News of a growing, sometimes militant, movement targeting Scientology has been brewing in tech publications for a number of weeks now, and mainstream press is finally stepping up to the plate to cover this rather significant situation. In a lenghy story Monday, The Los Angeles Times covers a couple of months worth of Internet and street protests against Scientology.
Spurred on by the organization’s reaction to the Tom Cruise Scientology video that spilled onto the Internet in January, a certain element of the Internet’s users have organized in an effort to literally shut down Scientology. The movement has moved from the Web to real life protests in front of Scientology facilities around the world.
The story does a good job of outlining the abuses that the people attacking Scientology believe the officials within the organization have perpetrated. Also well explained is the combination of the two groups of people upset at Scientology: former Scientologists and Internet activists.
Threats have been made that cross the line of decency. Official Scientology statements claimed the movement’s goals are “reminiscent of Al Qaeda spreading anti-American hatred and calling for U.S. destruction.” The FBI is investigating a YouTube video that includes a threat to bomb a Scientology building in Southern California:
These were just the latest in a series of Scientology-related stories to burn across the Internet like grass fires in recent weeks, testing the church’s well-established ability to tightly control its public image. The largest thorn in the church’s side has been a group called Anonymous, a diffuse online coalition of skeptics, hackers and activists, many of them young and Web-savvy. The high-wattage movement has inspired former Scientologists to come forward and has repeatedly trained an Internet spotlight on any story or rumor that portrays Scientology in unflattering terms.
No corner of the Web, it appears, is safe for Scientology. Blogger and lawyer Scott Pilutik recently posted a story noting that Scientology was yanking down EBay auctions for used e-meters, the device the church uses for spiritual counseling. EBay allows brand owners — Louis Vuitton or Rolex, say — to remove items they believe infringe on their trademark or patent rights. Basically, fakes. But, Pilutik said, the used e-meters being taken down were genuine. Reselling them was no different than putting a for-sale sign on your old Chevy.
“What’s actually going on here,” he wrote, is that the church is “knowingly alleging intellectual property violations that clearly don’t exist.” Within a day Pilutik’s blog had gotten over 45,000 visitors — so much traffic that his site crashed completely.
Facing a steady stream of negative publicity and a growing number of critical voices, Scientology has found itself on the defensive.
That last sentence — that Scientology has become defensive — is the key to this story. If this were merely a group of hackers interested in causing an organization problems there would not be a story. But Scientology has become “defensive” and is therefore changing the nature of its behavior.
The story also makes a quality effort at explaining how the Internet has changed things for this rather secretive organization:
The result of all this attention has been that just about any story critical of Scientology — even those that have been publicly accessible for years — can gain immediate Web currency. On Digg.com, a popular “social news” aggregator that features popular stories from around the Web, dozens of Scientology stories have ascended to the site’s most-viewed list in the last several weeks. A successful Digg story can drive tens of thousands of views to the originating site, as was the case with Pilutik’s post about e-meters.
The LAT article makes a good effort at getting the views of both sides. Scientologists get their say and are allowed to call this group a bunch of terrorists, while the people who don’t like Scientology so much are also given their say.
The missing voice of this piece is the neutral arbitrator. Someone needs to ask the question of whether this form of Internet-vigilantism is what’s best for society and for religions in general. Should a religion or group on the unpopular end of an event be subject to treatment on the Internet (and in real life) that crosses the boundary of decency and law?
The other big question is who is next?
 | Posted at 9:18 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (55) |
March 4, 2008, at 9:55 am
Who is next? The United Church of Christ - and it’s happening already. A web site called UCC TRUTHS at UCCTruths.blogspot.com has been attacking the UCC through conventional and unconventional means. Now they have the IRS going after the United Church of Christ. Different tact but its the same goal to destroy a religious faith.
March 4, 2008, at 9:59 am
Friends,
It has become clear that the IRS complaint against the United Church of Christ is the work of a a very evil person, James Hutchens. I urge you not to go to the website the same way I would encourage anyone I care about not to dive into a pool of liquid fertilizer. However, a link to a pdf file containing the original IRS complaint that was filed back in August appears on the website’s front page!
For the sake of truth and justice, I would encourage you to forward this to three to five people. The truth needs to get out there.
Thanks,
Jeff Johnston
Community United Church-Christ
http://www.mortoncommunityucc.org
March 4, 2008, at 9:59 am
Hi there,
Describing Anonymous as “sometimes militant” is not strictly speaking true, since the mass website visits were stopped after a week into the campaign. Videos of the demonstrations shows anonymous actively telling its members to “stand down” rather than get involved in any direct confrontation with church members. Anonymous works actively with law enforcement to find out who makes threats since they are neither supported nor condoned by anonymous.
In worldwide protests with no leadership and no central control there were two arrests: both were scientologists. The UK police described the protesters as “good as gold”.
the question of “who is next” is one that has been raised and repeatedly crashed down. This is not how anonymous works. There is no “next”. Targets in the past have included pedophiles, right wing militants and, if you’ll excuse the phrase, ass hats. No one is going to be able to say “right, the mormons are next” and seriously expect thousands of anons to get behind them. Every individual member makes an indivdual choice to participate. This is not a vigilante group, it is a backlash of public opinion.
It is not just the immoral actions of the church of scientology that has resulted in this movement, but the complete failure on societies part to regulate thier hateful campaigns of propoganda and harrasment of critics. Were the Catholic Church to sue protestant churches for use of the word “christianity” and then use their position in society to defame anyone who attempts to question them, then maybe. But since all other religions stopped this kind of behaviour a long time ago, it’s not going to come up.
as long as there are nuetral third parties, critically evaluating the merits of any individual case, there is no need for the anonymous reaction. But as long as Scientology continues to attack anyone who dares speak out against them, there will be people speaking out from behind masks.
and they are legion.
March 4, 2008, at 10:00 am
It is important to point out that these threats that, as you write, cross the boundary of decency, have not been confirmed to originate from within Anonymous. In fact, the group has widely and loudly condemned such activities. This, together with ongoing efforts of the ‘Church’ of Scientology to picture Anonymous as terrorists raises a question as to the validity of these threats.
March 4, 2008, at 10:18 am
Jeff, Anonymous is not going after the UCoC. In fact your posts seem like a violation of the comments policy regarding ad hominem attacks and relevence.
anonymous is not a militant organisation. The mass website visits ended after the first week of the campaign and long before the protests started. Anonymous is working with law enforcement to get to the bottom of the alleged bomb threats and actively work to avoid confrontation with the chuches members.
in mass protests all across the world, with no central leadership or organisation there were no arrests. The UK police described the protesters as being “good as gold”. None the less, there were two scientology arrests and numerous attempts by its members to bait the protesters.
but to answer your questions, what antics exactly have crossed the boundries of decency and law. The libelous, slanderous response of the CoS to anyone who dares stand up to them is well documented and undisputed, its why anonymous wear masks. Anonymous also suggest people look up “operation:freakout” for examples of the Church of scientology being caught setting up fake bomb threats.
it seems anonymous have to contend with not one, but two baseless accusations, so maybe a nuetral third party to independently investigate scientologies misdeeds would be a good idea. but until one comes along who is prepared to stand up to these people, that burden will fall to those who feel anonymity is the only way to call into question the dubious tactics of this delinquent ornaisation.
March 4, 2008, at 10:30 am
The bomb-threat video was one that appeared on Youtube a few weeks ago, and it was “Anonymous” that called it in and reported it to the authorities. They are simply activists that do not like the idea of a church which controls it’s own prisons (The RPFs) and actively coerces or threatens members who no longer want to be a part of the group.
