- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: CoS in the news
On 28 Jan 2008, at 03:47, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How could a law protect these genuine religions
and also ban the original Scientologists at the same time?
Easily! You take away the COSI's tax-exempt status away and give it
to
the splinter groups. That would do more to damage the COS and
enhance
a measure of justice than just about anything else. BTW, that is
basically what Anonymous is trying to achieve by causing
*exposure*.
My point was - how do you do that? Since we have established that
Scientology can pass the religion test it would have to be because
it
does awful things under the guise of religion. Like the the
Unification Church. Or the the Catholic Church sheltering pedophile
priests. Or the fact that under Islam the penalty for converting
from the true faith is death.
Rose sellers Maru.
Hare Krishnas they aint!
But for some info The Economist spouts:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10609174
An online onslaught against Scientology
A VICIOUS cult run by cynical fraudsters, or a sincerely held
religious belief persecuted by zealots? That is the long-standing row
about Scientology, founded by the late science-fiction writer, L. Ron
Hubbard. In some countries, such as Germany, the group is watched by
the security services. In others, such as America and Australia, it
has won charitable status as a religion.
Until now the fight could mostly be seen as one-sided. Scientology's
lawyers are vigorous litigants. The group argues that its internal
materials (which claim, among other things, that expensive courses of
treatment can help rid people of infestation by alien souls from an
extinct civilisation) are commercially confidential and protected by
copyright. They react sharply to any perceived libel.
As a result, public critics of what they derisively term $cientology
risk expensive legal battles. For example, a new unauthorised
biography of Tom Cruise by a British author, Andrew Morton, contains
detailed and highly critical material about the film star's
involvement in Scientology. It is a bestseller in America but has not
been published in Britain. The publisher, St Martin's Press, has even
asked internet booksellers not to ship it to foreign customers. Though
Scientology representatives vehemently deny breaking any laws, critics
have claimed that they experience intensive harassment and
intimidation.
Now Scientology is under attack from a group of internet activists
known only as Anonymous. Organised from a Wikipedia-style website
(editable by anyone) and through anonymous internet chat rooms,
Project Chanology, as the initiative is known, presents no easy
target for Scientology's lawyers. It is promoting cyberwarfare
techniques normally associated with extortionists, spies and
terrorists. Called distributed denial of service attacks, these
typically involve using networks of infected computers to bombard the
target's websites and servers with bogus requests for data, causing
them to crash. Even governments find this troublesome.
Anonymous is also hoping to galvanise public opinion with a mass
real-world protest outside every Scientology office worldwide on
February 10th. But its best weapon may be ridicule. The group got
going in reaction to efforts to ban an internal Scientology video of
Mr Cruise that leaked onto the internet. The star appears to discuss
his beliefs with a degree of incoherence and exaggeration that might
lead some to question Scientology's effects on its adherents' sanity.
A Scientology spokesman says it has been selectively edited. Several
internet sites have taken it down after threats of lawsuits. But it
keeps popping up.
Same tactics as the Jesuits, right?
LULZG
xponent
I Heir You Leik Mudkips Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
