Anonymous vs Scientology

[Pazuzu]

Anonymous vs Scientology

What're everyone's thoughts on the matter? A lot of people seem to be ignorant on the matter, so I will attempt to shed some light.
Rundown of past events, which I endeavour to show in an unbiased manner...

The Church of Scientology is a religious organisation created by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard in 1952. It originated from his idea of Dianetics, a mental therapy practice, and developed into Scientology over the next couple of years.

Over the last 50 years, Scientology has amassed many followers, most notably many Hollywood actors and actresses, most famously Tom Cruise. It has also found allies in some splinter Christian organisations, such as the Glorious Church of God in Christ.
It has also attracted its share of criticism for its practices, such as that of requiring payment to reach higher states of consciousness, and "disconnection", recommendations that members cut off all ties with problematic families.
The Church has usually dealt with overly harsh criticisms by direct lawsuits, along with finding significant details about a critic's past and using them to silence the critic, in court or otherwise. They have also been accused of falsifying these details.

More recently, following the leak of a Tom Cruise video, in which he discusses the virtues of Scientology, and is said by critics to be almost disturbingly fanatical, the Church had all copies taken down.
Directly after this, the Church came under attack from a group of internet users known as "Anonymous". To the media, this group is a select group of hackers, working as internet terrorists. To internet users, they are everyday people, like you and me, who have a strong beef with the Church and its methods.

Church of Scientology website:
http://www.scientology.org/

News site that is strongly anti-Scientology:
http://xenu.net/

Tom Cruise video (17/1/0:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0

First message from Anonymous (21/1/0:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ

NBC news report (24/1/0:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiiKM34sIQA

Second message from Anonymous (28/1/0:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrkchXCzY70


So, what's everyone's thoughts on this?

 

[digiboy123]

I think people should just let others believe in what they want.

I may not know much about Scientology, but I don't think putting them through all this harassment is necessary.

 

[SSJ Jup81]

I agree with digiboy for the most part. As I've said in the chat, I don't mind religion groups, just as long as they don't try forcing it on a person. I don't mind their sharing the point of view, but if I'm clearly showing no interest, don't keep trying to put it on me.

 

[Tcatomon]

I could say the Church is the most corrupt of all the religious factions, then we could go into a long, drawn out discussion of which religion is right and wrong and it would just all boil down to throwing bible know-how at one another and another holy war drivin topic.

I agree with those above. "Religiousness" is in the eye of the beholder and people should just agree to disagree and have respect for other people. I'm not into scientology, but you're not into my religion either.

However, I will say Tom Cruise is a jerk, all religion aside.

 

[Cael]

L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer. Being truly honest, that makes me casts some doubt on the whole thing period but I like to believe in the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot so I really can't complain about it even though I don't really take Nessie and Foot as serious as they do about Xenu and such.

But besides that, I really have nothing against Scientologist except for their beliefs on Psychiatry. It may or may not kill. It may or may not help people. I can say the same about Scientology even though I really don't know much about it and that goes for the fact that it can't help everyone too. IMO, I think its bias for them for some of their claims of psychiatry when the same can be said for them. But that's just me .-.

 

[Tcatomon]

But besides that, I really have nothing against Scientologist except for their beliefs on Psychiatry. It may or may not kill. It may or may not help people.

Mind going over what they believe about it?
Saying it 'may or may not help' is like saying you "may or may not" be able to destroy cancer. Depends on the person, the severity, and dealing the right cards. I can't see it killing someone...unless the doctor doesn't know what they're doing or uses their knowledge in stupid ways like pre-70's era @_@.

 

[PrimoPiccolo]

I have nothing specific against Scientology, I'm just not into organized religion period. I think you can have a centered spiritual understanding without joining a titled faith.

...Plus there's all that money you're "happy" to donate.

 

[SSJ Jup81]

Mind going over what they believe about it?
Saying it 'may or may not help' is like saying you "may or may not" be able to destroy cancer. Depends on the person, the severity, and dealing the right cards. I can't see it killing someone...unless the doctor doesn't know what they're doing or uses their knowledge in stupid ways like pre-70's era @_@.

Well, there are medications prescribed to those with depression issues. It might take a long time until the doctor can find the right type of medication for the patient and it can lead to one's being suicidal as a side effect, so maybe that's what they mean and how they (Scientologists) don't agree with Psychiatric treatment.

 

[Johnzaloog]

Just putting my own opinion in, I don't believe in any religeon. I'm a humanist, but others may believe what they wish.

 

[Rein]

I didn't know much about Scientology (and I still don't due to lack of interest), but I can say that after I read that line about him being a Science Fiction author, I had to laugh. HARD.

Then again, Scientology isn't as ridiculous as Christian Science, so if anything, people should attack Christian Scientists and THEIR ridiculous beliefs instead of Scientologists. Also, you should look out for those PS3ologists. They are CRAZY. (Youtube it).

 

[digiboy123]

PS3ologists? >_>

I ONLY WANT RATCHET AND CLANK!

 

[Rein]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq_1yWG7ieE

It's a well done parody of the Tom Cruise video, except this time, he's saving people from 360s.

