×

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!

Internet Group Declares War on Scientology

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-fish dept.

Privacy 891

Darkman, Walkin Dude writes "An internet group calling itself Anonymous has declared war on the Church of Scientology, in the form of an ominous posting to the YouTube site. 'In the statement, the group explained their goal as safeguarding the right to freedom of speech. "A spokesperson said that the group's goals include bringing an end to the financial exploitation of Church members and protecting the right to free speech, a right which they claim was consistently violated by the Church of Scientology in pursuit of its opponents." The press release also claimed that the Church of Scientology misused copyright and trademark law in order to remove criticism from websites including Digg and YouTube. The statement goes on to assert that the attacks from the group "will continue until the Church of Scientology reacts, at which point they will change strategy".' It should be noted that Slashdot users have had interactions with Scientology in the past as well."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

891 comments

The war (0, Flamebait)

Fredtalk (1105765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22166982)

The war on Scientology, led by the same people who said "Google Ron Paul"

Re:The war (-1, Offtopic)

paganizer (566360) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167052)

So, you are saying the war is being led by relatively sane people who know a lessor evil when they see one? whats your point?

Re:The war (0, Offtopic)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167126)

I think he means more a group of people who could be very obnoxious and rather ineffective at achieving their goals because they don't realize that internet hype does not translate well into real-world hype, and lots of signs, bedsheets on overpasses, and a blimp will not get your candidate elected. And relatively sane? Ron Paul had some sane people onboard, but he also had some real loonies. KKK, Troofers, Alex Jones lunatics, and all-around psychos who couldn't stop ranting about him in some way.

Re:The war (0)

Nicholas Evans (731773) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167168)

...And? Are you saying there are zero Obama fanatics? No white supremacists supporting McCain? No loonies in the Clinton camp?

Re:The war (0)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167208)

There are loons in any campaign, but Ron Paul had a special knack for getting them to come out of the woodwork, especially since loons of every stripe just LOVE the anonymity of the internet.

Re:The war (5, Insightful)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167472)

There are loons in any campaign, but Ron Paul had a special knack for getting them to come out of the woodwork, ...

Which is to be expected. Anyone who actually supports individual freedom is sure to be popular among the unpopular and oppressed minority groups; they have the most interest at stake in protecting basic rights like free speech. Those who only hold and/or express popular opinions don't require such protection.

More Interesting... (4, Interesting)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167694)

Is how the mainstream media really don't want to give him any coverage. [slashdot.org] It's easy to put it down to interests, but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that it's because his popularity has little to do with them.

Where, after all, is the media trail of his development? From the newspaper's perspective, Ron Paul is one big discontinuity.

Re:The war (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167370)

No loonies in the Clinton camp?

I'm pretty sure all of the Clinton Campaign Funding is in US dollars, not Canadian ones.

Re:The war (0, Flamebait)

Moonpie Madness (764217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167404)

Ron Paul accepts donations and fundraiser efforts from neo-nazi organizations. Stormfront.com, the leading white supremacist organization online, gave him a bunch of money. When Ron Paul was asked about returning this money, Ron Paul refused.

No other candidate is willing to accept the support of white supremacists.

Also, Ron Pail is a white supremacist. He wrote dozens of newsletters claiming that jews are evil and blacks are inferior criminals. When this was brought up in the early 90s, Ron claimed he had no idea. When this was brought up a few months ago, Ron claimed that someone else wrote all of this stuff, but Ron Paul, the person who paid for the publication and ostensibly the author, had no idea who the white supremacist who signed his name Ron Paul was. When hundreds of these articles were found in Kansas and it became clear that the nazi author referred to Ron Paul's wife specifically as his wife, spoke about Ron Paul's congressional district as his constituents, and made dozens of other specific comments proving the nazi author was Ron, Ron Paul refused to make any comment at all.

Ron Paul's internet forums were full of people expressing disbelief that Ron actually did write these articles, and their repeated claims that this was a debunked smear were wrong. But they agreed to keep calling this a debunked smear, instead of the truth, asserting that if you repeat something over and over, it is almost as good as the truth.

Ron Paul is a monster. His followers often care more about pot legalization than the equality of mankind. They are so personally invested that they cannot accept that George W Bush, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Jimmy Carter are all moral giants compared with Ron Paul.

I actually had someone tell me that Ron Paul's hatespeech is relatively ok because Dubya's grandfather supported nazis. Insane.

