Anonymous vs. Scientology

[CelestialBadger]

I didn't realize anyone outside of the church gave enough of a **** about scientology to do something like this.

 

[x42bn6]

Operation Clambake has been going on for quite a while now.

And Scientology vs. The Internet has gone on for decades. Wikipedia even has an article on it: Scientology and the Internet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*

 

[Tipsy]

Is there any reason why we can't let these people believe what they want and not infringe on their rights since they're only taking things from those who volunteer?

 

[x42bn6]

Anonymous isn't blasting the followers, they're attacking the Church of Scientology.*

 

[Arkillo]

I swear, these people from anon need to get over themselves.

 

[shambletrain]

I bombed scientology.org a couple of times.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Is there any reason why we can't let these people believe what they want and not infringe on their rights since they're only taking things from those who volunteer?

Except People's stupidity are also the cause and success for pyramids schemes, which are illegal also. Scientology is just an elaborate pyramid scheme.

 

[Tipsy]

Except People's stupidity are also the cause and success for pyramids schemes, which are illegal also. Scientology is just an elaborate pyramid scheme.

That assumes that people aren't believing something stupid and are just joining to make money. Proving either way would be difficult, especially trying to prove it just a pyramid scheme in court.

Anonymous isn't blasting the followers, they're attacking the Church of Scientology.*

Who do you think owns the property that makes up the Church of Scientology?

 

[Andrew]

Long live Anon!

 

[x42bn6]

That assumes that people aren't believing something stupid and are just joining to make money. Proving either way would be difficult, especially trying to prove it just a pyramid scheme in court.


Who do you think owns the property that makes up the Church of Scientology?

Scientologists? I'm not sure what that entails.

As one of the posters suggests, Google "Lisa McPherson". Perhaps then you'll realise why some heavily attack Scientology.*

 

[CelestialBadger]

So I'll be the guy who Pan said would post that it's no different than any other religion. But I'll say it's no different in that it offers people a system of belief and asks them to give money so they can spread the belief of that system. I think it would be pretty hard to disagree with that.

With that said, people need to stop being dicks just because they don't agree with their beliefs or methods.

 

[Tipsy]

Scientologists? I'm not sure what that entails.

If "they're attacking the Church of Scientology" and "Scientologists [own the property that makes up the Church of Scientology]", then by attacking the Church of Scientology's property they are "attacking the followers." Thus, the statement "Anonymous isn't blasting the followers, they're attacking the Church of Scientology" is incorrect.

 

[x42bn6]

They are attacking the Church of Scientology which happens to be owned by some Scientologists. They've already made a video saying they mean Scientologists no harm but they hope that their endeavours would allow them to "open up their eyes and ears to the Church".

YouTube - From Anon - A Message to Scientologists

*

 

[Tipsy]

They are attacking the Church of Scientology which happens to be owned by some Scientologists. They've already made a video saying they mean Scientologists no harm but they hope that their endeavours would allow them to "open up their eyes and ears to the Church".

YouTube - From Anon - A Message to Scientologists

*

"Well, they've already taken down various Scientology sites once or twice if not more, prank calls, black faxes, real-life raids (quite amused with them, actually, I thought *chans would never venture out of the Internet), DDoSed other things, called up the media, etc. so they are doing quite a "good" job."

That is attacking their property - a website is property. And attacking some people for their beliefs is still attacking people for their beliefs.

 

[x42bn6]

If Organisation A which promotes good deeds B is corrupt, and I protest against Organisation A, I am not necessarily hurting people who promote the good deeds B. They might be offended, of course, but there's not much I can do about that.*

 

[Tipsy]

If Organisation A which promotes good deeds B is corrupt, and I protest against Organisation A, I am not necessarily hurting people who promote the good deeds B. They might be offended, of course, but there's not much I can do about that.*

A website is property. Attacking a website is violating private property rights. Violating private property rights solely because of someone's religious beliefs is attacking someone because of their religion. Protest all you want, but once you infringe upon someone's rights you've gone too far.

 

[Glowy]

Lets start our own relgion....bfism

 

[x42bn6]

A website is property. Attacking a website is violating private property rights. Violating private property rights solely because of someone's religious beliefs is attacking someone because of their religion. Protest all you want, but once you infringe upon someone's rights you've gone too far.

No, no, no, they attacked the site to get attention (DDoSing has stopped now, if you read reports). But they are attacking the Church of Scientology, even if they make fun of Scientology and Tom Cruise (not hard to do, given recent events).

Project Chanology - Insurgency Wiki

Anonymous has nothing against religion, although they may poke fun at some of the more interesting concepts. They believe in freedoms and they are not trying to fight the Freedom of Religion. Their fight is strictly against the Church of Scientology. The websites associated with Anonymous have been attacked frequently, ordered to be silenced by the church's lawyers. The Church has some of the best lawyers possible. They also have members in many government agencies. They are currently tax exempt under the claim that they are a non-profit organization. But how can a Church that charges its members for sermons/sessions/audits claim to be non-profit? It can cost up to $300 per session, and over $300,000 for their complete series of sessions and audits. This is not a religion folks. They are not being religiously persecuted. The Church of Scientology is a cult. They prey on peoples emotions.

...

And read on...*

 

[Wing Zero]

for a non-/b/tard you sure know a lot

 

[x42bn6]

I was told of the *chan part by someone and I've been following it ever since then. I'm not going to join the February 10 "mass games", however; I have better things to do, like an assignment due in near that date.*