 

[Pazuzu]

It's not about what they believe, more like their methods. Such as spiritual enlightenment having a price. And the whole thing being generally organised like a cult. Nobody's directly attacking their right to believe, even if some of us do think it's silly.

As for me, I'm firmly against what they do. Like I said, believe what you want, but there are limits. That was entirely wat the Reformation was about, a revolution against a corrupt church by those who shared at the core the same belief system.
This campaign won't do any material damage to the Church, and it won't make them any less hostile or willing to do what they do. What it will do is create awareness, and open people's eyes. The real mark this Anonymous campaign is carving is a big neon sign saying "You can do this. They are not invincible and you are not alone." That's all.

 

[SSJ Jup81]

Getting right down to it, Hiku, Christianity is "cult-like" too.

 

[Johnzaloog]

Getting right down to it, Hiku, Christianity is "cult-like" too.

That's a very good point, I agree, but most religions can be considered cult-esque. What is the definition for a cult? I know what one is, but what is the actually definition?

 

[PrimoPiccolo]

most religions can be considered cult-esque. What is the definition for a cult? I know what one is, but what is the actually definition?

It's surprisingly close, actually.

1. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
2. Obsessive devotion to a person or ideal.
3. A group of persons sharing such devotion.

And I think for a select few religions, the key word is obsession. When you have members of your church asking fundamental questions about their belief, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe anymore, just that they need help putting the pieces together. Unfortunately, the less evolved religions take this as a form of dissent, and exile those people from the faith. Now, how can you exile someone from faith? That's when the line is crossed, and you're more about your "club" than you are a greater understanding.

 

[Kage]

Apparently, the differences between a cult and a religion from what I can see is the fanaticism (which I think I can see in religions anyways) and that apparently a religion like Roman Catholicism is more "open" to people who aren't of the faith to experience it. To me, I don't like anything religion or cult. >_<; It's interesting to read about, but I don't like either.

I'm currently taking a class for theology in my school (since... it's Catholic. >_> If I went public omg I'd be beat up... and i'd beat up back.. so yah.. need to be in catholic) as Comparative World Religions. Comparative in the sense to Catholicism. Anyways, apparently, the founder of Scientology once said something along the lines of 'The best way to make money is to create your own religion.' Which I also find funny is that he takes it away and disappears into the ocean. >_>;

 

[Cael]

Mind going over what they believe about it?
Saying it 'may or may not help' is like saying you "may or may not" be able to destroy cancer. Depends on the person, the severity, and dealing the right cards. I can't see it killing someone...unless the doctor doesn't know what they're doing or uses their knowledge in stupid ways like pre-70's era @_@.

Convinced that man is only a body, psychology and psychiatry have forwarded the idea that there is no soul, merely a physical brain, an aggregation of tissue and nerve cells.

And since man no longer has a soul, he can be degraded still further through all manner of barbaric “treatments.” In fact, the array of primitive methods dreamed up by “modern” psychiatrists includes hypnotic drugs, lobotomies, electric shock and bolts to the brain while a person is drugged and comatose — each of which leaves a person little more than a vegetable.

1) procedures such as electro-shock, drugs and lobotomy injure, maim and destroy people in the guise of help; 2) psychiatry is not a science and has no proven methods to justify the billions of dollars of government funds that are poured into it; and 3) psychiatric theories that man is a mere animal have been used to rationalize, for example, the wholesale slaughter of human beings in World Wars I and II.

#1: Psychiatry is not all about that electro-shock. Lobotomies are not common anymore and obviously not all drugs are bad for you.
#2: Who are they to make such a claim when they like to sue people who say their "religion" is fake or a cult. The latter just sounds like they're jealous and Psychiatry has helped a LOT of people. If it didn't then people wouldn't be going to it and the government wouldn't be funding it.
#3: Man is an animal. Are they high off of the bad drugs? Man kills other animals for food just like other animals do. Man fights and goes to war just like animals fight each other over territory and mates. I also don't see why it was so wrong to rationalize it seeing as to how the animals couldn't end the war without slaughter.

Scientologists abhor "treatments" which harm people and particularly dislike it when those responsible refuse to take responsibility for their acts or to institute reforms in their own field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_McPherson

Scientologists particularly object to the materialistic view advanced by psychiatry that man is a soulless animal.

Xenu

Scientologists aim to create a world without war, without insanity and without criminality. Psychiatric practices, on the other hand, destroy minds and reduce man to a robotized and drugged state where he can be controlled. Despite psychiatry’s vast absorption of government funds, crime, illiteracy and drug addiction -- social problems that would decline if psychiatry were doing its self-imposed job of handling the problems of the mind -- continue to proliferate.

1. I don't see how they're helping at the moment and I'm just going to say its just me.
2. Blasphemy. Not all psychiatric treatments involve the use of drugs. [I can say the same thing about them reducing men to robotized states to control them. I don't see how telling people about Xenu is going to bring peace and love.]
3.

Scientologists abhor "treatments" which harm people and particularly dislike it when those responsible refuse to take responsibility for their acts or to institute reforms in their own field

Excuse me now, why the hell can't the people who abuse the drugs, who cause the crime, who don't learn to read be responsible for that? Why are they blaming Psychiatry when they probably should be blaming the people if they are at fault?