Any social movement will attract extremists that will threaten violence or destruction, but these people are not a part of the greater whole and to call everyone “militants” is misleading. Anonymous could not help someone taking their name and trying to incite violence, but they did everything they could to make sure it was reported and hope the individual is charged.
The beliefs are not an issue, as any scientologists are encouraged to join the Freezone where they can keep their beliefs but be free of the corruption of the church’s management. Other churches will not be targeted because they do not engage in the same criminal activities (see: operation Freakout, Operation Snow White, Lisa Mcpherson, etc). It is not the religion itself that is targeted, but the human rights abuses being perpetrated by the business-side of Scientology.
March 4, 2008, at 10:30 am
Someone needs to ask the question of whether this form of Internet-vigilantism is what’s best for society and for religions in general.
I’m not sure it’s the job of a newspaper to decide what’s best for society. I think just reporting the facts, especially in something as contentious as this, should be fine. Leave the analysis to the pundits.
Also, I don’t know that this is (a) unique and (b) particularly new. The intensity of the protests might be new-ish, but Scientology has had its problems with the Internet for as long as there’s been an Internet. I also think quite a few religious groups would point to what they consider unfair treatment on the Web. Plenty of ex-LDS sites spring to mind.
March 4, 2008, at 10:34 am
Good article! There are a few points I’d like to clarify, however…
Anonymous is not a formal “group” with a leadership in the traditional sense…literally anyone can claim to be Anonymous; there are no tests, membership cards, or other qualifying criteria. That said (and also because of that), the group as a whole tends to operate on a consensus basis, and people who operate outside that consensus may find themselves operating alone and unsupported.
That understanding is key for my next point: the only thing ‘militant’ about Anonymous is in its desire to stay ‘on message’ and—most importantly—within legal bounds in its protesting and activism against the organization known as the Church of Scientology (CoS).
While it is true that Anonymous has some of its roots in internet pranks and other ‘grey-area’ behavior, shortly after the start of this recent awareness drive against the CoS Anonymous was appealed to by longtime critics to stay legal and legit—“Ghandi-tech” as it was called. This appeal was heard and considered as sage advice and was subsequently adopted. On Feb 10th, over 7500 protesters demonstrated in over 100 cities around the world, organized in under two weeks…and there were no arrests of any Anonymous worldwide—they were all totally peaceful.
The CoS was not arbitrarily selected. Historically, they have been very, very good at litigating as a means of suppression of Free Speech. This is one of the claims against their organization—that while they claim loudly to cherish the freedoms granted under most western governments on the one hand, with the other they seek to crush any and all criticism and dissent. When they sought to suppress a video that was less-than-flattering via heavy-handed legal threats, members of Anonymous decided to take them down a peg and remind them that Free Speech does not mean freedom from parody/criticism.
However, it was after those first few actions and subsequent research that the bulk of Anonymous discovered the extent of the corruption and the contra-legal actions of the CoS. If half of the uncovered information was true, Anonymous had placed itself opposite an oppressive, controlling, and totalitarian organization bent on inserting itself into the halls of power and authority the likes of which have not been seen since the Dark Ages.
Anonymous is not against Scientology or the rank-and-file Scientologists. While many may find their space alien origin myth and sci-fi author founder amusing or quaint, their right to believe such is supported fully. The Free Zone splinter groups of Scientology are not under any sort of protest, for example—they seek to practice Scientology outside of the CoS organization.
The actions, policies, and real world abuses perpetrated by the CoS are what Anonymous has firmly in their sights. Policies of forced abortion, ‘disconnection’ of family and friends not in Scientology, oppression of Free Speech, active campaigns against science-based medicine, and the subversion of federal and local governments are what the protests are about. That the CoS claims tax-free nonprofit religious status while it operates as a very for-profit business, using high-pressure sales tactics coupled with a form of hypnotic suggestion. That it used frivolous lawsuits and, allegedly, blackmail to secure said tax-exempt status in the US—indeed, the full extent of their tax exemption is unknown as the IRS has sealed those documents…but at the very least the CoS enjoys tax benefits beyond those of ALL OTHER RELIGIONS in the US—which the 9th Circuit Federal courts are currently reviewing and seem to be leaning that this is in violation of the Establishment Clause.
It is because of all of the above that the CoS is receiving what some have termed their ‘karmic due’ with the protests of Anonymous. It is only because their organization acts with such duplicity and apparent malice that the thousands of individual-thinking Anonymous could act—only when everyone reads the evidence and their moral compass points them all in the same direction can something like this occur.
To answer your final question, it would take significant abuses and malicious behavior for someone to be “next.” And even then, that might not be enough…as mentioned, there is no central authority. Just a group of individuals, moving in the same direction for the moment.
Some links for information, and to start you off in Google if you care to examine this further:
Google: Lisa McPherson, Scientology Disconnection, Operation Freakout, Operation Snow White,
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.exscientologykids.com
http://www.enturbulation.org
March 4, 2008, at 10:51 am
Speaking on behalf of ‘anonymous’ - (Readers can Google the following and find the truth for themselves.)
The opposition to the organisation that calls itself ‘The Church of Scientology’ is by a group called ‘anonymous’
Anonymous has no structure or hierarchy, it is merely ordinary people who have had enough of the scientology organisation’s evil behaviour towards its members and critics.
Anonymous believes in freedom of religion and cares deeply about members of the cult. They are the reason that ordinary men and women are doing this. We have a problem solely with the evil organisation they are members of. The Church of Scientology brainwashes, blackmails, brutalises and finally bankrupts its members. There are other organisations where people can practise scientology. Anonymous has no problems with these organisations as they do not commit human rights abuses.
Anonymous is committed to peaceful protest. Scientology has a history of making threats against itself and blaming its critics.
Readers are welcome to Google both sides of the argument and finally they are welcome to join anonymous.
Anonymous has no interest in Jeff Johnston or the Community United Church-Christ or any other religion. I personally have no knowledge of the Community United Church-Christ.
March 4, 2008, at 11:56 am
Anonymous had no involvement with the bombthreats or anthrax hoaxes.
Someone has already hacked their smtp server which revealed that scientology was planning violence at these protests as well as faking anonymous videos giving anonymous a terrorist look.
According to what i have so far seen this church of scientology can’t be good in anyway
March 4, 2008, at 11:57 am
The old question is apt: what is a “religion” deserving constitutional protection versus what is a “cult” or pseudo-religion and not deserving special treatment”? I don’t have any easy answer, but this situation highlights the question.
March 4, 2008, at 12:13 pm
No one is next…
Project Chanology only has one target an that is the multi-level marketing pyramid scam operated by the crime syndicate know as the CoS. We are not at war with Scientology’s parishioners. We hope many of them will join us in exposing the rampant fraud and human rights abuses of RTC’s upper management.
http://www.exscientologykids.com/
March 4, 2008, at 12:46 pm
Jeft notes (in post 1)
As others have said, this is far from the same thing. Someone who disagrees with the theological direction of a long-established church and wants to expose its highly politicized, left-wing agenda isn’t by a longshot the same as someone (or a group, like Anonymous) who wants to explose the intimidation, false imprisonment, psychological abuse and other crimes of a money-hungry cult - and a cult it is, by any objective definition.
Many in Europe apparently are more awake on the question of “what is a cult” and are on the verge of banning it as a totalitarian organization. Once the news media is freed from the threat of crippling lawsuits, then the MSM here in America will unleash on this criminal gang.
Anonymous may very well have that effect by opening the floodgates of criticism and open discussion about this cult, as the LA Times article notes, and DEMONSTRATES, by its very existence.
