Comments on: Anonymous and Scientology

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:11:24 +0000

I really don’t want to debate values over the internet such as religion, faith, etc. All of your comments are interesting. I am a Christian pretty firm in by beliefs; I am not really a passivist but these sorts of videos and conversation just sort of turn me off of both sides, they make me want to stay inside and close the door.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:44:46 +0000

Religion, not a subject I like to discuss because of heated arguments that occur. Any crime on the net should not be tolerated. I think views should be allowed on the internet but maybe we should stay away from religion. Just like the rules for any party, never discuss religion or politics unless you want a fight.

By: Holli

Holli — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:26:33 +0000

The priest scandal was perhaps not the most appropriate and I am sure there are many other religious cover-ups I have not read about. However, I see omitting any webpages critical of Scientology from search engines, coupled with their Fair Game policy, as elitist in nature. A feeling of superiority not one of a welcoming, accepting, forgiving group. I guess that is the difference I see. Perhaps it is acceptance/tolerance based on how long each has been around.

By: Shannon

Shannon — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 03:30:38 +0000

OK, this is weird. I mentioned in another topic about stumbleupon.com, right. So I am doing some research on some work things on the web and select the stumble button for the first time today. Here is what comes up: http://deathboy.livejournal.com/1082404.html.

Do do do do, do do do do.

By: Christian Ferris

Christian Ferris — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 03:00:47 +0000

Maybe I’m over-empathizing with Tom Cruise and Scientology, but again, I don’t think that some of the suppression and PR craziness that they engage in are isolated simply to Scientology. For example, the Vatican has threatened legal action to get a satirical cartoon depicting the current pope in a nazi uniform removed. In the wake of the child abuse scandals the church has filed legal motion after legal motion to keep internal documents secret citing church-state separation. The Vatican also keeps a ’secret archive’ that no one is allowed to see without express permission and, even then, they must specifically request a specific document so the person getting access must know that it already exists. One document that was leaked included information about continuing cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests.

So, in my view, all of these organizations have very similar problems – we’re just comfortable with some because they’ve been around for a long time and so seem ‘normal’. So we call Christianity a religion because it pervades our culture, we call Mormons a ’sect’ because they believe things that fly in the face of that social norm and we call Scientology a ‘cult’ because it’s new, relatively small, and (again) alien to us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Secret_Archives
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-130970742.html
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2007/04/883380.shtml
http://www.paddydoyle.com/bigsecret.html

By: Holli

Holli — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:13:56 +0000

My thoughts completely matched Basanta’s. Even farther, Tom Cruise seems mentally ill. I say this not because of what he was talking about (Scientology), but because of the complete disconnect in what he was saying. I had a very difficult time understanding what his point was in that 9+ minutes. He made minimal eye contact and the fits of laughing were creepy. His elitist attitude struck me as repelling.

What I did derive from those 9 minutes, is that Scientologists try to be good people by helping others and encouraging others to participate in life instead of just being a by-stander. They want a better world; don’t we all? I don’t think any of those things are bad and do mirror the goals of many other religions.

With that being said, I find the terminology used and irreverence towards psychiatry a bit disturbing but that could be simply, as Christian pointed out, xenophobia.

I do find their views on removing any bad press wrong. Just as Scientologists are entitled to believe in what they choose, as are others entitled to read/learn about it. Should they Catholic Church demand all negative press surrounding sexual misconduct of priests be removed from the internet?

By: Basanta

Basanta — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:24:52 +0000

I think it’s rude to single out an individual. Even though I felt really disconnected with Tom Cruise’s views, he’s got the rights to say what he wants to. Personally I thought Tom Cruise had little idea of what he said in the interview and avoided eye-contact for most of the times. The 2 guys interviewed by Mr. Garfield seemed equally perplexed. As I have my rights to object what others say, Tom as well as anonymous group has their own rights to express their feelings.

Rather than attacking scientologists physically or via the internet, if they think they’re right about the misdeeds of the church of scientology, they can protest for an independent inquiry to be held. Pressing the government to dig deep into the matter in an unbiased way would be the right thing to do, I suppose.

I visited the church of scientology website and it mentions that “Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability”. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that! It’s a different ballgame going beyond that as I’m not fully aware of the ‘misdeeds’ that they have done in the past. I don’t want to judge anything just by going through couple of websites that mentions deeds or misdeeds about anything. For me they are innocent until proven guilty. If anonymous can authenticate about the misdeeds of scientology, who knows……… I might be advocating against the church of scientology.

