Most of the relidgions have ancient roots written on pyramids etc etc etc. they have thought and bleed for cause of believe. Now a cult is crackpot story made believe to crackpots. If you think about it this is the biggest pile of crap ever DC-8 shaped planes in space? why that shape? there is no reason for wings in space these people are absolutly insane. you cannot dispprove other relidgion nor can you disprove them not being charitable. Scientology is no relidgion it is a scam and i believe this Anonymous group is going to start 2008 on the right track why does it take a group of self proclaimed misfits to make us see what we should have done a long time ago.
Scientology should be destroyed. GO ANONYMOUS!

Goodness ungodly, you claim to have millions in your legions in order to discredit those who have left the CoS as being a small percentage of unsatisfied customers. Do you have any non-CoS sources to backup your claims on this?
Also, you repeatedly tell of the good things the church has done (in all your posts online). To me those seem like PR stunts that you guys can fall back on in case of an event like this where the church’s morals are called into question. “Hey guys, don’t look at our misdeeds, look at ‘all’ the good things we do!”
Did it ever occur to you that CoS could do a LOT more good things to brag about if it wasn’t wasting all it’s hard conned money on lawsuits to silence the critics???
From what I see, anons don’t fancy themselves as anything but a bunch of people who would like the CoS to be thoroughly investigated to the satisfaction of all those concerned that you really are as harmless and “benevolent” as you claim to be.
An organization with nothing to hide would have no problem at all answering the questions WE want answered instead of just what the CoS wants us to know.
Oh, and in the future, could you please back up all of your claims with NON CoS related sources? It would really help your arguments. Believe me, there are many of us who would really like to believe you. Please help us out with that.

Glad to give you a show Simon. It would appear as the accusations (and some them do appear to be cheap shots, or childish antagonism, at most) mount againt Scientology, the defensive responces by its members appear to further inhibit the organization’s claim to legitimacy. Perhaps, the Scietologists tact should be to remain silent. What’s worse for them is now is that people are curious.
“Rot is rot as rot will always be rot and cannot be called anything other that rot.”
Can’t draw an inference? Something stinks!

If there is one thing clear here, it is that Simon doesn’t know what Scientology is at all, nor the truth behind many of his statements. He has probably never been to a Scientology Church nor ever read a Scientology book.

It’s funny that living in America, a Scientologist has to deal with such bigotry in today’s age. Some try to make Scientology look bad or weird, yet these same people have no real knowledge of what Scientology is.

One may recall that in the early years of other religions, such as Christianity, they too were considered a cult, evil, were picked on, etc. But now, time has proven different. And it isn’t that Christianity doesn’t have beliefs that defy the physical sciences either.

So then why does Scientology have to receive such treatment? Perhaps people just don’t know what Scientology really is, its beliefs, it work and its activities and how it helps others, thus instead just listen to rumors.

Hopefully Simon would research his facts a little better next time. Find out for yourself, don’t just listen to rumors.

Since Simon Barrett is too lazy to read a book by Hubbard, or to find out what Scientology is he resorts to the same old boring drivel. It never ceases to surprise me that people read this garbage and give it any credit at all. Loser.

PEOPLE IN MY CITY HAVE GIVEN UP SCIENTOLOGY THEY HAVE SHOULD STACKS OF CRAP AT THE PAWN SHOPS INCLUDING 5 E-METERS!!!!! AND TONS OF PAPERS WE’RE BUYING IT THEY SAY NEVER HAD ANY IDEA HOW MUCH MONEY THEY WERE WAISTING TILL NOW INSTEAD THEY JUST GO WALKING OR GYMING HANGING.

ANONYMOUS EPIC WINS!!!!!!!!

http://www.Scientology-lies.com/whatswrong.html

Why do people protest Scientology?
Scientology locks people up.

There are over two dozen allegations that Scientology has held individuals against their will.These illegal acts were not committed by rogue Scientologists - they were in accordance with Scientology policy.