(Again, I’m a longtime contributor, but must post using a psedonym to avoid the Fair Game treatment. Sigh.)
March 4, 2008, at 12:53 pm
Jeff notes (in post 1)
As others have said, this is far from the same thing. Someone who disagrees with the theological direction of a long-established church and wants to expose its highly politicized, left-wing agenda isn’t by a longshot the same as someone (or a group, like Anonymous) who wants to explose the intimidation, false imprisonment, psychological abuse and other crimes of a money-hungry cult - and a cult it is, by any objective definition.
Many in Europe apparently are more awake on the question of “what is a cult” and are on the verge of banning it as a totalitarian organization. Once the news media is freed from the threat of crippling lawsuits, then the MSM here in America will unleash on this criminal gang.
Anonymous may very well have that effect by opening the floodgates of criticism and open discussion about this cult, as the LA Times article notes, and DEMONSTRATES, by its very existence.
(Again, I’m a longtime contributor, but must post using a psedonym to avoid the Fair Game treatment. Sigh.)
March 4, 2008, at 1:06 pm
How is protesting a religion’s abuses crossing “the boundary of decency and law?” Free speech allows people to speak out about these abuses. The internet allows ALL of these people to speak out in One Voice.
There is one thing that everyone seems to miss, including the author of this article, and it’s the one thing that Anonymous states the loudest: They are not against the religion, they are against the abuses of the corporation behind the religion, such as the practice of “disconnection”.
Why support a ‘church’ that strives to separate families in order to ‘keep scientology working’?
There’s a HUGE difference between a religion and a cult. Why can’t religious people realize that?
March 4, 2008, at 1:20 pm
I can state that I have never heard of the UCC, and it has certainly never been mentioned on any Anonymous website that I’ve seen. If they are not violating the law, I can’t imagine that I’d have any problem with them.
Note that in the original 1950 version of Dianetics (the basis of Scientology), it is clearly stated that “Dianetics is not a religion.” This sentence was only redacted after L. Ron Hubbard discovered that he could use the cloak of religion to tax-exempt the millions of dollars he was making with what was essentially unlicensed psychotherapy. The parts about the brainwashed alien souls were added later.
I am Catholic myself, and frankly I am surprised that persons of faith are so quick to defend Scientology. Of course their right to belief should be defended; all religion have elements in them that could be found strange and require leaps of faith. However, allowing any church to allow such brutal treatment of their own members without question is unconscionable. To further blindly defend them is an act which lessens us.
During the scandal in the Catholic church regarding the pedophilic priests, I found myself disgusted by both the monsters who perpetrated these crimes against children and by the administration which silenced its critics for so long. I joined in the calls to reform the church and stop such abuses. Sure enough, the Catholic church stepped up and put in place such programs as Virtus to help defend against such actions in the future.
I urge everyone to investigate both sides of this as I have. When you do, please take action as you see fit. I myself have joined the calls to investigate and reform the dangerous practices of Scientology. If they would admit their problems and work to correct them, I would have no further issue.
March 4, 2008, at 1:31 pm
I am offended by Jeff Johnston’s implication that Anonymous is somehow involved in the attacks against the Church of Christ. Anonymous is not anyone’s personal army. We are a collection of non-violent beings and have no interest in the Church of Christ.
However, doing a quick google search one finds that there are many many people collected in forums around the Internet that feel that the COC is indeed cult-like. Ex members speak of many of the same issues ANONYMOUS is concerned about regarding Scientology. There are apparently many people who are not part of Anonymous who see it in their best interest to end the evil practices of the Church of Christ. Also, if the church has violated government policy regarding openly touting politicians in their churches (as it appears that they have) then they indeed should face scrutiny. The law is the law.
One need only have watched the Mary Winkler trial to get a flavor of what goes on behind closed doors in many so called religious organizations.
If the Church of Christ faces scruitiny it is from those who have left. Perhaps of the COC wishes to silence their critics they should study up on how the Church of Scientology has done so for many years. Google Fair Game. It worked for them, it can work for you too.
Best Wishes
ANONYMOUS
March 4, 2008, at 1:33 pm
I am offended by Jeff Johnston’s implication that Anonymous is somehow involved in the attacks against the Church of Christ. Anonymous is not anyone’s personal army. We are a collection of non-violent beings and have no interest in the Church of Christ.
However, doing a quick google search one finds that there are many many people collected in forums around the Internet that feel that the COC is indeed cult-like. Ex members speak of many of the same issues ANONYMOUS is concerned about regarding Scientology. There are apparently many people who are not part of Anonymous who see it in their best interest to end the evil practices of the Church of Christ. Also, if the church has violated government policy regarding openly touting politicians in their churches (as it appears that they have) then they indeed should face scrutiny. The law is the law.
One need only have watched the Mary Winkler trial to get a flavor of what goes on behind closed doors in many so called religious organizations.
If the Church of Christ faces scruitiny it is from those who have left. Perhaps of the COC wishes to silence their critics they should study up on how the Church of Scientology has done so for many years. Google Fair Game. It worked for them, it can work for you too.
Best Wishes
Quentin Hubbard
March 4, 2008, at 1:40 pm
@Jerry: The question of whether or not Scientology is a pseudo-religion seems irrelevant to me. Everyone can choose to believe what they choose to.
They may however not use the excuse of freedom of religion to perpetrate gross abuses on their parishioners and employees. In the same vein, no self-respecting religion should harass and harm its critics the way the Church of Scientology has in the past.
—-
The last two questions in this article I find quite annoying as a member of Anonymous. You wouldn’t believe how many times we’ve had to assure people we are not coming after their religion next.
“Should a religion or group on the unpopular end of an event be subject to treatment on the Internet (and in real life) that crosses the boundary of decency and law?”
No, it shouldn’t. Not if it is just unpopular. However, if that group is breaking the law or just using the fact that it is recognised as a religion to abuse members (google Lisa McPherson, then Martine Boublil. Chilling similarities suggest their treatment was SOP) and employees (Sea Org) and to cry religious hate everytime an unsavory piece of truth surfaces about it, then it should be opposed.
I strongly resent that whoever wrote this article implies that Anonymous’ efforts are indecent and unlawful. Is that what you call a worldwide peaceful protest where the only people arrested were Scientologists? Where the policemen themselves remarked on the protesters’ examplary behaviour?
March 4, 2008, at 2:11 pm
Hi Terryeo!
I was wondering when the OSA crowd would post…then again it probably took them several attempts to get past the ad hominem restrictions.
First off, the number of CoS locations that supposedly received the white powder in the mail was not 90 but 19 according to the last news article I read about it—over a month ago.
Second, there have been nothing to tie the mailing to Anonymous. Anonymous has, in fact, been reporting any physical or implied threats to CoS members to the FBI and local law enforcement. While it is possible that a lone extremist calling himself part of Anonymous acted on his own and sent the packages (that turned out to be corn starch and wheat germ), it is equally likely the CoS sent themselves the (harmless) powder packages in an attempt to frame Anonymous as “dangerous terrorists.” Google “Operation Freakout” for another time they tried to frame a critic for a bomb threat against themselves.
I cannot say for certain who sent the powder; all I can say is that actions like that are not condoned and are strongly frowned upon within the Anonymous consensus. As mentioned, we strive to work with law enforcement and to keep them aware of any discovered threats—we do not seek harm to Scientologists, period.
And finally, at any given point on any given day there are several if not dozens of denial-of-service attacks going on somewhere on the internet, be they malicious in nature or simple traffic overload by a site gaining sudden attention. They are, put simply, not news in and of themselves. The early DDOS incidents are regrettable, and are no longer condoned.
