Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientology Attacker Will Be Sentenced To Jail

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the taking-one-for-the-team dept.

The Courts 354

OBG writes "A Nebraska native charged with taking part in a massive cyber-attack against the Scientology website will be spending the next year behind bars. 20-year-old Brian Thomas Mettenbrink will plead guilty to the charge of unauthorized access of a protected computer for his involvement in the denial of service attack, which was orchestrated by the online group 'Anonymous.' Mettenbrink's is the second successful prosecution connected to the 'Anonymous' attacks. Last year, Dmitriy Guzner of Verona, New Jersey, was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison for attacks on Scientology sites."

cancel ×

354 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

We are Anonymous. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30914996)

We are Anonymous Cowards, all your base are belong to us.

Re:We are Anonymous. (4, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915008)

Not so Anonymous now by the looks of things...

Re:We are Anonymous. (5, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915264)

That is because strong anonymity works best when keeping a low profile. Disruptive actions tend to leave a wide trail.

Wise Beard Man was right: The consequences of using illegal means in this conflict will eventually outweigh the benefit.

(Still, jail seems kind of disproportionate. Scientology has engaged in worse online censorship-fraud without even being fined.)

Re:We are Anonymous. (4, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915422)

(Still, jail seems kind of disproportionate. Scientology has engaged in worse online censorship-fraud without even being fined.)

Scientology has enormous amounts of money to ensure this remains the case.

Re:We are Anonymous. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915426)

You're missing the idea behind Anonymous.
We are not Anonymous because we hide our names.
We are Anonymous because our names mean nothing.
We are disillusioned mundane people who are nothing and mean nothing.
We are something only as a Legion.
We are fans of Fight Club, but without illusions, a leader or a purpose. And with more malice.
We are tired with the system, and break it when and where we can.
Our only powers are numbers, variety and unpredictability.
Losing one or two of us means nothing.

They try to give a name to the threat, by providing the name of one of the people behind the Anonymous. That's like trying to fight avalanche by removing two rocks from it and giving them names.

Go Grand Island! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915376)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Island,_Nebraska [wikipedia.org]

As a resident of this town/city, I am delighted to see our community on the front page of Slashdot for something I consider a heroic act. XD

Woah... (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915738)

Somebody else from Grand Island reads Slashdot? XD I admit it's shocking to see our local news repeated here.

I also applaud this guy's actions. L. Ron Hubbard was born in Nebraska [wikipedia.org] , so it's the least we can do for unleashing such insanity upon the world.

everyone click on this link: (1)

madddddddddd (1710534) | more than 4 years ago | (#30914998)

scientology videos [scientology.org]

Re:everyone click on this link: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915072)

I've reloaded the site several times and let some of the movies play in the background but I still don't get why I should click on this link.

Re:everyone click on this link: (1)

madddddddddd (1710534) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915180)

knowledge and information

Re:everyone click on this link: (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915232)

Knowledge and information about what and to what purpose?
All I see is the usual Scientology nonsense.

Re:everyone click on this link: (1)

madddddddddd (1710534) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915316)

well... what you see is information. that is what they have. you need knowledge and information. you must click more if you wish to find knowledge and information.

Re:everyone click on this link: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915358)

Ohh, that sounds all wise-ish. You should write books and offer courses and charge excessive amounts of money for them. Maybe find some tax-shelter tactic ... call it a church or something.

Re:everyone click on this link: (1)

madddddddddd (1710534) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915388)

all i did was read the first sentence of text in the first video that automatically displays...

scientology.org [scientology.org] ... see for yourself.

they also welcome vistors defensively and suggest the vistors have heard negative things... they are probably right.

Re:everyone click on this link: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915362)

OK, spaceman.

Re:everyone click on this link: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915240)

I've reloaded the site several times and let some of the movies play in the background but I still don't get why I should click on this link.

Neither do I, but I'll do what you others do...

Re:everyone click on this link: (2, Insightful)

MasterPatricko (1414887) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915284)

*whoooosh*

Sadly, the mad hordes of slashdot are not the force they once were - the only sites that get /.'ed these days are people hosting stuff off their home computers.

Re:everyone click on this link: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915346)

Whom are you whoooshing?! Don't get what GP said? "I've reloaded the site several times and let some of the movies play in the background" OK, there may be a ;-) missing there...

