Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: Switchblade on 10 Feb 2008, 12:33

Title: Chanology?
Post by: Switchblade on 10 Feb 2008, 12:33
I don't know how many of y'all have been keeping up to date with this but...

Today (February 10th) marked the day when a motherlode of Anonymous hit the streets worldwide to stage protests against the "church" of Scientology.

Looks like the Australians were the only ones to get any real media coverage, but it's nice to see the world taking note.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23189467-5014239,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/technology/gallery/0,25793,5029503-5007151-1,00.html

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-Lu3aBZWfo

I understand that there's another protest planned for March 15th. Considering how successful this one has been, I might go to the Birmingham demonstration.

oh yeah, if you're wondering WHY people are feeling the need to campaign against Scientology, I suggest you visit http://www.xenu.net/ and have a look around. This thing's more sinister than just a bunch of people believing a bad science-fiction story.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: tommydski on 10 Feb 2008, 12:43
Religious intolerance is still religious intolerance. Is Scientology more batshit insane than any other Religion, specifically the Semitic ones that have such an influence on most of our lives? To me, it is not.

If you don't like it, ignore it. It's not exactly hard to do. How does Scientology impede on your daily life? My guess is it doesn't in the slightest. Let people believe whatever the hell they want to believe and you do the same.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: NarwhalSunshine on 10 Feb 2008, 12:48
I don't think the Nashville one happened yet. Tommy, the semitic religions don't forbid medicine, have paramilitary organizations, censor the internet or charge unnecessary fees for services. But as a minister and more importantly an American I agree that Chanology is wrong
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: tommydski on 10 Feb 2008, 12:52
However, all Religions have certain aspects that I find equally nauseating but I am prepared to leave them well alone for reasons already discussed.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 12:53
It's all well and good that you have your opinions, but what Tommy is saying is that religious intolerance is still relgious intolerance. I won't simplify him, so if he wants to expand on his previous statement, he will. Just because this religion does things others do not does not mean it should be seperated from every other one as particularly insane. I do not believe that there has been a religious war in the name of scientology yet. To be the 'devil's advocate' here, scientology has as much right to hate things as every semitic religion does.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: IronOxide on 10 Feb 2008, 13:08
Why is it that some people now find persecution funny and cool? I thought that it was something that we had generally started to get the better of in this nation. I know we weren't perfect, but this it a huge leap backwards.

I really don't get it in the slightest.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Switchblade on 10 Feb 2008, 13:10
Quote
If you don't like it, ignore it. It's not exactly hard to do. How does Scientology impede on your daily life? My guess is it doesn't in the slightest. Let people believe whatever the hell they want to believe and you do the same.

The problem with that attitude is that the self-styled "Church of Scientology" (CoS) does indeed impede upon people's daily lives. As well as pursuing unnecessary legal action against their critics (rather than just ignoring or dismissing them), they have also been known to try and dig up potentially embarrassing "dirt" on their critics which they have then used either for attempted blackmail or else simply released in an attempt to undermine their credibility (according to: http://www.xenu.net/cb-faq.html question 4)

Bear in mind, the protests are aimed at the CoS, not the actual religion itself. The protestors claim that the CoS is actually a cult that extorts its members for money and brainwashes them. They claim that it has many of the hallmarks of a cult, especially:

   1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members.
   2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
   3. Its founder/leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
   4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds and recruit people.
   5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society. 

There have also been allegations made against the CoS that they were involved in a number of suspicious deaths (the most famous of them being CoS member Lisa McPherson (http://www.lisamcpherson.org/)). To date, all of these cases were thrown out.

This is more than religious intolerance, I'm afraid. I wouldn't be signing up to it if it was - I have no trouble with letting people believe what they want. This protest, however, is in reaction to some genuinely sinister activity on the part of the CoS. I appreciate people's points on religious intolerance and how it might represent a step backwards as a society, but this is not just some harmless religion.

Whether or not you buy it, of course, is your choice. I'm just interested in hearing what the QCers have to say.

(Oh yeah, mods: if this thread is in violation of forum rules in any way, please go right ahead and delete it.)
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 13:11
I wish I could answer your question, but I'm sure a bunch of Anonymous could do it pretty easily. I hope they don't though, otherwise this forum might be destroyed.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Spinless on 10 Feb 2008, 13:15
This is a great discussion, where do we draw the line at religious tolerance? Unfortunately, the thread will not go as far as it could because it's against the forum rules. Understandable, I suppose, assuming the person who makes the rules will read the thread.
I understand that people think that people are tricked and 'brainwashed' into believing Scientology, but again, how is this any different than any other religion? I bet a large number of us grew being told that God was watching us, and that we should do whatever he says. If I raised a child to 10 years old, explaining to him every day that Alan Rickman was a prophet for the one true god, who wanted the world to work together to bake the biggest donut possible in order to appease his insatiable craving for donuts, the kid would believe it, no matter how ridiculous it is.
The difference with Scientology is that you're trying to convince a fully grown adult of the same thing, in most cases.

Scientology isn't going to go away because of protesters. And I am glad. Because the longer is sticks around, the more people will begin to realise that just about every religion is the same and gradually turn their backs on it. If you want to do away with Scientology, you have to do away with just about every other religion too.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Spinless on 10 Feb 2008, 13:20
   1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members.
   2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
   3. Its founder/leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
   4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds and recruit people.
   5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society. 


These are no worse than any other religion I care to name. Infact, this sounds exactly like most religions I can think of. You have to assume that societies have multiple beliefs. If this is the case, then no church will ever be able to benefit society unless it donates to a charitable cause not associated with it's beliefs, or is taxed by the government.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: ruyi on 10 Feb 2008, 13:23
edit: oops. what spinless said.

my gut feeling is still that the cos is worth criticism, but i haven't quite put my finger on why yet. i just feel like 'religious tolerance' is a slippery slope - that's all well and good if you think all religion is ridiculous, but it doesn't seem right to be bound by a blanket requirement of tolerance for institutions that may be demonstrably more harmful than others.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Ozymandias on 10 Feb 2008, 13:25
I consider everyone who says Scientology is the same as any other religion to just be an athiest who wants the abolition of all religion and is, also, wrong and kind of a dick.

There's a reason Scientology is considered a cult and not given religious status in many countries.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: tommydski on 10 Feb 2008, 13:33
Apart from the part where we are saying that Scientologists should be free to practice their Religion just as you are free to practice your own?

That part is sort of key.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Spinless on 10 Feb 2008, 13:41
I love Buddhist monks. I think we should all live exactly like they do. But this *is* still religious intolerance. Did the catholic church make formal apologies and pay reparations for it's various war crimes through the ages? I imagine they probably apologised for the countless slaughtering of thousands of people, but I doubt it really did any good.

Yes, Scientology has had it's fair share of scandals that have been swept under the rug. But so have other churches. There are still WARS carried out in the name of religion. They are happening right now. People are being killed in the name of religion to this very day. It makes me feel ill that we're bothered more about a church that is effectively just stealing money and sanity, while thousands and thousands of people are dying every day in the name of other religions.
As far as I know, Scientology isn't currently hosting a war over Xenu or outlawing homosexuality, abortion or freedom of speech or molesting small children and relocating it's priest to avoid a real punishment. (controversial criticism!!!!)

Man, this took longer to type that I'd have liked it to, I have to read carefully to make sure I'm using 'church' and 'religion' in the right places...
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Ozymandias on 10 Feb 2008, 13:43
(I don't have a religion)

Scientology needs to be exposed, at least. I don't care if it exists, but it's really fucking creepy and insidious. When I read anything about them, it feels like they want to be the conspiracy theorist's idealized version of the Stonemasons or something.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: bbqrocks on 10 Feb 2008, 13:48
So you guys are saying that scientology are the same as other religions?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: tommydski on 10 Feb 2008, 13:51
I am saying (and I think Darryl is saying) that irregardless, you should be free to practice Scientology just as you should be free to practice Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhism or any other Religion you care to name.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Switchblade on 10 Feb 2008, 13:54
It makes me feel ill that we're bothered more about a church that is effectively just stealing money and sanity, while thousands and thousands of people are dying every day in the name of other religions.

There's no reason why it's an either/or thing, though. Just because people are picketing CoS buildings around the world does not necessarily mean that they aren't equally aware of or concerned by the various other indiscretions of other religions.

I'd also contend that damaging people's sanity is equally as criminal as killing them.

The difference is, Scientology doesn't have whole countries full of armed insurgents at their beck and call. It can be fought through pamphlet warfare and an information campaign.

