Iria

Source: Tech-Ex
_________
It's no secret that a war has broken out between a group of hackers calling themselves Anonymous and the Church of Scientology. However, it appears the first innocent casualty has fallen.

OmegaRED

This "war" on Scientology will last about as long as it takes Anonymous members to get social lives (or when GTA4 comes out whichever happens first), the idea that attacking their website will impact Scientology in the real world is only something a bunch of nerds could have dreamed up.

I say let the rich and gullible have Scientology. Tom Cruise and John Travolta aren't likely to be flying planes into any office buildings (maybe a volcano) nor picketing funerals of gays or military dead (gays are certainly welcome in Scientology). Scientology will implode on itself one day or it will eventually become a "respected" religion just like the rest, singling it out will accomplish nothing.

__________________

germanjulian

sigh.... their goal is to have power in politics.... ur simplistic view of scientology is pretty sad to be honest... i am more worried about them then any islamic terror network as they already have more power and resources to control and terrorise

__________________
/|\ Asus P5W DH Deluxe, Intel C2D E6600, 2GB Corsair XMS2-6400C4 DDR2, E-VGA GeForce 7800 GT, Creative X-Fi Extreme Music, 500GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA, Lian Li PC-V1100 Aluminum Case Black, etc. http://germanjulian.com /|\

OmegaRED

Give me a break. You're more worried about a bunch of pampered celebrities who can't even take criticism without launching lawsuits over Islamic terrorists willing to kill you or convert you?

Let me put it this way: One of those groups will try and nuke you the other will produce the movie about it.

Look, I know what Scientology is about and how it operates (much like any other brainwashing cult) but America is already controlled by Christianity and if Scientologists think they're going to start making any decisions they are delusional. They'll only have as much political power and influence as their money can buy them, much like any other special interest group. When push comes to shove the entire organization would collapse because it is built and run by scammers and they'll be the first to abandon ship if their "religion" ever goes under the microscope.

__________________

ChaosMinionX

I hope they succeed, someone needs to get rid of that cult. Germany has already taken the first steps to outlaw it as well, I hope other countries follow suit.

__________________

Vikingod

a wise man once said "the only difference between a cult and a religion is money".

And as far as political control goes, the christian churches have had political power for hundreds of years, as have the islamic and every other mainstream religion. What makes Scientology any worse? At least they haven't started a war or bombed a bus station.

Do I buy what their selling? No, of course not, I'm an educated man. But I don't buy what everyone else is selling either. I really don't see the core differences between any of them, other than time and history.

ChaosMinionX

Well said.

__________________

OmegaRED

Personally, I feel that all that separates a cult from a religion is time and membership numbers...but money don't hurt either

Scientology couldn't even convert Nicole Kidman and we're supposed to believe they're going to take over the White House? If a war breaks out between Christianity and Scientology I'd bet on the side that carries shotguns and crosses not lawyers and e-meters.

That's just it, I suspect many of these Anonymous guys are motivated by their own religious beliefs and I won't support it. They're hypocrites for going after one organization and ignoring the ones in their own backyard. I've seen their reasons for doing this (a few dead scientologists who strayed) but that's not even the hair on the camels ass compared to what any of the monotheist religions have accomplished.

__________________

WaltC

Sort of like the Republican and Democratic national parties, maybe?... Let's face it, the world is full of groups both large and small who have large or small numbers of adherents, and all of them have budgets and raise differing amounts of money for one thing or another. At the core of such groups there is always dogma of one sort or another--in politics we call such dogma "party platforms." Politics for many is a religion all its own.

In the US, we are Constitutionally granted the right to free association, which means simply that the the choice of what groups of people we wish to belong to is ours and is a choice the government may not usurp. OTOH, being a member of a particular group is no defense for law breaking. I sort of like it balanced that way...

Besides, elevating Scientology to the status of religion seems a gross exaggeration to me. It seems little different to me from the "if it feels good it's OK to do it" school of philosophy. For me Scientology is just one more kook philosophy adopted only by kooks. The world is full of such groups and if we expect them to honor the personal choices we make in life then we had better honor their personal choices, too.

Well, what about gun-toting governments who come a knockin' at your door to arrest you for membership in a group that is breaking no laws and depriving no one else of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? That specter scares me far more than the Scientologists or the Christians or the Atheists do, because governments have far more money and far more guns.

And that in turn isn't even a hair on the camel's ass of what various atheistic, or else anti-Christian governments, have accomplished during the ages in terms of raw human carnage. Stalin, for instance, slaughtered tens of millions and he's just for starters on the list of history's self-professed atheist mass murderers.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is simply that depriving other people of either their life or their liberty or their happiness is not something historically restricted to one or two groups of people, or one or two religions, or one or two governments. Historically, people from all of these groups at one time or another have committed dreadful atrocities. It's called "human nature," unfortunately, and it's something that every person who has ever lived was born with.