Re:everyone click on this link: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915430)

scientology videos [scientology.org]

Anybody noticed? They are sooo for human rights, still their videos don't all have subtitles or include sign-translations for the deaf...

Still, I cannot stop looking at them... over and over again...

Re:everyone click on this link: (1)

madddddddddd (1710534) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915620)

there is also a bug in the interface to switch locales... once you make locale=el_GR you can't get out of it.

message?

Justice (5, Interesting)

nawitus (1621237) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915012)

So, if you beat up somebody, you'll probably get less jail time than refreshing a website several times using a script?

Re:Justice (1)

Cidolfas (1358603) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915022)

If you use your computer, no. If you use a script on a bunch of computers that aren't yours....

Re:Justice (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915872)

He did 0wn! those computers.

Re:Justice (0)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915038)

If you are just harassing one person, probably not. But if you're affecting millions of people, then yes.

Just like you would get a "little bit" longer sentence if you beat up millions of people.

Re:Justice (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915090)

SciFag Inc. does NOT have millions of brain dead slaves.
Actual data suggests a mass exodus of customers (thanks to Anonymous) and they have now between 50k and 200k idiotic followers. Worldwide.

Re:Justice (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915216)

Well you get the idea. And I don't think only their followers visit the site, so you have to calculate those in too.

Re:Justice (4, Funny)

shilly (142940) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915594)

Given their well-known homophobia, you could have chosen a slightly more appropriate insulting name...

Re:Justice (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915874)

Huh? If they actually liked gays then calling them homosexual would only be insulting to the actual homosexuals who are being inversely compared with Scientologists.

In this case, they're going to get pretty cut about the comparison, so its actually worth saying.

Re:Justice (1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915900)

What a retarded statement. The whole point of an insult is to be insulting. Accuracy may award bonus points, but what is really wanted is angry scientologists.

Re:Justice (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915224)

But if you're affecting millions of people, then yes.

Stop Scientology lies. There aren't a million in the cult world-wide.

Re:Justice (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915236)

No you wouldn't. Because if you beat up millions of people, you'd be Chuck Norris, and the judge would be roundhouse kicked into oblivion before he got a phrase out, much less a longer sentence.

Re:Justice (4, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915274)

Just like you would get a "little bit" longer sentence if you beat up millions of people.

You'd get some badass bragging rights, though.

Re:Justice (3, Funny)

erroneous (158367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915360)

[meme]
Only one man has ever literally beaten up millions of people.

And the jail has never been built that could hold Chuck Norris.
[/meme]

Re:Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915484)

Just like you would get a "little bit" longer sentence if you beat up millions of people.

For some reason, Nelson from the Simpsons came to mind.

*punch* Ha ha
*punch* Ha ha
All this in a city mall.

Hey, it beats shootups... (pun maybe intended, depending on how evil you are)

Heroes, not criminals. (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915050)

Why do we bother traveling around the world to fight religious extremist terrorists when we can do it right in our own back yard? And then to put people in prison for it... Okay, I suppose Anonymous' activities probably caused some unintended network congestion outside their specific targets, but hey, I'll take "lag" over "DU syndrome".

"Now, at home they'd hang me, here they'll give me a fucking medal, sir."

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (1, Insightful)

srothroc (733160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915078)

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Scientologists "terrorists" at the very least. Not only that, but we had a "reason" to go after certain groups and it was government-sanctioned, which makes a huge difference.

More importantly, though, if you justify acts of violence by saying "oh, they're extremists" or "oh, nobody likes them," then perhaps next time you'll be in the group that gets acted out against. Just because Japanese-Americans weren't popular in World War II doesn't mean that anyone would have had the right to act violently toward them. Scientologists aren't popular because their beliefs are corny or stupid, or because the "church" engages in fraudulent practices and is known to abuse members; that doesn't mean that individual Scientologists are religious extremists or bad people any more than the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim means that all Muslims are terrible people. Scientologists are just a popular group to hate right now.

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915116)

Wrong. SciFags ARE extremists. They are dreaming of a society where ONLY SciFags have any human or civil rights. A society where the law is replaced by a Hubbard book, a society where everyone worships a picture of Lafayette Ron Hubbtard, a society in which opponents gets kicked into prison camps. They see themselves as a new, a superior human race (homo novis), and all non-SciFags are crap.

That's a Nazi culture in it's purest form.

And every SciFag supports and wants that, making himself guilty therefore.

