Scientology Injunction Denied Against "Anonymous" 486
Anonymous writes "A circuit court judge has denied the Church of Scientology's second request for an injunction against protests by the internet group "Anonymous." The Church sought to prevent Anonymous from protesting on the birthday of the Church's leader, the late Ron L. Hubbard. The petition filed by the Church listed twenty-six individuals allegedly affiliated with Anonymous, but "accidentally" included others who merely work near the location of the first protests held in February and did not participate in them, such as a Starbucks employee. Furthermore, the Church failed to show that any of those listed actually committed any wrongdoing."
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup, you're right, might as well not even try.
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:2, Interesting)
THe only answer is "The number of followers". Hate them for their actions, fine. But they're no less- and no more- plausible a religion than Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.
Scientology playing dirty (Score:5, Interesting)
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since February 2008.
It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2008.
It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since February 2008.
I would have a hunch, that the "Church" itself is causing the problems on the page. First The war starts [wired.com]. They impose there beliefs and pull web pages from Google [wired.com]. I have seen a few things that they have done to try and put "Anonymous" in a bad light. I wish I could find the link, and maybe someone out there knows it. It is of a group of protesters getting arrested. The "Church" said it was "Anonymous". This was quickly debunked they the comments around the article, and found that the pictures where taken from a real protest elsewhere, and not an "Anonymous" protest. All and all i think the "Church" is a bunch of bull and don't play fair with others.
I'm now prepared to get buried by the "Church" for my negative comments against them.
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Second: The technical, traditional meaning of "cult" strictly refers to the priests and priestesses of a god or goddess in a pantheon. Aphrodite had a cult, Isis had a cult, and, at one point, your friend and mine, Jesus had a cult (he had about three hundred followers on a commune at one point, if I recall.) By contrast, a religion may include more than one god and encompasses those who simply believe as well. The media term "cult" generally refers to what academics call a "dangerous NRM" (new religious movement). "Dangerous NRM" supports your statement that it is a real religion and not something fundamentally different, but it is important to note the "dangerous" part. Wicca is a non-dangerous NRM. Heaven's Gate is a dangerous NRM. The difference is best related through a number of techniques that dangerous NRMs frequently use:
Another strong indicator of an NRM is the presence of a single, charismatic leader figure, like David Koresh or Jim Jones. (Both of whom eventually killed most of their followers, but were extremely well-respected by them. Jim Jones was even respected by main-stream Christian religion during his life time.) For this reason, and possible other reasons, Christianity actually satisfies both the traditional and modern definitions of "cult" (although whether that is a dangerous or non-dangerous NRM is another topic entirely.)
Books are great like that.
Whats wrong with america? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:IRL raids (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not sure if its tested in court.
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Whats wrong with america? (Score:1, Interesting)
Adolescents? Seems like you have information the rest of us don't. Care to share?
Re:IRL raids (Score:1, Interesting)
..because they are against everything "geek" (Score:5, Interesting)
They started by taking down anon.penet.fi, and they've been getting worse every year. The hell with all their supposed abuses, and cult like activity. It's messing with the geek stuff that pisses me off.
Get off my f*ckn net! On my f*ckn net we don't tolerate: censorship, copyright abuse, trademark abuse, bogus DMCA notices, intimidating lawyer letters, or stripping our anonaminity for no good reason.
People have been scared to fight back for nearly 20 years. No more!
* Posting anon not because it's cool, but because these jerks still scare me enough not to use my nick.
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Scientology vs. Synanon (Score:4, Interesting)
These are the people who put rattlesnakes in the LA DA's mailbox. I think the Synanon founder was sent to prison for attempted murder on that one.
They also at one time had over 100 attorneys working for them and would sue anyone just like Scientology. They even won a lawsuit for defamation or libel against Hurst Publishing. It had never been achieved before. They had a tactic where in lawsuits they would depose people for hours asking them stupid questions like "what has the consistancy of your stool been lately?"
Just wait. Scientology will eventually get nutty enough to do something similar to the rattlesnake bit and then they are done for.
To support the ides of March from your desk.. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=573326 [slashdot.org] "Church of Scientology violates Federal Law"
You'd never guess who might be voting THAT one down
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Interesting)
There is nothing magical about religion that makes it exempt from attack and ridicule.
It is NOT good that you can't attack something because it is a "religion" and would ONLY for that reason deserve respect. People's deeply held beliefs are not OK just because they are deeply held beliefs, they can just as well be ridiculous, and wrong. The fact that you ridicule them isn't even necessarily respectless, not challenging people's delusions, and leaving them with these ridiculous beliefs can be much more respectless.
Since the prime minister of the country belongs to one of these Christian parties, it is still uncertain whether this will work out.
I found it quite funny to discover that, since it makes ridiculously hypocritical all the talk about having Mohammed in comic cartoons that took place in Europe. I mean, everybody was "pro" support for freedom of speech, but now two major political dutch parties (including the prime minister) seem to see this law as an entirely different story.
Funny, eh?
