"Anonymous" Takes Scientology Protest to the Streets 740
This past Sunday members of the group "Anonymous" that has been running an attack on the church of Scientology took their battle from the tubes of the internet to the pavement of real life, staging a protest outside the central Phoenix Church of Scientology. "The protesters said they gathered Sunday in lieu of the birthday of Lisa McPherson, a Scientologist once cared for by church staffers. Her 1995 death sparked media attention and a civil wrongful death suit against a branch of the Church of Scientology. A wrongful death suit by her family was a public-relations nightmare for the church for years until it was settled in 2004. The Church of Scientology declined to comment on the Phoenix protests. It did provide a news release calling members of Anonymous cyber-terrorists."
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind proof, what indication do you even have of this other than your gut feeling?
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Galactic Confederacy's civilization was comparable to our own, with aliens "walking around in clothes which looked very remarkably like the clothes they wear this very minute" and using cars, trains and boats looking exactly the same as those "circa 1950, 1960" on Earth. Xenu was about to be deposed from power, so he devised a plot to eliminate the excess population from his dominions. With the assistance of "renegades", he defeated the populace and the "Loyal Officers", a force for good that was opposed to Xenu. Then, with the assistance of psychiatrists, he summoned billions[1] of his citizens together to paralyze them with injections of alcohol and glycol, under the pretense that they were being called for "income tax inspections". The kidnapped populace was loaded into spacecraft for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). The spacecraft were identical to the Douglas DC-8 with the exception of having different engines."
The "origins" story of Scientology is total bunk that sounds like bad sci-fi written by a sleep-deprived crackhead. You can't even spin this as a parable like with Biblical accounts, etc. It's just plain trash that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:1, Insightful)
As wacky, maybe. Less wacky, no.
Does the author know... (Score:3, Insightful)
"...they gathered Sunday in lieu of the birthday of Lisa McPherson..."
Re:Turn the tables (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you suppose that "something must be retained from death to birth"? Other than energy being conserved, that is.
Much of the rest of Scientology seems like reasonable psychology as well--dualist, but without the supernatural
Dualism is supernatural.
Certainly no obvious fairy tales, like Christian, Jewish, or Islamic miracles.
Uh, what? Have you ever heard of Xenu [wikipedia.org]?
I think the antagonism to psychiatry is the result of wanting to know what we don't yet--this aspect leads to unfortunate incidents such as this.
No, they just don't want the competition. It's bad for the bottom line.
If you strip away the secrecy and celebrity, there are some interesting ideas there.
Such as?
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is a for-profit organisation masquerading as a religion, the secrecy, their aggressive legal tactics, their apparent refusal to ever apologise for any mistake they've made, and their underhand tactics to get and keep recruits.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:3, Insightful)
As for that stuff about Xenu dropping neutron bombs into Earth's volcanoes from intergalactic DC-8s
I thought "it was all good"... (Score:1, Insightful)
Scientologists can believe whatever they want. Attacking their beliefs is the same as attacking Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, what ever. There's no universal right or wrong in a post-modern world.
Before you all scream that scientology is different, remember that the ONLY difference is when the leader/crackpot was born. L Ron Hubbard, Joe Smith, etc.... Just cause they came along in the 50's doesn't mean their bullshit is any less "sacred" than Catholic Bullshit.
To be fair, no religion should get tax-exempt status.
It's not the beliefs. It's their actions. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny that you mention that. Slashdot allows Anonymous Cowards to post precisely for the same reason: To protect them from retaliation.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
He said he was an atheist; he never indicated that he was guided by reason/logic/scientific method.
Remember kids,
Atheist does not imply scientist/logician
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2, Insightful)
Religion is a man-made construct, social by definition and in nature. If you're looking for God, religion is a crutch.
A guarantee (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a religion; therefore, I guarantee it isn't accurate.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad Actors (Score:4, Insightful)
These are the actors from the very same tiny group of the overall population who also feel they should tell you how you should be voting, how the war against terrorism should be run, and why their opinions matter more than anyone else's do, and deserve more airtime (and make-up) than any "ordinary" citizen. The people who drop out of college, and even high school - and are proud of that fact!