Scientology held Lisa McPherson against her will for 17 days, according to Scientology’s own logs. She died in their custody. The state of Florida decided not to prosecute the two felony charges filed against Scientology in her death after Scientology used relentless pressure to get the medical examiner to make a partial change in the cause of death. Her estate sued Scientology for wrongful death and false imprisonment; the suit was settled in May 2004, with all details kept confidential..

Scientology lies.

Lying to people to get their money isn’t just unethical -it’s illegal. It’s called fraud.

Scientology claims there is a scientific basis for all their processes. There isn’t. Scientology claims it’s compatible with other belief systems, like Christianity. It’s not. Scientology claims to be the fastest-growing religion in the world, with 8 million members, utilizing infallible technology developed by a physicist and war hero. They’re lying.

Scientology is breaking the law.

In addition to false imprisonment and fraud, Scientology engages in the illegal practice of medicine by prescribing auditing and vitamins to replace legally-prescribed medical treatment.

Scientology also extorts money from its members, telling them it’s scientifically proven that their lives will become worse if they don’t pay for expensive auditing.

Scientology has a long, well-documented history of criminal activities.

High-ranking Scientology executives were convicted of extremely serious crimes in the United States for breaking into government offices and stealing documents. Founder L. Ron Hubbard was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in that case, and the defendants stated in their stipulation of evidence that, at all times, he acted as supervisor of the illegal activities.

Scientology itself was convicted of similar crimes in Canada. When Scientology then tried to destroy the reputation of the prosecutor in the case, they were hit with the biggest libel fine in Canadian history.

L. Ron Hubbard was convicted of fraud in France.

Scientology attacks free speech.

Scientology says that “public statements against Scientology or Scientologists,” “writing anti-Scientology letters to the press,” and “testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public” are all “Suppressive Acts” - high crimes, according to ” Introduction to Scientology Ethics.” The book goes on to say that people who do such things “cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings.”

In accordance with this policy (and others like it), Scientology has tried to silence all criticism:

Scientology framed journalist Paulette Cooper for sending bomb threats after she wrote The Scandal of Scientology.

Scientology sued book and magazine publishers - including Time magazine - in an attempt to prevent any future criticism by scaring publishers with the prospect of enormous court costs.

Scientology sued critics for copyright infringement, even though the copyrights to some of the documents in question may have been lost to the public domain years ago.

Scientology tried to unilaterally shut down the alt.religion.sciento
logy newsgroup - unintentionally bringing Scientology to the attention of hundreds of free-speech advocates.

Scientology imposes gag orders in settlement agreements, preventing those who have suffered most from telling the world what they know.

Scientology routinely threatens legal action against critics, alleging copyright infringement, trademark dilution, and dissemination of trade secrets - often in situations in which its allegations are baseless.

Scientology hurts people.

Scientology routinely pressures members into spending more money than they can afford on expensive courses.

Scientology’s disconnection policy destroys families.

Scientology betrays the trust of well-intentioned people by falsely claiming to have a scientifically-proven technology to save the world. Scientology ruthlessly attacks its critics with everything from frame-ups to unannounced visits to the homes of family members to libellous fliers distributed to their neighbors and business associates.

And sometimes, Scientologists die under suspicious circumstances. They even target their own kind.

Buddhism, Mormonism, Islamic, Judiasm, Christianity, etc., have not required bloodshed or money for Centuries. To have such draconian administration is simply morally not right today by any standard of good you want to pluck from.

“Sure, there are some detractors that tell fantasy stories about being kept from their loved ones etc, but how much truth do you place in their statements? If you have a million people, parishoners and staff, and they all say they find it helpful and then you have a band of 100 people that tell horror stories which group are you to believe?”

Hey, let’s do a little thought experiment.

Suppose I am a paranoid dictator called, oh, I don’t know, Don L. Bubbard. By lying about my background, claiming to be a war hero and an agent for Naval Intelligence and a nuclear physicist (one of America’s first, even) I manage to attract a large group of followers who believe all the hooey I am spouting about how they can cure every problem they have by my revolutionary techniques of “odorizing” as long as they work hard enough and follow my directions precisely — and aren’t vicious agents of the international conspiracy out to destroy me, destroy me, don’t you understand that I’m the most important person in history, and the forces of evil are always out to get me??