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (1)

Jay Clay (971209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915676)

No. The ethically bad parts of extremism aren't the intentions or the desire. It's the actions. While scientology and its followers nowhere near 'good' (or even neutral), they (generally) do not go to the extremes that the people we call extremists in the real world do.

Incoming case citations of relatively rare but really evil things done by scientologists, ignoring the "generally" part in 5, 4, 3...

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915918)

Great. The chan-folk are here to vent their chan-hate in their chan-speak. And they're getting modded up (insightful, no less). Goodbye Slashdot.

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (5, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915132)

Scientologists aren't popular because their beliefs are corny or stupid, or because the "church" engages in fraudulent practices and is known to abuse members; that doesn't mean that individual Scientologists are religious extremists or bad people. Scientologists are just a popular group to hate right now.

The fact that they do it under the guise of religion and get tax breaks and perks because of being a religion is what is offensive. I'd have no problem if they called themselves the L. Ron Hubbard science fiction fan club, but to do it while not paying taxes and while enjoying protected status as a religion makes no sense.

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (5, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915266)

I think it should be wise to separate Scientologists in two kinds. The first are the "officers" of the "church", akin to the priest in catholic religion.

IMHO, those are the ones who are engaging in fraudulent and misleading activities. The second type are the "followers"; my belief is that this is desperate and naïve people whose despair has gotten to the point that they choose to approach to this scamming community.

The problem is that the CultoS are so good at what they do that people really follow their orders of "not seeing your family forever!!" and other stupid orders.

Is like the "Flagellants" Christian groups who think hurting yourself is going to help you improve your image against God. Officers who promote this are assholes, followers who put their trust in the officers are naïve, weak and need help.

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915290)

Don't forget they try to get YOUR tax dollars to pay for recruitment through Narconon [wikipedia.org] and Criminon [wikipedia.org] and even broke into the IRS [wikipedia.org] and wiretapped the place, so as far as I'm concerned they are RICO bait and deserve to be treated no better than any other criminal organization.

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (2, Insightful)

The Creator (4611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915552)

The fact that they do it under the guise of religion and get tax breaks and perks because of being a religion is what is offensive.

Of course any law that gives religious organisations tax breaks is offensive on it's own. Organisations should simply be taxed on profits -
regardless of their motives.

How do you define a religion? (4, Informative)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915630)

To me its just a bunch of gullible people believing some texts that have little if any supporting evidence (and in many cases evidence against).

So scientology is a crock. You think the abrahamic religions which believe in a magic garden with a talking snake and a man made out of clay and a woman made out of a rib make any more logical sense??

All religion is rubbish , it just depends how many people believe the rubbish which defines whether a particular belief system is classed as a religion or a wacky cult (which ironically all religions started out as).

Re:Terrorists (2, Insightful)

GrubLord (1662041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915152)

I don't know that it's such a stretch to call them terrorists, really.

As I understand it, Scientologists use scare tactics to convince people that they are infected with ancient alien souls which are causing health complaints, and then take advantage of their victims' vulnerable (and gullible?) state to extort money.

That qualifies as terrorism in my book.

Re:Terrorists (2, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915532)

As I understand it, Scientologists use scare tactics to convince people that they are infected with ancient alien souls which are causing health complaints, and then take advantage of their victims' vulnerable (and gullible?) state to extort money.

That qualifies as terrorism in my book.

Really? Most reasonable people would refer to these practices as "conning", "hustling" or maybe "extortion".

Can we save the moniker terrorism for when people arbitrarily gun down/gas/bomb innocent bystanders please?

And to put things in perspective, Scientologists claim you have an alien inside you causing health problems. Christians claim you're going to burn in the fiery pits of hell for eternity. Creepy cunning cult? Yes. Terruhrists? Nah, not really.

Re:Terrorists (1)

smidget2k4 (847334) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915890)

By that definition the western religions could be defined as terrorist groups.

"As I understand it, Christians/Muslims/Jews use scare tactics to convince people that they are going to an eternal hellfire if they don't believe in their particular brand of sky dude, and then take advantage of their victims' vulnerable (and gullible?) state to extort money and votes."

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915192)

Well, people usually need a reason to presecute that's outside of strict religious context. There's no way around it, really (and, on grand scale, luckily); people don't tend to supress alien faiths solely (//key word) on religious purposes, there's always some background at work, for the simple unease it would create, susceptibility of everyone involved to see all the BS in religions generally.