I hate Scientology, but they use the persecution accusation, and if Ron Paul is linked to his effort, they will have no trouble doing so again.

If you are a Ron Paul supporter, keep it to yourself when dealing with Scientology.

Re:The war (2, Funny)

untaken_name (660789) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167598)

and all-around psychos who couldn't stop ranting about him in some way.

Um, isn't ranting about him what you just did? Oh, I know. You can quit any time. You don't have a problem. I mean, why would it be a problem when you have to rant about him in a thread dedicated to an anonymous internet group's attack on scientology? Seems like the perfect place to slam Ron Paul to me...NOT.

Re:The war (4, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167078)

Precisely. This "war" will amount to very little. The CoS is loaded with the cash of the gullible and foolish. Anonymous also fails to realize that most people don't give a crap about stuff on the internet outside of email and maybe some major news sites. It'll be amusing to watch, though.

Re:The war (2, Interesting)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167394)

Anonymous also fails to realize that most people don't give a crap about stuff on the internet outside of email and maybe some major news sites

Double-edged sword. If the mainstream media doesn't pick up on this, less law enforcement attention is paid to his malfeasance. Similarly, more attention into this issue can only be beneficial for his cause as Scientology comes under more and more scrutiny.

It's also worth noting that there's a lot of mainstream hatred of Scientology. Technically, it's bigotry, but Anonymous has way more support than you think he does. Enemy of my enemy and all that...

I have some dirt on Scientology here: (5, Funny)

tak amalak (55584) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167786)

[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International.]

Re:The war (2, Funny)

Dr. Cody (554864) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167134)

The war on Scientology, led by the same people who said "Google Ron Paul"

No, this is lead by 4chan [youtube.com].

Some people say "google Ron Paul." /b/tards, on the other hand, listen intently and google bomb "Rob Paul" to link to a picture of shitting dick-nipples.

I've been looking for a new crusade... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22166998)

Sweet! Where can I sign up?

RIAA (5, Funny)

paganizer (566360) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167004)

Hopefully the RIAA will be next. Sure they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot a lot lately, but they still need to be wiped out.

Re:RIAA (5, Funny)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167124)

Even better; tell the RIAA that the Church of Scientology is a massive front for copying CD's. Simultaneously, tell the scientologists that the RIAA are planning to clone Xenu from some evil thetans that were surgically extracted from Britney.

Unstoppable force, meet immovable object. Space DC-10's dropping atom bombs on volcanoes will be nothing compared to those fireworks :)

Re:RIAA (4, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167286)

Even better; tell the RIAA that the Church of Scientology is a massive front for copying CD's. Simultaneously, tell the scientologists that the RIAA are planning to clone Xenu from some evil thetans that were surgically extracted from Britney.

Where can I buy tickets to that event? I want front row seats!

Re:RIAA (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167660)

Ticketmaster. Unfortunately, there's a $1000 service fee per ticket.

Re:RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167420)

Laugh it up by the RIAA is well on it's way from being an industry advocacy group to being a department in the federal government. Ever wonder why EMI had such a change of heart with this on the horizon?

Anonymous? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167010)

Cowards.

Re:Anonymous? (5, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167266)

Considering those openly opposed to Scientology wind up harassed, publicly smeared, thrown in jail, or made dead due to the Fair Game policy, I don't blame them.

Re:Anonymous? (2, Funny)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167564)

And just how anonymous are they, anyway, getting Prof. Hawking to record their youtube rant for them...

Re:Anonymous? (3, Interesting)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167588)

These are the same kids who harassed a girl in chatsworth who demands money from men (google "goddessmine" or read this [partyvan.info]). They did a video gloating about how they took down her server and reported her sketchy (but apparently profitable) dominatrix business to the IRS, and called and hassled the cops who she called to protect her. I don't know what to think about this -- I'm glad someone is taking on Co$, but I'm a little worried these kids are going to get their asses kicked. It's one thing to take down a server that belongs to a nineteen year old girl with self-esteem issues; it's quite another to take on a phony religious organization with a staff of lawyers the size of some third world countries' entire military forces and a history of predatory legal action against its enemies that goes back about twice the amount of time these kids have been alive. But, hey, more power to them!

Re:Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167776)

> Cowards.

...but Legion.

It's sorta like the irresistible force and the immovable object.

