No.
Anonymous members and their Professional Anti-Scientology Racketeer handlers spend their days attempting to convince the public that Scientology is a dangerous religion.
They claim that the Church of Scientology is ruthless with it's critics, even as Southpark creators have flagrantly mocked it's sacred texts with no apparent consequences. Anonymous' claims are dubious but widely believed, and no one can doubt the zeal of these Anti-Scientology Activists. However, in light of recent events involving a religion which has been PROVEN to be dangerous, I think it's time to lay Anonymous' claims to rest.
I'm referring to the manner in which Southpark producers were intimidated with death threats BY ISLAMISTS into not displaying any mocking depictions of the Prophet Mohommed. These cartoonists were scared for their lives:
So Anonymous: PLEASE GIVE IT A REST. YOUR BASELESS PERSECUTION OF SCIENTOLOGY ONLY EXPOSES YOU FOR THE COWARDLY BULLIES YOU ARE.
Tom Newton
Comedy central censored the episode. They also pulled repeats of 'Trapped in the Closet'.
ReplyDeletehttp://religiousfreaks.com/
ReplyDeleteNo. They chickened out. Like Anonymous, they lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up to ACTUAL religious extremists.
ReplyDeletejoshchristian99 (rydall cooper) is the leader of anonymous
ReplyDeleteThey pulled both episodes critical of Scientology and those that parody Islam. Sorry buddy.
ReplyDeleteAre you a moron?
ReplyDeleteAre you incapable of making simple distinctions?
(don't answer)
You are seriously attempting to link these two incidents as equivalent? I don't recall Tommy Davis making death threats.
You may be stupid and that's fine, but please don't try to insist that I agree with things on your level. The world is a wee bit more complex thank you think it is.
You and your leaders within the media are cowards and bullies. Buddy.
Isn't it wonderful? Thanks to the tireless efforts of Anonymous, this evil cult is no longer able to engage in the overt acts of thuggishness it used to be able to.
ReplyDeleteWhat? You believe that?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has spent countless hours cyber-stalking, prank calling, vandalizing, harassing, and persecuting Scientologists for their beliefs.
Are you trying to make the case that your criminal abuses preemptively stopped non-existent Scientology extremists from committing acts of violence?
I sincerely hope that I can have your whole network of cyber-thugs arrested and tried for your organized attacks on Scientologists.
Fascist pig.
Hey there "Tom"...been a while, hasn't it? Oh well real life and all that...
ReplyDeleteAnyhow...
Anonymous members and their Professional Anti-Scientology Racketeer handlers spend their days attempting to convince the public that Scientology is a dangerous religion.
Problem #1: Professional Anti-Scientology blah di blah....
Ain't nothing "professional" about a loose collective of netizens, ex-Scientologists and independent critics. If there were, Scientology would have a far easier job quashing dissent. After all, professional implies institutional organisation, and if that were the case the CoS would have no problem finding a target and doing that thing they do so well...destroying it.
But of course, a bunch of people compelled by different things, often the simple fact that something is deeply wrong and they have a moral obligation to shine a light into the dark corners of this cultish pyramid scheme...well it's a lot harder to pin down, right? You know this first hand.
The horse has bolted, dear "Tom"...the secrets "scriptures" that reveal the switch before the bait really puts a spanner into the whole "gradient scale" methodology of trapping vulnerable cash cows. And now with number of defectors growing by the day all the non-written secrets...the horrendous human rights abuses that are perpetrated on staff and sea-org...the psychologically coercive tactics to get people to part with massive amounts of cash, and to "decide of their own free will" to disconnect from their friends and family on threat of losing their eternity....it's all laid bare now.
#2 - Dangerous religion - Now this is hilarious, since the majority of people protesting the institution of the CoS don't care one way or the other what someone's personal spiritual beliefs are.
But if you want to look carefully at LRH's own words, you might find that it was NEVER supposed to be a religion...in fact, LRH was staunchly opposed to institutionalised religion. Sure there are "religious" aspects to Scientology, or rather matters of belief, however so too did the Amway cult possess such elements.
It is the dangerous-cult-like aspects of this institution (cult not in terms of size, or how mainstream it is, but rather because of meeting many of the criteria set out here), and it's very real human right abuses that bring about criticisms.
Once again, I thank you for providing me a soap box for my views and hope you've enjoyed this as much as I have. :)
niggers
ReplyDeleteTOM ENABLE ANONYMOUS COMMENTING YOU COCKSUCKER JEW
ReplyDeleteSo "Tom", is there a reason you're spamming your own blog with inane racism, under your other alias "Adam Westwood"?
ReplyDeleteYou do realize the fact you're one and the same is already out there, right?
^Please. Continue to oversimplify and over analyze what I write until it suits your twisted agenda of hate.
ReplyDeleteTOM
Over simplify what, exactly? To state the obvious - that "Tom Newton" and "Adam Westwood" are one and the same person - is hardly something that can be oversimplified even if I wanted to!
ReplyDeleteIt's simple fact. Remember when you were logged in as "Adam Westwood", yet posted in the "Tom Newton" persona (complete with bolded text)? Well I do, and I think it's wise of me to remind your small audience of this, lest they are unaware.
More to the point, isn't concluding that I have a "twisted agenda of hate", both an over-simplification and and outright falsehood (certainly, you've asserted it without providing any evidence this is the case). Even if you do not believe the latter, the former still stands. Rather ironic, don't you think?
Also, what exactly have I over-analysed? I simply pointed out some extremely obvious flaws in your premises. It's a basic debating technique employed by those of us who enjoy intellectual rigour in our arguments.
What kind of poster would I be if I did not correct you on these basic errors. After all, how are you to construct a cogent argument if it's based on flawed assumptions?
Simply asserting something is the case, then relying on that to mount an argument is no good if those basic assumptions can be torn to shreds by someone with even a modicum of intelligence. It's not a good way to go about persuading your audience that you are correct.
See? I'm doing you a big favor here. As usual I'm helping you to become better at doing what you do, even if I think you're wrong. Ain't I nice! :)
I AM A NIGGER
ReplyDeleteTOM RE-ENABLE ANONYMOUS POSTING OR WE WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO RESUME WITH OPERATION DRUM ROLL
ReplyDeletePS YOU'RE A NIGGERFAGGOT JEWLOVING COCKMONGLER
LOVE, ADAM WESTWOOD
NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER
ReplyDeletetom re-open anonymous posting please
ReplyDelete"I don't recall Tommy Davis making death threats."
ReplyDelete~Tom Newton
"I will kill you"
~Tommy Davis
OH REALLY TOM NEWTON? WHAT ABOUT THAT?
^I'm going to show up at the next Anonymous protest armed with a large wooden club. I will use it to beat down anyone in a mask.
ReplyDeleteI won't kill anyone, but ALL of you who try to videotape me will be beaten and your cameras confiscated and smashed.
Tell your comrades I'm ready to FIGHT.
TOM NEWTON