Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

  • 06 Oct 2022, 10:46
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Chanology?  (Read 30127 times)

Switchblade

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
  • WTF was I thinking when I picked this name?
Chanology?
« 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.
Logged
ROCK MORE, ROLL MORE, LURK MOAR

NarwhalSunshine

  • Guest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #1 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
Logged

MusicScribbles

  • Beyoncé
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • John Milton was a punk rocker.
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #2 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.
Logged
Quote from: Tommydski
Listen to SLOAN you CUNTS.

IronOxide

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,429
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #3 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.
Logged
Quote from: Wikipedia on Elephant Polo
No matches have been played since February 2007, however, when an elephant, protesting a bad call by the referee, went on a rampage during a game, injuring two players and destroying the Spanish team's minibus

Switchblade

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
  • WTF was I thinking when I picked this name?
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #4 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). 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.)
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 13:12 by Switchblade »
Logged
ROCK MORE, ROLL MORE, LURK MOAR

MusicScribbles

  • Beyoncé
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • John Milton was a punk rocker.
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #5 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.
Logged
Quote from: Tommydski
Listen to SLOAN you CUNTS.

Spinless

  • Guest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #6 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.
Logged

Spinless

  • Guest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #7 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.
Logged

ruyi

  • Beyoncé
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 740
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #8 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.
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 13:29 by ruyi »
Logged

Ozymandias

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,497
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #9 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.
Logged
You are 9/11.
You are the terrorist.

Spinless

  • Guest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #10 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...
Logged

Ozymandias

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,497
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #11 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.
Logged
You are 9/11.
You are the terrorist.

bbqrocks

  • Guest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #12 on: 10 Feb 2008, 13:48 »

So you guys are saying that scientology are the same as other religions?
Logged

Switchblade

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
  • WTF was I thinking when I picked this name?
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #13 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?"

« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 14:02 by Switchblade »
Logged
ROCK MORE, ROLL MORE, LURK MOAR

Alex C

  • comeback tour!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,915
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #14 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?
Logged
the ship has Dr. Pepper but not Mr. Pibb; it's an absolute goddamned travesty

sean

  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,730
  • welp
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #15 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.

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.
Logged
- 20% of canadians are members of broken social scene

Spinless

  • Guest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #16 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.
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 14:03 by Spinless »
Logged

Liz

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,483
  • Nuclear Bomb Tits
    • Last.fm
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #17 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.
Logged
Quote from: John
Liz is touching me.
Quote from: Bryan
Fuck you, I want him so bad.

Spinless

  • Guest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #18 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.
Logged

Switchblade

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
  • WTF was I thinking when I picked this name?
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #19 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.
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 14:13 by Switchblade »
Logged
ROCK MORE, ROLL MORE, LURK MOAR

Liz

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,483
  • Nuclear Bomb Tits
    • Last.fm
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #20 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.
Logged
Quote from: John
Liz is touching me.
Quote from: Bryan
Fuck you, I want him so bad.

Switchblade

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
  • WTF was I thinking when I picked this name?
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #21 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
Logged
ROCK MORE, ROLL MORE, LURK MOAR

Ozymandias

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,497
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #22 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.
Logged
You are 9/11.
You are the terrorist.

ruyi

  • Beyoncé
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 740
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #23 on: 10 Feb 2008, 14:45 »

are you sure that's not just because it's a young religion?
Logged

calenlass

  • Lovecraftian nightmare
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,076
  • queefcicle!
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #24 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.
Logged
Hey everyone, I need to buy some new bookshelves. When I get back from Ikea and put them together you're all invited to the bookshelf launch party.

a pack of wolves

  • William Gibson's Babydaddy
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,604
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #25 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.
Logged
Quote from: De_El
Next time, on QC Forums: someone embarrassingly reveals that they are a homophobe! Stay tuned to find out who!

bbqrocks

  • Guest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #26 on: 10 Feb 2008, 15:22 »

But other churches don't charge extortionate fees for becoming members.
Logged

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

Ozymandias

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,497
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #28 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.
Logged
You are 9/11.
You are the terrorist.

Alex C

  • comeback tour!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,915
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #29 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.
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 15:53 by Whipstitch »
Logged
the ship has Dr. Pepper but not Mr. Pibb; it's an absolute goddamned travesty

Switchblade

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
  • WTF was I thinking when I picked this name?
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #30 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.
Logged
ROCK MORE, ROLL MORE, LURK MOAR

Cartilage Head

  • Only pretending to work
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,182
  • Do Me Baby
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #31 on: 10 Feb 2008, 16:09 »

Guys this is just Anonymous being Anonymous. As if 4chan needed more publicity.
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 16:10 by Cartilage Head »
Logged
Hate, rain on me

negative creep

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,421
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #32 on: 10 Feb 2008, 16:12 »

[pic]

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

Alex C

  • comeback tour!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,915
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #33 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.
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 16:20 by Whipstitch »
Logged
the ship has Dr. Pepper but not Mr. Pibb; it's an absolute goddamned travesty

Ozymandias

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,497
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #34 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.
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 17:24 by Ozymandias »
Logged
You are 9/11.
You are the terrorist.

Switchblade

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
  • WTF was I thinking when I picked this name?
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #35 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
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 16:44 by Switchblade »
Logged
ROCK MORE, ROLL MORE, LURK MOAR

axerton

  • Cthulhu f'tagn
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 553
  • lets all grow pizza
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #36 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.
Logged
Guys guys I got this condition it is called "Involuntary Lottery Loser" guys don't laugh it is a disorder.

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #37 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.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

David_Dovey

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,451
  • j'accuse!
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #38 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
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 18:49 by David_Dovey »
Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

IronOxide

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,429
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #39 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!
Logged
Quote from: Wikipedia on Elephant Polo
No matches have been played since February 2007, however, when an elephant, protesting a bad call by the referee, went on a rampage during a game, injuring two players and destroying the Spanish team's minibus

Ozymandias

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,497
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #40 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.
Logged
You are 9/11.
You are the terrorist.

jhocking

  • Methuselah's mentor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,267
  • Corruption City USA
    • new|Arteest
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #41 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?
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 18:53 by jhocking »
Logged

David_Dovey

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,451
  • j'accuse!
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #42 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.
Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

StMonkey

  • Furry furrier
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 201
  • *Comment of negligible importance*
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #43 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?
Logged
Carpe Gluteum
Quote
The bottom line is, if anyone is going to start playing pranks by stuffing large quantities of food in their mouths, be wary.

MusicScribbles

  • Beyoncé
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • John Milton was a punk rocker.
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #44 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.
Logged
Quote from: Tommydski
Listen to SLOAN you CUNTS.

KharBevNor

  • Nearly grown up
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #45 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/religion/scientology/

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

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

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

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














V For Vendetta mask is the new black balaclava?
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2008, 19:20 by KharBevNor »
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #46 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.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

Cartilage Head

  • Only pretending to work
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,182
  • Do Me Baby
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #47 on: 10 Feb 2008, 20:08 »

You can buy them at Hot Topic. /b/tards shop at Hot Topic, appearantly.
Logged
Hate, rain on me

supersheep

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,263
  • you'll have to speak up, i'm a fish and lack ears
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #48 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 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.
Logged
DJ Weight Problem: if you think semantics isn't that important maybe you should just can dig four banana nine jenkins razor blade dinosaur

Alex C

  • comeback tour!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,915
Re: Chanology?
« Reply #49 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.
Logged
the ship has Dr. Pepper but not Mr. Pibb; it's an absolute goddamned travesty
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up