March 4, 2008, at 2:20 pm
Mr. Terryeo,
I feel sorry for you. I really do. The wool has been pulled over your eyes, possibly for years, and you don’t even realize it. I don’t know you, but I feel pity for you for that you must be going through right now, trying to rationalize how much money you’ve given this organization, trying to defend the thought that you’ve done the right thing, that everything you do is for a greater good … when it isn’t.
I am sorry that this is happening to you, but even more sorry that no one has taken the time to tell you this. I do not know your story, if you’ve disconnected from friends and family who love you, who care for you, but for those people that can’t say it to you now, I’ll say it for them. Someone out there loves you, and feels utterly sorry for your circumstances at being deceived.
To everyone else reading this, Mr. Terryeo is a Scientologist, possibly from a branch of their organization who’s sole purpose is to harass and discredit any critical thought in regards to their operations. He shows up in the comments of every article and blog that deals with Scientology and spins everything to his means to defend his faith, even to the point of outright lies.
The truth is that it was only 20 locations that received the anthrax hoax, which turned out to be wheat germ, and the FBI cleared any involvement from Anonymous. It wasn’t them, period. And yet, who would benefit from sending a fake threat if it wasn’t the enemy?
In all honesty, you shouldn’t be listening to Anonymous anyway, you should be listening to the long time critics of this supposed church. You should be listening to the people involved who got out, who survived, the very children whom have had abuses put upon them by the ‘Church’ of Scientology. I would implore the readers of this article to see this site run by three women who grew up inside Scientology and escaped, and to decide for yourselves who to believe. Knowledge is free, after all, and it is the best defense one can have.
March 4, 2008, at 2:23 pm
The anthrax mailings were fake. There were no proof that that ever happened and seems to be very similar to when the ‘Church’ of Scientology claimed to receive death threats after a BBC documentary (which they claimed they received from viewers BEFORE it was aired)
The question who is next is a silly one. Anonymous is more a concept than a group and is actually now made up of people of all faiths and races. Anonymous now is nothing more than the manifestation of the truth.
March 4, 2008, at 2:30 pm
I find it amusing that Terryeo links to the wikipedia article on Scientology, considering he’s been banned from editing ANY scientology related wikipedia pages due to his propagandizing. If you run a quick google search for Terryeo, you’ll see that he’s obviously employed as a propagandist for the “Church” of Scientology - that’s the only legitimate reason he could be online for eighteen hours a day attempting to fill comment boards with Scientology spam.
Terry, Terry, Terry - considering the leaks that have been springing from within the so called “Church” of $cientology, and the information gathered at IAS meetings that Anonymous members have been in attendance at, David Miscavige is absulutely terrified that his little squirrelly moneymaker is going to come crashing down on him. They’re announcing the release of OTIX and OTX - I can drive by two Orgs within an hour of me that certainly aren’t Saint Hill sized.
Anyway, Terryeo has become panicky and belligerent over the fact that his beloved “Church” is being portrayed as being on the defensive - one of the prime rules for dealing with “Suppressive Persons” or “Potential Trouble Sources” in Scientology is “always attack - never defend”. It tears these people up inside to see their “Church” placed on the defensive due to nothing but the Truth being placed where anyone can see it.
Anonymous has openly and flatly rejected the calls to violence that are being instigated by members of the OSA, and reported those who dare suggest anything extralegal to the appropriate authorities. The FBI as well as State and Local law enforcement agencies have again been contacted by members of Anonymous to ensure that the March 15th Global protests run just as smoothly as the February protests - in which the sole person taken into police custody was a Scientologist who kicked and spat upon a protestor without provocation. Provided Scientology hasn’t bullied YouTube into pulling the video down, it should be readily available.
For those worrying that their Church may be next : don’t. HOWEVER, if you know of abuses or illegalities occuring within your church, SPEAK UP! Contact the authorities!
Anonymous has been very aptly compared to a herd of cats - we are many - from all walks of life, banded together with the common goal of exposing the abuses of the “Church” of Scientology, and freeing those trapped within it to worship as they choose, without fear of being placed in a Scientology-run prison - without signing a billion-year contract - without paying thousands upon thousands of dollars to have information slowly dribbled to them.
Google Lisa McPherson
Google Operation Freakout
Google Operation Snow White
Read Exscientologykids.com
Read Xenu.net
Watch Xenutv.com
and decide for yourself.
March 4, 2008, at 2:32 pm
It’s about time… although I belive MANY news organization are preparing for this next protest. *so I hear*
I personally delved into the web to find out more about this issue. I was amazed at how credible I found the testamonies to be. The insidious patterns of deciet and secrets guarded.
Anyone reading this; do your research … but beware, the Church of Scientology has created a number of website that designed to trick you that are reading an independant sourse, when actually its a Scientology sponsered or created site. They are fairly easy to spot because there ZERO CoS criticism, only critisim of its critics.
March 4, 2008, at 4:13 pm
[…] The battle is obviously heating up and has now moved into the Main Stream Media, this seems to be being spearheaded by the Los Angeles Times. Mondays edition contained a long article about Scientology, a great summary of which was posted on GetReligion.org. […]
March 4, 2008, at 4:17 pm
I am deeply concerned for our future. If individuals find that the Church is one of today’s most pressing threats we are indeed a dying culture.
Here is what is really going on. We have wars in several countries. We have over 600,000 dead Iraqis alone. We have genocide is several other countries like Darfur. We are at an age where it has become okay to torture people. President Bush is the first president to ever publicly condone this in the history of the US.
On the economic side we are are also in a serious trouble. Per the comptroller of the United States, we are faced with pending national bankruptcy. He stated in order to meet the obligations of the US government in the near future taxes will have to be raised to 70% or more. We have a 10 trillion dollar debt and the ENTIRE sum of US Income Tax is going to service the debt and now even that income won’t cover it.
Many of those young individuals who have aligned themselves with Anonymous are facing a pretty bleak financial future. There will be no Social Security. You will inherit a huge mess.
In another arena you should be concerning yourself with your rights being under attack. You have in essence lost habeas corpus - a fundamental right that founded this country. A recent “thought crime” bill has passed in congress which will do more to stifle freedom of speech that ANYTHING you purport the church does. The internet will be under attack. Major media has consolidated into 6 large corporations from hundreds in previous years. The FCC passed dictates that change the law and a media company can now own a newspaper, a tv station and a radio station in the same market. This used to be considered unethical or a conflict of interest. Of those major media groups some are moving into to purchase major portals to the web and they are driving web content in a big way. There are laws pending to control the web through taxation and other methods.
Here are some additional sobering facts. We are seeing more shootings on school and college campuses than at any time in history. Just in the last couple months we have had a string of those. In almost every case those shootings have been linked to prescription psychotropic drugs. The drug industry is pushing to get every citizen on drugs one way or the other. They have huge PR and marketing teams that push drugs known to have side effects like suicidal and homicidal tendencies. They have passed a law in Illinois and Indiana that every elementary school kid must submit to testing for possible mental illness and be arbitrarily labeled and drugged. A law passed in New Jersey where every mother must submit to mental health screening and they are pushing this bill into a Federal mandate, again no proven history of effective treatment only lobbying.
