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."
It's not a church (Score:5, Insightful)
I had dealings with them about 10 years ago. I ended up paying GBP30 for a course just to get out of the hard sell and even though I never did the course the often phoned and wrote letters of about 5 years after.
See the Operation Clambake pages for more details to their activities. http://www.xenu.net/ [xenu.net]
Cults are for idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The war (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy to start new religions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anonymous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not declare war on religion in general? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a church (Score:5, Insightful)
it did teach me a valuable lesson of telling anyone is the street trying sell anything is likely a con.
So you got your 30 pounds worth for sure.
Re:The war (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is to be expected. Anyone who actually supports individual freedom is sure to be popular among the unpopular and oppressed minority groups; they have the most interest at stake in protecting basic rights like free speech. Those who only hold and/or express popular opinions don't require such protection.
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Insightful)
To paraphrase The Cramps (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've been asked, "Have you ever met an SP?" (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry to ask a dumb question here...
It's a money machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a church (Score:1, Insightful)
cult (n): A small, unpopular religion.
religion (n): a large, popular cult.
Bzzzzzzt. Sorry, try again.
You may or may not like a religion, but a religion lays it's cards on the table. It doesn't have secret teachings that you need to join up and achieve some level of roped-in-ness before they will tell you what the secret teachings are. You ask the catholic church what it believes and it will gladly spell it out for you. "We believe in one god, the father
Agree or don't. It isn't a bait-and-switch.
Cults, on the other hand have different faces for prospective and new members vs. insiders. That's the whole point of Scientology trying to silence people. They don't want the prospective members to be able to see where it is all going until they are under church control.
Classic bait-and-switch.
Re:Trolls (Score:2, Insightful)
But it's so easy...
Effectual? Irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Our usual media sources can't report on allegations of abuse because they've been very effectively muzzled by CSI hyper-litigation. They try to keep this fact close to the vest, but Anonymous' efforts are making it plain for all to see. This is a valuable service.
Also, any organization that exploits copyright law in order to silence critics should get a kick in the shins, even if that's all it amounts to. It's still a potent message: "We don't condone gag orders, and we'll fight back however we can, even if it is a David versus Goliath situation."
Glib as it may sound, raising awareness is key here. And an end unto itself.
Yours,
Cheeseburger Brown
Suppressive and Proud
Re:The war (Score:3, Insightful)
Paul disavowed the writings in a response to the New Republic article, saying that the quotations do not represent his beliefs, and that he has "never uttered such words and denounce[s] such small-minded thoughts." He again noted that he accepts "moral responsibility" for not paying closer attention to writings published under his name.[116] In a subsequent interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, he said he did not know who wrote the articles and stated he "[repudiates] everything that is written along those lines." Blitzer told Paul that he was "shocked" by the newsletters, because they did not seem to reflect "the Ron Paul that I've come to know, and the viewers have come to know" over the course of several interviews during the campaign.[117] David Gergen, CNN senior political analyst, commented "I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that'."[117][118]
In the interview with Blitzer, Paul asserted that racism is incompatible with his beliefs and that he sees people as individuals--not as part of collectives. He also dismissed the attack as an attempt to accuse him of racism by proxy, claiming that he has collected more money among African-Americans than any other Republican candidate.[117] Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), defended Paul, saying that he has known him for 20 years, saw him as a "free thinker", "very intelligent and very informed", talking about "real issues" that "invite attacks on him", who was "correct in what he's saying", and that knowing his intent, he believes Paul has been misconstrued and taken out of context.[119] Former LA Times editor Andrew Malcolm noted that Paul got second place in the January 19 Nevada Republican caucus despite the recent reports about the newsletters.
Re:War?? Riiiight (Score:1, Insightful)
how moronic (Score:1, Insightful)
And they plan to accomplish this by suppressing the free speech that the Church of Scientology is entitled to?? How enlightened they are and what an embarrassment to people who REALLY fight for freedom.