For the cult to adjust its tactics from the 50s-era media control (for instance, spinning the question around on the questioner with things like "We welcome investigations into the attacks launched by the Internet Hate Machine...", "What are they hiding?", and "It's no worse than Christianity") would be "out-tech", that is, "not in compliance with the media-handling policies laid down by L. Ron Hubbard". It can't happen, because to do so would be heresy to the clams.

For Anonymous not to adjust its tactics from 21st-century "smart mob" and "flash mob" tactics (DDoS on their lawyers via posting of videos to YouTube, on their media handlers by other means) would be equally unlikely, because to do so would require centralized organization, which Anonymous is not.

It's ironic that the one major victory the Co$ has had was when it inadvertently applied smart mob tactics itself: As per Source, it went for the lawsuit as its weapon of first choice. The inadvertently clever bit was that it ordered its members, individually, to sue the IRS and demand that the cult be recognized as a religion instead of a business (hence, the cult's victims get tax deductions and can afford to give it more cash). The IRS, faced with thousands of lawsuits, (and possibly with a little blackmail of key IRS officials with information gained due to cult infiltrators), caved on the issue.

This war has been going on since the early 1990s, with similar results; the harder the cult fights, the more of its secrets leak out, and the more derisively it is mocked. It's been effectively stalemated for a few years; the cult slowly dwindles, occasionally refreshed with new cash infusions from current members dying off, as well as the odd celebrity whose bank account they can loot, and the newer generation's first encounter with the cult is increasingly in the form of mockery, for example, the South Park episode detailing the OT3 story. The entry of Anonymous into the game adds a refreshing bit of funny to the mix. It's long overdue.

It's not a church (5, Insightful)

andyh3930 (605873) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167030)

Any "Church" that charges for its teachings and also has them copyrighted to prevent free distribution is not a church it's a scam at best and a dangerous cult at worst.

I had dealings with them about 10 years ago. I ended up paying GBP30 for a course just to get out of the hard sell and even though I never did the course the often phoned and wrote letters of about 5 years after.

See the Operation Clambake pages for more details to their activities. http://www.xenu.net/ [xenu.net]

Re:It's not a church (4, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167128)


Any "Church" that charges for its teachings and also has them copyrighted to prevent free distribution is not a church it's a scam at best and a dangerous cult at worst

cult (n): A small, unpopular religion.
religion (n): a large, popular cult.

Re:It's not a church (5, Interesting)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167410)

Cult: organization pretending to be a religion. Keeps true beliefs secret from recruits, one would think because they would have no recruits if beliefs were known. Viciously attacks any and all who expose secret beliefs. Has tendency to lock people up, either through social pressure or actual locked doors. Uses any means possible to intimidate press, infiltrate government, and co-opt police forces. See: Moonies, Scientology, any number of local Jesus franchises in USA, and yes, even the Mormons, tho they succeeded in all points listed above so long ago that no one remembers they are a cult. Hell. the Salvation Army is a cult, but people rarely look at its belief system. A uniformed army, eh? But I digress.

Re:It's not a church (-1, Flamebait)

netcrusher88 (743318) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167618)

Mod parent up. The word "cult" is thrown around far too much, to the point where anyone who doesn't like a given religion decides to call it a cult. But as parent points out, it has a specific meaning, and most organizations that do fit the meaning are at best an extreme danger to their followers, and at worst a danger to the fabric of society.

Also interesting point about the Salvation Army.

Re:It's not a church (4, Interesting)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167772)

See: Moonies, Scientology, any number of local Jesus franchises in USA, and yes, even the Mormons, tho they succeeded in all points listed above so long ago that no one remembers they are a cult.

Agreed, but have you have noticed that Mormons tend to be really nice people? I'm serious. It's like Romney -- no one can really find fault with him except to say his hair is too perfect, that he's just a successful businessman, or that he's Mormon.

I have zero patience for the Protestant evangelical crowd and less for members of any cult, but Mormons, at least in my experience, tend to be shiny happy people that don't really bother anyone. Even the ex-Mormons I've met seem to have few bad things to say and if they do, you can't help but notice there's a certain lingering nostalgia in their eyes. That's not to say their beliefs aren't loony, but if members of cults were as benign as the typical Mormon, I wonder if anyone would notice, or care.

But I digress.

Back at you.

Re:It's not a church... But the Salvation Army IS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167826)

Sorry, but the Salvation Army is a Church.

It is a fundamental sect of Christianity, with an accesible set of teachings that are in line with many other fundamentalist Christians.