Despite the highly debatable question of the legitimacy of the screenings, the science or effectivenes of treatment like drugging, there is the problem of giving up individual rights. You MUST comply with these laws. If you are a mother in the effected area you HAVE to submit to testing whether you like it or not. A law could then easily be passed that if they find that you are unsuitable or any other arbitrary finding you must submit to “treatment” whether you like it or not. There have been laws like this proposed before. There was a Siberian bill that was fought by the Church in the 60’s. That bill, which actually passed through much of congress before being defeated, stated that anyone could be hauled off to Alaska to a “mental health” treatment facility with no recourse or rights. In essence if some authority didn’t like your attitude, demeanor, dress code or political persuasion he could arbitrarily deem you mentally ill and physically remove your from society with no rights.
While some busy themselves with this cause as inflamed by some critics and a FEW ex-members, our lives and culture are under assault. This may seem like a dramatic statement to you but it is the truth. I hope you find out who your friends truly are and understand the motives of all groups concerned. The Church and staff have made mistakes and probably some major ones at that but this does not make an evil organization. The motive, that is the discerning factor.
But there are all these conflicting messages here. Some
say that they only wish to evolve the Church. Some say they wish it’s outright destruction. Some say that the Anonymous is a public opinion group while others have stated it is a coordinated “legion”. Some say they defend the right to practice religion while others mock and defame and state that they hate Scientology. If they were truly only desiring to modify the Church but allow Scientologists to be Scientologists than they wouldn’t call it a cult - plain and simple. To me that term only incites antagonism and shows proof positive of the intentions of these critics.
Lastly, in reference to what I mentioned earlier the Church is the only known public defender against psychiatric abuse and very dangerous psychiatric legislation as mentioned earlier. It is a immense struggle with much at stake. You may not be familiar with the statistics of Psychiatry and its troubles but that is for your to find out. Check it out for yourself and question why some are put on drugs. Question what the effectivness of these “treatments” are. Question what are the side effects. Question the direction of these mental health laws and ask yourself what kind of society we may be evolving into.
You may or may not know it but the Church is one of the only major friends you have in a fight to prevent a world of drugged control. If you irresponsibly attack and mock you are doing yourself, your friends and your family a disservice on a level you may never know.
March 4, 2008, at 4:42 pm
Keep in mind the religion itself is not what’s being attacked, it only takes a few minutes of looking into it to see that. The slippery-slope assumption of Anonymous possibly attacking other religions in the future is ludicrous when you consider that they’re protesting the management and their crimes and not individual Scientologists.
March 4, 2008, at 5:50 pm
To BGODLY, I see LEAF is in full force.
If the Church of Scientology
Then I prefer certain doom. How like the OSA to ignore the issues and insert other doom. We are not all YOUNG, and we are certainly NOT ignorant (as your run-on post would have others believe) I think the CO$ is finding out how smart we really are….and they are terrified.
March 4, 2008, at 5:59 pm
Hey bgodley, way to avoid the issues once again. Glad to see that you (seem to?)’ve done your research on this one. First time I’ve seen such a lenghty post from you that wasn’t simply discrediting whatever the article wrote!
Let me void your argument with a simple statement:
A wrong does not make another wrong right.
That’s right, you heard me! Just because worse things might be happening does not mean that what CoS is doing is right.
G’night Bgodley, I’ll let you sleep on that one (that is, if they let you sleep tonight).
March 4, 2008, at 6:01 pm
Which religion is next? The next one to charge tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for access to its holy texts. The next one that runs itself like a business and viciously sues its detractors. The next one that forces underage members to sign “billion year contracts” with parental consent, punishes them with “voluntary” prison, and calls people bigots instead of defending their views.
What you simply do not realize is that no religion is next, because Scientology is not a religion. It’s a cult and a huge money vacuum. Were scientology anything resembling a real religion, most of anonymous wouldn’t be here.
March 4, 2008, at 6:32 pm
I fully support the right of Scientologists to believe what they want.
The issue here is that any organization must operate within the law, and not cause harm as a matter of policy.
If you think the organization calling itself the “Church” of Scientology is benign, I challenge you to watch this -
Tom Cruise and David Miscavige Reveal Scientology’s Plans
March 4, 2008, at 6:33 pm
Here is a story by a woman who was framed by Scientologists for allegedly making bomb threats. The FBI discovered that information. Who says Scientology is not up to its old tricks?
Looking over my shoulder, The Inside Account of the Story That Almost Killed Me
by Paulette Cooper
http://www.lermanet.com/paulette-cooper/
March 4, 2008, at 6:36 pm
bgodley says
The Truth: David Miscavige began squirreling the tech before L Ron Hubbard’s dead Vistaril filled ass even got cold. Even though there were NO announcements of an OT IX or OT X before his death, and nobody alive had ever seen or heard of any materials, David Miscavige quickly claimed that these were in the works and would be released when all Orgs achieved the Saint Hill status…
Well, I hear that OT IX and OT X will be presented this year.
I guess all the Orgs must have achieved Saint Hill Stats? Hardly! ALL ORG STATS ARE DOWN!
Not surprising, with all the negative PR generated by Tom Cruise and Kirstie Alley and Leah GimmeallURMoni.
This is all a result of David Miscavige squirreling the tech and pulling in all these Anonymous Marcab Invaders.
FAIL!
How could L Ron Hubbard have even created an OT IX and an OT X if he himself had not achieved these states?
Hard for L Ron Hubbard to do research when he was taking all of those anti-psychotics at the end of his life just to keep himself from freaking out over having his body covered with clusters of invisible gnarly little thetans.
But you go have fun taking more fake courses while David Miscavige giggles his dwarf little ass off about how all you idiots will eat up anything he hands you now. I’m not going to try to protest in front of the Freewinds to stop you!
Go ahead and have a nice Asbestos Sandwich!
FLUNK!
Answer just one question, bgodley:
Where do your body thetans go once they are cleared?
March 4, 2008, at 6:57 pm
Not a bad article.
Of course, the red herring merchants are out in force. Extra, extra, read all about it! End of the world, as predicted by real econ professors!
It’s funny, though. Anyone running with the end-of-days breed of “derailer” argument really should have hit a bit harder on global conflict and economic collapse (i.e. millions dead, millions unemployed), and a little less time feeding the “pill pushing” bugbear. Still, “the Church” doesn’t have any real plan for stopping war and fixing the economy (which, by the way, I’m campaigning for TOO, welcome to the real world), so I guess it can’t be helped that all they’re interested in talking about is “a world of drugged control.”
Anonymous members protest Scientology’s abuses as members of Anonymous. They protest other things under their own names or under other pseudonyms. While they’re called Anonymous, they aren’t interested in talking politics, economy, or civil rights, or even psychology, pop culture, or religion, UNLESS it has to do with the criminal activities of the Church of Scientology. When David Miscavige and company stop perpetuating abuse, including the RPF, the bullying of critics, and the disconnection policy, I stop being Anonymous; it’s that easy.
March 4, 2008, at 7:09 pm
Glad to see BGodley made it, and didn’t fall into the trap that his colleague slipped in.
All very good points BG, but the “Hey, there are other bad things out there!!” defense…isn’t one.
Yes, there are terrible things being done in africa and the middle east, and yes the corporate culture creep is worrisome. But as callous as it sounds, they haven’t resonated with people as much as something attempting to infiltrate and subvert society in our own backyards. I feel empathy and sadness about the Darfur situation, but there is not much I can do about it that would make a difference.
The Church of Scientology is in decline as an organization. Anonymous hears reports every day of members leaving, and more and more cracks are appearing in the facade, and more and more people are breaking their silence.
At the same time though, the CoS is trying to sustain itself with the 50,000-100,000 active members it has left with renewed sales drives. More pressure and work demands than ever are being asked of its members. Sec Checking is rampant.
A lot of this was already in motion before Anonymous arrived. The ex-scientologist/critic ‘establishment’ has remarked that the process seems much accelerated since the movement’s started.