Re:Scientology vs. Synanon (Score:0, Interesting)
After Synanon fell apart there were a ton of people with no place to go. Many ending up going to Alcoholic's Anonymous. In some parts of the country they basically invaded AA meetings in large numbers.
The structure of AA is set up by a form of democratic voting called "group conscience". Basically voting. The Synanon people were able to come in & change these AA meetings in some fundmental ways, such as letting anyone talk (even drunk/stoned people), round table chats, a more group therapy approach. Many of these screwy ideas remain today in some AA groups in those areas that Synanon was popular.
People visiting these groups from other areas are shocked to see how things have changed from what they are used to.
Posted anonymously of course.
Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites (Score:3, Interesting)
This troubles me about "Anonymous". Threatening a vindictive bully with vindictive bullying can just encourage them.
Re:IRL raids (Score:1, Interesting)
Talking about the real stuff [blogspot.com], not hokey "Crystals and Magic Mantras" crap.
Re:Are you a scientologist troll ? (Score:1, Interesting)
It looks very much like the 'Church' of Scientology made up the bomb threat against them this time too.
http://forums.enturbulation.org.nyud.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6939 [nyud.net]
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IRL raids (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep, gotta love this enlightening age of ours where every one takes care of each others, politely circulates around with smiles and eager to help you if you have car troubles or need to know the time. Everyone has a meaningful life. No more social problems, poverty or hunger.
Funny thing is, it's after having a Scientologist boss (applying personality-crushing method in the workplace) that I realized that perhaps Christianity has a lot of bad in it's history, but also a lot of good. I rather have a Cristian neighbor, friend or boss than a scientologist any day.
Even many Agnostics (like me) has a life goal to amass money and power (big jobs), they evaluate life thru big houses and what you drive.
I think you are wrong saying "we just don't need such social control systems any more". Do you really think this is because of the way we teach kids in school and at home? Get out a little, try to get to the level of the poor, the lost, the uneducated and you might realize they are looking for meaning. Leaving churches pushes a lot of people into worst things like Scientology.
My father in law is a big religious man, extremely kind and generous, and often get exploited for it (never refusing to do an unpaid service), but he is a very good man at the core. A few years ago I would have laughed at him, but today I realize he does more to create a better world than I do. His values transfered into his daughter is why I am with her. (Even if I still hate to stand in church).
Truth is, their is good and bad everywhere, religious or not; life is what we make of it as a social group, and the current education system we have does not create a decent social environment.
Note that I am not offering any solutions, that's not for a few paragraph on a forum
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:4, Interesting)
You obviously have no idea how far the CoS goes or you wouldn't even make that comparison. To someone I know personally they have hired folks to go around their neighborhood informing people that the guy was a convicted sex offender and they were informing them according to Megan's Law (not true). They called the news and told them he was under investigation by the FBI for terrorism (which they reported on the air but wasn't true). They looked at the return address of all the mail and sent anyone who sent personal correspondence a threatening letter. They called his ISP and tried to get everything he'd put up removed. They contact his employer and told them they'd be sued unless he was terminated. What was his crime? He put a copy of some text up on his website that was purportedly one of the higher-level training manuals for Scientology discussing Xenu et al.
I have no problems if people want to believe in Xenu, or even that submitting to weekly lie detector tests and giving the CoS lots of incriminating evidence is the way to salvation. But when you start attacking your detractors and ruining their lives, you cross the line into a violation of the principles of free speech and free association, and thus it's very anti-American.
Re:IRL raids (Score:2, Interesting)
You assume that these rules are compiled with the purpose of benefiting most of us. That is not necessarily true. Many religious rules (or civil laws) we have were written to, for instance, maintain status quo, which in many cases is nothing short of "Cleptocracy" (e.g. "I, the king/high priest, and my buddies will take as much as we can from you the peasants").
The book Collapse by Jared Diamond is filled with data about systems of belief being drafted with lots of different purposes.
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well the IRA tried to blow up my mother at the Ideal Home Exhibition in Birmingham. She got away unscathed but she saw someone's foot blown off. That's the catholics for you.
Re:IRL raids (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:IRL raids (Score:3, Interesting)
Well that doesn't make sense, I would say less people today believe in god than they did before. Although I would go on to say that we're morally better off now than we were back then. We don't stone people to death, we don't chop limbs off thieves, we don't have slavery anymore.
You also seem to assume that people are still afraid of the fire. I don't think that's true anymore, especially considering the church sex scandals. If the clergy isn't afraid of going to hell, then who still is? Plus think of all the religious people who end up cheating on their spouses, although what's morally wrong with having sex with multiple women? According to biblical moral codes it's a sin, but if my wife doesn't care that I have sex with the neighbors wife where's the harm?
I would say that religion was created to keep people in line (they were more easily afraid back then so when you told them they were going to hell for sinning they really believed it.) Although as a moral code for today it's no longer working. Especially considering that the pope just released a new list of sins, and the church is guilty of at least two of them (excessive wealth and widening the gap between the rich and the poor.)
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, people do good and evil things immaterial of religion - but systematic harm to society by converting perfectly, normal good people into doing things that are harmful to society? No, that's something only religion can do.
Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites (Score:2, Interesting)