Been following this one for a few days now. Apparently Anonymous has decided that its next arbitrary target is none other than the Church of Scientology. So far, things seem to be limited to DDOSes against the CoS' website and floods of prank calls, but I'm curious to see where this might end up given the combination of the CoS' litigiousness and Anonymous' hunger for lulz.

Anonymous has even issued a press release, which can be found here:
http://howtorockstar.blogspot.com/20...es-war-on.html

They may be stepping it up tomorrow.

Tomorrow there are going to be protests all around the country and possibly in other parts of the world outside of their churches.

Should be interesting to see what happens, I'll be going to the one in San Diego as a photographer more than anything. Not in the mood of getting in the $cientologist bad side, as much as I dislike them. Will still be taking precautions, but nothing to extreme like wearing masks. Me taking pictures shouldn't have a OSA on my ass after the thing is over.

Who is Anonymous? I mean, I know the name implies anonymity, but why are they a "force to be reckoned with"

it's the guy who wrote primary colors

_________________

I don't know who Anonymous is, but they need to hire better writers. Seriously, who writes "that someone must bring light to the darkness, that someone must open the eyes of the public that has slumbered far too long." What is this shit? Sounds like an opener to a B movie plot.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

http://www.partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology

should clear things up a bit

Can be hard to follow if you aren't a 4chan reader

I watched some of the london 'raid' (read: protest) and it was kind of amusing to see several people bark out stuff like they're the leader...

One wanted a moment of silence for something or another, and was getting pissed that people wouldn't shut up.

Too many megaphones in the kitchen~

I'm still trying to give enough of a shit about Scientology to hate them enough to protest over it. Gimme a while.

keep us posted

_________________

Research some of the deaths they are linked to, and you just might.

I wasn't out protesting, but I'd love to see Scientology drug into the light once and for all. And given how legal happy they are (the Fred Phelps strategy) to shut people up, this sort of "attack" is about the only real option you have. Without facing massive lawsuits, that is.

Will it acheive the goal? I dunno. Hopefully it will make people dig deeper than, "wow, tom cruise is nuts. Those wacky scientologists!" But I think the apathy of the average person will win out in the end.

_________________

Video I took from my phone of the San Diego protest against the cult, sorry for the bad quality.

fixed your fucking youtube code. it's like someone needs to post a howto or something.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

rofl Van, I'm sorry. I think I finally got it, after I posted of course.

Most of what I've found has been "well, they look pretty suspicious and they MIGHT be connected to members of Scientology".

Regardless of that, what makes them any different than any other fanatical portion of any other religion? A religion with fanatics that kill people? Whoa, this is totally unique to Scientology!

Sure, in comparison they might seem to have some pretty whacky beliefs, but I don't see how that makes them any more worthy of protest. If this "Anonymous" group is going to be consistent, they should really be protesting "all fanatical parts of all religions".

No other religion sues people into oblivion for telling what Scientologists actually believe in, and some of the internal practices of the religion. The South Park episode lambasting Scientology got Comedy Central in some legal hot water. People who've published Scientology documents get sued and are never heard from again.

Scientologists tried to infiltrate the United States Government (the IRS in particular) in order to do some pretty shady things with all the money they have coming in.

Go to http://www.xenu.net for a nice listing of everything wrong with Scientology that no other religion even begins to approach.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Anonymous really got pissed when Scientology tried to take off that embarrassing video of Tom Cruise that everyone was making fun of. And of course after digging more into the church they felt they had more reasons to go ahead with their Chanology project (google it).

It really is mostly about being against them trying to control information about their church. Like Van said, they sue people who talk about shit like Xenu (you don't learn about him until you pay enough moneyz, though rumors are they are changing things a little), and harass people who protest against the church (get people fired, spread shit about you, etc).

And of course, you dig more into them and you find pretty scary shit. Google "Operation Snowwhite" and "Operation Freakout" for starters.

As for their beliefs, they are no more whacky than believing in a virgin birth or a resurrection. They only appear less valid because they are fairly new and we know they were written by a fucked up drug addicted SciFi writer. /shrug

Scientology is not a religion.

Stop trying to sound smart.

What? L. Ron Hubbard described it as a religion. They call themselves the "Church of Scientology International." They call themselves a religion at their website directly, as well as using all kinds of religious language at their official website, including topics like, "mission work," "missionaries," "minister training," and more. Many countries recognize it as a religion (but apparently you know better?), including the US.

Either tell us what inside information you have that even they themselves don't have, tell us what you think a religion is and how they don't fit, or perhaps don't waltz in and take a potshot at someone's intelligence when you sound like you didn't even do a 5 minute google search of the entity in question before you posted.