Basically, I think that if we treat people according to our opinions of the things they believe, instead of treating them as we would have them treat us, then we only get what we deserve in the end. Intolerance has never served anyone well, imo.

dragonfist22

WaltC,

I have to say that you hit the nail on the head. As a Scientologist, I really think that I am a kook and can certainly get tired of hearing the media representation of my religion. But that is not the point.

If more people took this view of other's views, there would be a lot less violence and none of the major atrocities in our history (Stalin, Hitler, Roman treatment of Christians,Crusades,Inquisitions,911, etc.).

I don't have to believe what you believe and you don't have to believe what I believe, for us to treat each other decently.

Maddogg6

Hmmm - some people can be bought... politicians seem to fit that description - no?

I personally worry about Co$'s influence they *are* exerting in washington (pandering 'Study Tech' to our dept of education)... and
look at the Lisa McPherson case. A murder charge dropped over alleged copyright issues.. .come on. (tho admittedly, I havent spent too much time investigating that case - but thats my understanding)
Lisa McPherson Memorial Page: killed by the Church of Scientology

Another gal, who was critical of Co$ was proven framed by the CoS (they mailed them self a mail bomb - she lucked out when a raid uncovers docs to prove it.)
Paulette Cooper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course you'll find plenty of stuff denying all this too from the Co$ - but, 1 fluke is easily dismissed - but this many - is too many to be all 'false accusations'

I read part of RLH's Dianetics a long time ago and seen it was brainwashing swill that it is - I burned that book (literally) and am ashamed to have spent the $3 on it as a used book store.

But yeah - they are scary to me too.

Google 'Church of Scientology Criminal' - and be over whelmed.
Sure you'll find some with 'Catholic Criminal' - but with the Co$ with their reported 3.5M (??) members - pff - statistically something is wayyy wrong there considering there are sooo many more catholics.

Look up Narc-anon too - I read people passing out from excess steam room exposure in their 'detox' regimen - anyone with common sense will tell you - 'passing out' is dangerous for human physiology. AFAIK there are many pending lawsuits reguarding their practices such as this.
Bottom line - I have little respect for those who feel they can practice medicine without a license as they have been charged with on multiple occasions - they seem to feel above the laws in some aspects - but make use of them against those critical against them - thus their nickname of 'the church of sueology'

dragonfist22

Yeah, well, wikipedia and the internet in general, is not exactly a reliable source of factual information.

Just one example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/we.../04seelye.html

If I really wanted to find out what, say Christianity was all about or what the basic tenent are, I would read the Bible. I might Google it. But I certainly wouldn't consider it a reliable source of facts as anyone can create a web page and write whatever they want. Doesn't make any of it true.

And brainwashing could hardly be done by someone reading a book by its very definition.

It all really comes down to whether one really cares to find out the truth or would they rather find something to further support hatred and ignorance. I, certainly, if I had the desire, find tons of information on the internet to support hatred of Christianity, Ismal, Judaism, Muslim, etc., etc. But I would know exactly what I was doing. Or I could read the tenents of those religions and come to an understanding.

If all I was interested in was forwarding my own prejudice, well, the internet is an easy place to do that.

Maddogg6

I hope your not inferring FOX/ABC/CBS/NBC news is more reliable? Give me PUBLIC contributed and regulated info over single body controlled info ANYDAY - sure, we will never be exposed to 100% truth - but wikipedia is more democratic than ANY OTHER source... you believe in democracy dont you?

AND I also said *if* you care to read it...
And who would interpret the bible for you - will you take it literal, or as parable ?
Exactly - you need to look in multiple places - GOOGLE just points me to the sources - Google isnt the source to be wrong or right - its just a search engine. The site(s) - as in multiple - are *all* prejudice huh? You obviously didnt try it... ok - thanks for the disrespect - I may return the favor.

1) You chose the VERY LAST definition - what about...
What is 'propaganda'? - its often books, movies, music - and NOT always personal interventions.


2) so, yes... a book 'can' be a tool for brainwashing
3) And besides... 'swill' as I used it = 'material' - the 'lessons' (eh hem) imposed in 'brainwashing'

please point out 'hatred' on my part... opinion maybe - facts as reported by multiple sources definitely - but, to infer I am spreading 'hatred' is out of line. Spreading the word of allegations <> hatred.