So, what is it for Scientology? Fair game or Tom Cruize?

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (5, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915292)

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Scientologists "terrorists" at the very least.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism [reference.com]

terrorism/trrzm/
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

scientology has used violence in the past and openly threatens and intimidates both members and critics into silence.
"Religious extremist terrorists" is pretty close, although the "religious" part is legally incorrect in some countries.

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (2, Insightful)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915432)

Do the phrases "hellfire and brimstone" and "eternal damnation" ring a bell?

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915304)

Keeping in mind that Scientology's attack is based on instilling fear in their victims, why do you consider calling them "terrorists" a stretch? Scientology isn't just unpopular, they're criminals. Their "religion" is a tax evasion scheme for rich members and Scientology preys on the weak and gullible with a classic scare tactic where the cure is always just one more (costly) step away.

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (4, Informative)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915576)

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Scientologists "terrorists" at the very least.

No it isn't [wikipedia.org] .

More importantly, though, if you justify acts of violence by saying "oh, they're extremists" or "oh, nobody likes them," then perhaps next time you'll be in the group that gets acted out against.

Violence? We're talking about making a website not load here. It's scientology that practices violence [aolnews.com] .

Scientologists aren't popular because their beliefs are corny or stupid, or because the "church" engages in fraudulent practices and is known to abuse members; that doesn't mean that individual Scientologists are religious extremists or bad people any more than the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim means that all Muslims are terrible people. Scientologists are just a popular group to hate right now.

Scientologists are a popular group to hate because they constantly engage in activities that are undeniably evil [wikipedia.org] . The comparison to Islam is deceptive; scientology is a single organization, while Islam is not. Not every muslim answers to Osama bin Laden, while every scientologist answers to David Miscavige.

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (0, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915882)

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Scientologists "terrorists" at the very least.

It really isn't, since they have used terror tactics repeatedly. The fact that the tactics are used against a subclass instead of an entire nation changes nothing.

More importantly, though, if you justify acts of violence by saying "oh, they're extremists" or "oh, nobody likes them," then perhaps next time you'll be in the group that gets acted out against.

This much is true.

Scientologists aren't popular because their beliefs are corny or stupid, or because the "church" engages in fraudulent practices and is known to abuse members; that doesn't mean that individual Scientologists are religious extremists or bad people

That doesn't change the fact that the organization is evil and must be destroyed. It does mean that some individual Scientologists are religious extremists (or con men wearing their clothing) and bad people.

Scientology is provably, intentionally fraudulent, and attacking it is more than justified. At the same time, it's illegal, and if you get caught doing it, you should expect to be punished.

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (2, Funny)

Fizzl (209397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915314)

RAMIREZ, TAKE DOWN ASSTHETANS WITH YOUR KNIFE

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like whimpering Lorem ipsum dolor foofaa

Re:Heroes, not criminals. (1)

Kleiba (929721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915330)

Yeah, but we already have access to the oil in the country of the scientologists.

An (3, Interesting)

rarez (107909) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915080)

As the one's who stood up for us all.
The one's we can tell our children about.
The good guys not the bad guys.
They are victims and Scientology is and always will be a cult and more to the point. If Anonymous always needs to hide they're faces it's quite obvious they have reason to be frightened.

Lest we forget the one's who take them on they are our neighbours, our friends maybe even your family.
Keep up the work guys and gals!

Re:An (2, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915604)

He's not a good guy. He's ruining other people's properties to achieve a political purpose.

The people running www.xenu.net, which documents the cult's criminal behavior in candid detail, or who published "The Scandal of Scientology" or "A Piece of Blue Sky", now _they_ are good guys.

Seriously? (2, Insightful)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915088)

inb4 should have been behind over 9000 proxies.

As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.

The State and Capital depend on religion to keep people focused on social wedge issues so they don't question the fundamental power structures of our society. Poor Americans vote for tax cuts for the rich, ecological policies that will make the world unlivable for future generations, and imperialistic wars, all because the candidates supporting such insanity also pander to "faith" by attacking science and LGBTQ folk. Unfortunately, the most victimized sectors of the working class are also the most exploited by religion. Each generation passes the meme on to the next. We can only end this vicious cycle of enforced irrationality by attacking the source.

No Gods!
No Masters!

Re:Seriously? (3, Interesting)

Extremus (1043274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915112)

As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.

Dangerous phrase.