Exactly. Many people will call it a cult, but it's hard to pin people down on precisely what defines it as that. My belief that they're all a bunch of whackjobs doesn't make them any more of a cult and less of a religion, either. I simply consider a religion to be a group of people who have some sort of faith in something and a set of beliefs.

No need for me to sound smart, it's pretty cut and dry.



I will agree that some of the higher ups "in charge" of Scientology have taken part in some shady dealings. The only difference though is that they *happen* to be the people in charge, but it doesn't necessarily define their religion as a whole. If we looked at the Phelps clan, who also sues people into oblivion and HAPPENS TO BE a fanatical side to a particular religion, we wouldn't judge the entire religion on them, would we?

While I think the fact that their leadership is involved in some of that stuff is despicable, I also wouldn't label the entire group of people who happen to share some beliefs with them.

Honestly this whole "grand cause" just seems like some idea that spawned in a 30-year-old guy living in his mom's basement after he invited some friends over to play D&D. l33t h4cker squad represent. I hope people yawn as they drive by.

Another thing worth mentioning is that these fringe groups THRIVE on any publicity you can get them. You're doing them a huge favor with this. Especially if it's a group of dog dumb protestors that have no idea how to organize one. I saw one on youtube with "Honk if you hate scientology" with the typical group makeup of livejournal.com emo kiddies. I mean, seriously? It just makes the "cause" look worse.

Tell me what it is than Givin.

_________________

No offense to Gosthok by the way, I'm sure you have thought about it and have your reasons for protesting it. Not too many people would question the fact that they're whackjobs. I would just have a lot of trouble following in the footsteps of the guy posted that original Anonymous youtube video.

"We cannot die; we are forever. We're getting bigger every day--and solely by the force of our ideas, malicious and hostile as they often are. If you want another name for your opponent, then call us Legion, for we are many."

Ugh. Like Arach said, I think they need to hire some better writers. The whole thing just reeks of "Internet Tough Guys". Can't we just have another fight between Something Awful and Ebaums?

Sounds like they think they are batman.

If you'd like to know why people here are calling scientology a dangerous and evil cult, then do some reading: http://www.xenu.net/

For people overwhelmed with too much information, here's a shorter page that sums it up: http://www.xenu.net/roland-intro.html

For the people saying "but they're a religion, they say so on their website!"

The Branch Dravidians called themselves a religion too, so did Jim Jones and his ilk.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I was actually not really protesting, was more taking pictures and that shitty video I posted. The actual protesters called me a spy a few times (since before I arrived there were some Scientology's taking pictures of them).

I'm still against this cult however. And the difference between this cult and any other religion? I would stop a friend from joining them as hard as I could, while I wouldn't stop anyone from joining any of the other religions. And the reasons you will find them in the links above.

Also, look into their stance on psychiatry, they want to completely eradicate it.

I don't understand why it can't be classified as both.




(bold mine)

While it says it's "usually considered to be false" - well, I consider most religions to be false in general. So does that mean I can call Christianity a cult, in general?
As far as the curing a particular disease - I'm aware that scientology has a thing against psychiatric medication (much like Christian Scientists), but I also know that many Christians (just as an example) believe that praying can help heal you.
I do understand how scientology is classified by a cult by many - and I tend to agree. I just don't think that would prohibit it from being considered a religion, as well.

_________________

All religions are technically cults.

Not all cults are religions.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

By "generally" the definition is probably implying that a large number of people count it as that. So the real question is, how many is enough to qualify it as a cult? How many atheists does it take to qualify Christianity as a cult? Better yet, how many Muslims does it take to qualify Christianity as a cult?

It's much more simple to call them all religions, since they still follow those simple guidelines of a group of people sharing a common belief. Branch Davidians? Are they a group of people that share common beliefs? Yup, religion.

The definition straight up:



Looks like all cults are religions, too =p

Your dictionary fu skills are lacking

cult (kŭlt)
n.
1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
c. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
d. The object of such devotion.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

That's an interesting post of.... almost the exact definition of what was already posted =x

Oh shit, I missed one:



What would I do without you, Karthun?

Ok, ok... I'll assume you're trying to say that all that stuff *combined* equals a cult. Firstly it still suggests that a cult is a religion. Secondly, much of that stuff is subjective. What exactly constitutes an obsessive and/or faddish devotion or veneration for a person, principle, or thing? I hesitate to use the "where is the line drawn" argument again, but it really applies here. Because the words used to define a cult are inherently subjective, it only follows that the word cult itself is subjective. You can't point to an entity and say "That's a cult" with any factual backup.