In other words, Anonymous is being very effective, and IS making a huge difference for a lot of people.
As for the apparent dissonance in the message and goals…as its been spelled out countless times, Anonymous is not a uniform group. Its a collective of individuals, and each individual has their own ideas and perspectives. I understand that is totally and 100% antithetical and opposite to the mindset indoctrinated by the CoS, but its the way we roll.
For me, personally, after reading extensively on the CoS organization and byzantine legal structure, I honestly don’t see how it can continue in anything approaching its current form. The indentured servitude/slavery of the Sea Org would have to go, the RPF is right out, the OSA is a PR nightmare as opposed to a PR office…basically, if you rendered the religious texts as open source, made emeters reasonably priced, and then operated similar to the Free Zoners currently do…the CoS could continue. The doctrines of Fair Game/Suppressive Persons, Disconnection, and litigating in a prolonged fashion as a harassment/suppression tool (regardless of whether you can or do win the case) all have to be publicly denounced and repudiated.
You’d be left with a transparent, streamlined, Non-Profit Organization church. Like how virtually all the other “mainstream” religions work.
March 4, 2008, at 7:11 pm
1st of all i’d like to say thank you to sue for her kind words and actually researching something online being posting
credit to this board
Also i’d like to say how stupid some of your comments are “OMFGZ WHOSE DA NEXT CULTZ OR RELIGIONZ TO GET DA EVIL ANONS AFTER THEM”
well slander and hurrasment might just catch our eye and it’ll be whoever that is
seriously knock off this crap
March 4, 2008, at 7:12 pm
It cannot be stressed enough that we are not attacking their beliefs, but the practices of the church management. For example, Freezone, which practices Scientology outside the CoS, is left alone by Anonymous.
We defend the freedom of religion. The Scientology-church itself does not. She lets her followers pay outrageous fees for their salvation and has altered the books of her founder L.Ron Hubbard to better suit her needs(google “squirreling the tech”). Freezoners are actively harassed by the church with lawsuits and claims of copyright infringement.
Worries that we are anti-religion are ungrounded and lead to misconceptions and needless scaremongering.
March 4, 2008, at 7:15 pm
To Bgodley @ #26
So because other bad things are going on Anon should ignore the actions of the CoS?
As for the part from school shootings onward, yes, we get it, you’re a scientologist. You’re one of the same group of people they trot out into every scientology related article.
The point being, yes, there’s bad stuff going on in the world. Protesting the acts of Scientology doesn’t take away from people’s ability to work on other causes as well outside of Anonymous.
Also, the world doesn’t work on a hiarchy where everyone focuses on one problem until it’s resolved. The whole world doesn’t go “Oh, we need to fix world hunger this week”. People get involved in the causes that they believe in and feel they can have an effect. Anon feels they can help stop the conning and abuse of scientology.
So far it looks like it’s working. More critics are coming out each day and people inside scientology are slipping Anon and other critics information.
See you on the 15th.
March 4, 2008, at 7:18 pm
bgodley is another well-known Scientology shill who specializes in distracting arguments against Scientology. Please don’t take him up on the offer. We are talking about the problems within the CoS, not Psychiatry.
If you are worried your Church / Denomination may come under attack, please answer the following questions:
* Does your church force you to cease all communication with friends and family members who do not agree with your religion? (See Scientology’s policy of Disconnection) Does your church have a special name for people who have left or criticize your church? (Read up on Suppressive Person)
* Are former members of your church AFRAID to speak out about your church? Has your church ever framed it’s critics (Operation Freakout)?
* Does your church have a special task force set up to deal with anyone who dares to say a negative word against them? Does this task force stalk the critics outside their homes? (See Scientology’s policy of Fair Game, and OSA or the Office of Special Affairs in Scientology.)
* Does your church harass or even sue publications like Time Magazine for publishing negative articles? (See: http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/30/scientology/index2.html)
* Do your church staff work 6 - 6.5 days a week, 12 - 14 hours a day? Do they get paid more than $50/week (plus room — sometimes 8 to 10 people sharing a 2 bedroom apartment, and board — often just rice and beans. Watch the videos from the Woodcraft family and the other young women who worked for Scientology’s SeaOrg at http://www.xenutv.com)
* If someone on your church staff gets pregnant, are they encouraged to get an abortion so they can continue to work these hours? (http:/www.exscientologykids.com)
* Has your church staged the largest infiltration of the government ever recorded, wherein hundreds of pages of evidence and documentation were destroyed? (See: Operation Freakout)
If you can answer no to these questions, you have nothing to worry about. Many people participating in Anonymous now are in fact Christians, Catholics, Jewish, Muslim, or one of many other religions. Anonymous is high school kids, Anonymous is Senior Citizens, we are just people who have seen the evidence and said that we will speak up against injustice and won’t allow the cries of “Religious bigotry!” to silence us when it is NOT about the Religion, it is about the abuse.
Do your own research. Read the Time article many people have linked. Watch the interviews. Talk to people, try to get a straight, honest answer for all of the above things from the CoS. Do not let them deflect you by talking about Psychiatry. Demand evidence. Let your conscience be your guide.
March 4, 2008, at 8:47 pm
Bravo Bravo bgodly! This is the mistake people have made and is garnering more research. While what you said about shootings, the war, and hell, I’ll even spot you the psych stuff, is somewhat true, we’re not sheep being coralled into a pen. What makes anonymous unique is we’re not wearing blinders and just bullrushing the CoS. We’re informed, free-thinking individuals who are not ignorant of the rest of the world’s happenings. But, our cause is one we believe in, one that we feel strongly about, and will continue to voice our opinion on.
Now to get back on topic…it seems another piece of the puzzle is falling into place with the doctor that viewed Lisa Mc port-mortem. Seems he made tens of thousands of dollars on that one case. It’ll be interesting to find out how a) he got the CoS to pay that or b) why the CoS tossed him that much cash.
google is your friend. Go learn.
March 4, 2008, at 11:29 pm
Sheesh look at all of these fallacies. You’d think this was a religious website or something.
Now I’m a religious man. I studied the bible as a child like many good Christians. This article, however isn’t an affront to religion. It’s an affront to journalism and truth. It’s an attempt to scare those who are looking to be afraid. It’s an excuse to rally a cause that doesn’t exist.
And it’s probably because the author has a powerful friend in scientology.
March 5, 2008, at 12:01 am
No religious group should be subject to treatment that crosses the boundary of decency and/or the law.
However, if a church has a website that is accessible to the public like The Trinity United Church of Christ, then it makes it easier for people to go read their doctrine and criticize it. If churches do not want to hear scrutiny, then they shouldn’t post beliefs on the net. Cults should realize they will come under a lot of scrutiny.
What exactly constitutes crossing the boundaries of decency? That’s the question I’m curious about.
March 5, 2008, at 12:02 am
PS- I was not labeling The Trinity United Church of Christ as a cult.
March 5, 2008, at 12:25 am
The one thing I found ridiculous about this article was its placement in the paper: on the front of the Times’ entertainment section.
March 5, 2008, at 4:06 am
The first commetator did attack the possibility for anyone disliking a religion (or, in the scientology case, a money-grapping cult) to expose why he does not like it. This is intolerable. Remember that the biggest wars have been done with a support of the main religion - it was then acting quite sectarian and totalitarian - so, we don’t have to tolerate any group goiing to try the same errors than those having been done in the past.
Perhaps you don’t remember that Pope Jean-Paul II has publicly asked the pardon to those that catholicism had damaged?
I presume that, later, he could even had de-sacralized those Saints who have been very instrumental into such wars, crusades, inquisitons, murders etc.