I agree with Dr. Hall that such fervor is enabled by the wide distribution of rich media currently afforded by the web. Web can either make it or break it ……completely. Being a church, a responsible entity, church of scientology should be aware in how they approach public. I think they must be pretty happy with the rising media attention and that too for free!!! Now, what I don’t like about these cults or factions affiliated with some religion are when they start preaching bad about non-affiliated individuals. Church of scientology uses terms like SP (suppressive person or anti social personalities) and PTS (Potential Trouble Source). Does anyone think using those terms to denounce others is the way to go for an entity like church? ……I don’t think so.

I really don’t like the aspect of ‘marketing a religion’. I have had personal experiences … really bad ones with this so, I really don’t like people saying our religion is good and yours is bad. I’m a Hindu but I equally respect Christianity, Muslim and other religions. These kinds of things happen in all religions. I have seen it myself in Hinduism. There are hundreds of different factions within Hinduism and they clash with one another to show that one is good over the other. I believe all religion say the same thing. It’s the followers along the way who misinterpret the real meaning and we fight with each other. I believe the secret of religion lies not in theories but in practice. To be good and do good – that is the whole of religion and I guess that is pretty much what every religion says.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:16:38 +0000

I think I would agree that it’s bad form to single out the scientologists if not for the perception that they themselves stifle free speech. They are one of the groups with a reputation for suing anyone who mentions them, which tends to make people leery about even discussing them. And for this reason I am not sure that anonymity is cowardice–it may be the only way to succeed in being heard without being shut down first. Also, that the tendency of netizens to cache and mirror material is one of the great strengths of the web even as it drives copyright holders insane–it makes it that much harder to hush up controversial or unwanted material.

Other than that, I figure people can spend their money on silly things if they want to. I’m not religious (I am “culturally” Protestant Christian as some are “culturally” Jewish, but the faith never really did “take”), but people should be allowed to find their own way. I am worried with the Patriot Act and similar political decisions that within 20 years even my most religious family members will once again have to pick up and move to another country because of persecution for their Christian pacifism. I am fine with people thinking other people are weird. I am not fine with people thinking other people are so weird that they need to be silenced. That pretty much goes for all sides.

Side thoughts: I always found it funny that in Martin Gardner’s “In The Name of Science” he thought scientology would die off quickly. Here we are, 50 years later….

I haven’t seen the V for Vendetta movie, so I wonder if they used the Guy Fawkes masks there like there were in the book?

By: Shannon

Shannon — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:37:54 +0000

Mmmm, the age old debate of religion; the reason I never committed myself to the idea of religion-denomination-based faith. Church of Christ, Catholic, Mormonism, Benny Hinn, The PTL et al; all organizations led by PEOPLE with an agenda not completely in line with bringing honor to His Kingdom. Especially those who embellish The Word to make it say what they want to support their agenda. Oh how I could go on with utter disdain towards what we all know as organized religion. BTW, I am a Christian and I attend a “Baptist” church. I call out Baptist for the mere fact that was what the church has been for the longest time. It is far, far from what anyone would know a baptist church to be, especially here in the south. I joined this church because it wasn’t the hypocrisies I saw growing up or in televangel-land.

The cowardice of Anonymous being anonymous is funny to me. They want to stand at their pulpit and ostracize an organization without having a face to theirs. Like talking smack at school, saying you’re gonna whoop someones arce in the parking lot and not even show up to the fight. We live in a world that EVERYONE wants to have their 2 cents and say what they want, but not always having SENSE to support it.

That’s my rant for now.

By: Christian Ferris

Christian Ferris — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:17:53 +0000

Every parishioner received a weekly envelope from the Church – non-school-attendees would have a list of boxes of ’suggested’ donations, for those attending the attached school there wasn’t a choice, just a box with the amount in it. This was a mainstream church in St. Louis.

On whether its wrong to charge for attendees to ‘move up’ in an organization – I really don’t think you can dictate how a religion operates. I agree that much of Scientology seems pretty alien to what most Americans were probably raised with, but it doesn’t make it wrong – just different.

Frankly, based on my Catholic upbringing I could probably make a video that would sound as nutty to non-Catholics as Tom Cruise’s video, which I thought was kind of banal and shruggable really – and just look at how some Christians looked at Mitt Romney’s status as a Mormon! I think its mostly just xenophobia – we don’t like what is different from us. And that’s kind of sad.