I am saying (and I think Darryl is saying) that irregardless, you should be free to practice Scientology just as you should be free to practice Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhism or any other Religion you care to name.

none of those religions demand hundreds of thousands of dollars from their members just for the privilege of becoming a member of their faith, however.

One of the protest cards at the Adelaide demonstration said it best: "There are some things that money can't buy. Don't you think salvation is one of them?"

(http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5882568,00.jpg)
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Alex C on 10 Feb 2008, 13:55
More to the point, I think it's been made pretty clear in the past that the QC Forums are not to be used as an extension of any given ideological battleground, no? Lock please?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: sean on 10 Feb 2008, 13:58
(I don't have a religion)

Scientology needs to be exposed, at least. I don't care if it exists, but it's really fucking creepy and insidious.

Scientology may be creep and stuff, but it's not Peoples Temple. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple)

And Whipstitch, this thread hasn't erupted into a giant flame war yet. Let's give this thread a chance. I think we can, for the most part, keep an intelligent discussion here.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Spinless on 10 Feb 2008, 14:00
Switchblade, True, I hadn't considered that. Tommy does not speak for me, but he is saying the same thing that I am not eloquent enough to say. The part I have trouble with is the way that people claim that the church and the religion are somehow not the same thing. I've always understood that it's a package deal.

Just as I think people should be free to practice any religion of their choosing, I think that if you're allowing them that right, you should back off of their church while you're at it. If you're against a Church, you're against the religion, surely?

Edit: Actually, Tommy does speak for me from now on, he's plain better at it. One day, I will say what I mean.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Liz on 10 Feb 2008, 14:04
I don't think that's necessarily true. To me, the religion is the belief system and the church is how you practice those beliefs. That's how there are different denominations within a religion- they all believe essentially the same thing, but how they interpret and practices those beliefs can differ greatly.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Spinless on 10 Feb 2008, 14:08
I always saw a church as being like a school, in that you believed what you were told, or you were wrong.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: tommydski on 10 Feb 2008, 14:08
none of those religions demand hundreds of thousands of dollars from their members just for the privilege of learning the basics of their faith, however.

One of the tenements of Religious tolerance is that it is not your business determining what the boundaries of said faith should or should not be. Presumably, when Scientology breaks the law of a specific country, it is admonished for doing so. One would hope.

The difference is, Scientology doesn't have whole countries full of armed insurgents at their beck and call. It can be fought through pamphlet warfare and an information campaign.

It is ripe for persecution because it is the easiest target?

Protest is fair enough. That should be said. As long as it remains in the realms of peaceful, rational protest. I'm just wary of it becoming harassment or criminal damage.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Switchblade on 10 Feb 2008, 14:09
Quote
The part I have trouble with is the way that people claim that the church and the religion are somehow not the same thing. I've always understood that it's a package deal.

Not necessarily. Even if the backstory behind it is a steaming heap of bullshit (alien leader nukes billions upon billions of people in order to solve an overpopulation crisis, and their immortal spirits then proceed to latch onto the survivors causing a heap of spiritual problems in the process), the spiritual practices it recommends are almost undoubtedly effective at helping people out.

I don't buy into the Christian origin story either, but that doesn't stop me from feeling more peaceful when I enter a church, or respecting the peace that prayer can bring to those people who turn to it.

Honestly, there's a pretty big gap separating a religion from its church. Christianity and Islam both have some very strong things to say on the subject of killing innocent people - i.e, that it will forever consign your soul to hell - but that hasn't stopped either religion from being used as an excuse for all sorts of atrocities throughout history. The religion itself is not at fault in those cases - rather, it has been exploited by the human institution it is attached to.

Quote
One of the tenements of Religious tolerance is that it is not your business determining what the boundaries of said faith should or should not be. Presumably, when Scientology breaks the law of a specific country, it is admonished for doing so. One would hope.

The question then becomes whether that should apply when it is being used to shield an immoral practice. I'd tend to agree that, for the most part, that's a valid tenet. However, the point is that that's not a hard-and-fast rule. In this case, it can be exploited and should therefore be reconsidered.

Such a value judgement is a case-by-case thing, however. I wouldn't dare presume to try and claim that's universally true.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Liz on 10 Feb 2008, 14:15
I always saw a church as being like a school, in that you believed what you were told, or you were wrong.

It does tend to be like that, yes. But if you don't belong to a particular church you can still believe the religion it adheres to.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Switchblade on 10 Feb 2008, 14:22
Protest is fair enough. That should be said. As long as it remains in the realms of peaceful, rational protest. I'm just wary of it becoming harassment or criminal damage.

Fully agreed, and I wouldn't be behind this as muchas I am were it not for the fact that the protests are peaceful and civilized.

Thanks, in part, to the Wise Beard Man (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zW466xcM0Yk)
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Ozymandias on 10 Feb 2008, 14:38
Here's the main problem with Scientology:

In any other religion(barring Catholicism, I suppose), the religion and the Church can be separated. That's not that case with Scientology.  The Church of Scientology is the religion. They are inseparable. To be in the religion you must adhere to the Church. And the Church is, unequivocally, malicious and greedy.

I don't give a shit about the religion, in reality. It's goofy as hell, but whatever. The Church, as an organization, is the problem.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: ruyi on 10 Feb 2008, 14:45
are you sure that's not just because it's a young religion?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: calenlass on 10 Feb 2008, 15:07
I am not joining in the protests for a number of reasons, some of them being lack of time, laziness, and this belief that Tommy is spouting about being free to practice whatever religions you wish.


That said, I do want to clarify one thing. The religion is NOT the same as the church. Christianity is a religion; churches are the groups of people who meet on sundays and give some money and listen to a dude give a sermon and interpret the passages in the Bible concerning their religion and also the administrators who work to maintain the actual church building that the people generally meet in. Judaism is a religion; the churches are the temples and synagogues and the people who meet within them. Etc etc etc.

At this point I am not even sure I believe scientology is a real religion, because since I don't know a whole lot about whatever their religious texts are, all I see is the Church of Scientology, and all that is is extortion and brainwashing, and that I definitely do not support.


Edit: what ozy said, I guess.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: a pack of wolves on 10 Feb 2008, 15:11
I'm not sure why being unable to separate the church and the religion causes a problem, and I think ruyi's right in saying that it's the age of the religion that is the cause of this. Or rather, why this means that Scientology is more deserving of being singled out for its more dubious practices than any other church or religious organisation. I've criticised Scientology before myself and in principle I have no problem with people protesting against it for its actions, just because its a church/religion shouldn't make it immune to criticism. However, I am uneasy about people picking on Scientology alone. The reasons given for the protests sound like things which could be applied to a multitude of churches of various faiths, Scientology just seems like the soft option. I might be wrong about that though.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: bbqrocks on 10 Feb 2008, 15:22
But other churches don't charge extortionate fees for becoming members.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: tommydski on 10 Feb 2008, 15:28
You could always, y'know, not become a Scientologist and then said fees are not a problem. I am a stupid man but I find it surprisingly easy to not become a Scientologist.

In fact, if not becoming a Scientologist was an Olympic event, I would be prepared to represent Great Britain.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Lines on 10 Feb 2008, 15:34
I don't see scientology as a religion. It's the pursuit of knowledge and has a set of practices, but as such it is an organization, not a religion. As far as I know, it lacks a deity/deities/supreme being which basically all religions have. Also, I don't think you are required to pay money in any other religion I know of, but in scientology you do. Donations are given by choice, otherwise it's more like a subscription. If people want to believe in it though, that is their choice, but I will not acknowledge it as a religion because I just don't believe it is one. (I agree with what people have said about extortion, etc., but I am not going to dig into it.)

And Katie's right. Religion is not the same as the church. Religion is a personal affair and the church is either the building or the group of people which meet in said building and practice their religion together.

That said, people are free to believe in whatever they want. Over the ages, it's pretty easy to see that forcing religions/cults on other people does not work and trying to force other people to abandon what they believe obviously doesn't work either. Tolerance is a wonderful thing.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Ozymandias on 10 Feb 2008, 15:42
Yeah. Okay. It's cool.

It's cool for women to be coerced into abortion by their Church, because, I mean. It would be religiously intolerant to say otherwise.

