You know, I think that this sort of thinking is a bad idea...
Not because I'm afraid of retribution from those dickweeds, but because I think it may be a trend.
I mean, think about it. Almost all major religion today was, at one point, highly persecuted. The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, and even then sects within them, particularly Christianity, like Mormonism and the like.
People bad mouthed those sorts of things constantly, and some of them at the time were real whoppers. What if Anon accidentally strengthens and legitimizes it's enemy? The extra attention does nothing but strengthen them. I bet that some people who fight like this could tell you more about Scientology than their own religion.
Anonymous vs. Church of Scientology
last edited by
It doesn't change the fact they've killed and harassed people, destroy families, and twist the constitution to their will. This needs to stop, one way or another.
last edited by
Steve, I acknowledge your point as a valid one, as far as it's limited to the idea that "slippery slopes are dangerous." Yes, yes they are. Particularly for controversial cases. However, as sometimes said in legal debate, yes, there is a slippery slope, but the slope won't slip in this case.
Scientology is not borderline. Here, there are clear limits we can set. The beauty of a democratic legislative system and common law judicial system is that it allows for heroic battles and reshapings in the gray areas as public opinion pushes for reform from both sides of the issue, while maintaining clear areas of wrong in the periphery. Under the current body of common law precedent, Scientology is too much of an outlier to affect any future decisions. Even in the unfair court decisions that exonerated CoS of some of its crimes, the judges basically say "only in this case, we make the exception, and for no one else," barring all future cases from citing the decision as precedent.
I repeat, Scientology is not a borderline test case. It kills and blackmails. It extorts vast sums of money from followers and threatens the IRS with frivolous lawsuits, bullying the IRS into a particularly sweet tax-exemption deal that no other religion in the US gets , mainstream or otherwise. Its silencing of freedom of speech is blatantly outside the range of judicially acceptable precedent, even in this era of large-scale threats to freedom of speech in America. The only question that is possibly controversial is the question of whether Internet reposting of unaltered copyrighted material is protected under free speech if its posted for the purpose of newsworthiness or inducing commentary.
You can feel good about opposing Scientology with all your heart. The line won't slip because of it.
Scientology is not borderline. Here, there are clear limits we can set. The beauty of a democratic legislative system and common law judicial system is that it allows for heroic battles and reshapings in the gray areas as public opinion pushes for reform from both sides of the issue, while maintaining clear areas of wrong in the periphery. Under the current body of common law precedent, Scientology is too much of an outlier to affect any future decisions. Even in the unfair court decisions that exonerated CoS of some of its crimes, the judges basically say "only in this case, we make the exception, and for no one else," barring all future cases from citing the decision as precedent.
I repeat, Scientology is not a borderline test case. It kills and blackmails. It extorts vast sums of money from followers and threatens the IRS with frivolous lawsuits, bullying the IRS into a particularly sweet tax-exemption deal that no other religion in the US gets , mainstream or otherwise. Its silencing of freedom of speech is blatantly outside the range of judicially acceptable precedent, even in this era of large-scale threats to freedom of speech in America. The only question that is possibly controversial is the question of whether Internet reposting of unaltered copyrighted material is protected under free speech if its posted for the purpose of newsworthiness or inducing commentary.
You can feel good about opposing Scientology with all your heart. The line won't slip because of it.
last edited by
Quote (Leon)
It doesn't change the fact they've killed and harassed people, destroy families, and twist the constitution to their will. This needs to stop, one way or another.
And Christianity never did anything like that. Especially not during the Crusades.
Don't get me wrong, I hate scientology as much as the next guy, I'm not saying it's okay to do the stuff they're doing, and you're completely right, what they are doing is wrong, but a lot of people said similar things in ages past about countless other religions.
I just don't think flaming on the internet will really help the issue. Now, throwing a flaming object into their offices, on the other hand...
last edited by
No offense, Steve, but have you been keeping up? Anonymous proposed mass protests all over the world against Scientology which happened yesterday. I know, I didn't make it, but I heard from a couple of friends that the CoS HQ in Edinburgh got quite a large turnout. I've yet to hear how the other protests went, though, so don't quote this one as the standard for all of them.
[EDIT] Video clips of the London protests.
[EDIT] Video clips of the London protests.
