Scientology?

This sucks. I agree with what you say. My family is somewhat descended from Aryan blood and I had relatives who lived in Germany when the Nazis started to come to power. I know about the danger of popular fascist movements and the ideals behind how Anon is acting are similar.

Unfortunately...well let me put it this way. Scientology can only be punished by the law. Yet they are a religion...above and beyond the control of law. If this is true then either they are free to do however they wish even if they hurt people. Yet then what in the world is supposed to stop them? My guess is that if something can only be compared to something similar then the only thing to interfere with a religion is another religion. Is anon a religion? Hell no. Are they doing what they believe is right however? Yes they are.

I could only disagree with anon if I were to be the type of person to suppress someone elses beliefs which would force me to agree with the Scientologists which would contradict my own beliefs. I could agree with anon, but then I'd be supporting an ideal which in fact is too similar to the Scientologist agenda for me to support it without violatiing my own beliefs.

I guess it's too hard to explain. I can't get people to understand my stance unless I'm willing to discuss my personal opinion and I can't go over that since it's too complicated and long.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

*EDIT*

Ya know what I really have to apologize to anyone who reads this. You see I've been on the internet for over 6 years now and no one I've ever met no matter how long I've known them or how friendly they are has ever heard me come close to any religious discussion. Even when the questions are directed at me I can only give short statements and pray I never get asked again while I promptly attempt to leave before they do get asked.

I'd tell you, but as you've probably ascertained my history with God and his...people is a melting pot of my personal, family, and friends experience with many issues of not only religion, but race, history, and countless small things I couldn't even begin to describe.

In fact I've said too much already and I won't say anything again.
 
The Vault Dweller said:
Yet they are a religion...above and beyond the control of law.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the first pillar of the rule of law, there.

No one is above the law. Including religions. Freedom of Religion does not mean immunity from persecution.

The reason Scientology is immune to persecution is because they have the money and influence to be so.

...

And that's just the way it is. The rule of law isn't perfect and this is one of its weaknesses. Because the system is human it is fallible and because it is fallible it can be controlled without operating outside of its framework.

And that's ok. Honestly, it is. The thing is, Scientology can only survive as long as it does not blatantly act outside of the legal framework. That means their ability to interfere directly in your life is nihil. Yes, they might sue you, but except if you live in the US or England, that matters little. If you live in either of those countries, please move to a country with a decent legal system if you want to have your rights protected.

If you want to fight Scientology you can't do it extra-legally. Well, you can, that's what Anon is doing, by blatantly illegal acts like hacking, but also by extra-legal acts like manipulating the popular opinion (which is something Scientology does too, duh).

If Scientology is evil incarnate, the best thing would be to sue them after you found proof of their evil. If you can't find said proof, then it's really time to back the fuck off, because you don't have the right to condemn people without proof. No one does.

Want proof? Perhaps you should hire Peter R de Vries, crime reporter!

Edit: also, stop being a drama queen
 
Sorry I edited the post above right after you posted.

I think a way to summarize what I'm best trying to describe is this statement:

"The only thing that can fight an ugly dog and not be reduced to it's level is another ugly dog."

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
I agree with BN too :P

I don't pretend to think that what Anon is doing is more moral.

I like it because it is funny to me, and I simply don't care. I also wouldn't care if the Jews got gassed. Don't give a shit either way. I think of Anon as a falsh mob, and I am inherently againt mob mentality and populist ways of thinking. But once again, I don't care. To me, its fun. I have no problem with the church of scientology, they can take over the world for all I care. I support social darwinism.
 
Saturday or Sunday I saw a bunch of guys who appeared to be Anon supporters/members/fans/whatever out front of the new CoS building in a shopping district. Weird. One of the guys was dressed as Anon, sort of, like Rorshach without the mask.
 
Brother None said:
Look into my eyes.
Click to expand...

:rofl: I've been meaning to say it and I will now. That avatar is beyond perfect. His stare is so emotionless that I'd say it means nothing, but looking at the eyes I swear there's some sort of malicious intent that somehow only I can see. It chills my spine.

Darkyrex said:
I'm drunk on teen angst
Click to expand...

:rofl: This is so awesome.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
I have been trying to tell all the anon who dont read comics that rorshach should be their fucking idol.

Only a few got, but if I had rorshachs mask I would fucking go and do the raids in that shit.
 