Just because most people don't know its a church, thinking it a charity organization, does not change that.

Note fundamentalist does not mean conservative, reactionary, or secretive (although those do apply to many fundamentalists)
Fundamentalists believe the Bible is the Revealed Word of God, thats it. Different fundamentalists pick different parts of the Bible to emphasise, which is why many of them are a little loopy.

The Salvation Army is NOT a uniformed army. The church hierarchy has modeled itself after a military organization, but they do NOT train for physical confrontation.

I am not a Salvation Army member (nor even actually a Christian), but I did marry one.

Re:It's not a church (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167648)


cult (n): A small, unpopular religion.
religion (n): a large, popular cult.


Bzzzzzzt. Sorry, try again.

You may or may not like a religion, but a religion lays it's cards on the table. It doesn't have secret teachings that you need to join up and achieve some level of roped-in-ness before they will tell you what the secret teachings are. You ask the catholic church what it believes and it will gladly spell it out for you. "We believe in one god, the father ..."

Agree or don't. It isn't a bait-and-switch.

Cults, on the other hand have different faces for prospective and new members vs. insiders. That's the whole point of Scientology trying to silence people. They don't want the prospective members to be able to see where it is all going until they are under church control.

Classic bait-and-switch.

Re:It's not a church (0)

grub (11606) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167692)


Any organization selling "Feel Good" and supernatural crap is a cult. Their beliefs have no basis in reality and depend on the brainwashing of the followers to continue. Religions fit that bill perfectly.

Re:It's not a church (1)

renoX (11677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167806)

>Any organization selling "Feel Good" and supernatural crap is a cult.

So you agree that catholicism is a cult then?
They used to sell 'indulgence', I don't know how to translate this word in English, but you could be forbidden for a sin you had made and go to the paradise by buying those things..

Re:It's not a church (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167232)

"I had dealings with them about 10 years ago. I ended up paying GBP30 for a course just to get out of the hard sell and even though I never did the course the often phoned and wrote letters of about 5 years after."
So what was so hard with no and getting up and leaving.

Re:It's not a church (2, Interesting)

andyh3930 (605873) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167400)

Actually it was, I was young 18, very shy and I didn't like to be rude, Also the had just done one of their psych tests so they knew where to hit me, anyway it did teach me a valuable lesson of telling anyone is the street trying sell anything is likely a con.

Re:It's not a church (4, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167446)

it did teach me a valuable lesson of telling anyone is the street trying sell anything is likely a con.

So you got your 30 pounds worth for sure.

Re:It's not a church (4, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167568)

Human psychology. The hard sell works using various techniques such as making it seem like a logical contradiction if you say "no", or making it seem like you're being mean to a nice person. People become incredibly uncomfortable with these situations and paying money is an easy way to escape.

It's a money machine (5, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167620)

Ron Hubbard - the founder of Scientology - has been quoted as saying that if you want to get rich, you start a religion. ( http://www.faqs.org/faqs/scientology/skeptic/start-a-religion-faq/ [faqs.org] ) Well, that's what he did. You have to pay just to learn about it and the deeper you go, the more you spend. It's designed to dupe people into giving the Church of Scientology gobs of money. I truly feel sorry for anyone that's been sucked in by it. It's like believing that Star Wars is real (the movie, not the missile defense system...).

Cults are for idiots (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167042)

Scientology and all its offshoot cults like The Landmark Forum [rickross.com] are brainwashing users of people. Money money money.

*facepalm* (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167046)

DERP DERP raid raid am i cool yet

Why bother? (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167064)

There's no point in posting this story on Slashdot; Slashdot just caved last time Scientology told them to censor themselves, and there's no reason to believe that has changed.

Re:Why bother? (3, Insightful)

that IT girl (864406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167244)

Yeah, I just read the last article about it. That doesn't make sense when I compare it to any other religion I've encountered. Christians and Jews and Muslims and all, they freely post their scripture and encourage people to memorize, recite, share...it's the word of their God. If it is the truth, as Scientologists believe, why wouldn't they want it to be spread? It's like even they know it's all a sham, for making money and not about truly helping people.

Re:Why bother? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167476)

There's no point in posting this story on Slashdot; Slashdot just caved last time Scientology told them to censor themselves, and there's no reason to believe that has changed.
The accusation was copyright infringement. If somebody posted an entire chapter of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as comments, don't you think SourceForge Inc. would act the same way in order to preserve Slashdot's safe harbor status under 17 USC 512 and foreign counterparts?

