Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.
Looking for stuff about birds?
Lean more about lions
Australian scientologists have proposed that anonymity and criticism be eliminated from the intertubes. According to the scientologists:
Since January 2008, the Church of Scientology has been subjected to a continuing campaign of violence and abuse from a hate group calling themselves 'Anonymous'. This entity has been described as a group of "cyber terrorists" as its actions have previously focused on Internet harassment and other crimes. However, in the last 13 months they have also (i.e. as well as their internet based assaults) committed acts of harassment and criminal offences "in real life" against the Church, its members and Church property. Anonymous members have made numerous bomb threats, arson threats and committed acts of vandalism against Scientology churches. They have made harassing phone calls, sent vulgar and threatening faxes and e-mails, painted graffiti, posted threats on the Internet and publicly threatened to kill Scientologists engaged in religious services. They have also targeted the children of Scientologists in a local school where they have taunted children whilst wearing masks.
And so on.
That is from a document submitted to the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The story is here.
Comments
Bwahahaha!
Posted by: Coturnix | September 10, 2009 5:17 PM
Oh, so the scientologists want the state to tell them who these people are so that they can be abused by the scientologists? So it's just another case of whackaloon religion wanting to run the show and teaching those horrible non-believers a lesson or two.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 10, 2009 5:40 PM
I think if there is actual criminal activity taking place (threats of violence, vandalism, etc) then those actions are clearly illegal and prosecutable under current law. I don't see why new legislation needs to be written to address something that is already illegal. If these things are taking place, I would support law enforcement going after the perpetrators wholeheartedly. Either way, I don't see why there needs to be a new law introduced.
Either people are just saying mean things about Scientology that they don't like, in which case, tough s**t, or they are engaged in activity which is already illegal, in which case, go after them. Or what is most likely is a combination of the two, which can be sifted through and addressed appropriately.
Posted by: IR | September 10, 2009 6:30 PM
I think it should be pointed out that refering to scientology as a religion is, in effect, buying in to their crap. As warped as religions are, the word does have a meaning, and that meaning does not fit scientology.
Everything I have read about it says to me "pyramid scheme". The few at the top rake in the bucks. The many at the bottom hope to improve their lives by paying for hocus pocus. It's Amway without property taxes. If churches had to pay taxes, scientology would never have applied for that status.
Posted by: John Swindle | September 10, 2009 6:41 PM
I don't see, John, how that seperates Scientology from any other organized sect. Seen the Vatacan lately, or Benny Hinn's mansion and private jet? Just how does charging for auditing differ from Tilton selling prayer cloths and annointing oil?
Posted by: Avenel | September 10, 2009 8:58 PM
What a bunch of slimy lying scumbags the Scientology creeps are.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | September 10, 2009 9:27 PM
Well, it's OpenAccess, so you can change it!
Oh, no, wait, that's OpenSource you can change.
Posted by: Greg Laden | September 10, 2009 9:33 PM
@John Swindle: So you oppose calling scientology a religion because scientology is like a religion? How strange. Almost as strange as people claiming atheism is a religion when it has nothing in common with religions. It's like calling a unicorn non-believer a believer in unicorns because he/she doesn't believe in unicorns and must believe in unicorns to be able to say that they don't believe ...
Posted by: MadScientist | September 10, 2009 10:54 PM
Scientology seems to me to be a mixture of religion and woo-based psychology. Actually, that's not much different from most other religions.
The biggest difference I see is that Scientology takes great measures to hide certain information which is supposed to be only for higher-level members of the church (i.e. those who have paid millions into it). Money is definitely the name of the game for them. They are one of the most litigious "religions" on the face of our planet. They are also, in my opinion, greatly lacking in moral standing.
I hope that within my lifetime I am able to see Scientology held in as high regard as Heaven's Gate.
Infiltrating federal governmental offices in order to delete information about your organization is not the hallmark of an honest, upstanding group.
Posted by: Dan J | September 10, 2009 11:55 PM
MadScientist - Vilify scientology all you want and I'm right there with you. What I would hope to do is to deprive them of their special tax-free status that goes with being classified as a religion. They are every bit as reprehensible as any "real" religion, but they deal with made-up science-fictiony delusions rather than made-up supernatural delusions. That is enough for me to see them as not really a religion and that they should not be allowed tax-free church status. A small point, I agree, but one uses what's available.
Posted by: John Swindle | September 11, 2009 2:37 AM
The Scientologists must be slacking. Anyone else remember back in the 90's when they ferretted out the real-life identity of one of the more vocal posters on alt.religion.scientology and posted her particulars out there for everyone to see? Their success in that effort was due, in no small part, to their ability to misrepresent their identities and affiliation while they were digging dirt - in short, to their ability to act anonymously.
It's interesting, for lack of a better word, that their concern with anonymous action only emerges when that action is directed against them.
Posted by: Jay | September 11, 2009 7:09 AM
THIS SCILON STUFF IS FULL OF FAIL THEY SHOULD JUST GO BACK TO CAWKSZ!
Posted by: RICHARD C MONGLER | September 12, 2009 2:41 AM
I am thrilled and excited to be a Scientologist.
The calibre of the low-class tactics I see in the anti-Scientology posts always tells me that only low-lifes with grammatical and syntax challenges become members of Anonymous.
I'll continue to run my successful businesses and tell people about Scientology; you continue to flunk Remedial Life Logic 101.
TTFN!
Posted by: PROUD AND HAPPY SCIENTOLOGIST! | September 12, 2009 2:13 PM
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
DEATH THREATS. BOMB & ARSON THREATS. VANDALISM. HARASSING INNOCENT CHILDREN AT SCHOOL.
I don't give a sh*t about any biased, virulent opinions posted here, whether you love Scientology or think it's BS. Doesn't matter. Any TRUE American, any lover of Justice & Freedom...would not allow this activity against their worst enemies.
We should be rallying to SUPPORT the Scientologists against vicious hatred which NO ONE deserves.
WAKE UP. This is America, we DEFEND those we disagree with here.
Posted by: Voice of Reason. | September 12, 2009 4:01 PM
Though I disagree with the teachings of Scientology (and their tactics, in general), I completely support your right to membership in, and belief in, Scientology.
I will defend those whom I disagree with, providing that I think they deserve defending, as I have indicated above. Scientology as a corporate entity has shown to me time and time again that they do not deserve my defense.
Really, there's no need to shout. These accusations mirror quite well the accusation which are often leveled at Scientology, often deservedly so.
Individual members of Scientology are not the corporate entity. They receive my respect based on their individual actions.
"PROUD AND HAPPY SCIENTOLOGIST!" (again, no need to shout) has given me no reason (other than being a pedantic asshole, in my opinion) to completely disrespect them as an individual. Their particular religious beliefs, however, neither command nor deserve my respect.
Posted by: Dan J | September 12, 2009 4:21 PM