Fun Stuff > CHATTER

Chanology?

<< < (10/27) > >>

KharBevNor:
It's ironic that people would make this about freedom of religion, since freedom of religion is something the Co$ hates. They own copyright on all their religious symbols, as well as holding patents on dianetics and the auditing process and so forth, and will ruthlessly prosecute anyone who attempts to follow the precepts of scientology outside of the Co$. Not brand them as heretics, you understand, but sue them, for copyright infringement.

Have a little read:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/l-ron-hubbard/

http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/scientology/

I have no problem tolerating all sorts of whackos. I don't care if you think the moon is made of plywood, or if you worship the great star dolphin who began life on earth by taking a shit in the pacific. My problem is when people begin to engage in proselytising. Especially proselytising under false pretences, giving false or misleading information about the group being preached for. Especially when you use blackmail, intimidation, character defamation and libel laws to suppress not just criticism of your group, but also unbiased information about its practices. Scientologists are enticing people under false pretenses.  They employ brainwashing tactics on their recruits (the point of the auditing session is much the same as the brainwashing classic where the prisoner is put in a room with four lights and psychologically (and perhaps physically) tortured until he is willing to tell his inquisitor that there are five lights.)

Scientologists lost their rights to be respected, in my view. I have more respect for holocaust deniers. At least they publish books openly stating their ideas, and will try some semblance of debate. Scientologists only aim is to silence all criticism of themselves, probably setting some worrying legal precedents in the process. They will not engage in debate. They will not engage in theological discourse. Even by the tenuous standards of religion, they are a pathetic, money-grubbing sham. It is not their right to speak and worship that people want to curtail, because they don't speak, except to churn out the same tired lies, and they offer no freedom of worship to followers who have to pay for the equivalent of holy communion. It's our right to criticise scientology that people want to protect.

I treat religions exactly as I would political groups. The mere irrationality of their beliefs does not give them a right to extra protection.

EDIT: As for how does anonymous hit the streets, rather like this it would seem:














V For Vendetta mask is the new black balaclava?

Lines:
Well, didn't they give those masks out for free the night that movie opened? I think the storm trooper mask is the best though.

Cartilage Head:
You can buy them at Hot Topic. /b/tards shop at Hot Topic, appearantly.

supersheep:
Man I have been at riots and other places of illegal activity where there were fewer people masked up. I think we can safely say anonymous are wusses huh? Also, they must be happy dancey folk now that they have been in the Guardian and so on.

I agree with Mr. Dski and Ms. Ruyi and Mr. Dovey. There are many churches that have participated in naughty things, far naughtier than the scientologolologists. I mean, the stuff that went on in just one diocese of the Catholic church kinda outweighs pretty much everything they have done. The fact that they express control over their worshippers and try to keep them under the control of the hierarchy? OK, I may be a bit biased what with living in a predominantly Catholic state, but I always assumed that this was one of the things that all religions do - make sure the followers adhere to the doctrine and all.

Alex C:
Uh, to be fair, Anonymity has kind of become a part of their whole shtick, what with the forced anonymity and all.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page