It's cool for people to be harassed to the point of insanity, to lose their job, nearly be thrown in jail, and have their friends actually be plants to try to make them so depressed they commit suicide just because they disagreed with the Church. I mean, that's just religion, right? It's expected.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Alex C on 10 Feb 2008, 15:50
Religion= A set of beliefs and practices related to moral claims and dogma.
A Church= An organization that espouses a particular religion. Often degenerates into a granfalloon.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: tommydski on 10 Feb 2008, 15:53
Jordan, If your argument is that Religions are Batshit Insane, I would agree with you entirely. There are few things I find as downright infuriating and completely baffling as organised Religion. Literally all of them. Irregardless, you and I do not have the right to tell people what they should or should not believe or how they should practice their chosen faith, within the reasonable standings of the Law itself.

Criticism looks a lot more reasonable when it is backed by realistic and workable solutions. Why don't you expand on your comments by making suggestions on the boundaries of belief?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Switchblade on 10 Feb 2008, 15:57
Does it really matter? In the end the fact is that the CoS - as an organization - is deserving of the negative press it is currently receiving.  Semantics aside, the fact is that this is a fairly good cause to be protesting over. I could care less about the debate over whether it is the religion or the church that is being targeted (though personally I believe that they can be considered distinct from each other) just so long as the group responsible for stealing the livelihoods and sanity of its members is brought to task.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Cartilage Head on 10 Feb 2008, 16:09
Guys this is just Anonymous being Anonymous. As if 4chan needed more publicity.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: negative creep on 10 Feb 2008, 16:12
[pic]

I like how the 3 religions mentioned on that sign besides Scientology are Christianity, Islam and Catholicism.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Alex C on 10 Feb 2008, 16:17
Catholicism has made a lot of enemies over the years; there's a lot of groups for whom the distinction isn't considered trite at all.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Ozymandias on 10 Feb 2008, 16:27
Jordan, If your argument is that Religions are Batshit Insane, I would agree with you entirely.

I didn't mention religions or religious beliefs anywhere in there. I spoke of the actions of an organization.

Edit: Wait. Yes I did. I did mention religions. Because I was mocking you. Ignore that part.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Switchblade on 10 Feb 2008, 16:35
[pic]

I like how the 3 religions mentioned on that sign besides Scientology are Christianity, Islam and Catholicism.

yes, I got a minor lol out of that one as well.

Though as Whipstitch pointed out, Catholicism is a very different religion to, say, the Church of England, or Southern Baptism, so I guess it's valid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K42PhmCikzA
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: axerton on 10 Feb 2008, 17:19
To all the people saying that Scientology is a cult rather than a religion, the official (legal) definition of the two words are that a cult must be based around something that is real, where as a religion has to be something that does not have its feet grounded in provable reality. (ie: a group that adore and live their lives around the movie Star Wars, would be a cult, whereas a group who followed the way of the Jedi would be a religion.)

As for the issue at hand, I'm staying well clear. let people believe what they want to believe in the comfort of their own church/temple/whatever.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Lines on 10 Feb 2008, 18:01
Yeah. Okay. It's cool.

It's cool for women to be coerced into abortion by their Church, because, I mean. It would be religiously intolerant to say otherwise.

It's cool for people to be harassed to the point of insanity, to lose their job, nearly be thrown in jail, and have their friends actually be plants to try to make them so depressed they commit suicide just because they disagreed with the Church. I mean, that's just religion, right? It's expected.

Dude. WTF. That is not what I meant. That's not what anyone meant.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: David_Dovey on 10 Feb 2008, 18:08
Guys this is just Anonymous being Anonymous. As if 4chan needed more publicity.

This.

Look, I'm very, very anti-religious and I could go on all day about why I personally think we'd all be a lot better off without any religion, Scientology being just one, the semitic religions being others, but I'm not, because

a) It's against the forum rules
b) It's a conversation that'll never really go anywhere, particularly in the context of this thread, but just generally in the context of the Internet at large
c) Everything that can be said, pretty much already has, and it hasn't changed anything.

EDIT: I forgot the most relevant point:

d) Obvious troll is for fuck's sake do I even have to finish this sentence
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: IronOxide on 10 Feb 2008, 18:33
Now, I do not object to organized protest, as protest is a good way to raise awareness about a topic that you feel strongly about. But there are some things I still do not get about this "Chanology" movement, even after reading about it.

First, what does Anonymous seek to gain from this that could not be accomplished otherwise (and no, "Lulz" is not an acceptable answer)
Secondly, young religions seem to thrive under adversity and persecution. How is this accounted for? The Christian church gained many followers in the early years of persecution because people saw how resiliently they stood up against persecution. Why risk this with an organization you so loathe?
Third, why is the perfectly legitimate act of protesting prefaced with illegal DDoS attacks and the personal harassment of people who generally wish people no harm?

And finally, what about Beck? Everyone loves Beck!
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Ozymandias on 10 Feb 2008, 18:44
Of all the celebrities in Scientology, Beck is the only one that I'm actively okay with being in Scientology.

Because he's Beck. I would be shocked if someone told me he didn't believe that there was an evil space emperor that caused all of mankind's suffering.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: jhocking on 10 Feb 2008, 18:46
irregardless
I am intolerant of this non-word.

Edit: Actually, Tommy does speak for me from now on, he's plain better at it. One day, I will say what I mean.
Are you sure you don't want me to speak for you? I'd start by coming out to your parents, it'd be a huge weight off your chest.

One of the tenements of Religious tolerance
Seriously darryl, are you sure this is the person you want speaking for you?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: David_Dovey on 10 Feb 2008, 18:50
First, what does Anonymous seek to gain from this that could not be accomplished otherwise (and no, "Lulz" is not an acceptable answer)

As much as it's "not an acceptable answer" I think you'll find that it's the only relevant answer.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: StMonkey on 10 Feb 2008, 18:54
Alan Rickman was a prophet for the one true god, who wanted the world to work together to bake the biggest donut possible in order to appease his insatiable craving for donuts

Why is this not a religion yet?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 19:01
I'm curious as to whether the OP really meant it when he said that Anonymous hit the streets. How would that work? How do Anonymous protest outside, 'together'?
I wonder if Fox will have a report on this like they did with this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=128IR21ZQa0).
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: KharBevNor on 10 Feb 2008, 19:14
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/bio/religion/cult/l-ron-hubbard/)

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

(http://editorial.jpress.co.uk/web/Upload/TS//TH1_10220087scientology.jpg)

(http://glosslip.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/newyorksci.jpg)

(http://glosslip.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/manchestersci1.jpg)

(http://glosslip.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/brusselssci1.jpg)

(http://torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_david/2008_02_10scientologyprotest_1.jpg)

(http://torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_david/2008_02_10scientologyprotest_3.jpg)


V For Vendetta mask is the new black balaclava?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Lines on 10 Feb 2008, 19:32
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.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Cartilage Head on 10 Feb 2008, 20:08
You can buy them at Hot Topic. /b/tards shop at Hot Topic, appearantly.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: supersheep on 10 Feb 2008, 20:46
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferns_Inquiry) 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.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Alex C on 10 Feb 2008, 20:53
Uh, to be fair, Anonymity has kind of become a part of their whole shtick, what with the forced anonymity and all.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: KickThatBathProf on 10 Feb 2008, 21:08
Guys, guys, seriously.  Stop with the arguing.  What Would Flying Spaghetti Monster Do? (http://www.venganza.org/)
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Storm Rider on 10 Feb 2008, 21:38
I am a stupid man but I find it surprisingly easy to not become a Scientologist.

In fact, if not becoming a Scientologist was an Olympic event, I would be prepared to represent Great Britain.

Fantastic.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 21:39
You see, now Tommy has to challenge Xenu to a race around the world.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Storm Rider on 10 Feb 2008, 21:45
Guys, because of the title of this thread, I am now starting the First United Church of Jackie Chan.

I'll be giving a lengthy sermon about the trials he faced alongside his apostle Chris Tucker at a later date.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Rizzo on 10 Feb 2008, 21:55
The point Khar made I think is the most important.
If you opt out of Islam, Christianity, Judeaism etc you won't be sued, you might be called a heretic, people may treat you badly and you may be made to feel like human waste but you will not be sued for copyright infringement.
Certainly other religions will excommunicate you and treat you like shit but CoS will excommunicate you, treat you like shit, threaten you and probably attempt to take you to court if you speak out against them...
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: est on 10 Feb 2008, 22:09
I was going to make a detailed post in here, but then I read Ozy and Khar's posts and saw that they already had basically everything I wanted to say covered.

My summation: freedom of religion is great.  People should be free to practise whatever religion they want.  Organisations, however, should never be free to extort their members, brainwash them, encourage them to do awful things and in some cases imprison them against their will.  They are not the actions of a religion or organisation that is to be respected.