Just because you don't agree with something, you don't have a right to suppress it. I hear sound bites all the time of Democrat politicians spouting this , but their actions are consistently in conflict with this message. Both parties are equally guilty of groupthink.
Suppressing Scientology is no different the the Chinese government suppressing and killing Christians. My guess is that this is a dry run and that Christianity is next on the list. Being an independent agnostic, I personally think there is no general difference between Scientology, Christianity, or Islam. I think it amusing how unabashedly anxious they are to suppress and/or conquer each other.
Definition of cult (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Help me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can not hide behind a religion or a cult and say it's our right, not when you hurt others or even you own members.
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Insightful)
The mainstream mormons are no more loony that your average catholic these days tho.
Re:It's not a church (Score:3, Insightful)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult [reference.com]
A cult -is- a religion, even the dictionary says so. It's on the 'connotations' that people have that make it any different than religion, and those vary according to who you talk to.
Also, you've neglected to mention the time when Christianity was also a 'cult' by your own definition. They read the bible in church in the original language, despite the fact that none of the lower members understood it. They definitely attacked all other beliefs, locked people up, used any possible means, etc.
Re:It's a money machine (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, not sure at all if that's true, never heard anything about it. But it seems likely to me. I give it 80/20.
Re:RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm no fan of Scientology or any other cult/religion. While they may prey on the weaker-minded, their followers do have an element of free will. This, in my mind, doesn't make then the number one priority in terms of protest -- especially where censorship is concerned. In fact, this is a distraction from true censorship issues, and some serious privacy abuses.
In the western world where privacy hangs by a thread, there are much more important things to deal with. The increasing Stalinism of the UK government or the abandonment of the Constitution of the USA are FAR, FAR, more important than greedy cults.
Note also, that the German government is much more concerned about dealing with the 20,000 or so Scientologists there, rather than the 2 million or so neo-Nazis.
Stop caring so much about religion, and start caring about what your government is up to -- before it is too late. Nothing else matters.
Re:It's not a church (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why not declare war on religion in general? (Score:2, Insightful)
$cientology isn't so bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Co$ gives me one more compelling reason to use "$" in a mocking fashion!
I also like to think of $cientology as a good example that illustrates the origins of religions. Whether you're talking about Christianity or Star Trek, it's just another example of a charismatic individual using his fantastic imagination to come up with an utterly baseless and bizarre explanation for the way things are. And then convincing the masses that he somehow knows what he's talking about, and deserves their money and allegiance for sharing the knowledge with them. All it takes is to follow the money to see what the real game is.
...Why did you pay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Either you can simply ignore them, or they're actually doing something illegal, and you can stop them.
I don't see why you felt the need to fund them.
Re:The war (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
That might work if the people who ran Scientology actually believed in their own garbage. I don't believe they do. I believe the whole organization is a money making scam.
-mcgrew
PS- yes I got the joke, I'm just in a bad mood today.
Suppresion (Score:1, Insightful)
They are trying to keep Scientology from suppressing critics.
BIG difference.
Re:It's not a church (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting words in other people's mouth is about the worst thing you can do in a debate/discussion. And adding "fixed that for you" adds a pathetic level of triteness on top of the dishonesty.
Re:The war (Score:2, Insightful)
Libertarians who love being told what to do and how to do it can't get enough of Ron Paul.
Re:More Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bigotry (Score:5, Insightful)
~S
Re:More Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, I vote, and I do value the Republic and freedom, I just happen to disagree with Ron Paul. For that "crime" I've been vilified by Ron Paul supporters (both online and local), called everything from a "sheep" to a "fascist".
Newsflash: Just because we don't embrace 100% of the libertarian platform doesn't mean that we don't believe in freedom. Ron Paul is doing us a favor by putting his ideas out there for the public debate but he has zero chance of winning the election. Blame the media for that all you want but at the end of the day one has to ask himself if the American people are really ready to embrace his ideas.
