Comments:Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" holds anti-Scientology protests worldwide

Uncategorised comments
I love the church of scientology saying anonymous has proclaimed the communist manifesto and mein kampf as their guiding tenets... Does this make sense at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.35.177 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah. we got signs. we're taking this religion DOWN! stand down, scientology, stand down! we got SIGNS!!!

... this is so much fail


 * I imagine the point is more that the church didn't make any money today, and to get the ad press about the church into the press. Well, I should pay more attention to these things, it's have been cute to report on the one here.  Nyarlathotep 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm an atheist who is against organized religion, but come on. Scientology is such a minor "religion" that has relatively no power. Why does anyone care?! - Ian Lee 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachary (talk • contribs)


 * It's not the religion per se, it's the actions of the organization. It's the difference between protesting Catholicism and protesting the Inquisition. --DeltaDesu 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I lol'd when I saw that there were literally over 9000 protesters. - JustinSxE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.165.223 (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To Ian Lee
The spam filter prevents a direct link, but look up www dot whyaretheydead dot net and theunfunnytruth dot ytmnd dot com

Scientology is a dangerous cult. It acts to silence any kind of criticism. Their stance on psychiatry is a cause for concern alone. Look up Operation Freakout, and Operation Snow white.

Also, about the raids - Bloody marvelous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.139.100 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews doesn't have a spam filter. All spam is deleted by me and fellow admins manually. --TUFKAAP 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

EPIC WIN
EPIC WIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.196.251 (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If they can do this with Scientology, why can't they organize such an effort against our current dictator, err, I mean president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.38.199 (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because standing up against a group that silences critics, blackmails those who try to leave, and spends all of its money suing the rest of us is, quite frankly, something that transcends party lines. --Jigsaw (Talk) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because, Simpsons did it. --134.241.103.157 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WHY would we do this against the president. You see, you are full of ideas that are outragious and stupid. Anonymous is doing things on an actual set schedule and in scale. The president cannot be taken down, its impossible and foolish to think it is possible. However, scientology is a much different story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.234.106 (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

DAMN IT
I would've gone to the Sydney one and film it myself, but I couldn't :( 124.188.168.143 04:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The protests were focussed on the various human rights violations perpetrated by the Church itself, most notably represented by the death of Lisa McPherson. It wasn't about how much temporal power they have when compared to other religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.149.140 (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

London participant report
From musician Scott Lamb of DeathBoy: http://deathboy.livejournal.com/1082404.html

London appears to have been THE biggest anti-Scientology demonstration, anywhere, ever - David Gerard 11:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The futility of the current path of 'Anonymous' - atleast in Australia
The recent movement to attempt to sway public opinion against Scientology in order to get our MPs to legislate to remove the Church of Scientology's tax exempt status, while honourable is misguided. The High Court of Australia has already recognised the status of the CoS as a religious organisation and unless there has been a radical change in the views of the current members of the High Court it is unlikely it will overrule its previous decision on the status of the Church. The two criteria of its religious status that can be attacked (from the Australian Taxation Office website) 1.	acceptance of canons of conduct that give effect to that belief, but that do not offend against the ordinary laws. 2.	its objects and activities reflect its character as a body instituted for the promotion of some religious object You may think that the actions of the CoS are objectionable, however, how much of this has occurred in Australia and as a result of the Australian Scientologists? It'd be viewed similarly to condemning the Islamic community in Australia to endless ridicule if an extremist sect or any Islamic person in the world committed a terrorist act and would only serve to sway public opinion in favour of the CoS. Additionally, their views usually do not contravene with Australian law, and their Fair Game (and related) doctrine suggests they keep within the letter of the law. So, unless the Church decides to foolishly violate laws unrelated to the financial side of their operations, this point won't work.

However, if it could be proven that the upper echelons of the Church use church funds for their own personal use then their tax exempt status could be successfully challenged, regardless of their religious status. Unfortunately, it is not likely the general public would be able to obtain this information. The only solution is to motivate our legislators to set law enforcement upon the Church but this still requires a shred of evidence to initiate an official investigation. For the time being, it is much better to advocate general dissent against the Church and encourage those with access to Church documents to release the documents as opposed to trying to lobby to have their tax exempt status removed directly. - Gregroree Doudin Peck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.160.28.45 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, now go protest the American occupation of Iraq
I'm sure Scientology has wrecked a lot of lives, but so has the U.S. government. -161.88.255.240 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bush hasnt pissed of a group capable of dealing with him, also these protesters haven't achieved anything yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.171.94 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said above, this thing transcends party lines. The only people who WOULDN'T stand up against Scientology are other Scientologists, and that's because they're too scared to. --Jigsaw (Talk) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

CoS ruins the lives of people closer to home. I'd imagine many people protesting had relatives robbed by CoS. There are two types of protesters, those that will protest for any good cause, and those where only one or two turn their crank. Saying "my cause is better than yours" won't move people from this 2nd group. Also you already had the first group. Anyway, people seriously concerned about the Iraq war need to focus on the American election, just ignore the lame duck now. Nyarlathotep 10:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Blogs
Here is a nice blog post about Anonymous (via). Nyarlathotep 10:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To quote Shin-goji:

"It happened. You can deny it all you want, but a great moment in human history occurred. I'm impressed that such a huge event could take place all over the world, and peacefully." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.216.115.2 (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My video
Opinions? Thoughts? Improvments? Suckitiude? Tell me. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Christians
This whole thing is somewhere between a grassroots movement and astroturf.90.134.86.192 23:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Great article!"
Great article! &mdash;130.101.90.55 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "$cientology is evil"
$cientology is evil &mdash;71.40.88.6 (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)