Also: please don't give me any of this bullshit about them being a "young religion".  Religions got away with that kind of shit when they were "young" because we were back in ye olde ages, not simply because they were religions.  I would like to think that civilisation has evolved a little since those times.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 22:35
I have to agree with every bit against the organization. You can practive whatever you want to otherwise.

This (http://deathboy.livejournal.com/1082404.html) made my day. After reading this blog entry, I smiled a lot.

Also, from the protest: (http://i26.tinypic.com/w6uu12.jpg)
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: calenlass on 10 Feb 2008, 22:47
So good.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 23:16
Also, here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OHpjcZNM8_k) is a video of the London sector getting rickrolled by protestors. Apparently more than 300 showed up at London's protest. There are reports of 100's showing up to many of them, around the world. I have to say, a better thing to talk about in this thread is the sheer awesome that these protests are exhuding. I'm sure that more videos will be put up in no time, as the protests were only yesterday, which, from where I am right now, was only two hours ago.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Patrick on 10 Feb 2008, 23:39
I'm mostly annoyed at Scientology 'cause they tried to bullshit me personally. I don't take kindly to being bullshitted.

Also, MusicScribbles, I kindof want to find out who that "LONGCAT" person is expressly so I can bitchslap them. It really doesn't help the cause and just confuses people. Fuck, every site I've been to that has been organizing stuff for this IRL raid has gone well out of their way to say "Listen guys. Don't reference memes. Nobody's going to get it but you."
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: est on 10 Feb 2008, 23:40
"DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING"

awesome.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Rizzo on 10 Feb 2008, 23:57
Quote
How do you, ideologically speaking, defeat a crowd that is enthusiastically demanding that you "DO A BARREL ROLL! DO A BARREL ROLL!!" ?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: calenlass on 11 Feb 2008, 00:00
Guys when is the next protest? Has anyone thought that far ahead yet?



(I want to take a video camera and film it. You guys know the 4chan dude lives in my city, right?)
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Alex C on 11 Feb 2008, 00:00
I wanted to say something about irregardless earlier, but I remain unsure whether it's some kind of elaborate prank, so I kept my mouth shut.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: calenlass on 11 Feb 2008, 00:02
Tommydski is the subtlest of trolls.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Ozymandias on 11 Feb 2008, 00:17
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?

Yeah, the point is kind of, uh, "Anonymous." Also, I don't think they're scared of the cops. I think they're a little bit scared of the Church. I would be.

Katie, the next protest is March 15, I think, according to the 4chan.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: jhocking on 11 Feb 2008, 00:40
I remain unsure whether it's some kind of elaborate prank
Great, now he'll pretend he made those mistakes on purpose and I'll look like a dumbass. THANKS A LOT DUDE
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: DonInKansas on 11 Feb 2008, 01:05

Bear in mind, the protests are aimed at the CoS, not the actual religion itself. The protestors claim that the CoS is actually a cult that extorts its members for money and brainwashes them. They claim that it has many of the hallmarks of a cult, especially:

   1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members.
   2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
   3. Its founder/leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
   4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds and recruit people.
   5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society. 


How is this different from any other religion out there?  This argument could be made against any religion.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: ruyi on 11 Feb 2008, 01:14
that has been said already. i think khar brought up the real issue, though:

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/bio/religion/cult/l-ron-hubbard/)

http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/scientology/ (http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/scientology/)
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Patrick on 11 Feb 2008, 01:35
How is this different from any other religion out there?  This argument could be made against any religion.

Aside from the fact that Roo is completely right, have you ever heard of a lady named Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu? No? How about if I use her better-known name of Mother Teresa? What about that dude Gandhi?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: KharBevNor on 11 Feb 2008, 01:46
Dude I would not be so uncritical about Mother Teresa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position_%28book%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position_%28book%29)

and Ghandi? Ghandi was the utter antithesis of organised religion.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Switchblade on 11 Feb 2008, 02:48

Yeah, the point is kind of, uh, "Anonymous." Also, I don't think they're scared of the cops. I think they're a little bit scared of the Church. I would be.

By all accounts, the cops in most if not all of the protest locations wereequal parts amused and accepting of the protestors.

One of the core points behind the protest arrangements was that everyone should keep it civil, keep it legal, and respect the police. Something which the cops appreciated, no doubt.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: öde on 11 Feb 2008, 02:52
I don't even know what Gandhi's religion was (just that he was totally rad).

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2029/2255415031_5d4676dafa.jpg?v=0)

HOORAY!
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: mooface on 11 Feb 2008, 03:16
so, uh, my two cents:

1 cent:  i don't understand what people mean when they say "hey Scientology is just a religion just like any other evil religion".  i don't get that.  does it mean that people shouldn't be able to protest it just because there aren't people protesting the Catholic Church?  because i think it is definitely okay to protest Scientology just as i think it was totally okay for me to get pissed off about my Catholic high school being forced to give all the money that was supposed to go towards building an auditorium to the Church's fund for defending the priests who molested children.  i think that it is good that people are speaking out against all the bad things that Scientology is doing and i think that more people should be speaking out against all the bad things that other older religions are doing. 
brainwashing people and taking their money is bad.  just because an organization calls itself a religion doesn't make it right.  and so these practices should be stopped because although people have the right to believe whatever they want, they shouldn't have the right to trick people and take their money.

2 cent:   also, i would like to say that i think scientology, although i don't know much about it, is pretty different from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism.  although all these religions may have their flaws and may have been used as tools for doing evil, they all have the fundamental golden rule of "love your neighbor as you love yourself", just with different wording.  Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha... they all had the best intentions when they set out their moral codes (which mainly revolved around tolerance and understanding). despite how their words may have eventually been misinterpreted or covered up by other trivial rules and manipulations, i don't think any of them are really comparable to L. Ron Hubbard.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Spinless on 11 Feb 2008, 04:13
This raises a big issue. Prove that the church of Scientology is tricking people. Infact, prove that the Catholic Church is not tricking people. Prove the existence of a god, and I'll go and fetch Xenu, he's probably hiding behind my couch. The argument of faith still applies to the CoS. Even if they do use brainwashing techniques and scare tactics. Infact, most organised religions do. Nobody wants to burn in hell for eternity, do they?

Once people start using legal action against the CoS, the doors should open to use it against any organised religion.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: redglasscurls on 11 Feb 2008, 04:16
I saw a flier about the protest in my building when I came in this morning and I thought it was a joke. It's fucking cold out, I don't care enough about people moronic enough to get wrapped up in scientology to ponce around waving signs in 20 degree weather.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: KharBevNor on 11 Feb 2008, 05:15
This raises a big issue. Prove that the church of Scientology is tricking people. Infact, prove that the Catholic Church is not tricking people.

The catholic church has an open doctrine and theology. Anyone can read the bible, the apocrypha, papal bulls and countless works of Catholic and anti-catholic theology, philosophy etc. Anyone can go and talk about the churches doctrines with a priest.

The doctrine of Xenu, however, is supposed to be classified. Although scientology documents have leaked, you're not supposed to actually be told about Xenu, or thetans, or any of that shit till you reach OT III, by which time you have already sunk a significant quantity of time and money into the church, not to mention gone through the crucial 'clearing' stages of auditing, which basically consist of repeating untruths until you believe them enough to fool a lie detector. The Co$, in fact, doesn't even admit to this stuff. Scientology is sold initially as a sort of new-age self-help thing to help people with personal problems like depression or addiction. Then suddenly you find your mind is infested with alien ghosts and someones asking you to sign away your soul to the Sea Org for a billion years. It's like if the Catholic church presented itself as a social club, then after a couple of years of paying subscriptions they told you about original sin. It's not a question of whether the doctrines of either belief system represent ultimate truth, it's the fact that scientology lies about itself, and attempts to keep its doctrines and rituals secret. Talking from a purely moral perspective, would you be inclined to trust people who claimed to have found the solution to human happiness, and then expended massive effort to keep it secret, whilst charging people extortionate quantities of money for it?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Patrick on 11 Feb 2008, 06:20
Dudes, any other organized religion is protested just as easily. Protestantism is protested because of anti-gay sentiment. Catholicism has been protested for the same, and it's been protested for other things for literally hundreds of years (that old boy Martin Luther would be boring as hell to read about otherwise). Point = moot (no pun intended).