Problem is -
1) this isnt a debate about those religions
2) the 'truth' is there are MANY allegations against Co$ and RLH. Its not 'hatred' - its facts as reported by those multiple sources.
3) And yup - you'll find those who use their religion to perform their fraud too as well. No argument there.

Point out my prejudice. please. Dont confuse opinion with prejudice - there *is* a difference. Notice how I, even tho, you clearly insulted me - kept my composure and simply re-stated my case. Seems you are prejudice against anyone critical of your faith - this is typical of any faith.

dragonfist22

Wow. No prejudice there.

Maddogg6

where exactly?

And still no ON TOPIC 'facts' from you either.... just more 'accusations' ...

Support your case - or drop out of the debate already...

dragonfist22

There is nothing to debate. The facts are that you do not know me. You obviously do not understand nor care to understand my religion yet have no problem stating your opinions as if they were facts, with unverified data that could have been written by anybody, being portrayed as "facts" being giving as "proof" that these claims are factual.

I, myself, know who I am and what I believe. I'm not going to debate whether I really believe that with you or if I have somehow been "brainwashed". Because, in the end, that debate will have been so much wasted breath (or typing motion).

If you wanted to know, there plenty of books on the subject, freely available at local libraries. You could find out what it was about without anyone's opinions interfering. Believe or not believe as you see fit. And anyone else that wanted to know could do the same thing and wouldn't have to depend on what you or I think. They could decide for themselves.

Not sure what you mean by "On topic". Demacratic or not, your sources have been proven to be unreliable sources that have in the past been used to spread patent lies about others. Quite on topic to point that out, I think, since they were being used to "prove" your "facts".

I don't believe in basing one's opinion on that of another's interpretations. I believe in inspecting for oneself.

I suggest finding actual, documented facts before relaying them as facts.

Maddogg6

Um - so why are you posting?
Tell me - how long would it take to become familiar with all the religions out there - enough to make a *real* informed decision - I dont have that kind of time... and who does ? How much research did you do into other religions before deciding on Co$?

And still - no comment on the Lisa McPherson case.... now why is that? Something to hide maybe? Do you know what 'denial' is?
(seeing as you like to post definitions)

Your avoiding that issue indicates the above may very well apply to you.

OmegaRED

__________________

dragonfist22

Again with the assumptions that further your own views and are insultive. I find your efforts to use the unfortunate death of a woman as a means to defile her chosen religion, repulsive. Furthermore, I find your logic that I have something to hide regarding an incident, completely unrelated to me other than the woman having chosen the same religion, flawed to say the least.

You really are insistive on passing off hearsay, opinion and the rumormongering of hate sites as fact.

BTW, was raised and am still a christian. I read the Bible cover to cover. I can't claim to have read the tenents of Muslim or Islam, but I'm not attempting to defame either religion either and I don't assume that they are evil maniacs willing to blow up all Americans for Ala because they are portraid that way on some internet sites and in bad action films.

But apparently, my sense of logic is somewhat different than yours. I am happy to let others live their lives and feel no need to make unfounded accusations regarding the religions of others. I would hope that there are others that feel the same and are willing to actually find things out for themselves. Or, at the very least, can be tolerant of the beliefs of others, even if they do not share the same views.

OmegaRED

I thought you were a Scientologist? This thread is confusing.

__________________

Maddogg6

I said I may return the favor - you assume - I assume - lets all assume... wheeeee!

soo - you are practicing christian - did you investigate the Co$ *at all* ?? Lets see - police reports, court docs - and several ALLEGATIONS made by others (do you read my posts at all either) & news items are *all* 'hear say'

My logic is: with sooo many accusations, its not likely for them all to be 100% false (I did say this already - but you seemed to ignore it)

Your opinion of my debating this - isnt really what was expected - you do understand what debating is - right?
Lets see - how many times did I have to ask for a comment - and thats all you have ??? - ' I find what you are saying repulsive and prejudice...bla bla bla' btw... IS NOT debating... its whining.
It is a likely reason the Co$ is being attacked - which *is* the topic.

But you are debating the opposite side of my position....
btw - if you defend the Co$ - its not a stretch to assume you are either a member - or sympathetic - to me, in a debate - you might as well be a member. But thats not really a major issue is it - or was that your 'out' .. to claim ignorance ?? 'its not my religion... Im just say...' position ??

Maddogg6

confusion is a common tactic to throw off an opponent in debate - dont fall for that man...

He should say what he means and mean what he says - leave out conjecture and get with DEBATING... but he already said theres nothing to debate - yet here we are.... hes purposely trying to derail (into locked status) this thread it would appear....

dragonfist22

Scientology is non-denominational. I have personally met a Baptist Minister who is a Scientologist and know of a Catholic Priest. Scientology is about the spirit and his/her relation to the environment and others. There is nothing in Scientology that conflicts with any religion that views man as a spiritual being. Scientology is about useful tools for improving his life, from learning how to learn to overcoming the harmful effects of drugs, to learning how to better communicate ones' ideas and understand others.