Who the fuck made Anon judge and jury of anyone? Why should a bunch of bored assholes from the internet have the right to manipulate a church out of existence? Who are they to determine who is to be convicted and who isn't?
Click to expand...

As long as they don't break the law it's their right to do and say anything, accordin to your own post.

I agree with what you said about the rule of law. What is to be done if there's someone who is breaking the law, and the lawmen can't or won't stop them? Should you sometimes allowed to break the law to stop a big threat?

I do not agree with religions and i believe that all of them are a bad thing. So at first i was ok with bashing the CoS. Now i don't know what to say: lot's of people protesting are in fact against the CoS because it's simply NOT their religion, that is the only reason they consider it a bad thing. So i'm not so sure about anon anymore.

It could be something orchestrated by the CoS itself to pose as a victim, or something organized by the government, which wants to take the CoS down, but can't do it legally on it's own.
 
Religion can be a good thing too Blakut, as a control mechanism to keep people in line, however Scientology doesn't act as a control function, instead it acts as purely as a means to monetary gain.

My problem isn't with the people, unwashed masses tend to rally around religions as a source of explanation for the strange events (either real or imagined) that science cannot directly explain. However the religion of Scientology is hazardous to both it's own flock and those around it due to the mix of artificial poverty, mental conditioning, and lack of a higher being that dictates the doctrine to keep the people in line.

Now that's not to say that the gods of the past haven't been used to initiate war, in fact they've been the cause of it many times over, however that is usually instigated by the church rather than the belief.

Religion is the first code of laws that mankind followed to, Scientology flies in the face of that and instead of laying down the laws that their followers are to believe, they simply let them go about willy nilly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Scientology is a powder keg, and all it needs is a primer to explode into a religious civil war if left unchecked.
 
Blakut said:
As long as they don't break the law
Click to expand...

But that's not the case.

Blakut said:
What is to be done if there's someone who is breaking the law, and the lawmen can't or won't stop them? Should you sometimes allowed to break the law to stop a big threat?
Click to expand...

Of course not.

You can't "sometimes" be "allowed" to break the law to stop a big threat. Who determines what kind of threat is big enough and when? We can not afford to take matters into our own hands like that, it's dangerous.

The only situation where I think it's valid is if rule of law is already broken, like if your country is invaded or occupied, but that's pretty duh, and not the case here.

Mord Sith said:
Scientology is a powder keg, and all it needs is a primer to explode into a religious civil war if left unchecked.
Click to expand...

Religious civil war?

They're kinda outnumbered, don't you think? Even the most positive analysis of Scientology puts it maximum worldwide active membership around 4 million. That's nothing.

Which is kind of why I have to "lol" every time someone represents Scientology as some kind of threat to anything. Sure, they're annoying as hell and a bit too powerful for a fringe group, but they're hardly the only dangerous and overly powerful fringe group in the US (religious right, anyone?), and have about as much influence outside of the US as my ass.
 
Hate to bring it to you, BN, but you're missing the point as well.

Yes, some members of Anon have been doing bad things. The DDoS'ing for example is blatantly immoral (and, probably, illegal). The whole project of 4chan is far from the margin of legality anyway. That much is true.

However, the cause is just and the demonstrations are absolutely legal. Of course causes don't justify the means, that should be pretty obvious.

The problem is that Scientology can't be legally prosecuted for its crimes. It's known that Scientology doesn't care about the legality of its practices, simply because it can afford it. The "church" is under tight observation in various countries exactly because of its practices -- the problem is that none of the evidence holds up in court. They're mostly using the system against itself.

Street justice is illegal for a reason. Lynchings and other violent forms of protest have been its result often enough.

The problem is that a system is only a system. While it may have been created with the best intentions, there are situations in which the system may turn itself against those which it is meant to protect.

The system is not an absolute. It's legitimacy is not based on itself, but on how well it works. If the system fails, it is legitimate to replace the system by one that works better -- everyone should know that anarchy (i.e. destruction of the original system to make room for a new one, rather than gradual change) isn't a smart way to achieve that, but sometimes the legal way can take too long.

Morals and legality don't always correspond. You should know that. Not every invasion comes from a foreign force, either.

I'm not encouraging illegal actions against Scientology. I'm only saying that just because it may be illegal, it's not instantly immoral. Anon itself (read: 4chan) may not have started the "war" for moral reasons, but individuals may be taking part for moral reasons.