The thing about the Scientologists is that you have to pay OUT THE ASS to learn anything worthwhile about your religion. That combined with their tax-exempt status are the reason the *chans are protesting, not because of anything else. It has to be a willing donation, not a "If you don't do it we won't pay you and probably will fuck your whole life up more than we have already".
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: The extra letter on 11 Feb 2008, 06:23
I'm normally one for letting people believe what they want, but any "religion" that uses trademarks, copyrighting and the like as much as Scientology is a money making venture, not a belief system.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 11 Feb 2008, 06:34
I was actually going to go to the Sydney protest (I wasn't able to) however my reasons, though yes I am an atheist and yes I do believe that all religions should be abandoned, are a little more personal (I'm a psych. student. I plan to be a clinical psychologist once I get out of uni. The Co$ has several psychology/psychiatry hate groups which I have come into personal contact with. This is not a religion. This is a dangerous cult, dangerous in the way that Christianity hasn't been for decades. Saying that we should just ignore it because it is a "young religion" is incredibly naiive. Saying that we should be tolerant of it simply because it is a belief system that we don't ourselves share is, in my mind, fucking ridiculous. No idea is above criticism yet this is exactly what the Co$ try to do - squash any word of criticism.

I cannot honestly and candidly tell you guys how I feel because it would get this thread locked. Instead here is a link. Read it as well as the Rotten.com links that Khar posted.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865-1,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865-1,00.html)

You can say I am being intolerant if you like and you'd be right. I am at peace with that.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Spinless on 11 Feb 2008, 06:37
I'm normally one for letting people believe what they want, but any "religion" that uses trademarks, copyrighting and the like as much as Scientology is a money making venture, not a belief system.

Why not? Nobody is forcing you to become a Scientologist. Infact, while I'm sure they use despicable means to hold onto their member, I'm pretty sure that nobody has been held at gunpoint and forced to make the first payment. Scientology is still a choice, just like most other religions.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: schimmy on 11 Feb 2008, 06:53
Gunpoint, no. Blackmailed? Yes.
There was a fantastic Louis Theroux documentary a while back about Scientology where he interviewed former members, attempted to interview current members (they showed up, but pretty much refused to answer any of his questions.)
Anyway, onto the blackmail. What the 'church' does is, they persuade you to let them measure your stress levels using primitive lie detectors.
They then persuade you (at this stage they are very friendly) to talk to them about yourself, and, as I assume you know already, talking about your problems can relieve stress.
What's the problem with this? They record everything you say so they can blackmail you in the future. And now, if you don't have the courage to back out, you basically have to keep paying them an increasingly large subscription to not tell the world your secrets.
Now, I assume most of you don't have secrets that huge that would destroy you if people found out.
But, I'm also willing to assume you're not an actor or businessman to whom a scandal would destroy your career.

That (along with what others such as Khar have said) is what is wrong with Scientology. Maybe it is a religion. Religions can break the law, and scam people just as well any other organization, and I don't see why professing supernatural beliefs should make them immune to criticism and, more importantly, persecution for breaking whatever laws they've broken.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Spinless on 11 Feb 2008, 07:10
On top form as usual, schimmy. If the Church of Scientology has indeed broken the law, and legal action is taken against the church, then what's stopping us from taking legal action against all churches?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 11 Feb 2008, 07:19
A misguided sense of religious tolerance tells us that some things, like a person's right to believe stupid, erroneous, primitive and backward things, are untouchable. You can argue politics, you can argue your opinion of a ruling of a soccer referee but as soon as someone says "I refuse to give my schizophrenic son medication that will allow him to live a relatively normal life because this book, which I will not let you look at, says so" we have to back off and respect it?

Fuck that noise.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: 0bsessions on 11 Feb 2008, 07:26
My only real contirbution to this is that I'm glad to know why the fuck there was a dude with a V For Vendetta mask at South Station yesterday.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: a pack of wolves on 11 Feb 2008, 08:03
After reading this thread, and the links posted, my initial reservations about these protests have gone. The CoS seems like a good target, not a soft one.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Patrick on 11 Feb 2008, 08:18
On top form as usual, schimmy. If the Church of Scientology has indeed broken the law, and legal action is taken against the church, then what's stopping us from taking legal action against all churches?

Do you see Catholic priests taking people's confession secrets and going public unless you pay them off? I've never heard of that happening, and I know people who go to confession weekly.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: a pack of wolves on 11 Feb 2008, 08:24
And if they did it would be extortion and people would be perfectly within their rights to report them to the police and have them arrested.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: ledhendrix on 11 Feb 2008, 08:52
This is from the protest in London, Made me laugh

(http://www.t52.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/chanology021.jpg)

My views on the matter... What Khar said.


Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: tommydski on 11 Feb 2008, 09:03
I am intolerant of this non-word.

I had never considered the word 'irregardless' before actually. It actually took me like five minutes to work out what was wrong with it. Curious.

Peaceful protesting is fair enough and from the look of those pictured above, it's nice that they had a chance to dress up and get out of their parent's basement for a day. I do have a problem with organised Religion myself but I can't help but feel that we should be careful singling out one specific Church when they are equally crazy by varying degrees. I can think of several occasions in recent history whereby one Religious group has been subject to unusual and prolonged harassment and to cut a long story short in ended badly. Not saying this is the same thing, just that everyone needs to be wary of pushing a joke too far. It's unusual that I find myself defending an organisation that I have so much contempt for but I think there's a definitive double standard at play. If I'd started this thread about a protest against Christianity, Judaism or Islam, the reaction would have been quite different. In the past I have definitely been guilty of religious intolerance but I think I'm gradually improving as I get older. In the spirit of Devil's Advocacy, I think anyone would be well served to at least give the following a moment of consideration.

The main thing that struck me about this whole affair is that to my knowledge, Anonymous and 4Chan can hardly be called a bastion of moral decency. I think people should consider the distinct and very real possibility that the apparent menace of Scientology has been overblown and exaggerated by a truly gargantuan media that survives by feeding their audience bite-size chunks of high drama to keep them entertained and their sponsors happy. We all like to pretend there is an imminent and real danger, a bogey-man that we can project our own problems and insecurities upon. This is how scapegoats are established. Ironically, my knowledge of Scientology and Anonymous runs parallel. I only ever hear about either organisation when their actions are reported by the mainstream media, usually in a highly sensationalist manner. People enjoy creating half-truths and generalisations about things they don't understand and the media is always happy to report said opinions as fact. Remember the Fox News reports on Anonymous (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY)? How accurate were they? Would you say this is an example of sensationalism in the media? Is it remotely possible that reports on Scientology are equally hysterical on occasions? In order to inspire a sense of intrigue in their audience, thus increasing circulation and/or viewing figures and thus attract more sponsors? Is it possible?

For funsies, I'll throw out some sentences describing the two sides here and you can tell me which, if any, are accurate -

Scientology is -

1) A dangerous, brainwashing cult with an agenda of fear, intimidation, profit and world domination.
2) A bunch of pathetic rich people with some frankly fucking ridiculous beliefs.
3) A club for homosexual men who are unable to come to terms with their own sexuality.

Anonymous is -

1) An anonymous international terrorist cabal with an agenda of fear, intimidation, harassment and global unrest.
2) An online community of marginalised geeks with a perverse sense of humour that share an avowed interest in meta-ironic humour.
3) A bunch of pathetic Nerds who play anarchy between mammoth D&D sessions in their Mom's garage.

Are any of these statements true? Could I make a compelling argument that any of these are true, if it would create an interesting or sensationalist article? If I had an agenda to do so, possibly motivated ultimately by my desire for profit? Is there a chance that in the past, the Media has presented Scientology as far more insidious and dangerous than it actually is? As a whole, we seem more likely to accept that the media is full of shit when they are talking about something we understand. When it comes to something we find inexplicable or distasteful, we'll basically swallow anything if it sounds good. The sad thing is these scam organisations and Religions in general thrive on persecution. Putting them in the headlines every week is just raising their profile every time. We should ignore them like the pathetic bunch of nitwits they undoubtedly are.

If the people who are staging these protests have definitely given all of this due consideration, good luck to them. Protest away. Maybe next week we can protest the right-wing Christian administration that has essentially hijacked American politics. Maybe the week after that we can protest the treatment of women by Muslim extremists on basically every continent. Maybe afterwards we can protest the wars our governments have started abroad. In the current climate, protesting Scientology is akin to a man in a burning building complaining about having an itchy leg.

The truly ironic thing is I genuinely thought twice about posting this. Not because I am criticising Scientology. Think about it. As someone who uses the internet for business and recreation who poses more of a threat to me? Not Scientology, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Patrick on 11 Feb 2008, 09:26
They're already in the news every week because of Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, Will Smith, and many others.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Johnny C on 11 Feb 2008, 09:37
It's a dangerous line to walk between criticism and intolerance.