Re:Why bother? (5, Informative)

Bazer (760541) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167520)

If you'd click the second link in the summary you'd see how Slashdot "gave in".

The story posted after the comment was removed had a full disclosure, included the text of that comment and had _lots_ of anti-Scientology links, including Operation Clambake [xenu.net]. That was the best Slashdot could do, considering the threat of legal action.

I've been asked, "Have you ever met an SP?" (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167076)

And I tell them to shut the fuck up and get the fuck out of my face.

What if in like 50 years there weren't any more SPs? How cool would that be? Kids would be learning about them from textbooks as history.

Goddamned stupid petitioners.

Re:I've been asked, "Have you ever met an SP?" (2, Insightful)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167612)

Uh, what is an SP?

Sorry to ask a dumb question here...

Ctrl+F "4chan" (2, Informative)

RockMFR (1022315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167080)

4chan isn't mentioned in the Wikinews article at all. Wikinews, and every other outlet reporting this story, is a fucking joke.

Re:Ctrl+F "4chan" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167136)

And you want it mentioned? Rules 1 and 2, failtard.

DAMN YOU EBAUMSWORLD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167198)

Once again the hackers at eBaumsworld are causing problems on the Internet! I wish they'd stop trying to pretend to belong to other websites. Damn liars.

fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167106)

duh. anonymous does not bother with such things; this is just a couple of guys who thought they could "stir up a hornets nest".

YHBT
YHL
HAND

'Anonymous' ? does that mean what I think? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167110)

Is this /b/tards attacking scientology? And on 1/24/2008 the powers of stupid collided. I hear they are legion. And mostly 13 years old.

Anonymous? Really? (3, Informative)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167116)

Is this the same Anonymous that Joe Blow knows about thanks to Fox News [youtube.com]? When asked to choose between a church and terrorists who want to blow up your van, which one do you think the public is going to go for?

Followed by (5, Funny)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167122)

Tom Cruise declares war on the internet.
-
He's gotta do something until the mothership arrives...

Re:Followed by (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167350)

The Mother Ship came and went already with Hale-Bopp. To bad he didn't get on then.

Michigan Daily quote (4, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167138)

From Wikinews: The "Message to Scientology" video was highlighted as the "YouTube Video of the Week" by The Michigan Daily. Commenting on the video, the piece states "if this video is any indication, it seems like the assailants mean business". Hehe. If that were a credible metric of "business", we'd have an emo President by now.

Is This Brave or Stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167148)

Taking on a group of international fraudsters and con artists with powerful friends could be considered brave or stupid. In this case I'm not sure which label applies.

Posted AC for obvious reasons.

They piss me off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167152)

The fact that a really rich person is "Number 2" in their association isn't very surprising. They invented a religion that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, called it a name that pisses me off when I just hear it, WTF is "scientology" supposed to mean, at least firefox' dictionary agrees that it isn't a word. There should be a fund that either buys scientology's bibles or whatever they call them and publish them anonymously on the internets (if they aren't floating around yet somewhere anyway). Or alternatively a fund that hires cannibals to eat their members for us, that would be great too.

Internet Hate Machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167156)

At least we didn't break rules 1 and 2, oh wait...

Re:Internet Hate Machine (1)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167250)

Anonymous never forgives... hackers on steroids will get them.

This is a great Internet event, as it's fun, it allows us to repeat Internet memes, it'll allow Fox News and other American retarded news sources to create more hilarious articles about it, and it's actually a good cause to fight.

oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167180)

i think they're going to become an heroes

Easy to start new religions? (5, Insightful)

JulianConrad (1223926) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167206)

LRH's scam shows how easy it is to start a new religion that survives and gains passionate adherents after the death of its founders. Most people couldn't do it, but a few individuals have the kind of personality that can pull it off in the right social environment. In fact, we have enough recent historical data on cults that turn into competitive new religions (for example Mormonism and Baha'i, both founded in the 19th Century) that I don't think it's even all that mysterious how older religions like Christianity & Islam could have originated through normal social processes. (We don't have to postulate "supernatural" causes to explain their existence, in other words.)

'Anonymous' is actually... (4, Informative)

sykopomp (1133507) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167218)

...a group composed of members of several -chan sites (4chan, 7chan, 711chan), as well as several other related communities like YTMND and Ebaum's.