So, what happens with my followers who try my techniques of “odorizing”?

Some of them will get better because of factors that have nothing to do with me. Large numbers of them will try to “odorize” away colds, for instance, and sure enough, a few days later, the cold will be gone. They’ll be delighted and amazed and they’ll crow about how miraculously the “odorizing” got rid of their cold in just a few days and forget all about how, before they tried “odorizing”, most of their colds went away on their own in the same amount of time.

Some of them will get better because their ills were primarily subjective in the first place. For instance, the guy who came in because the “personality test” we use as a recruitment device told him that he was lacking in ability to communicate with others. From that point on, he was over-noticing anything that happened to him that seemed to demonstrate his “lack of ability to communicate” — for instance, when he tried to leave the Bubbardology Center where we gave him the personality test without buying anything, or signing up for anything, and no one seemed to understand that, he thought “I must be inadequately communicating my desire to leave” instead of “I am communicating clearly my desire to leave and these people are refusing to respect that.” After taking a course that supposedly increases his ability to communicate, the course instructor says “Hooray! Stanley has had a real win in able-izing his abilityness to communicate! Come on, class — cheer for Stanley and his newfound ability to communicate! Hey, Stanley, you want to sign up for more courses, don’t you?” Since everyone around him is cheering for him and telling him that they really notice his newfound ability to communicate, Stanley is over-noticing everything that fits in with the theory that he has a newfound ability to communicate. He proudly says “Yes! I want to sign up for more courses!” and the course instructor says “I acknowledge your signy-uppy-ness!” and Stanley gets a rush, because he thinks it’s proof that he can now communicate better. He does not stop to think that if he said “no, I want to leave without signing up for anything or buying anything,” he might get the exact same resistance he encountered before.

Some people get better because, quite frankly, they’re in denial. The guy who claims “I’m so much better with women now! Thanks, Don L. Bubbard!” and never notices that women still think he’s an ignorant boor. The guy who claims that “odorizing” cured his sinusitis and takes no notice of how much he’s still sniffling and coughing. The guy who thinks that because he did the right kind of “odorizing” it made him sober in a matter of minutes, just as Don L. Bubbard told him he would be, and now he’s safe to get behind the wheel.

Some of them will get better thanks to things that I’m taking credit for under false pretenses. For instance, I was a great fan of General Semantics, which was very popular in my day, and I took many of the ideas of General Semantics and presented them as my own inventions. So some of my followers will doubtless say “you know, that was a brilliant insight that Bubbard had, that my mother as she is today isn’t really the same mother I had as when I was little, and understanding that really helped me feel better. If Bubbard came up with something that brilliant, then probably everything else he wrote was equally brilliant!” They might decide differently if they knew that my “insight” was reading that observation in a General Semantics book and deciding “hey, this is great — let me republish it under my own name falsely claiming it to be my brainchild!”

Some of them don’t get better, of course.

Some of them fail to get better, and they decide it’s because they didn’t work hard enough. Or, more often, it’s someone higher up in the organization I designed who decides for them that they haven’t worked hard enough. “If you only worked hard enough, you’d have success,” they’re told. “We know this because Don L. Bubbard knows everything and his methods can never fail when correctly applied. We know this because he told us and he knows everything.” If the poor saps don’t spot this wholly circular logic they feel guilty and blame themselves for their lack of success. It must be possible for them to get that success, they think — after all, didn’t Dennis testify how much of a success he’d become with women? And didn’t John tell everyone, in between sneezes, how one session of odorizing had cured his sinusitis?