Re:I thought "it was all good"... (Score:4, Insightful)
What we don't criticize are identities, or assume that religious practices are reducible to a simple body of tenets. There is a difference between criticizing someone for being Christian and criticizing them for believing that the world is 6000 years old. Obviously, there is a relationship between the two, but that relationship isn't a simple one. What it meant to be Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, etc . has changed over the centuries of those practices, and I'm pretty sure that I have more in common with most Christians today than those contemporary Christians have with 5th century Christians. Likewise with Muslims, etc.
The "post-modernism" (or, really, post-structuralism - post-modernism is more a theory of cultural history) comes in when we observe that every act of making a statement - even a "true" or well-founded statement - comes with an agenda, says more about the reasons for saying, carries their own presumptions, etc. It is caught up in the idea that "even if they really are out to get you, you still can be paranoid." "Anything goes" is actually a very old idea, when really, you are talking about a well-founded hesitation to critique other identities simply on the basis of some of their explicitly stated beliefs, rather than addressing those beliefs historically.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:2, Insightful)
NO! When you die that's it. Your mind is just software running on the hardware that is your brain. When you brain dies and rots away, that's it. Information is lost when you die, and that information is YOU.
Incidentally if Jehovas Witnesses/Mormons/Christians approach you with pamphlets, say this in the tone you would talk to a disobedient dog whilst looking them full in the eye you can sometimes see a flicker of doubt. Fear even.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you see...with $cientology, that's where the money comes into play.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, still...it makes more sense, and is more peaceful than the Koran.
anonymous here (Score:1, Insightful)
if anonymous had members, i'd have been one for two years. if a hacker is a programmer or otherwise comp-savvy individual, then i am one also. every single one of the over 9000 protestors yesterday, myself included, would be a member of anonymous. if there were a membership, the tally is somewhere between 5 and 15 million people.
i've sent dozens of emails to dozens of internet news sources, i've stated in an interview with FOX yesterday, and I keep telling the misinformed in the forums, anonymous is not a group. it's a goddamned adjective. it's a natural outgrowth of instant connectivity and free information. just the way a huge crowd in a public plaza can seem like a living thing, anonymous is a collective of people going about their own daily business, which is mostly passing the time, but can occasionally be persuaded by vocal upstarts on a soapbox. the key difference is that, when anonymous, your history and your reputation are unknown, so every statement arrives equal, and is weighed on its own merit.
someone thought it would be a good idea to raid the CoS, probably as a joke, and the idea caught on like any meme does. individuals with a real beef with the CoS weighed in, persuasively and eloquently, and a distributed, worldwide mob was born.
only a part of a percent of anonymous got out of their computer chairs. most of anonymous doesn't give a damn about the CoS. in fact, I certainly don't. i protested because this is the first time i've ever seen anybody motivate anonymous to do anything they couldn't do from home!
also, I don't understand how "anonymous is a cyber-terrorist group" makes bigger headlines than "anonymous: unprecedented scaling phenomenon associated with information networks"
lurk moar.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, you can find people like this quite often on slashdot. Just look around.
religious hate crimes - impossible! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Vatican has secrets, yes (and its own top-secret archives, full of holy materials like financial records and correspondence), but salvation is only found in [the Church's interpretation of] the Bible. The end.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Psychiatric labels (Score:3, Insightful)
Psychiatry does not only deal with what is normal. Read up Abraham Maslow [wikipedia.org] and Humanistic psychology. [wikipedia.org] Sounds like you're stuck back in the bad old days of Freud and Skinner. Psychology has come a long way since then, and is no longer all about getting people to fit in, but to reach their full potential. And it has scientific backing. Studies show whether or not techniques work, and therapists change techniques based on what works.
I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
And so many are so misguided as to Anonymous motives.