Re:Seriously? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915142)

Two sides of one coin, at worst.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915182)

What part's dangerous? What he says makes a "dangerous" amount of sense to me.

Re:Seriously? (3, Interesting)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915320)

O I admit it's a dangerous idea. I just think it's worth the price. I believe that our freedom and survival as a species depends on doing away with irrational faith and building an educated participatory society. When you seriously start challenging hierarchy, you can expect the powerful to react. Let's specifically look at historical precedents for throwing off the yoke of reactionary religion. The democratic Spanish constitution enacted in 1931 established complete separation of Church and State in what had been a theocratic monarchy for centuries. It excluded the Church from education. This was one of the major reasons for the rise of Franco's fascism. In the first weeks of the Spanish Civil War, the fascists slaughtered teachers from the secular schools (as similar right wing forces had done to Francisco Ferrer, founder of the anti-authoritarian and anti-clerical modern schools decades earlier).

We need to be prepared for these kinds of reactionary forces if we are serious about liberating ourselves. There is a lot of violence hidden behind modern respectability. Tacit threats. Our current complacency exists because we are afraid to act and are unprepared for the consequences. Get the fuck ready. Organize.

Re:Seriously? (0)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915400)

We'll probably get there, eventually. But don't hold your breath as far as seing it goes, on the scale of humanity (hey, in the meantime you might find some nice countries here and there...)

However irrational religions are, they serve also usefull purposes. If the shift would be to rapid, you'll get chaos and the world reverting quickly to a state worse than before the shift. And no, that's not simply "self-feeding", faiths crating a world that's dependant on themselves. They, the gods are...completelly real. Not in the sense in which "they" claim to be, but as constructs which proved hugely beneficial during our evolution; they wouldn't be so prevalent otherwise.

Sure, mocking them in such discussions might be satisfying :). It won't go very far in on itself though. Best to try to divert them in particular direction; there's nobody at the helm after all. But you must be able to do it in full realization that you won't live to see the true effects of your efforts.

Re:Seriously? (4, Interesting)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915562)

However irrational religions are, they serve also usefull purposes.
Useful for the elite.

If the shift would be to[sic] rapid, you'll get chaos and the world reverting quickly to a state worse than before the shift.
You're on slashdot and you don't see how self organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid, can work? Hierarchy and exploitation are chaos. Democracy and freedom could give us more peace and order.

the gods are...completelly real...as constructs which proved hugely beneficial during our evolution; they wouldn't be so prevalent otherwise.
Once again, beneficial to those in charge, not the rest of us. Pie in the sky when you die; That's a lie!

Re:Seriously? (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915258)

I think they got the language a little bit wrong in the constitution.
It should not have been "freedom of religion", but "freedom from religion". Easy mistake to make.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915444)

Here in the US, we have freedom of religion. That means that we have the right to a community free of religion.

Re:Seriously? (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915540)

Well, 'freedom from religion' is enshrined in some constitutions. It's in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China for instance....

Re:Seriously? (1)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915812)

'freedom from religion' is enshrined ...in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China

Redbait much? . . .
Can we not have freedom of speech, assembly, etc and still have freedom from religion? Sure, we could never "ban" religion. However, we could stop all state support for organized religion and support resources for secular education. Shut down cults that actively defraud people (depending on how broadly you define this, it could do away with 60-99% of religions)

Re:Seriously? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915262)

The sentiment has been around for some time. [wikipedia.org]

Personally, I'd put "duty" in place of "right".

Re:Seriously? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915114)

I find your ideas intriguing. I'd like to sign up for your newsletter.

Re:Seriously? (1)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915222)

I find your ideas intriguing. I'd like to sign up for your newsletter.

K, NP.
For you dropouts who wanna rockout [crimethinc.com]
Right Coast? Got a platform? [neanarchist.net]
Steampunk and other wonderful things [tangledwilderness.org]
For the One (not yet) Big Union [iww.org]
Now we see the violence inherent in the system! [syndicalist.org]
Left Coast? Doing Being Totally Outta Control? [modestoanarcho.org]
4chan for anarchists [anarchistnews.org]

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915242)

We can only end this vicious cycle of enforced irrationality by attacking the source.

No Gods!
No Masters!

OK, but CoS is hardly the main culprit and "the source". Yes it sucks something fierce but not as much as some other, more widespread, "sources".

Re:Seriously? (0, Troll)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915294)

As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.