Therefore, the easiest solution is to.... call it a religion. That's not to say cults don't exist, but you can't back up the claim. Much the same as you can't back up "that's beautiful", even though we still know beautiful things exist, at least in terms of someone being able to perceive something as beautiful. In addition, as I pointed out, all cults are religions by definition already.

This is the exact definition that was posted, except the bolded parts are repeated in yours and not mine. How exactly were "dictionary fu skills" lacking? (Venen only copy/pasted part of the definition because I posted the whole thing before...)

_________________

Just got done browsing some of xenu.net... Wow. Scientology: A Threat to Democracy? Scientology comparisons to Nazism. Mind Control.

Did I get re-directed to a 9/11 conspiracy site?

...

Your dictionary fu is still weak. When a word has more then one defination a dictionary includes all of them. Now the question is if all cults are religion. Your previous post said all cults ARE relgions because of the single defination that you pulled. Well, there are non-religious cults, shown by the other definitions that you chose not to post, so not all cults are religions. There is no doubt that you will waffle on this point so have fun.

i like to look to online dictionaries for simplistic answers to nuanced questions like the cult controversy

Since it's a question of the definition of a cult... I tend to gravitate toward the sources of definitions. Weird habit, I know, but I guess I should probably head over to 4chan to get some better source data.



No waffling needed, I already offered an explanation for those definitions. They are *subjective*, I explained that thoroughly. Also, you're correct that they're all seperate definitions, but the most popularly accepted definitions are almost always at the top. And oh look, both of those with religious contexts are at the top! Often those towards the bottom end up being references to something else entirely than is meant. The ONLY definition that refers to it as a group rather than a formal description of actions is number 6, which is about as vague as you can get.

That being said, I would end up agreeing with you on the technicality that a small minority of cults would be considered non-religious just because of definition number 6. Nevertheless, the implication of the definition is that they are mostly associated with a religious belief. It goes without saying that Scientology meets that criteria.

Don't even give ground with definition 6. Definition 6 is simply another context, such as, "There's been a cult following that has grown around The Princess Bride." Obviously the Church of Scientology does not refer to that definition, even if you call it a cult.

That's a good point actually, I didn't see it in that context at first.

i'm pretty sure christianity has been responsible for a death or two, and i seem to remember a couple of occasions in which someone has abused the power given to them by the church...

_________________

I dunno, I don't know of any christian religious with a "fair game" policy that can include framing with the FBI...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout

Why does every topic about heinous things a religion or cult is responsible for always end with the "some other religion did fucked up shit too" defense? When the best light you can shine on something is to point out how messed up some other people are, you are on the wrong side of the argument.

You can argue whether it is a cult or a religion all day long, but it doesn’t matter. Whatever label you put on it, it’s a load of BS and only has some notoriety because of the big star names that have fallen prey to it. Unfortunately for us, being a movie star and having a clue about common sense and decency seem to be mutually exclusive to each other far too often these days. I don’t know the exact percentage of famous people who are loony, but I’m sure the guy that makes my sandwiches at Wawa has much better odds of giving me sane advice than a random Hollywood sampling would.

The fact that other religions have done similar things was not part of the argument against the silliness of protesting about Scientology, it was an observation about the group of people currently protesting it. It seems inconsistent to protest one group that people view as having particularly whacky beliefs(from their perspective), and to base their protests around the "bad deeds" that they have done, but ignore the other religions that do those same bad deeds.

It's not proof that they're on the wrong side, but I'd question any argument supported by a group with these credentials.

I know I look to the bowels of 4chan for insight on serious matters like movements against new religions.

http://forums.enturbulation.org/

Might want to read a few posts there, it is not as silly as it might appear to you, it is quite organized, and has in fact it has sprouted some changes from within the church. Really, outside of the initial "lulz" the movement actually matured and is filled with informed individuals. The protests are also not just about saying things against Scientology, but to inform, to prevent others from joining and for those inside to try to get out before it is too late.

You really don't want anyone you know involved in the church, because chances are, due to you being a suppressive person (a non Scientologist), they will at some point try to disconnect them from you. It has happened and it has destroyed families, friendships, etc.

It's not about the deaths, though bringing them up shows how fucked up the cult is. There's also the harassment to critics (accompanied by defamation, lawsuits, vandalism, etc.), their intent to censor anything that speaks bad of their church, among other things. For example the fact that sometimes they don't come clean as who they are.

On 911 they were at ground zero passing themselves off as "National Mental Health Assistance" (funny thing, they are against psychiatry or psychology), they were to give back rubs... As far as I know they were also at the NIU memorial this weekend, and they do that where there's tragedies. Their objective? To keep people away from psychologists, and to try and see how many people they can suck in.

I don't know about you, but that's fucked up. They also have other front groups such as Narconon, their drug rehab organization. And guess what? They go to school around the country, hiding their connection to the church.