If your mother was drowning, Anonymous wouldn't move a finger. He might laugh, or throw rocks. Anonymous is the motor force behind raids on Habbo Hotel, against random journals on DeviantArt or LiveJournal, they aren't interested in any political agenda. They are a Horde, a bunch of random people interested in spreading chaos and observing its results. They dont' give a shit about Church of Scientology. They just picked it as a commonly disliked target (so attacking it will likely draw support to them) and raided it the same style they raid Habbo, except IRL. Noisy, disruptive and creative, deep chaos that has some artistic feeling to it, and they got to make a lot of fuss about it. But don't be mistaken, they could have raided Mormons, IRS, Public Transport department, Citybank or anything they'd feel like raiding, no political agenda whatsoever. They prefer extreme, weird, mysterious targets but that's not because they really hate them, that's because the public will be more interested.
Yeah, that should mark me as Fair Game to Anonymous. Rules 1 and 2 not broken though.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hate crimes (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing not, but the question must be asked.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, I think the antagonism to psychiatry was because L Ron didn't like them telling him he was nuts.
Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine. (Score:2, Insightful)
Every time I hear these accusations against the CoS I wonder how old the people making them are. If you slander or libel them, why are you surprised when they sue you for slander or libel. If you claim you are "telling the truth" then just calmly show up to court with your evidence and win the case.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, so there's a belief system out there where you can just pull truth out of your ass?
Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine. (Score:4, Insightful)
And while none of the public means that have been used are "illegal" per se, many are extralegal--the filing of lawsuits, et al. Doing some research into, for instance, the testimonies of ex-scientologists will shed more than enough light on these things.
The people who accuse the Church of Scientology of all these things are not any particular age. And while truth is a defense against libel, it is not a defense against having to spend years of your time and thousands of dollars in legal fees defending yourself against lawsuits.
I would question, though, why it is that you're defending them so carefully--it's very rare to find someone online defending scientology who is not themselves a member.
Re:religious hate crimes - impossible! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Before the Reformation and Gutenberg, getting a copy of the Holy Bible meant going to your local Catholic church, where the priests were more than happy to interpret it for you. Badly, I suspect.
To this day, IIRC, your Catholic priest would prefer you ask him what it means. And a careful reading of the New Testament could leave you with the impression that the Catholic Church is, in fact, not practicing Christianity.
And to be fair, neither are many if not most TV and other Evangelists. It's so simple, unless you're asking for money.
Written by a Christian. Trying to keep it simple.
Re:Bad Actors (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It just tells you about Scientology. And people I guess. But nothing about actors.
These are the actors from the very same tiny group of the overall population who also feel they should tell you how you should be voting, how the war against terrorism should be run, and why their opinions matter more than anyone else's do, and deserve more airtime (and make-up) than any "ordinary" citizen. The people who drop out of college, and even high school - and are proud of that fact!
No. Actors tell us how we should be voting because we keep asking them. We ask them how to dress, how to talk, where to eat, how to vote... we pay them to entertain us. They aren't special, and they aren't born thinking they are. We train them. We put them on TV, we interview them. We follow the minutia of their lives.
They don't force themselves on us. WE chase them. Sure, at this point its become a bit symbiotic, they use the fact we can't get enough of them to further inflate their value and the activists among them spread their views, but the fundamental issue is US. If we the public could stop caring about them... if we treated them like any other professional like a bricklayer, electrictian, IT admin, PHB, or whatever, the constant media coverage would vanish. E!TV would go away. Tabloids would print something else. Etc.
So... bottom line. Actors are regular people who after spending years in the spotlight often develop some ego issues. But its we the public that first manufacture and then nurture their defective personalities. The industry surrounding them from the media circus, to the agents and publicists exists because -we- demand it.
Now, scientology KNOWS the public is obsessed with celebrity. So they court celebrities. They literally wine and dine them, and then take them back home to (mind) fuck. The CoS wants big prime-time A-list scientologists as evangilists, and they'll do or pay whatever it takes to seduce them. Plus, once solidly hooked, they have considerable funds and assets for the church to get its fingers into to fund its next celebrity acquisition, its legal battles, and so on.
So again, if we the public could stop obsessing over celebrities, CoS would lose interest in converting them. Or, more accurately, its interest would drop to the same level it has in converting the rest of us.
