Reply to comment

Quite often in these little online chats one will read the defenders of Scientology say, repeatedly and with great predictability, that...

1. "Anonymous" is mostly composed of young people, hackers, child porn lovers and religious bigots.
2. The claims of foul play committed by the Church of Scientology are "old news".
And
3.Attacking critics through the courts and with physical intimidation is something "we don't do any more."

I would first ask why it had ever BEEN necessary for a Church to harass and intimidate critics, but we'll leave that aside for now.

In the first place this characterization of what Anonymous is composed of is not accurate, but - to be honest - it is a great advantage to Anonymous that the Church has this consideration. If it is the party line it belies the presence of law enforcement professionals, writers, artists, and concerned parents in the "ranks". If it is actually what Scientology believes, the underestimation can only be an advantage, so we can shrug at that one.

The idea that the infiltration of government offices, theft of government documents, felony charges successfully prosecuted on high ranking Church officials, bribery and unlawful imprisonment are "old news" brings us back to the question of "why was this necessary activity for a Church in the first place?" But, moreso, it is not true that this activity no longer occurs. One poster has asked for documents, and I would humbly present this rather lengthy collection of Scientology's activities TO THE PRESENT DAY...
http://forums.enturbulation.org/73-cold-hard-facts/fact-sheet-documented...

But, finally, if the intimidation of critics "isn't done anymore" why has the law firm of Latham and Watkins sent hand-delivered letters to the parents of young people whom the Church's payrolled private investigators have identified from MySpace accounts and other means (which have no legal force and that have been turned over to both the local Bar Associations as well as the ACLU); why are protesters followed; why are private investigators parked in front of identified people's houses; and why have the two cases Scientology so far pursued in an effort to silence current critics been thrown out by the courts as having no basis whatsoever?

I would humbly request all neutral readers to take a look at the date we've collected and judge for themselves.

And, if the argument is used that I have no idea what Scientology is about in my direction, please understand that I am an ex-Scientologist the Church is still trying to win back by mail and phone.

Eyes wide open.