So, taking it to the absurd, let's assume that a parent makes his/her kid eat lima beans. And then you've got a group who think that lima beans are a threat to the world.....using violence against lima bean growers by the no-lima people is justified? No, of course it's not. Parents have the legal power to force their custodial kids to do things. When they do something that truly endangers a child's safety, that's when the state gets involved. Not some unaffiliated pressure group, but a government tasked with protecting the child's fundamental rights.

The State and Capital depend on religion to keep people focused on social wedge issues so they don't question the fundamental power structures of our society. Poor Americans vote for tax cuts for the rich, ecological policies that will make the world unlivable for future generations, and imperialistic wars, all because the candidates supporting such insanity also pander to "faith" by attacking science and LGBTQ folk.

Um, so which religions teach tax cuts for the rich? I'm really curious about that -- citation needed, as it were. Refocusing it onto the Xenu nuts.....a lot of them would probably not fall into any of those disjointed categories you lay out.

And you haven't been paying much attention. The largest Christian sect in the world I don't think could really be described as attacking science, anymore. Catholics acknowledge evolution. The pope talks about the environment, etc. etc.

Unfortunately, the most victimized sectors of the working class are also the most exploited by religion. Each generation passes the meme on to the next. We can only end this vicious cycle of enforced irrationality by attacking the source.

Again, you're just not paying attention. Religious adherence drops every damn year. Traditional religions drop, too. But for many people, there's a fundamental need to have a supernatural answer for questions that can't be easily answered. I mean, as an atheist, I'd really like to believe that I'll live forever after I die, and be rewarded for being a good person. There's not. But it's a fundamental choice that can't be answered by the state, much less another group or individual.

Your ignorance burns brighter than the Xenu nuts', and hotter than the volcano where their souls live, yet it gets modded a five, interesting. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me, but it is disappointing. You have no understanding of why governments exist, and what powers individuals give up to the state in order to have other rights protected. Social contract theory, etc. Admittedly, the Scientologists severely abuse those protections in some countries for their own gain, but it doesn't mean the system is fundamentally flawed, and it doesn't mean that the power to harm them is then passed to an unaccountable group.

No Gods!
No Masters!

Unless those masters are fighting something you, personally don't like.....then it's all good.

The stupid, it burns, etc. etc.

Re:Seriously? (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915692)

While the messenger to which you're replying is ineed, hm, "overboard passionate", your critique of some of his points isn't as solid as you might think...

Taking it...no, not to the absurd at all, explain to me why we have laws against child labour. How do they harm the family? Or, other way around, why people are so obsessed with dismissing sexuality of their teen children?

"Right" of parents to do things is not an absolute. You ned to find better argument than that.

Religion with which you are likely most familiar with does actually much more rightous thing than not proposing tax cuts for the rich - it promotes, as one of its basic virtues, disregard of material wealth. Which is of course completelly ignored by most of its adherents. There's importatnt lesson here - what religion claims and what it actually does, promotes are two different things. That it accepts generous, relatively speaking, donations from the rich and doesn't condemn them does ring a bell...

And Catholics promote spread of HIV by disregarding scientific evidence that "abstinence sex ed" is not effective. Heck, you even have priests advising against proved effective measures. Yes, that's "only one thing", right now (Vatican seems to be reconsidering its position regarding condoms)...but acceptance of science generally evolves over time to avoid having religion in a position of ridicule and contempt.

I do hope and expect that more and more people will find other means to fill that existencial void (though, ironically, that requires IMHO being actually more convinced in the continuation of your being after you cease to exist, more than in the case of most "faithful")...and hey, we might even help with that.

Re:Seriously? (1)

pla (258480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915732)

When they do something that truly endangers a child's safety, that's when the state gets involved. Not some unaffiliated pressure group, but a government tasked with protecting the child's fundamental rights.

You mean, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/1119/1224259105905.htmlLike this?


Um, so which religions teach tax cuts for the rich?

You missed the point. We get draconian drug policy that only benefits the pharmaceutical industry "for the children". We get leaders that eliminate inheritance taxes for less than the top 1% wealthiest people by appealing to the anti-abortion crowd. And let's not leave out the elephant in the room - "Good" religions get federal dollars to fund their proselytizing (oh and some vaguely defined "charitable works" to justify it), while "bad" religions can't even get tax exempt status (seen a lot of Wiccan 501(c)(3)s, lately?).