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
other cults (Score:4, Insightful)
In Washington we have these LaRouche cultists all over the place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche [wikipedia.org]
but especially at colleges, and especially at the UW. They show up on school property rain or shine, and organize various brainwashing events. What's worse, is that they try to make themselves look like some kind of political organization, but actually they're just trying to brainwash you, try to get you to drop out of school, and scam you out of your money.
Instead of doing something about it, the government and the school let them use school facilities to hold their brainwashing sessions, and let them stay on campus harassing students day in and day out.
In California, where the Scientologists are powerful, I'm told that there's a similar situation. The organization is powerful enough that the government would rather look the other way, lest they suffer some kind of smear campaign.
Re:I thought "it was all good"... (Score:4, Insightful)
According to Lyotard, post-modernism can be defined as "incredulity towards metanarratives". Where metanarratives are attempts to order and explain knowledge and experience. Simple enough, I suppose. Unless you happen to notice that that definition of post-modernism is itself a metanarrative, albeit an entirely negative metanarrative.
So post-modernists should be skeptical of metanarratives (including this one). Leaving nothing to say. As such, post-modernism is an entirely worthless branch of philosophical thought. The only logical behavior that can be directed as a result of post-modernist thought is to avoid making any assertions at all.Sure, they can believe exactly what they want. It's when they harm people and/or prevent free exit from their organization that it becomes very important to object and object loudly.Your assertion may be correct, but it does not substantiate your previous point. There are behaviors that more right and more wrong than other behaviors. Judged by me on the basis of their behaviors, Scientologists are more wrong than the Methodists (to just pull a random name from a hat full of religions).
Actually, IMNSHO, Scientology is pretty much as close to evil as can be observed. They do nothing but destroy.
Scientology's perfectly free to offer Balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, there are other religions that are esoteric, but most of them don't pretend to also be scientific, and most of them don't have a ladder of charging you cold hard cash to get them. There are Buddhist teachings that the lamas will only teach you if you're a sincere Buddhist, and there are teachings that only make sense if you've spent a few years meditating and will otherwise distract you from the more important practices. There are Yoga positions that you really really shouldn't try unless you've been doing yoga for a long time, and any clueful teacher will tell you not to try them because you'll just tear your shoulder blade muscles. But the price isn't cash, it's practice. And there are mountains that guides won't take you to if you don't have the experience and physical strength to climb them safely - those guys *will* charge you money, but you've still got to have the skills, and they'll be happy to show you *pictures* of the mountains and recommend that you climb some smaller mountains first. Scientology doesn't want you to see the pictures of Xenu The Evil Space Alien and His DC9 Fleet until *after* your bank account's been tapped.
There are also other religions and similar types of groups that want cash up front. Transcendental Meditation wants whatever their current fee is to give you an initiation and your own personal secret mantra (which is picked from a simple list, not actually customized for you), plus you've got to offer fruit and flowers to their guru and his gods (not to the Maharishi, who just died this week, but to his teacher.) But they'll still tell you what it's about.
There are many religions and preachers that teach that you should give some fraction of your money to the church - some of them want it to help feed the poor, while others of them want it so the preacher can have a big house and a Learjet, and some of them teach about loving God and your neighbors while others mostly teach about Prosperity and how You can get it if you just Believe hard enough. Some of them are Christians, some of them are New Agers, some of them are Buddhists, and you'd think you could pretty much tell which kind are sincere, but a lot of people go in for the bogus ones anyway. (That's of course separate from whether the groups ask for some money to fix the church building's roof or pay the meeting-hall's rent or hire a full-time preacher at a not-very-high salary; if you're going to have an institution you're going to have institutional expenses.)
The price of Scientology auditing is a lot higher than the cost of office space and training volunteer quack psychiatrists to listen to you. And even if they keep some of their teachings secret until you've had the training you need to understand them, that doesn't mean they need to keep their organizational structure or finances hidden.
In lieu of? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not a native English speaker, but doesn't "in lieu of" mean "instead of"? (Lieu being French for "place" and all.) Is this a particular idiom that I'm not familiar with, or is this another case where fancy words are used a substitute for making sense? The goal was probably to say something along the lines of "in remembrance of" or "in reference to"...