Scientology is one of those things that as a religion is incredibly harmless. It's frivolous at best to mock their beliefs. However, the Church Of Scientology itself is an enterprise not only based on fear, intimidation, profit and power, it's an extremely corrupt example of it. I don't pretend to defend the organized structure of any religion as immune from error, but in the latter half of the twentieth century the Church Of Scientology has embarked on a campaign of harassment, legal bullying, psychotic behaviour against critics that is endorsed by high-level Church administrators and quite possibly murder by torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#Mistreatment_of_members), which may have actually occurred on multiple occasions.

As an additional corollary, there are organizations like Free Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29) who are essentially in the process of a modern schism from the main Church of Scientology. The difference is that where such things were often settled with years of physical conflict and cries of "heresy," it's now being settled with expensive lawyers and cries of "heresy."

And to confound my argument even further, any criticism is good, by the way. Criticism of a religion is no different from criticism of, say, a government. Certainly, there are some people out there who believe in the current American administration, but that doesn't mean that George W. Bush and co. are somehow beyond protest just because some people happen to support them. To suggest that Scientology shouldn't be singled out for protest not only negates previous public protests against the machinations of other religions, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Especially when, although because of their particular self-referential brand of humour the proceedings were a bit bizarre and occasionally cruel, a protest against a religious organization's practices is carried out in as peaceful a manner as this.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this is a complex thing. No point in reducing it to an inaccurate situation of "It's a religion and this is intolerance" vs. "It's a cult and it's dangerous."
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: a pack of wolves on 11 Feb 2008, 09:45
If the people who are staging these protests have definitely given all of this due consideration, good luck to them. Protest away. Maybe next week we can protest the right-wing Christian administration that has essentially hijacked American politics. Maybe the week after that we can protest the treatment of women by Muslim extremists on basically every continent. Maybe afterwards we can protest the wars our governments have started abroad. In the current climate, protesting Scientology is akin to a man in a burning building complaining about having an itchy leg.

To an extent I'd agree, but nobody ever starts with the toughest things wrong with this world, the things which force you to question your own way of life. It's a first step, and I'm usually happy to see people willing to take to the streets over something. Once they've done it for once it becomes more natural to do it again, so maybe in a few years there'll be people outside oil refineries or army recruitment centres chatting about how their first protest was this. In fact, I'll be very surprised if that isn't the case.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Ozymandias on 11 Feb 2008, 09:58
Tommy, you keep saying "if them why not them?" which is basically an erroneous argument and you know it. If someone wants to protest one wrong, they should be allowed to, despite the existence of others. Otherwise, what's the point? What's the point of fighting any evil if  other evil continues to exist? Anonymous can't take down the Catholic Church. Anonymous can't take down Muslim extremists. Anonymous can't take down the government. Those entities exist outside of the modern construction of society, the internet, the businesses, the corporations. Anonymous and Scientology both feed off the modern construction of society. They grew in it and use it to their advantage. It's something that Anonymous can actually, at least, feel like they're doing something about.

And, yeah, Anonymous is malicious themselves. No one is arguing that they're the white knights coming to save us from the vicious dragon of Scientology. They're a bunch of nerds, script kiddies, /b/tards, and other assorted internet bottom dwellers who do stupid shit because it's funny. If they want to feel like they're doing something because it's right for once, though, I'm okay with that.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: AnotherQCaddict on 11 Feb 2008, 10:22
While anon is making some good arguements (paying for salvation?), they aren't exactly the most orthodox of protesters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoA0mnISlyQ

Might this constitute harrassment?  I don't particularly like either group, but it's more a matter of "who is worse?"




At least anon has done a few good things, wheras the few good things one might be able to be said about Scientology are shrouded in a cloud of doubt and legal nonsense.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Spinless on 11 Feb 2008, 10:44
That video was horrible. The youtube comments say she is the one who approached them on a "rampage". That's not to say they protesters were justified in their following actions either. Both the protesters and the woman in the video were in the wrong.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: KharBevNor on 11 Feb 2008, 11:16
Anonymous aren't protesting this because of moral objections. Their main issue is freedom of information, which is something anonymous is definitely not hypocritical about. Scientologys attempts to suppress criticism and free distribution of scientology docs are genuinely a serious threat to online freedom of speech. There's no double standards at play.

And Tommy, I think you will find that there are plenty of groups protesting other religions, though often ineffectively, and often from rather questionable stances of their own. Nevertheless, it happens. I remember reading only last month of Italian students protesting a speech by the pope because of his retrograde attitude to science. There are major figures and global and national organisations constantly speaking out against radical islam, catholicism, fundamentalist christianity, hindu nationalism, countless other groups. Maybe they don't make the press as much, but they're there. In a lot of cases this has to do with the fact that the battlegrounds are different, as are the people doing the protesting. In the case of a lot of this stuff most of the protest comes, naturally, from within the same culture. Also, there are all sorts of issues with white, christian backgrounded westerners protesting aspects of Islam, whereas Scientology is undeniably a distinctive product of the west.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: tommydski on 11 Feb 2008, 11:26
Tommy, you keep saying "if them why not them?" which is basically an erroneous argument and you know it. If someone wants to protest one wrong, they should be allowed to, despite the existence of others. Otherwise, what's the point? What's the point of fighting any evil if  other evil continues to exist?

If you read what I said again, you'll notice I went to some length to point out that I merely want people to give this protest more consideration.

Rest assured it is absolutely fine by me if people want to declare open season on calling Religion evil. I genuinely hate Religion to the point of fanatacism but I just think there is something to be said for giving all due thought before this precedent is set.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: IronOxide on 11 Feb 2008, 11:58
I am not critical of this movement because they are protesting the CoS. On the contrary, I feel that people need to raise awareness about the things that are happening in this church, but I feel that the protesters are mixed into three groups.

The first is the group that wants people to see what may be going on in this organization and feel that their actions are unacceptable. These are the people that you will see out and about with "Google Lisa McPherson" and "Salvation Should Be Free" signs. They are genuinely concerned about the actions of the church, and feel like they are wronging people, which I personally agree with.

The second group are the people who are "In it for the Lulz", these are the people that show up to the protests mindlessly quoting memes. These are the people carrying "Longcat is Loooooong" signs and carrying boomboxes to "Rickroll" the streets. They are just interested in generating chaos because they are not content with their lives and do not feel like contributing positively.

The final people are those who are intolerant of the core beliefs of the society and feel that it should be open to ridicule through that route. At a protest they are the ones shouting at entering and exiting members and are the people who will carry the "Lol Xenu" signs. They want to make fun of people because they find their beliefs too silly to be allowed in our society.

The first group is the only group that are in it for the betterment of society, they are actually trying to shed light on a situation that may be criminal or at least amoral. They are working to shed light on an organization that they feel are doing bad things. I find this respectable, and I would find it respectable even if I agreed with the actions of the CoS.

The second and third groups, however, are hurting their own cause more than they are helping it. They have found an organization that is easy to make fun of (like all religions). They are the ones who are just looking to attack a young religion. They want to hurt people just to hurt people. This is the activity of the group that I do not think is acceptable. Now, from the coverage of the "raids", I don't know which people are the most numerous. The news seems to revolve more around the first group, while the internet community is spending more time glorifying the second and third groups. I don't know which are better represented there because I was not at every protest in the world. Some people here want to better the world, some people don't want to change the world at all, and some people want to hurt the world. All three of these groups have banded together against one common enemy, and they are hurting their own cause.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: calenlass on 11 Feb 2008, 11:59
We all like to pretend there is an imminent and real danger, a bogey-man that we can project our own problems and insecurities upon.


Dude zombies are a real and imminent danger, but we are already talking about that other places (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,17987.msg603597.html#new).
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: a pack of wolves on 11 Feb 2008, 12:10
The second group are the people who are "In it for the Lulz", these are the people that show up to the protests mindlessly quoting memes. These are the people carrying "Longcat is Loooooong" signs and carrying boomboxes to "Rickroll" the streets. They are just interested in generating chaos because they are not content with their lives and do not feel like contributing positively.