So really, more than just being against the church because "omg they are evil", it is more to inform and to prevent people from going into it blindly. Because it can fuck up lives, and it has fucked up many. And while other religions, in my mind, are bad too, if you walk into a Christian church, chances are slim that you are going to end up bankrupt, disconnected from your loved ones, and much less dead, because of the church. In Scientology? At least one of them will be true, and it will be because of the church.

Are there better causes? Of course, this just moved a bunch of people and it is not a bad one, and if it ends up helping people, then keep it going.

Erm, to add something.

I have to admit that the origin of the people who started this makes it hard to take them serious. And when seeing them with the masks it is even harder (but hey, you gotta protect your identity, some of the people without masks already got a few "Hey, we know who you are." visits). But the reality is that it turned into a serious movement with people who got informed and actually care, and I already wrote why against this cult and not others.

I think the anonymous movement against scientology began as a bunch of internet pranksters making ddos attacks on scientology websites and posting threatening youtube videos until "wise beard man" posted this message:



The anonymous folks really seemed to take his message to heart and pretty much tailored their campaigns to follow his suggestions: Peaceful protests, plans to lobbying to get scientologist's tax exempt status revoked, etc. The kind of stuff that actually makes an impact in a mature way that people can take seriously.

Shawn Lonsdale was an opponent of Scientology who died recently of an apparent suicide. Read up on his story.

Forgot to add the youtube link so you can check out the actual page, it's pretty disgusting.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JhXXaIsfkpg

That defendscientology account seems to be nothing more than a troll. Flagged the video anyway, it is pretty disgusting to do that.

There's further information on Scientology vs. Anonymous on the wikipedia entry on Scientology here:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)

Not getting into my religious views/beliefs, I think the simple fact that L. Ron Hubbard was quoted as saying "the fastest way to make a million dollars is to create a religion"; then creates a religion; and then thousands (millions?) of people buy into it.... it's absolutely ridiculous, and a perfect example of ignorance on a massive scale.

The religion, cult, or whatever you want to call it is one that is completely fictional, and people KNOW this.
I stand behind Dawkins' criticism of Scientology as "gullibiligy", and anyone else with the courage to criticize Scientology for that matter.

And for some other underlying issues with Scientology, here's another link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry

Some of the Psychiatrist responses/counter criticisms are worth a chuckle.

Martin Gardner wrote a really good piece on scientology, and hits a lot of points about it's beginnings in 'Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science'.

This is a follow up he wrote in 1988

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/rvwgard.htm

_________________

[quote][After promoting himself to Admiral, his red hair now white, Hubbard apparently died in Creston, California, on January 24, 1986/quote]

So it's really true that Ginger Kids have no souls!

Interesting read, thanks Tarot. Fairly scathing, and obviously biased, but with a good number of interesting facts

Gardner really has no bias, his essays on various things are simply based on facts...facts he can and does back up with ample evidence. Where he states his opinion, he's very clear that it's his opinion (and he does have strong opinions on fraud. harm, bad writing, etc.)

He's also extremely meticulous in his research. He has essays and books written in the 50s which are still completely relevant today...and that's truly amazing given the areas in which he writes. Personally I'd recommend the book I mentioned previously along with 'Did Adam and Eve Have Navels'.

The only complaint I have about him is that he has access to materials which aren't easily found today. So if you want to view his source material, or read more you may be dealing with some books long out of print and may have to appeal to a major university to get it on loan for you. When he's updated his work, IIRC he's addressed this by providing some more easily accessed alternative sources.

And as good as he is in this area, he's mostly known for mathematics.

_________________

Ok, fair play. I should have used the word "opinionated" in favour of biased. But let's face it, he doesn't exactly hold back, does he?
(can't exactly blame him, though, I'd have done the same if Hubbard is the certified wackjob Gardner's research indicates).

I'll have a gander at that book of his when I get the chance, though!

Venen, you can't cherry-pick the definitions and then claim that only yours apply to the word. If you're going to make a definition part of the debate, you have to explain why your chosen definition(s) should be used and the others shouldn't. Of course your personal preference doesn't satisfy anyone else on that issue.

The Church of Scientology posted a video listing all of Anonymous' activity so far, though it's a couple weeks old now. Check out:

http://www.anonymousexposed.com

...then when you're doing being Rickrolled, check out:

http://www.anonymous-exposed.com

that video is at least partial bullshit

It cuts off and joins sentences and changes the 'jist' of some things.. You can't pick and choose parts of sentences to form a complete thought when it's not the original message.

Not that some idiots did stuff like that, but who is to say Scientology isn't making some of it up...

apparently anonymous is somethingawful forum users?