Re:Balanced view. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:4, Insightful)
To clarify further.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless the grandparent wants to argue that picketing a for-profit organization is like running the Mafia. In which case, I can't help him. Non sequiturs are impossible to argue against.
Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not a physicist, but as I understand it, contemporary physics considers the dimension of time as having come into existence at the big bang along with the familiar dimensions of space. If so, "before the big bang" is a meaningless phrase.
Yes, that's weird and hard to comprehend, and outside what human brains are built to grasp. But so is much of physics; the human brain can't really get a handle on the particle/wave duality, relativity, or quantum tunneling, either. The best most of us can do is represent it symbolically with mathematics - and few enough of us can do that.
Anyway, as counterintuitive as it is, "what was there before the big bang" may be as meaningless of a question as "how far do I have to walk on the earth before I get to the end?" We don't need religion to explain what was before the big bang for the same reason we don't need religion to explain what's past the edge of the (flat) Earth.
Re:Scientology is really no different than ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fox expose on "Anonymous" from last summer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:1, Insightful)
this means there are lots of cults.
jesus was different, though, in that he valued the individual and this *really* torqued the organizations of his day.
true religion is about treating others equal to how you want to be treated (assuming sane person wants to be treated well). eternity is a long time and any kind of physical wealth doesn't even register, but how you treat others will be even more relevant 1,000,000 google years from now than it is today.
exalting an organization and, by default, its leaders, is heading in the wrong direction.
Re:Turn the tables (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoa there! At least these people are active enough to protest on the streets, rather than sit behind a computer. Why the hate and ridicule? "Teenage forum trash?" Where does that come from? At least they're doing something they believe in, and getting the press coverage they need to get their protest across to a wider audience. 99% of the U.S. population sit on their asses and would never think of protesting anything, myself included.
Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pissed? Bitter? Damn straight I am. I belong to a flying saucer religion that CAN'T get tax free status. Diff is; Subgenii pull the wool over their OWN eyes and know it.
Hard to tolerate carnies like Elron Hoover who couldn't even write decent Sci-Fi being the bleedin'Jesus of a Tax free scam when he doesn't even amount to a wart on J.R.Bob Dobbs ass.
Somebody mod that poor Anon Cow up.I don't give a damn how you mod me.I got eternal slack.
Scinustology casualties got a fucked up life. Give em a little slack you pink bastards!
not really (Score:5, Insightful)
The stories of many who have left Scientology are quite different, and rather chilling.
So yeah, of those that left, many would likely be disillusioned. But it's like leaving the mob, it takes a lot of guts to do so, and overall it can be a pretty dangerous proposition.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:1, Insightful)
a Balanced view should differentiate between the original Scientology Hubbard researched and developed and the perversion the church practices today.
It is not surprising the church is attacked so vehemently after the death of Hubbard. A new regime took over and money, not philosophy, became the order of the day. Money became supreme. The philosophy and technology is not practiced any more in the church.
How many people on this list actually know what scientology is I wonder? Not very many I bet. It is all rhetoric and criticism bandied around with no actual reference to the actual philosophy or religious practices. Not very scientific.
The only actual scientologists you will find these days are OUTSIDE of the church actually practicing scientology and improving their lives. No big money involved. No xenu crap. just ordinary people [practicing their own faith.
AND, you might be interested to know, the church does not like them either. After all they are taking business away from the church!
And the church should not be called the church of Scientology any more. Maybe the church that used to practice scientology and now practices something (god knows what) else.
And I can back this up with facts too.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:2, Insightful)
Without having discovered these undiscovered things yet, what indication do you have that there are many of them?
Re:Balanced view. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's the link: (about 168,000 results)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=If+a+man+really+wants+to+make+a+million+dollars%2C+the+best+way+would+be+to+start+his+own+religion&btnG=Google+Search&aq=-1&oq= [google.com]
Let's check your logic:
1. A man says that.
2. The same man creates a new religion.
3. You don't think he may have the idea of making money out of it.
Conclusion: he was probably smarter than you