Really, this is a joke. Channers will raid/invade just about anything, and Scientology is just their latest target. This is the exact same group behind the 'hackers on steroids' thing that Fox News reported on. Any claims they have about righteousness are just a way to justify their 'lulz'.

Re:'Anonymous' is actually... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167460)

The sites you mention do not require membership, therefore your argument is flawed.

Re:'Anonymous' is actually... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167708)

rules 1 and 2

Re:'Anonymous' is actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167724)

I lol'd at thinking eBaum's world is involved.

Scientology is Just a Business (0, Redundant)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167238)

Suck in the losers, invtroverts, and weak and tell them they can do better with their consulting methods and give the weak a free "audit". Shuck and jive the loser and convince him to continue, but of course then he has to pay big time.

Trolls (5, Funny)

TI-8477 (1105165) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167248)

You do realize that the people who are leading this war are the same people who consider trolling Slashdot a professional sport?

Re:Trolls (1, Insightful)

discord5 (798235) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167744)

You do realize that the people who are leading this war are the same people who consider trolling Slashdot a professional sport?

But it's so easy...

Freakin Trend Monkeys... (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167276)

FTM's!! That sounds like something out of The Princess Bride.

Please forget i'm easily distracted and now and that scientology has been around forever and people are just starting to form "groups"

give me a break.

Why not declare war on religion in general? (5, Insightful)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167294)

Why single out one specific 'religion'? I saw the Tom Cruise interview video last week - it really didn't seem all that fundamentally different from listening to an evangelical Christian. Different terms were used, but the mindset was mostly the same. Watch Jesus Camp if you haven't already. Not much difference between the main camp director's mindset and Tom Cruise's.

Re:Why not declare war on religion in general? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167516)

Well, all major religions are based on the same group of ideals. It's just a matter of how each promotes them.

As for Scientology? I can't say. There are just too many FUDers and conspiracy theories out there to separate what really goes on behind those doors versus what someone made up to make them look bad. It's amazing the number of fallacies out there that get spread as fact and people just follow it regardless of how false you can prove it.

Hell, you see it here where an erroneous fact is posted, modded to a +5 informative and when the truth is posted as a reply it's largely ignored. Sometimes you have to wonder if this misdirection is on purpose or if people are just that gullible.

Re:Why not declare war on religion in general? (5, Informative)

vajaradakini (1209944) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167622)

Churches don't tend to steal documents from governments to erase negative things about their founders like Scientologists did during Operation Snow White [wikipedia.org][wikipedia]. Nor do they tend to try to frame people for various crimes (see operation freakout) or go after anyone who says anything bad about them with a pack of lawyers.

Re:Why not declare war on religion in general? (1)

Freeside1 (1140901) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167630)

Scientology is fundamentally different from any other religion I can think of. They suppress information, drain their members wallets, ruin their lives, and sometimes even take their lives. All in the name of preserving their religion.

Re:Why not declare war on religion in general? (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167704)

I agree. Freedom of religion is one of our most sacred values here in America. However, the newer the religion, the stronger the persecution, and the lower the tolerance, even here in America. Islam is a post-Jesus fork, and not particularly welcome. Mormonism is even newer, but at least home-grown, though we hanged plenty of them as heathens in days gone by (which is why men needed multiple wives - we killed off most of their men). Scientology seems little different, just newer.

Personally, I want to start my own religion. We'll worship nature, the Goddess, and dance naked around fires in Druid Circles in the woods, then have great orgies! Who's with me (other than ugly geeks)?

if only He knew... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167372)

If only He knew, L. Ron Hubbard would be ashamed with what people are doing with his idea...

Re:if only He knew... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167768)

If only He knew, L. Ron Hubbard would be ashamed with what people are doing with his idea...

Are you kidding? If he knew, he'd find it freakin' hilarious. Probably laugh himself to death. He was one of the primary organizers of the CoS - he founded it to make money after all. (He even announced his plan to a meeting of other sci-fi authors before starting out.) Seriously, as if SCO and the RIAA haven't shown the world yet, the true future of making money is in litigation over copywrites, and the CoS are the true masters of that.

Of course, if the lawsuits over copywrite don't work, they can always make you dead, it's what they do with their more stubborn opponents. (Go read xenu.net)

Scientology is pervasive (5, Interesting)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167376)

Especially when you consider its offshoot, the Landmark Forum (formerly "EST"). They are scary, for-profit cults that employ techniques like fatigue, hunger, group compulsion, and newspeak. You would be surprised how many people from all walks of life have gotten pulled into them.