There was a reason why we got away from the gold standard and laissez-faire economics to begin with. I love him for his positions on civil liberties but the 19th century called -- they want their economic policy back.
Re:'Anonymous' is actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
Long boss fight (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The war (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Insightful)
Germany [snafu.de] has stated that "...the chief purpose of Scientology is not religious, but economical in nature...", which is probably the closest thing to consider. And don't forget that both Tom Cruise [scientology-lies.com] and John Travolta [scientology-lies.com] are members of that outfit. (I wouldn't even call it Cult...)
And the myth as it seems that there was a wager [everything2.com] between Heinlein [nitrosyncretic.com] and Hubbard [wikipedia.org] about starting a religion, it seems to be half-true. But I don't think that Heinlein ever planned on catching up on starting a religion... He would probably gotten himself into FSF [fsf.org] or some other outfit instead with his statement of "Pay it forward" [heinleinsociety.org] if he had been born at a later date. (Today it's more than 100 years since Heinlein was born, he was born 7 July 1907!)
Especially the "Pay it forward" approach is important. Even if you do someone a service and that person isn't able to return the favor you can always set the "pay it forward" approach to the problem.
Re:how moronic (Score:1, Insightful)
Except for that whole radical Islam movement where they kill you if you try to leave.
Re:Copyrighted religion (Score:1, Insightful)
This would take care of Scientology AND the RIAA and MPAA.
Re:RIAA.. Scientology or other's flyers in SF... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's one thing to find chewing gum wrappers and fast-food containers and such on the streets, but ideas peddled and then rejected are a CLEAR sign that some one or some organization is going beyond free-speech guarantees. With TV, one can change channels or turn off the TV, and there is no immediate or sighted pollution. Even the ad sponsors can't (without digital connections) determine who is switching off their ads or just ignoring them and instead multi-tasking during commercial breaks or going to the bathroom between programs.
What that coarse-throat preacher and his megaphone gets up on his Powell Street pulpit condemning gays, heretics, non-Christians and so on, he's blabbing and making noise (apparently, he's within ordinance as SFPD never takes him down, since his Mr. Megaphone is not amplified via a generator or exceeding some decibel level, I guess...), he is making noise pollution, but at least one can walk away.
Flyers dropped or abandoned mean the message contained is simply not wanted. The content doesn't matter, unless it's pron, I guess, in which case we generally DON'T want the stuff face-up for kids and sensitive/easily-offended types to see. I guess I'm just sick and tired of seeing religious/belief paraphernalia on the street because its CONTENT is utterly rejected by 90% of those into whose hands it was stuck or taken out of sympathy for the pushers of it.
Romney and one Mormon Point of View (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a Mormon, and while I appreciate the kind generalization, I definitely find him lacking on a number of fronts, including his ability to say anything inspiring during faith-related discussion or respond coherently to attacks on that front. There's also the fact that his about-face on several issues seem so conveniently timed it seems likely he's being phony... plus there's his endorsement of (and being endorsed in return by) Ann Coulter, plus the "double guantanamo" statement he made that, and in general a willingness to engage in a kind of republican political rhetoric that was never really high to begin with but is really, really starting to show its wear. Then there's the point that we've already elected a single-term governor from a family dynasty with political connections who has experience in business and managing a sports franchise, and that didn't really didn't work out so well, now, did it? All in all, I'd have to be pretty desperate to vote for him.
He does seem like he's probably a good Mormon, though.
Mormons, at least in my experience, tend to be shiny happy people that don't really bother anyone. Even the ex-Mormons I've met seem to have few bad things to say and if they do, you can't help but notice there's a certain lingering nostalgia in their eyes. That's not to say their beliefs aren't loony, but if members of cults were as benign as the typical Mormon, I wonder if anyone would notice, or care.