I think you could well be completely wrong about these people. The role of the clown in protests is very well established, at any large demo you'll undoubtedly see groups of people who're either members of or adopting the general tactics of CIRCA (http://www.clownarmy.org/). I'm actually quite taken with the tactic of rick rolling, it'd be enjoyable and the whole point of tactics like that are to create confusion and disorder, not necessarily to be easily understood.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Patrick on 11 Feb 2008, 12:39
The thing about the repetition of the 4chan memes? It's a morale boost for the people standing in the picket lines. Sure, it isn't a political proclamation, but that's what the signs are for. It gets real boring standing outside for several hours unless you've got something everybody can laugh about.

Also, in b4 somebody posts the "INTERNET SUPERHEROES" poster which describes 4chan's /b/ ("we are mindless 'me too'-ism"). Seriously? A 4chan-based protest without memes is like a tanning salon without skin cancer.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: AnotherQCaddict on 11 Feb 2008, 12:41
The thing about the repetition of the 4chan memes? It's a morale boost for the people standing in the picket lines. Sure, it isn't a political proclamation, but that's what the signs are for. It gets real boring standing outside for several hours unless you've got something everybody can laugh about.

Also, in b4 somebody posts the "INTERNET SUPERHEROES" poster which describes 4chan's /b/ ("we are mindless 'me too'-ism"). Seriously? A 4chan-based protest without memes is like a tanning salon without skin cancer.

And both make one look rather baked, oui?
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: calenlass on 11 Feb 2008, 16:32
post quoting, dude


lurk moar
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Switchblade on 11 Feb 2008, 16:43
That video was horrible. The youtube comments say she is the one who approached them on a "rampage". That's not to say they protesters were justified in their following actions either. Both the protesters and the woman in the video were in the wrong.

Honestly, it looks a lot like she was the one sounding off. She even kicked one guy who was trying to hand her a pamphlet. How did he respond?

He let it slide.

While I'm hesitant to use the bad behaviour of one person to tar an entire organization with one brush, that little exchange right there looks a lot like a microcosm for the larger anon/CoS dynamic

Quote
Scientology is -

1) A dangerous, brainwashing cult with an agenda of fear, intimidation, profit and world domination.
2) A bunch of pathetic rich people with some frankly fucking ridiculous beliefs.
3) A club for homosexual men who are unable to come to terms with their own sexuality.

Anonymous is -

1) An anonymous international terrorist cabal with an agenda of fear, intimidation, harassment and global unrest.
2) An online community of marginalised geeks with a perverse sense of humour that share an avowed interest in meta-ironic humour.
3) A bunch of pathetic Nerds who play anarchy between mammoth D&D sessions in their Mom's garage.

From what I gather, Scientology is somewhere between 1 and 2 (the extent to which either statement is true should be decided on a case-by-case basis). Anonymous, insofar as it's possible to generalize about them, mostly fall into category number 2. Any incidents where they're accused of falling into category 1 are generally a result of somebody either misinterpreting them, or trying to undermine their credibility with scary buzzwords.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: bbqrocks on 11 Feb 2008, 16:44
Hmm, the church of scientology seems more and more like a peoples temple type organization to me.

Oh yes, and I have some useful information for your avatar (http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/peyronie/index.htm), calenlass.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: MusicScribbles on 11 Feb 2008, 19:38
That article doesn't say anything about furry woodland creatures. The erect critter might not have a problem with looking like that.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: David_Dovey on 11 Feb 2008, 19:55
I really don't get this "young religion" stuff people are talking about.

I guess, if I'm understanding it correctly, people are objecting to the singling out of Scientology simply because it hasn't had the years other religions have had to become entrenched in mainstream consciousness and thus seem less outright crazy than say, the story of a man rising from the dead, walking on water, and suggesting that his followers pretend they are eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Yet, instead of using it to suggest that all religions are pretty implausible and deserve to be criticised, just like every other topic of discourse in our society, it is being argued that despite it's youth, Scientology deserves to join all the other religions of the world in being completely immune to analysis and criticism.

I'm with people in the sense that Scientology shouldn't be special because it is young, or because it was started by a science fiction author, but I completely disagree with them that we should refrain from pointing out irrationalities in any religion because we're afraid of wounding someone's delicate sensibilities. Sure, the idea of an evil alien warlord and malicious spirits inhabiting our bodies is pretty out there, but what about a prophet ascending bodily to heaven on a winged horse?

EDIT: I get the feeling that I may get chewed out here because I've completely misread people's arguments. If that's true, kindly disregard!
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: blindeye on 11 Feb 2008, 20:32
Here is how CoS deals with the BBC.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-126281853779690652 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-126281853779690652)
All they tried to do was interview people peacefully.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: KharBevNor on 11 Feb 2008, 21:22
Also, Tommy bought up the idea of comparing this to the persecution of certain religious minorities in history. I hardly think that is at all accurate. Scientology is a global organisation controlling hundreds of millions of dollars of money, assets and shares, with ties to big business, archives full of blackmail information, batteries of lawyers and private investigators and even its own merchant navy. Comparisons to groups like the Spanish Jews, the Heugenots, the Falun Gong or the Japanese Christians are ill deserved to say the least.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 11 Feb 2008, 21:44
Well, remember that the Catholic Church isn't exactly a poor operation either Khar, they've got billions to their name.


This is my only post in this thread since all views have been covered ad nauseum I feel. Guys, you should really just let it die. I'm not gonna be posting in here again or even so much as reading it anymore. Whether you like it or not religious discussion has taken place in here and plenty of views that don't truly belong to a forum where politics and religion are supposed to stay outside, or at least restricted to Gabbly. I'm not taking sides and I'm not claiming that Scientology is or isn't a religion, or even what my own religion is (to those that don't already know). But I feel that plenty of anti-religious sentiment has gone on in here long enough towards other religions that are established by the opinions of most people on here of being "actual religions" or whatever the fuck that means. Seriously, let it die, there's plenty of things on 4chan to offend people enough as it is.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: ruyi on 11 Feb 2008, 22:14
err, sorry to not let it die, but i just wanted to clarify something i said.

I really don't get this "young religion" stuff people are talking about.

I guess, if I'm understanding it correctly, people are objecting to the singling out of Scientology simply because it hasn't had the years other religions have had to become entrenched in mainstream consciousness and thus seem less outright crazy than say, the story of a man rising from the dead, walking on water, and suggesting that his followers pretend they are eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Yet, instead of using it to suggest that all religions are pretty implausible and deserve to be criticised, just like every other topic of discourse in our society, it is being argued that despite it's youth, Scientology deserves to join all the other religions of the world in being completely immune to analysis and criticism.

I'm with people in the sense that Scientology shouldn't be special because it is young, or because it was started by a science fiction author, but I completely disagree with them that we should refrain from pointing out irrationalities in any religion because we're afraid of wounding someone's delicate sensibilities. Sure, the idea of an evil alien warlord and malicious spirits inhabiting our bodies is pretty out there, but what about a prophet ascending bodily to heaven on a winged horse?

EDIT: I get the feeling that I may get chewed out here because I've completely misread people's arguments. If that's true, kindly disregard!

i actually did not mean that it was because of its youth that it's more deserving of criticism, though that is what other posters interpreted.

what i meant was simply that it hasn't had the time to grow to the point where believers can exist apart from the institution. thus, for example, one can criticize the vatican without criticizing all self-identified christians. christianity has been around for a couple thousand years, so there's been a lot of splits and whatnot, and it's not uncommon to find people who would call themselves believers yet don't regularly go to church or identify with the prominent church members. a lot of these people are not harmful.

by pointing out the youth of the CoS, i'm simply allowing for the possibility that some time in the distant future, if the believers are indeed genuinely convinced, there may exist believers outside of the institution. at the moment, however, that's simply not the case, due to what khar pointed out. but whatever, if its claims are genuinely compelling, people will start to believe it (or perhaps a modified version of it) in the future. it might die out too, but i'm just saying.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Narr on 11 Feb 2008, 22:28
Why is it that some people now find persecution funny and cool? I thought that it was something that we had generally started to get the better of in this nation. I know we weren't perfect, but this it a huge leap backwards.

I really don't get it in the slightest.
You're talking about fucking 4chan here.

Not just that, you're talking about /b/.

If there is anything that needs to be shut down for being a hive of disgust and a breeding ground for deviousness, 4chan would be it.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: David_Dovey on 11 Feb 2008, 22:39
Thanks for the clarification ruyi!
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: KharBevNor on 11 Feb 2008, 23:16
If there is anything that needs to be shut down for being a hive of disgust and a breeding ground for deviousness, 4chan would be it.

SERIOUS BUSINESS.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Patrick on 12 Feb 2008, 01:11
Well, remember that the Catholic Church isn't exactly a poor operation either Khar, they've got billions to their name.