I wish Anonymous well, but Scientologists and their cousins in the Landmark Forum are beyond reason. And fighting cults rarely works unless they're small and focused around a single charismatic leader. Both Scientology and Landmark are too big and widespread for that, and fighting them will probably only make them stronger.

Re:Scientology is pervasive (2, Funny)

JulianConrad (1223926) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167486)

And fighting cults rarely works unless they're small and focused around a single charismatic leader.
It also helps if the cult leader and his followers [wikipedia.org] hole up in a bunch of flammable wood frame buildings in a rural area.

Re:Scientology is pervasive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167502)

That's fine, we're not trying to reason with them. Only destroy them. Strictly for the lulz, you understand.

Re:Scientology is pervasive (2, Informative)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167698)

Funnily enough, I'd known how evil Scientology was for years, and then I happened across the Skeptic's Dictionary [skepdic.com] which has entries on est [skepdic.com] and the Landmark Forum [skepdic.com]. I'd read them in about 1999, and a couple of years later a friend of mine invited me to audit (heh) a Landmark Forum workshop. I'd forgotten about what I'd read, so I checked it out, and it seemed vaguely interesting... and familiar. Then I realized that I knew where I'd heard of it before, and I sent the SkepDic links to my friend.

He stopped participating in the Landmark Forum shortly thereafter. :)

They have NOT (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167388)

misused copyright law in any way. They are using it in its true prearranged fashion. This is what copyright is for. This is the supreme, ne, the only reason for its existence. This is not an unintended effect. Please, try to see and think beyond the spin.

Prepare (1)

dmsuperman (1033704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167458)

To arms! Man your battlestations! We must fight! We must WIN!

Send luke to the dagobah system to retrieve Master Yoda.

Should I be ashamed? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167478)

Is it wrong that the story's title alone gave me wood? I mean really now, who doesn't want this 'church' to fall into darkness and die a miserable death? I pray for the souls of the poor people that have been hornswaggled by the 'church'. And not in anyway overly Judeo-Christian, just, you know - 'Dear Space Pope, help these lost morons come to their senses...seriously... Lord Xenu? What kind of evil overlord is that. Morgoth, Palpatine, and Voldemorte: those names have staying power, a little Tabasco in their shorts . Xenu sounds like a new brand of toilet scrubbers. Amen.'

Meanwhile back in the woods. (3, Funny)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167544)

Ned:"Heya Ed, watcha doin?"
Ed: "See that cave full of bears? I am pokin' em with a stick!"
Ned:"OMG Ed, that's crazy!"
Ed: "No worries! See I build a remote poking robot device that I am controlling via wires attached to this here laptop computer."
Ned:"Uh Ed?"
Ed: "Yeah?"
Ned:"Can't they just follow the wire to where you are hiding?"

crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167608)

now that Scientology knows they're going to go get dog curtains. DESU.

Help me get this straight... (1)

Churla (936633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167610)

An organization wants to destroy a religion (i.e. preventing them from spreading their "faith") in the name of protecting free speech. Am I the only one seeing a problem with this logic?

this should definately not stop with scientology (1)

EZReady (677430) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167726)

If they're going to go an declare ware on scientology the might as well declare war on those stupid parody movies of other movies, and people famous for being famous.

Ebaums did it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22167808)

Ebaums World has been doing this since 1-18-08. Surprised that slashdot just now picked it up. I figured /. was scared after Scientolgy crammed the hot hard one up them the last time...

Effectual? Irrelevant. (4, Insightful)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 6 years ago | (#22167832)

Granted, this e-hissy from Anonymous is unlikely to take down the cult or even deal it serious damage, but it does serve to highlight how the traditional big media outlets have been legally hogtied.

Our usual media sources can't report on allegations of abuse because they've been very effectively muzzled by CSI hyper-litigation. They try to keep this fact close to the vest, but Anonymous' efforts are making it plain for all to see. This is a valuable service.

Also, any organization that exploits copyright law in order to silence critics should get a kick in the shins, even if that's all it amounts to. It's still a potent message: "We don't condone gag orders, and we'll fight back however we can, even if it is a David versus Goliath situation."

Glib as it may sound, raising awareness is key here. And an end unto itself.

Yours,
Cheeseburger Brown
Suppressive and Proud

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...