How do you fight an anti-democratic force that's economically powerful enough to fend off lawsuits and convinces its would-be members to join without using any evidently criminal methods?

There's a reason Scientology isn't quite as successful in the rest of the world as it is in the US and it's to do with the country's blind emphasis on religious tolerance and freedom.

Being "above the law" carries no semantics if you're not talking about actions in the context of the law.

If legality always took precedence over morality (which is NOT a religious question or relative to the culture but a universal absolute, although vaguely defined), the post-WW2 trials would have been very different.

As for my previous post: I was talking about the "legitimacy" of religions. There's nothing postmodernist about my reasoning, it's basic logic. If you don't like it, that's an opinion, not a flaw in the reasoning.

To recall my argument:

If the status of being "religion" carries any meaning, and I can just make something up out of the blue and call it a "religion", the meaning can't carry much weight. Especially not in terms of something you should be tolerant about and which is somehow "special" ("holy") and should be respected for that.

So, if Scientology, which is made up, is a religion, that runs contrary to the special status religion has in our culture. If it doesn't deserve that special status, but other religions do, it's not as much of a religion as the others are. And as being a religion is meant to be an absolute, that means it can't be one. Either that, or, if it's as much a religion as any other, being a religion can't be as special as we tend to think of it.

Nothing postmodernist or nonsensical about that argument, it works with other things as well. Reductio ad absurdum, maybe, but it is absolutely flawless (unlike, say, trying to argue "being human" is meaningless because you can't physically define it by looking at different stages of fetal development).
 
Ashmo said:
However, the cause is just and the demonstrations are absolutely legal.
Click to expand...

I noted that myself. They are not what I'm complaining about, though I dislike this move in general because Anon really isn't the kind of organization I like waving the flag of morality. But that's my personal viewpoint, from a legal standpoint I have nothing against the demonstrations.

Ashmo said:
The problem is that Scientology can't be legally prosecuted for its crimes. It's known that Scientology doesn't care about the legality of its practices, simply because it can afford it. The "church" is under tight observation in various countries exactly because of its practices -- the problem is that none of the evidence holds up in court. They're mostly using the system against itself.
Click to expand...

This I have also noted and explained my position on: that's just too bad. You can't randomly pick who rule of law applies to and who it doesn't. It's just an inherent flaw of rule of law that it allows organizations like Scientology to exist.

And that's just too bad. It's better than not having rule of law, though.

Ashmo said:
If the system fails, it is legitimate to replace the system by one that works better
Click to expand...

This I also noted. However, it is a stretch of the imagination to say that the existence of Scientology indicates bankruptcy of the system of rule of law.

Ashmo said:
Morals and legality don't always correspond.
Click to expand...

No, in fact legality stands above morality in our countries exactly for that reason. Because what I consider moral should not govern other people's actions. That is true in this case, too.


Ashmo said:
I'm only saying that just because it may be illegal, it's not instantly immoral.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure I didn't say it did.

Ashmo said:
How do you fight an anti-democratic force that's economically powerful enough to fend off lawsuits and convinces its would-be members to join without using any evidently criminal methods?
Click to expand...

You don't, too bad, deal with it.

Ashmo said:
There's a reason Scientology isn't quite as successful in the rest of the world as it is in the US and it's to do with the country's blind emphasis on religious tolerance and freedom.
Click to expand...

Most EU countries have a significantly higher emphasis on religious tolerance than you do. That's not actually the reason Scientology is big in the US.

Ashmo said:
Being "above the law" carries no semantics if you're not talking about actions in the context of the law.
Click to expand...

This sentence doesn't mean anything.

Ashmo said:
If legality always took precedence over morality, the post-WW2 trials would have been very different.
Click to expand...

It is generally agreed amongst all politicians, historians and judicial experts that the post-WW2 trials should have been very different, and were a low point in Western civilization devolving to base barbarism.

There's a reason people like the Unification and Appeasement Court in South Africa better than they do the Nurenberg Trials.

Ashmo said:
As for my previous post: I was talking about the "legitimacy" of religions. There's nothing postmodernist about my reasoning, it's basic logic. If you don't like it, that's an opinion, not a flaw in the reasoning.
Click to expand...

It is when you consider all postmodernist reasoning to be useless. And I do.
 
Off - Topic

How should the Nurenberg Trials look like? (I'm not very familiar with the subject, although I know the overall look of it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top