The Catholic Church doesn't exactly have a military. They have the Swiss Guards, for sure, but the closest thing they've got to a legal team is the Cardinals.

Also, I am annoyed by this business about all the hate on 4chan. We don't blackmail people into giving us money.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: öde on 12 Feb 2008, 02:42
deviousness

By deviousness do you mean difference from social standards? If so, isn't that a good thing?

Here is how CoS deals with the BBC.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-126281853779690652 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-126281853779690652)
All they tried to do was interview people peacefully.

Saddening!
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: schimmy on 12 Feb 2008, 02:50
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-126281853779690652 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-126281853779690652)

That was the program I was talking about. I guess it wasn't Louis Theroux. Regardless, you should all watch this.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Switchblade on 12 Feb 2008, 02:55
Yet, instead of using it to suggest that all religions are pretty implausible and deserve to be criticised, just like every other topic of discourse in our society, it is being argued that despite it's youth, Scientology deserves to join all the other religions of the world in being completely immune to analysis and criticism.

I would tend to dispute that even the well-established ones should be immune to analysis and criticism. If a religions is abused for the sake of extortion, intimidation and brainwashing then it deserves to be justly criticized. Even if Scientology is a genuine religion (we'll ignore that particular debate for now) the CoS is responsible for some deeply immoral practices. It just happens to have a legal team that is capable of some fantastic brinksmanship.

A religion should not be allowed to exploit "freedom of speech" in order to sweep those kinds of transgressions under the rug.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Cartilage Head on 12 Feb 2008, 14:50
Well, remember that the Catholic Church isn't exactly a poor operation either Khar, they've got billions to their name.

The Catholic Church doesn't exactly have a military. They have the Swiss Guards, for sure, but the closest thing they've got to a legal team is the Cardinals.

Also, I am annoyed by this business about all the hate on 4chan. We don't blackmail people into giving us money.


Yeah, all they do is promote child pornography!
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: IronOxide on 12 Feb 2008, 14:53
I thought 4chan had a pretty vocal con-child porn stance.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: KharBevNor on 12 Feb 2008, 15:38
Yeah, no child porn on 4chan.

Well, no child porn that hasn't been placed in one of those cunning archives that are disguised as jpegs.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: KvP on 12 Feb 2008, 17:47
I remember when I was in high school, one Halloween I dressed up and acted like a "revolutionary" for a day. I had a beret, dressed in all black, carried around a little red book, and scrawled meaningless slogans all around the school. It was pretty fun. I bet these protests are too.

I'm of the persuasion that what Scientology really lacks (along with other young religions like Mormonism) is the shroud of time taking off its sharp edges and lending it a "traditional" legitimacy that people really latch onto. Other religions are only slightly less weird and outrageous in their claims. But that doesn't mean religion in general is detestable or even ignorable.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Ozymandias on 12 Feb 2008, 19:02
Part of what makes other religions more tolerable is a claim of the metaphysical. You can't prove the existence of a God and, thus, you can't disprove him has the cause of miracles and other such things.

Scientology implicitly makes the claim that all of its tenets are provable, real constructs of the universe. And, as such, they can be dismissed as absurd.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: David_Dovey on 12 Feb 2008, 19:26
I have no trouble dismissing the metaphysical claims of most religions as absurd.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Patrick on 13 Feb 2008, 01:01
I thought 4chan had a pretty vocal con-child porn stance.

Yeah, moot and the mods have been against child porn since the very beginning. It's only ever been an issue because the mods got lazy on /b/ for a week and some jackasses decided it'd be real goddamn funny to take advantage of it.

Mod laziness is no longer the case, and as a result, every time child pornography is posted to 4chan it is quickly taken care of and reported to the authorities in whatever country the IP address is from. The poster is IP banned as well.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Feb 2008, 02:13
I'm of the persuasion that what Scientology really lacks (along with other young religions like Mormonism) is the shroud of time taking off its sharp edges and lending it a "traditional" legitimacy that people really latch onto.

Also any regard for the law or common morality.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: E. Spaceman on 13 Feb 2008, 10:36
err, sorry to not let it die, but i just wanted to clarify something i said.


i actually did not mean that it was because of its youth that it's more deserving of criticism, though that is what other posters interpreted.

what i meant was simply that it hasn't had the time to grow to the point where believers can exist apart from the institution. thus, for example, one can criticize the vatican without criticizing all self-identified christians. christianity has been around for a couple thousand years, so there's been a lot of splits and whatnot, and it's not uncommon to find people who would call themselves believers yet don't regularly go to church or identify with the prominent church members. a lot of these people are not harmful.

by pointing out the youth of the CoS, i'm simply allowing for the possibility that some time in the distant future, if the believers are indeed genuinely convinced, there may exist believers outside of the institution. at the moment, however, that's simply not the case, due to what khar pointed out. but whatever, if its claims are genuinely compelling, people will start to believe it (or perhaps a modified version of it) in the future. it might die out too, but i'm just saying.



That would be mostly false though. In most religions (I am too lazy to think of one where it isn't the case but there probably is), churches are formed after the religion itself. Some dude (or group of dudes) get some silly ideas and get other people to follow them. Sometime after ther founder dies, some followers decide it is pretty good business and forms the church.  In Scientology, some dude really needed some cash so he made up a church.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: tommydski on 13 Feb 2008, 10:48
As opposed to the Semitic Religions whereby all men everywhere needed an excuse to subjugate women.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: E. Spaceman on 13 Feb 2008, 10:53
That is usually something the actual church imposes though, not one of the main tenets of the leader.
As far as the 4chan protests go, I think that they are not particularly bad, I do believe people should have the right to believe in anything they want, but I also reserve the right to mock and ridicule them as I see fit.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Patrick on 13 Feb 2008, 10:58
As opposed to the Semitic Religions whereby all men everywhere needed an excuse to subjugate women.

Pssssh, who needs an excuse.

I should probably not be wearing my "Women: You can't beat 'em" shirt right now, somebody might take me seriously.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: psyne on 13 Feb 2008, 11:15
I'm opposed to pretty much all organized religion so as long as their attacks are confined to the establishment and not the beliefs (which as far as I've seen they've done pretty well) I'm for it. I'm agnostic/atheist but I'm fine with other's beliefs, whatever makes them happy. But churches seem to lend themselves to corruption, extortion, inflicting guilt on members, excessive power, etc. I think they're bad for both members of the religion and non-parishioners who are affected by their influence in the government and community.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: calenlass on 13 Feb 2008, 11:36
As opposed to the Semitic Religions whereby all men everywhere needed an excuse to subjugate women.

Pssssh, who needs an excuse.

Not me!

now where is my goddamn sammich
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Slick on 13 Feb 2008, 19:58
I love the part where Scientology stole all of the good therapy ideas from psychiatry, and then said psychiatry is the worst thing in the world.

Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: Switchblade on 14 Feb 2008, 04:29
That is usually something the actual church imposes though, not one of the main tenets of the leader.
As far as the 4chan protests go, I think that they are not particularly bad, I do believe people should have the right to believe in anything they want, but I also reserve the right to mock and ridicule them as I see fit.

That's just the thing, though. the Anonymous protests aren't directed at the Church's beliefs or anything benign like that, they're directed at the way the Co$ blatantly lies, steals, brainwashes, intimidates, extorts, blackmails and denies people of psychiatric and medical care that they genuinely need, purely so that the organisation can make a quick buck.

Take the case of Lisa McPherson - Not only did the CoS remove her from the hospital where she was receiving urgent medical and psychiatric attention after a car accident, but when she later turned up dead having been in the CoS' care, the autopsy ruled that she died of neglect, dehydration and starvation. she was covered in cockroach bites, too. You can find the autopsy files at xenu.net (you'll need a strong stomach) - the Co$ told her family (many of whom are still cult members to this day) that she died of meningitis.

If Anonymous were just protesting the "Church"'s religious beliefs, then the claims of religious bigotry and intolerance would be right on the mark. Instead, the protest focuses on the Organization's sinister business practices that have grown up around that belief system.

I could care less if they want to believe in Xenu, or the Galactic Confederation, or Thetans, or any of that lot. People are free to believe whatever they want in my view - I draw the line at (sic) "taking any means necessary to destroy [their critics]".

These people devote thousands of dollars and considerable resources to trying to drive their critics and opponents to suicide. No legitimate religion does that.
Title: Re: Chanology?
Post by: tommydski on 14 Feb 2008, 05:14
I love the part where Scientology...is the worst thing in the world.

James is right.

The utter fuckwit.