There's two things that I think make Mormons like this. One is that the religion itself is seen very much by its members as a serious spiritual practice as much as anything else -- its cosmological aspects are tied up in that, and it has sociopolitical implications, but it's not a cosmology or sociopolitical blueprint first (there are times in its history when that has been less true, especially the first 60 years, but that's another point). My experience suggests to me that people who have a faith that they take seriously as a spiritual practice tend to also be as you describe -- nice, happy shiny people. This isn't to say I don't think Mormonism has anything particular to distinguish itself, but I think this is the most important element. Having a serious spiritual practice of some kind is grounding and can inspire a real tranquility knowing you have a strong idea about your place in the world and working to play that part as well as you can. Combine it with basic rules of common decency and you get good people.
The other thing -- Mormons have long been different enough (and indeed, for some portion of their history, genuinely persecuted and hated) that they really, really want to be accepted and legitimized by mainstream society. There's also a religious desire to be a "light of the world", "city on a hill" (Matthew 5:14-16) in their communities. It adds up to a desire to excel and succeed that's probably a tad beyond the protestant work ethic, and I think when that combines with the basic decency and spiritual grounding, it does produce people that are respected in their communities.
This is, however, a generalization, and as an insider, I see this community of mine as far from perfect. In particular, I've seen a lot of that desire to be legitimized and excel turn to elitism, materialism, and a misplaced sense of destiny that can border on a naive entitlement (interesting considering there are specific and serious warnings about this hazard in Mormon canon). And the collapsed quasi-Mormon cosmology that passes for political philosophy in staunch Republican Utah can be really, seriously crazy. I say all this partly to acknowledge it's not all shiny happy people
Re:RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
[citation needed]
Re:More Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scientology is pervasive (Score:4, Insightful)
The interesting thing about Landmark, Scientology, and other cults is that a person's susceptibility to them has nothing to do with intelligence. Very smart people fall prey to them, too. The ability to resist is far more predicated on how emotionally stable you are. But if you're well-adjusted already, there's little chance you'd be interested in Landmark or Scientology in the first place. It's a rather self-selected group that Scientology and Landmark target; when people walk through their door they're pretty certain the person has some kind of issues or weak spots, and all they have to do is probe until they find them and the person breaks down. Then they pounce.
If your father is tangled up in Landmark, the worst thing you can do is to try to get them to stop or make them feel like you oppose what they're doing. That plays into the sense of alienation that cults try to create between their followers and their friends and families. In other words opposing what he's doing would accelerate his abandonment of his relationship with you.
The best thing to do is be loving and supportive without getting sucked in yourself. Try to be and remain his window on normalcy. Of the people that I've seen escape from Landmark and Scientology, it's because their friends and family stayed engaged and supportive. Eventually they realize how weird the group think is and also come to the conclusion that being a Scientologist or Landmark member hasn't solved their problems either. They grow disenchanted on their own.
Re:Why not declare war on religion in general? (Score:2, Insightful)
Scientiology is bad, but do you trully believe that the Christian Church of Rome is any better?
That borders on defending a newspeak using cult with newspeak...
Let's start by defining our words;
Scientology:Following beliefs and teachings as laid out by Ron Hubbard.
Christianity:Following beliefs and teachings as laid out by Jesus Christ.
From those definitions, Scientology comes out looking really ugly. On one side we have
love thy neighbour
and the other
ENEMY SP Order. 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.
Calling Christianity and scientology the same things is intellectually offensive unless you are somehow defining them differently than above.
do not downplay the threat of scientology (Score:3, Insightful)
this is the history of all religion
dismissing something intellectually does not make it vanish in real life
it is a potent threat to your freedom. all organized religion is
the group is stronger than the individual. no matter how strong the individual and his ideas, no matter how feeble and dysfunctional and idiotic the ideas and the members of the group
learn and understand this unfortunate aspect of reality
Heard of Prussian Blue? Ron has co-starred w/ 'em (Score:4, Insightful)
But let's permit Ron Paul to explain his views on Obama, who we all can see is clearly a BLACK PERSON.
"[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists--and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."