That’s at least how I think one should respect men and men rights. It’s far from what scientology does!
March 5, 2008, at 11:55 am
These were just the latest in a series of Scientology-related stories to burn across the Internet like grass fires in recent weeks, testing the church’s well-established ability to tightly control its public image. The largest thorn in the church’s side has been a group called Anonymous, a diffuse online coalition of skeptics, hackers and activists, many of them young and Web-savvy. The high-wattage movement has inspired former Scientologists to come forward and has repeatedly trained an Internet spotlight on any story or rumor that portrays Scientology in unflattering terms.
If they stretch this metaphor any farther, it’s apt to snap back like one of those enormous slingshots Wile E. Coyote was always using to try to catch the Roadrunner.
March 6, 2008, at 1:08 am
I bring up those issues because I too am concerned about them. I bring up these issues because I haven’t seen this coordinated effort to picket or focus on these things. I read economic pieces. I read stories about Darfur, Somalia, Iraq and so on yet I seen no concerted effort by Anonymous or any internet campaign, loose or not, to decry these abuses and issues.
What about these shootings I spoke of earlier? Are you guys not really concerned about your future culture? These drug and screening campaigns are very, very real. These individuals placed on drugs having suicidal and homicidal thoughts and urges are very very real. The killings are very very real and they are getting more numerous.
Many in the education sector are aware of the fact that something has changed in our society, these shootings simply did not exist before. Something changed and that was the introduction of the psychiatric drug machine. It is literally a machine that cranks out millions of prescriptions now with billions of dollars of profit at stake. Yet where are the statements decrying those affected and killed?
Yet we see some critics offer up a site about Lisa Mcpherson who was killed by a blood clot and use this as a focal point to show how evil Scientology is. They protest on March 10th in her name when several days later some person on another form of psychiatric medication walks into a school and kills and injuries people.
Not only this but the only major organization to stand up to this onslaught in our society is vilified by these critics and groups. They say nothing, NOTHING of all the hours that many Scientologists put in to try and handle these tragedies. There are a lot of Scientologists busting their butt, whether it is fighting the lobbying tactics in Washington, or sitting with some guy freaking out while he withdraws from Heroine or some such. For example 2 Scientologists walked into Tijuana prison and ran a program that got over 6000 inmates off of heroine while drug lords were doing all they could to undermine the program. They got some of the toughest nuts to turn around murderers, rapists on and on. But do we see mention of any of these things by these critics - no. They only want you to focus on some judge’s opinion of the religion from the 1970’s. They have an inability to compare one datum to another. They focus on these critical sites yet they don’t weigh in any other factor at ALL. I have not seen one mention of validation by any critic of anything that Scientologists have every done for anybody. I myself have at least validated some in the Anonymous organization for at least attempting to address something they think is bad. I, however take exception with what that somethings is.
March 6, 2008, at 3:33 am
bgodley, I don’t begrudge your being a Scientologist. I must tell you, however, that you do yourself a great disservice by so uncritically accepting the falsehoods that your church tells you.
Regarding your claims of the success in Tijuana, for example. This would be wonderful, a tremendous success; if it’s true. However, you supplied no verification of this. You can’t supply a third party who can vouch for this, because no such evidence exists. It’s very easy to claim miracles; charlatans and snake oil salesmen have done so since before Christ. However, unless you can support your claims, they are nothing but fiction.
As for pharmaceuticals and children; I stand on the front lines. I work with at risk children. As a rule I discourage medicine; often adjustments to living or school conditions can be more effective. A change in diet is usually safer and just as helpful. However, I’ve also seen children who were brought back from the brink of disaster by judicious use of medicine.
I had a student once; call him Jeremy. He was a very bright kid, funny, creative, and he would get very excited when he learned something. His dream was to make movies; he had a lot of wonderful ideas.
However, he could not focus at all. Many people cannot appreciate how devastating mental illness (yes, it most definitely does exist) can be. Jeremy would be distracted by anything; his pencils, the child sitting in front of him, the rasp of a piece of paper against the desk. He would grow frustrated, complain that he could not understand, that he couldn’t write a sentence without stopping in the middle. His handwriting was terrible. His understanding of concepts was far behind his peers. Even worse, the other children rejected him, regularly telling him to shut up and go away. Adjustments to the class environment… dear Lord, I tried… weren’t effective enough.
Medication; the medication that Scientologists would deny to everyone; brought him back. They weren’t perfect by any means. We had to work to adjust his dose, change his schedule. The medication also didn’t make up for the years he had already missed out on. However, it put Jeremy in a place where he could begin to learn, to interact with his peers, and to have some hope for his future.
I’m not going to claim by any measure that medication is an unquestionable benefit. It’s always a last step. However, even if something is pushed too far forward, that’s no reason to deny it completely.
I am immensely concerned for the future. I work towards the good of the world as best I can every day of my life. Sadly, this year, today, that means standing against the terrible abuses and misguided advocacy of the Church of Scientology.
March 6, 2008, at 12:07 pm
Every time I read “it isn’t about the religion, it is about the abuses of power or illegal activity,” I am not very impressed. If that is that case, then take your issues to court. If it is legal matters than it is the legal system you should be using as protesting.
If it is not, then publish your beliefs and criticisms about Scientology and stop physically protesting. Regardless of intentions, holding protests against religions (intention or not) looks very much like a militant threat. You can always edit the written word. You can’t always control who shows up at a public protest.
As good or bad as Scientology actually is, the treatment it has gotten is troubling. Tactics used by its opponents, such as labels of “cult” and supporting the outlawing of the religion, has made the defensiveness of Scientologists believable. Another thing that critics of religions don’t understand is that theology and organziational behavior cannot be seperated from the members. When you attack the theology, or in this case the organization, you are by assocation attacking the membership. You can see the difference, but members can’t. That goes for all religions and not just this one in the spotlight. That means that you better have something positive to say or you will not be seen as a “concerned group” as much as attack dogs.
Why are others here concerned “Anon” will go after other religions? Because the tactics are similar to too many other groups who have been less selective. Add the power of the State to define what is and is not a legit religion and it makes others nervous.
March 6, 2008, at 1:18 pm
I am not worried that my faith will be next. Gamaliel himself said in Acts that if this strange new sect (or cult) was of God then nothing in the world could stop it.
If CoS is of God, it will survive its detractors. If it is NOT of God, then I hope Scientologists can get a refund on their investments.
March 6, 2008, at 2:56 pm
(The ironically named) bgodley says:
Nope. That’s not the only thing we want people to focus on.
We want people to learn about how and why Lisa McPherson really died.
We know Scientology paid the Coroner, Cyril Wecht, to testify that Lisa McPherson died of a blood clot.
He is now on trial for corruption:
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/15366535/detail.html
This is why we protest.
The leaders of Scientology will lie, cheat, and abuse people to suit their purpose, which ultimately is to make more money.
This is why we protest:
The Officers of Scientology encourage child abuse and neglect.
http://www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
And this is why:
The policies of the Church of Scientology destroys families:
http://www.scientologydisconnection.com/
This is why:
The Church of Scientology enjoys special treatment over all other religions by the IRS - Only Scientology can claim a tax deduction for their “religious training.”
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/nytimes/nyt-irs-030997.htm
This is why:
John Sweeny, Shawn Lonsdale, Paulette Cooper, and hundreds of other journalists who have been sued, harassed, and terrorized in efforts to silence them. They hired Private Investigators like Anthony Pellicano (currently on trial for 110 counts including bribery, racketeering and illegal wiretapping.)