The largest Christian sect in the world I don't think could really be described as attacking science, anymore.

Yeah, very kind of them to pardon Galileo only 400 years after he could no longer threaten them anymore. Good thing they've stopped worrying about little things like the Go... I mean, Higgs boson, and embraced the scientific progress of the 19th century wholeheartedly.


it doesn't mean that the power to harm them is then passed to an unaccountable group.

When the state won't protect us from an invading enemy, it falls to the people to defend themselves.

Re:Seriously? (1)

pla (258480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915756)

Strange, I swear that this link [irishtimes.com] worked when I previewed the post!

Re:Seriously? (2, Interesting)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915764)

So, taking it to the absurd
Exactly. Your slippery slope shit is fallacious.

group who think that lima beans are a threat to the world.....using violence against lima bean growers
Lima beans are not a threat to our existence as a species. They are actually pretty good for your health. Apocalyptic, dogmatic, irrational faith is a major threat in a age of WMDs. It is also a barrier to having a participatory democratic society. If everyday people are going to make important social decisions, they need to not be totally fucking ignorant and crazy.

...the state gets involved...
I don't support the existence of the state. The state is a monopoly on the use of force. The use of force depends on the ethics of situation. It should never be reserved to a particular institution to use as they please.

Um, so which religions teach tax cuts for the rich?
Actually there are Evangelical Christian churches that preach that kinda "cross of gold" bullshit. But...that wasn't my point. My point is that by focusing on homophobia and etc bigotries, the churches have gotten the working class to ignore their class interest and support a candidate simply for having conservative social values.

...Catholics...
Catholics in the USA tend to ignore the bigotry that exists in the church and vote their economic interest. There are even left wing members of the clergy. But the USA is mostly protestant, not Catholic.

Social contract theory
I never was given the option to sign any social contract! I doubt most people would choose the organized oppressive violence of the state, the exploitation of capitalism, and the lies of religion if given a choice. Most people would choose anarchy: peace, freedom, self organization.

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

jandersen (462034) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915312)

... ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions

Ah, well, that is where it gets problematic, isn't it? There is no universal, objective standard for "good ethics", and in extreme cases we have people such as the terrorists of all denominations, who feel they have the ethical right to kill innocent bystanders "for a higher truth". Evil is evil, even if you use the excuse of a good cause.

Of course I understand the sentiment - it is galling to see a large organization like Scientology, that is considered a criminal organization in many countries, get any sort of victory, however small. But we are only as good as our deeds; and a crime is still crime, even if it is committed against criminals. This is the price you pay for being good.

And anyway - criminals like Scientology are always going to win if you play by their rules and fight them with their own dirty methods; they have much more experience in that game.

Re:Seriously? (1)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915390)

There is no universal, objective standard for "good ethics"
Nope. Moreover religion and government's ethical standards have been particularly bad....but hopefully we can have some kind of pragmatic utilitarian definition of ethics without getting into too much philosophical pointlessness. Something like, "rules that give us the greatest personal autonomy, satisfaction of desires, absence of pain, etc". Preservation of proportionality: "Your say in a decision should be to the degree that the decision effects you"

But we are only as good as our deeds; and a crime is still crime, even if it is committed against criminals.
The goodness of our actions should not be judged by whether they are legal or illegal. It was once illegal to help transport an escaped slave, engage in non-marital sex, etc. It is still illegal to DDoS evil religions, grow certain plants, copy cryoto algorithms freely, take pictures of yourself if you are underage, etc.

Oh will you be quiet! (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915328)

he State and Capital ....No Gods!
No Masters

Oh puhlease! If you hate us so much, why shouldn't we oppress you? Besides, if there's no god, there's nothing wrong it. It's just survival of the fittest, and you aren't fit.

Re:Oh will you be quiet! (1)

hanabal (717731) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915474)

If you hate us so much, why shouldn't we oppress you? Besides, if there's no god, there's nothing wrong it.

eh? why does a god need to exist for oppression to be wrong. I haven't believed in any sort of imaginary creature for a long time now but I am one the most anti-violence people I know.

Re:Seriously? (1, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915356)

As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.

[...]

Poor Americans vote for tax cuts for the rich, ecological policies that will make the world unlivable for future generations, and imperialistic wars,

Sounds like you belong to one of those liberal/environmentalist cults. Since you're trying to oppress (even if legal and morally right) someone, I as an "ethical person" have the RIGHT to use force on you? What's the criteria?