As I've said earlier, there's nothing secret about it. One can find the basic books on the subject in the library. Reading Dianetics or Self-Analysis or Fundatmentals of Thought or even What is Scientology? Would answer any confusion regarding that. An you could draw your own conclusions without anyone's opinions other than your own.

I am not here to "derail" anything. I originally posted to convey my agreement with another poster that it is important to respect the rights of others. I have attempted to continue to forward this same idea as, in the end, the original article was about a group that engaged in an illegal act due to a lack such respect of others right to their own beliefs. If anyone here is attempting to derail anything, it wasn't me.

And old truism, "The overt doth speak loudly in accusation." Maddog's various thinly veiled accusations speak for themselves. I have remained civil, as anyone has the right to voice their opinion. But such stating an opinion doesn't make it true just as using insultive language inreference to another's doesn't prove it false.

Anyhow, WaltC, who apparently is not a Scientologist, and even expressed disagreement with it, nevertheless made a very good point that I agreed with. I felt that it was important to acknowledge it. Tolerance of the beliefs of one's fellow man, religious or otherwise, is an important factor in peace and the survival of mankind. The more people who can place aside their differences and respect the rights of others, the less war and crime there'll be. I don't see what there is to debate about on that. It is a truth that seems self-evident to me.

Maddogg6

Posting links to accusations (that happen to reason out to be a likely motivation for anonymous' activities) - is not infringing on anyones rights...
AND
This sounds like ' I am not contributing anything new - just agreeing with someone else OFF TOPIC COMMENTS' - cool - we get it, youre not staying on topic...

See above... and - 'Hey omega - tell this guy to stop referring to me in the third person - its considered rude where I come from. Thanks guy.'

Oh really - then please explain this clear contradiction...
Noting Christians FIRST COMMANDMENT - 'You shall have no other gods before me'

But here we see...

Source: The Scientology / Dianetics Comparative Theology Page
Please prove that to be incorrect...

(Note: see how I post my source - as Im not hiding anything, and am 'being' fair - If its not correct - prove it!)

posting nothing but conjecture IN A DEBATE forum - is a way to derail a debate.

This is beginning to sound like advertisement - thats not allowed here (you said that already) - which you obviously have not read your self... hmmmm
AND I already stated I had read most of it (Dianetics)- stop inferring I am speaking out of complete ignorance... that *is* libelous btw.

Please prove this to be untrue - and I'll shut up about that case...
Source: Lisa McPherson Memorial Page: killed by the Church of Scientology
1) a prosecutor drops a case because they could not count on a medical examinor in court - why is this? If it smells fishy - likely theres a fish involved...
2) if it were untrue - they would be forced to remove as it would be libelous. yet its still there... ??
1) few here would disagree to that statement UNTIL - *other* peoples rights are infringed upon - the posted links to the accusations certainly indicate other peoples rights were violated at varying levels.
2) this isnt a debate on religious tolerence - is it? - lets keep on topic please...
3) enough with the red herring arguments already... they only make you appear weak.

dragonfist22

I've tried to communicate rationally. you are practically foaming at the mouth with hatred and can't seem to give one post that is not rude and insultive while claiming it is otherwise, continuously citing sources that are completely unvarifiable, using flawed logic (and legal ignorance) to assert their validity. All so you can be "right" in your opinions and hatreds. Well, have fun with that. Fortunately, there are people in the world more willing to have a rational conversation and aren't going to go into a tirade because you said people should be nice to one another. Quite a few actually. But that fact says more than anything you actually said. You have my sympathy, if not my respect. Good-bye.

Maddogg6

Debate is not *just* communication - this *is* a debate forum...

You didnt quote my rudeness - (you are making empty accusations here - more rudeness on your part) - that *wasn't* initiated by you... (I did it to make a point - 'speaking your language' if you will)

AND you are STILL off topic

*ps - you are assuming I 'foam at the mouth' - guess what - more rudeness from you...

Assuming I want sympathy - yup - more disrespect...
you meant 'not my respect' (se above)- yup it was obvious.

Yet, after I ask repeatedly for correction - you just say 'its wrong' with nothing to back it up - but you were afraid to do sao as I would likely punch holes in your arguments like I have thus far. Thats why you gave no attempt to make *any* corrections.

c-ya.

Vikingod

All right, another religion thread turning into a "war of the minds", and getting off topic to boot.