The Co$ succeeded in frightening the Mainstream Mass Media.
Anonymous can’t be sued into silence.
This is why.
bgodley, your 1950’s era “Tech” isn’t working.
Scientology was touted as “The Religion for the 20th Century.”
Well, in case David Miscavige didn’t tell you, we’re now in the 21st Century, and the SP’s have won. Especially the one biggest most secretest SP in the world, David Miscavige.
He must have hated L Ron Hubbard a lot to have maintained the will to destroy Scientology. He’s succeeding!
Why don’t you take a good hard look at what is going down right now:
David Miscavige has been steadily taking over the Church of Scientology, slowly diminishing the importance of L Ron Hubbard and insisting followers carry out his orders rather than follow L Ron Hubbard’s policies.
Soon David Miscavige will unleash the “power” of OT 9 and 10 on board the Freewinds.
L. Ron Hubbard never wrote them!
L. Ron Hubbard was too paranoid/psychotic to write anything after he went into hiding to avoid another criminal conviction for Operation Snow White (the infiltration of the offices of the IRS.)
Ultimately, David Miscavige is #1 Suppressive Person in your life.
Declare David Miscavige, and declare yourself free!
March 6, 2008, at 3:05 pm
Tony,
This is not a case of someone telling me anything. I use my own judgement in things that are right or wrong. The church doesn’t tell me stuff because in essence I am the Church. I have worked side by side with many other Scientologists both as an official staff memeber and not. I have seen with my own two eyes what the Church has done. I have also seen with my own two eyes mistakes made by staff or other Scientologists. However, either way I take all the information to hand and work it over to form an opinion or impression. The mistakes in handling someone, sending them too much mail or whatever do not make an evil organization. They do not make murderers, con artists or any of the littany of accusations labeled by critics and other groups.
I am not too sure in what capacity you work with at risk youth but if you are involved in prescribing drugs I cannot consider your input completely unbiased. For every case that you feel drugs have helped I can show you equal cases of ruined lives and families because of the side effects of these drugs. The suits brought against psychiatric medication manufacturers is nearing 100,000. That is 100,000 people who are not only unhappy about the these drugs but feel they have received some very detrimental effect.
When we are talking abougt side effects we are not talking about dry mouth, or sweats or constipation. The FDA has black labeled many of these drugs as potentially having side effects of suicide. I mean what else do people need to know. Side effects of SUICIDE!!
You play russian roulette with the lives of those you affect. Maybe some individual experiences a level of release with phenomena unlike being high but that is because he is on drugs.
Ritalin is only one chemical bond different than cocaine.
These are modern issues with modern consequences that man has never had to deal with before. What we do in the here in now will affect our culture and society in very deep and grave ways. It is only those commercials with the people blissfully running through fields of flowers or sipping wine on a boat that makes these drugs seem inocuous.
More studies are coming out about the ineffectiveness of these drugs let alone the detriment they may cause.
In my opinion the psychiatric industry is feeling the heat and there are billions of dollars of profit at stake. They will not go quietly and they will attack anyone who threatens their profit base by whatever means. So, if the Church of Scientology, a well known critic of psychiatric claims and drugging, stands in the forefront would it not serve their interest to try and see it hurt or destroyed?
Lastly in terms of the claims you can contact ABLE who can provide documented evidence of the results of the social betterment activities it undertakes - (323) 960-3530. If you refuse to acknowledge the evidence so collected than your intentions become clear. You desire no objective evaluation but wish to jump on a the critical bandwagon.
By the way the burden of proof is upon the accuser and not the defender. I have seen many who level criticism at the church and demand evidence of it’s innocence. This I am afraid is not how our culture or system works for obvious reasons.
I have proven many of these accusations to be false or twisted, completly arbitrary or in somoe cases paranoia. Many of the group of critics realize the fallacy of other members of that group. These critics have called others of their ilk Scientology conspiracy theorists when they are only trying to bring attention to some other more minor concern they feel strong about.
Either way, I think in one way these posts are positive in that it gives members like me a forum in which to make others aware of the fallacy of some intentions and stated goals of these critics. It raises awareness of issues the Church is involved in such as the fight of psychiatric abuse. I have already received much support for my commentary from non-scientologists who can look past a lie or an accusation and determine the truth of a matter by intentions and deeds.
March 6, 2008, at 5:22 pm
bgodley wrote:
ABLE is a Scientology front organization. Why would you call that a source for objective evaluation?
jettboy wrote:
I Won’t.
According to the Constitution of the United States of America, I have the right to peacefully protest. And I will.
Stop trying to curtail peoples rights, and you won’t get protested against. Many members of Anonymous protest because of the many efforts that the Co$ has made to limit free speech on the internet.
Thousands of Ex-Scientologists have gained a voice because of the actions of ANONYMOUS.
This is why.
Three brave young women just launched this site:
Ex-Scientology Kids
One of the founders of the site, Kendra Wiseman, (the daughter of the President of the Scientology’s CCHR) has said:
THIS IS WHY.
Ex-Scientology Kids
March 6, 2008, at 7:24 pm
Tommy,
I did not say they are a source for objective evaluation. I stated that it is a source for evidence that an earlier poster requested for the Tijuana rehab program.
I will state this to you in a somewhat assitive way. If you want to appear credible in anyway, you need to stop posting blah, blah, blah, responses. This can only serve to validate an opinion of you as a critic in a non-flattering light.
You mentioned that the “reason” for Anonymous actions is that the Church curtails free speech on the internet. Exactly how is that? Show me an example of the Church suppressing free speech that does not involve a copyright issue. Do you truly fear the Church’s allmighty ability as to sway the whole of the internet and your ability to speak on it.
My feeling this is a ruse. A justification to wage a war for some other purpose. Anonymous has stated in it’s own videos it does this in part for the sheer pleasure of it. It strikes me odd that someone gets pleasure out of a contentious situation. What type of person gets pleasure out of this?
March 7, 2008, at 4:18 am
Tommy is quite correct. ABLE is a branch of Scientology and thus is not a third-party source. Judicious use of google came up with this:
Which is a third-party source. I will contact ABLE, but unless they can provide information from other sources (governments, doctors, etc.) I will not be impressed.
However, I can also see that the Tiajuana prison program included such things as life education and skills training. I certainly applaud the brave people who spent their time helping the most vulnerable members of an impoverished society. However misguided they may have been in one particular aspect of the program (Narconon), they certainly appear to have done very good work.
This is a truly despicable accusation. I do not prescribe medication. I work as a paraprofessional, which is something like a teacher’s assistant. I care deeply about the children I work with. I am called on to monitor the effectiveness of medication, which includes being wary of negative side effects. I won’t claim there are none; but there are also very serious effects to being mentally ill. Life is imperfect; we can only seek to improve, not to cancel all ills.
I’ve seen first hand that psychiatric drugs can improve the condition of young people. To ban them all because of possible negative side effects is both prejudicial and reactionary. I am aware of the dangers, but I am also aware of the promise.
So is caffeine. Are all coffee drinkers at risk? This statement only reflects an ignorance about chemistry.
Correction: The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. You made a claim that Scientology got six thousand people in Tijuana off drugs; therefore it was upon you to provide proof. I shall investigate your evidence and, as you do, decide upon its merits for myself.
The guilt of Scientology in many matters has been proven in dozens of court cases. The Church has used lawsuits and intimidation to silence its critics. It has abused its own staff. We do not call on you to prove your innocence; we call upon you to admit your flaws and reform. This is burden that all persons of faith are called upon to do; Christian or Muslim, Buddhist or Shinto. Scientology is not exempt from this call. I pray that you embrace it.