Some of them fail to get better, and the blame is placed on the presumption that they didn’t follow my instructions precisely. If being placed in the “odorizing trance” was supposed to give you perfect recall of things you’ve forgotten, and you thought you remembered something happening a particular way only to discover undeniable proof later that it didn’t happen that way — does that mean that the “odorizing trance” doesn’t give you perfect recall? Of course not! It must give perfect recall! I, Don L. Bubbard, one of America’s first nuclear physicists, did lots of Really Scientific Stuff that determined that “odorizing trance” will work perfectly 100% of the time if done correctly! (Of course, anyone who understands science knows that I can’t make such a claim since I haven’t been present at 100% of all odorizing trances, but then again, very few people who actually understand science fall for Bubbardology.) It must be, since we are certainly not going to let the word of Bubbard be questioned, it must be because the person who put you in the odorizing trance did it the wrong way. Or, if they are higher up in the organization that I invented, it will be you who went into the odorizing trance the wrong way.

Some of them fail to get better, and they correctly start to suspect that this is because “odorizing”, and everything else in Bubbardology which I didn’t steal from elsewhere, is just crap that I made up with the same wild imagination I used to invent phony exploits of wartime heroism, tall tales of my adventurous Western childhood, cock-and-bull nonsense about my experiences in the mystic East. If they make the mistake of saying it around another Bubbardologist, however — they’re in for a whole lot of trouble. You see, I tell all Bubbardologists that it’s a “crime” to doubt me — it’s a crime that marks you as a “Repressive Person”, and “Repressive People” are who I blame for all the evil in the world. If you want to do your part to rid the world of evil, I tell Bubbardologists, you have to avoid “crimes” such as ever expressing dissatisfaction with the results you get from Bubbardology, and you have to file “Know-It-All Reports” ratting out anyone who expresses such dissatisfaction.

So some people fail to get better, but are so (rightfully) scared of what will be done to them that they cover it up, hide their doubts, and dutifully chant all the right words about how happy and successful Bubbardology made them.

So after all the above groups of people are eliminated — the remainder are those who have first-hand knowledge of Bubbardology, and whose first-hand knowledge tells them — it doesn’t work, and all the sacrifices which are made so that the “good” Bubbardology does can continue — all the labor performed for the Church of Bubbardology at less than minimum wage, all the families separated, all the scandals hushed up because the wrongdoer was a Bubbardologist, all the illegal dirty tricks played on “enemies” of Bubbardology — all those sacrifices are for nothing, or worse, for the benefit of greedy and corrupt individuals at the top of the chain, the kind whose credo is “Make money. Make more money. Make others produce so as to make money.” Such people are slandered by the greedy and corrupt at the top — they are accused of being vicious agents of the international conspiracy out to destroy Bubbard’s works.

So, in our thought experiment, we have a number of individuals who swear up and down (sometimes with a note of panic in their voice, and a quick look over their shoulder to see if anyone’s writing them up) that Bubbardology works, oh yes, sir, definitely, achoo boy I’m glad that is definitely not my sinusitis which is entirely gone thanks to Bubbard — and we have a group which says “No. No, Bubbardology takes a lot from you — demands it, sometimes extorts it — but it doesn’t give you anything that was promised that you couldn’t get elsewhere cheaper.”

The second group might be smaller in number. But they’re the ones telling the truth. Why should we place less truth in the statements of that group? Why should anyone dismiss their first-hand accounts as “fantasy stories” just because people in the other group claim “well, it hasn’t happened to me yet”? And, returning from our thought experiment to the specific case of Scientology, why would I believe some anonymous nob on a message board who assures me that disconnection is a “fantasy story” over Jenna Miscavige Hill, niece of David Miscavige himself, who says that once her parents left the Church of Scientology she was no longer allowed to answer the phone herself in case it was her parents calling, and was only allowed to visit them once a year for half a week at a time?

Why is it that die-hard Scientologists will insist that, if you’re criticizing the Church of Scientology, you “[don’t] know what Scientology is at all … [have] probably never been to a Scientology Church nor ever read a Scientology book”, in short, can’t know what you’re talking about because you are guessed not to have first-hand experience — but if someone who has been immersed far deeper into Scientology than they says “Yes, the Church of Scientology is doing rotten things” then those same die-hards will then discount that person’s first-hand experience and call it “fantasy stories”. Is that the sign of the super-intelligent logical thinking Scientology is supposed to make you capable of? That you can apply a double standard?