support a ban on stem-cell research, only on government funding of such research, which he (correctly) points out is not something the federal government is permitted to do under the Constitution. This applies to many research areas, not just stem cells, but since that's a hot topic it's all you hear about.
Here you're grasping at straws. Point out a real-world case of provider-specific throttling sufficient to justify effectively nationalizing the Internet infrastructure and someone might just care, although it probably won't be me.
Re:Anonymous? (Score:3, Informative)
Lisa McPherson, Noah Lottick, Brett Hanover, Keith Henson, Paulette Cooper, for starters.
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Informative)
An inside view of the Scientology reality tunnel (Score:5, Informative)
Within the Church of Scientology, you are taught that Scientology is the one and only solution to all mankind's problems, and during this narrow window of opportunity in mankind's history it is possible to "clear the planet" (ie give everybody auditing) and save humanity from itself. Most other goals pale in comparison and anything that detracts from Scientology, or its expansion is in essence a mortal sin against humanity. This belief is strong enough to get people sign up the Sea Organization [wikipedia.org] (LRH's private navy) on a billion year contract (ie you are in for the long haul... and not just this lifetime)
Anyone who attacks the church is either a suppressive person (2.5% of the population who are evil - think Hitler), PTS due to a connection to an SP (Potential Trouble Source - 20% of the population), or has committed various other overts and withholds (ie sins and secrets) and it trying to justify their own actions by making the Scientology seem less (because if you admitted to yourself that Scientology was the "one and only solution" then your otherwise small crime would have to weigh fairly heavily on your conscience). Anyone who commits various sins and suppressive acts, will be subconsciously aware of this, and slowly do themselves in (ie get sick, have an accident) to prevent themselves from committing more crimes.
It is also taught that if someone encounters the OT3 materials before being ready for them, then as part of the psychological conditioning to create "prison-planet" earth, the person may get sick and die and this is the reason it is considered "confidential" and heavily protected, and only available to members of the church past a certain level. In the south park episode "trapped in the closet" [comedycentral.com], they did a cartoon version of the OT3 materials labeled "This Is what Scientologists Actually Believe", if Matt and Trey has been members of the church, they would have been ex-communicated very quickly. The church would have almost definitely told Issac Hayes to "dissconnect" from them or otherwise become ineligible for any future Scientology services or auditing.
This "truth" or "reality tunnel" is slowly conditioned into you until you internalise it. There is a huge taboo against reading or discussing anything potentially negative or "entheta" against Scientology or the church, often the taboo will extend down to the point that you feel it is wrong to "think" about potentially negative things regarding Scientology. To do so would potentially detract from Scientology and is thus a mortal sin against humanity, or you might wind up making yourself sick. I know this, because I was brought up within the church, and through the process of leaving the church and the Scientology "reality tunnel", it took me around two years to fully confront this internal taboo to the point I could openly think and speak on the subject.
Part of the process for getting people into this state of mind, is that during Scientology auditing, if you have any undisclosed overts or withholds, or you have your attention stuck on something, the e-meter will pick up on this (that you have your attention stuck on something after you where asked a question - its the same principal behind the polygraph), Thus the auditor will be trained to uncover these issues, by continually asking questions on the subject, with the help of the e-meter, which may include turning part of the auditing session into a confessional. Auditing is essentially about being completely open and honest with yourself and your mind, and fully confronting (with the help of the auditor) any issues that where previously painful or unconscious about (this is actually the good bit about Scientology). Having out-ethics or keeping secrets is considered to be a barrier to your own spiritual growth.
Scientology is a concern (Score:1, Informative)
Re:More Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, so politicians can degrade the currency. You can look it up - the price level in the US from 1800 to 1912 fell by 50%. Then, they created the Federal Reserve system in 1913. Since then, the price level has gone up 2000%. And the people this hurts most are usually older people living on a fixed income.