Re:Seriously? (2, Interesting)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915460)

Since you're trying to oppress (even if legal and morally right) someone, I as an "ethical person" have the RIGHT to use force on you? What's the criteria?

I don't propose oppressing anyone. I propose giving young people the right to free association. This means taking away the parent's right the keep youth as chattel. Adults should not be able to have title (custody) of other human beings, if such title gives them to right to indoctrinate and censor. So...when young people come together to learn (as they inevitably will...youth are extremely curious as long as church and school don't kill it), they do so under a free environment. Parents should not be able to impose compulsory church, and the state should not be able to impose compulsory schooling. Learning should be free, voluntary, and open.

As to the larger question of when to use force...that's really quite easy in theory. You can deliberately cause harm as long as the harm you cause is less than the harm you are preventing by employing such force. Easy in theory, not so easy to work out in practice...but hey, that's the problem of civilization.

Re:Seriously? (2, Insightful)

EatHam (597465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915708)

As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.

Ethical people generally are not hyperbolic idiots or religious or anti-religious fanatics, therefore do not assert a right to use force to influence people's religious beliefs.

Re:Seriously? (3, Insightful)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915914)

People can believe whatever they want. But face it, few freely choose their religion. Most just go about beliveing whatever their parents foisted on them.

We need to acknowledge that we live in a society. We no longer live in hunter gatherer tribes. Two parents are not longer sufficient to raise a child. It take a whole society. Whatever material and ideas that the parents give to their offspring, they got from the larger group. Whether we like it or not, child rearing is already a part of mass society. We need to stop allowing parents to use the violence of restricting necessities (affection, food, shelter) to indoctrinate youth into religion. Young people are given the choice: have faith in some crazy shit, or give up your whole support system. We need enough public social support for youth (food, personal care and relationships, shelter, education, etc) in order that they be free to disobey their crazy parents.

Then we will see quite the revolution!

Re:Seriously? (1)

digitaltraveller (167469) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915758)

Start a political party or GTFO

Hi (-1, Offtopic)

kinshuk123 (1730866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915138)

This is the first post I'm reading here.

Why exactly did Anonymous do this? (5, Insightful)

ddxexex (1664191) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915370)

Everyone here on /. knows Scientology is evil. But why did Anonymous do something stupid with a denial of service attack? Now the Scientologists can say Anonymous is a terrorist organization, get rid of all its critics using the PATRIOT act and get some good PR too. The only way Scientology will be defeated is if there is some major internal schism or everyone realizes they're not the nicest religion out there.

Re:Why exactly did Anonymous do this? (2, Informative)

kshade (914666) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915416)

The only thing that needs to happen IMO is the police/the feds raiding "gold base [angrygaypope.com] " to free the [alaskareport.com] slaves [courthousenews.com] . After that they should be declared a criminal organization.

movies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915404)

are you aware that the US has never banned a movie, until one was released about Scientology?

Re:movies... (2, Interesting)

Lillebo (1561251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915898)

[citation needed]

unauthorized access of a protected computer (3, Insightful)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915442)

In some ways you can think of a person's brain as a computer.

When can we expect Scientology types to go to jail for fucking with peoples' heads?

Re:unauthorized access of a protected computer (3, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915612)

In some ways you can think of a person's brain as a computer.

Think about a banana

Did I just have illegal access to a computer system?

Re:unauthorized access of a protected computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915894)

i read your comment 3 times before i realized there was no dirty joke to it

Has anyone jailed the pope yet? (4, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915658)

After all, the catholic church is probably responsible for more misery in africa due to its attitude to contraception than any other single institution.

All religions fuck with gullible and/or insecure peoples heads. How is scientology different?

Yet again... (4, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915888)

Yet again, in the USA the more money buys the "better justice".

And the Co$ has gobs of money.

Martyrs 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30915896)

All hail our heroes!

Unfair? (3, Insightful)

therufus (677843) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915920)

So, if I start a cult and force my members to kill people I see as a threat I'm absolved of punishment. But if I make your computer system go haywire for 10 minutes, I'm sentenced to jail time?

Well, [sarcasm]I can see how that's fair![/sarcasm]

Stupid (4, Insightful)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 4 years ago | (#30915954)

I don't agree with Scientology at all, but if you('re stupid enough to) get caught DoS'ing their site you deserve to go to jail.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>