Chief, I understand your skepticism. After all, I accused a man of accepting donations from neo-nazis. That's so horrible it's tough to believe. Anyone who would accept support from nazis is totally unfit for anything good. I can't believe I almost forgot a link, since apparently this is first you've heard of it: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/ [cnn.com]
And I also accuse Ron of writing racist hate-speech, and lying about it. That's pretty damn extreme, as far as accusations go. Anyone who wrote the things I refer to is a monster, and any of Ron's supporters who would actually attempt to hide the truth, as this fucker does: http://revolusion2008.blogspot.com/2008/01/conscience-of-ron-paul-supporter.html [blogspot.com], is also a monster. Worse than most Scientologists, possibly. And anyone who knows about Lisa McPhereson knows that Scientologists are monsters too.
I'm a bit surprised that a slashdot reader is unaware of these well-worn, practically old facts. I don't watch TV news often or listen to talk radio, so maybe this stuff isn't as well known out there as it should be. I feel as though a demand to prove what is as obvious about Ron is akin to demanding proof of the moon landing or 9/11 being caused by terrorists. I don't think every assertion that slams a monster like Ron Paul must have citations. I'm just having a conversation, not building an indictment.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php [pajamasmedia.com] this is one expose that was pretty well written. The author was actually a fairly outspoken Ron Paul supporter. Gave him money, helped organize efforts, etc. But unlike some, this supporter stopped supporting Ron Paul when it became obvious Ron Paul is a monster. This is not someone who is biased against Ron Paul, this is someone who was biased in FAVOR of Ron Paul's presidential promises.
Some actually say Ron didn't write that stuff. But Ron's bank account paid for the publishing, and Ron signed the checks. Could a normal sane person pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to print racist stuff signed in the sane person's name? Also, why don't you actually read the newsletter: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pdf/RonPaul-december1990.pdf [littlegreenfootballs.com]
The author of the hate literature seems to believe he is married to Ron Paul's wife and grandparent to Ron Paul's grandkids and represents Texas's 14th congressional district (Paul's district). That's not hard to explain, because Ron Paul is the author of this newsletter and all the others that say:
"The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics."
"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained
Re:Poe's Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Claiming that getting rid of these spirits make you a god, and you can get rid of them with a badly designed lie detector called an "e-meter" and having all your confessions of crimes and bad thoughts recorded and sent to the cult headquarters, and paying to have that done? Now, that's silly.
... unless you try to leave (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RIAA.. Scientology or other's flyers in SF... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An inside view of the Scientology reality tunne (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm tired.
Re:More Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the Democrats and Republicans both pass laws written by various corporate interests and vote for massive corporate welfare. So our current situation with either/both of those parties in power is one where the government uses it's large amount of power to rob me to give handouts to various already profitable multinational corporations and pass laws to fuck me at the behest and to the benefit of said multinationals.
Now occasionally, Congress passes laws they claim are designed to reign in the abuses committed by these corps, but they don't really work out that way.
So even if the Libertarian boogie man were completely accurate and they banned all restrictions on corporate behavior, while removing their ability to use the government against me, I'd still consider that a step up from where we are now.
Given how deeply in debt we are and how quickly we're losing the edge we used to have, I can't help but think that both the Republicans and the Democrats aren't just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, they're ordering new top of the line upholstery and sticking me with the bill.
So really, if you're gung ho pro corporate welfare, then either the Democrats or the Republicans are good choices with the edge obviously going to the Republicans. Heck, even the Greens are pro corporate so long as the corporation is pimping "green" products.
That's basically why I vote Libertarian. I'm not "anti-corporate", but I am anti the abuses so many of them spend so much time bribing my representatives to implement. Given that, really my only choices are the Libertarians or the Communists
I'm not even an ideologically pure Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. I just think somebody needs to slow this crazy train down and give everybody a slap in the face with reality and nobody else seems to be anywhere in that ballpark. The major party candidates pretty much just seem to be trying to out crazy each other and keep ignoring reality.