Do you remember the video of Tom Cruise (since hosted by Gawker here) that was removed from YouTube? The one that prompted global protests against Scientology?

A key point to remember here, the salient point, is that the removal of a newsworthy video sparked protest.

Well. The same thing has just happened to Mark Bunker of XenuTV fame (the guy that released the Jason Beghe video):

Mark Bunker’s statement.

I didn’t photograph the last anonymous protests in London because I had bad guts and third demonstrations are less interesting than first and second demonstrations. People are usually bored by the third demonstration (see second London demonstration pics by me here).

Removing Mark Bunker’s videos is an almost guaranteed way to reinvigorate the protests and bring in even more protestors.

Heck, even I feel like protesting (rather than just taking pictures) and I don’t even feel that strongly about Scientology. As for YouTube: This is yet another example of how they’ll cave in at the first opportunity rather than give their users the respect they deserve.

Web 2.0 is about making money from the talent of your users and showing them little or no respect over profits.

If this sort of thing is tolerated it could happen to you next. Send Mark Bunker’s video, as linked above, to people. They should know.

I think Scientology is a religion.  In terms of what is a religion and what isn’t a religion, I can’t distinguish one set of nonsense from another. I’d define a religion as any collective belief system that involves a supernatural belief in the spirit.  Scientology may charge huge sums of money.  But there’s people that believe in it.  The money they charge doesn’t invalidate it as a belief system.  Imagine taking the potential earnings of Jesuit monks. There’s some very clever Jesuits.  Scientology is no more stupid than any other religion.  But it still deserves criticism.

The ways ‘they’ (I’ll get back to they) have pursued people with litigation, and their attitude towards critics have not given Scientology a good track record.  I say ‘they’ because, I imagine, your average Scientologist has as much to do with litigation, smear campaigns and the like, as your average Catholic has to do with sodomising choir boys, or your average Muslim has to do with suicide bombing.  I.e. Nothing at all.  It is unrealistic to think of Scientology as an homogeneous organisation.  It no doubt it has its sects and its bad apples.

With regards of ‘fair-game’: I would not like to clash with certain sects from any religion.  If anyone takes their religious book seriously, you’re in a fuck load of trouble if you cross them. One thinks of the Amalekites, or extreme Islamic sects that regard outsiders as Kafir, or interpretations of the Bible in the Middle Ages, or the way Christians regarded Jews.  Many of those things are in the past for mainstream religions.  But, like Scientology,  mainstream faiths should not be thought of as homogeneous organisations.  There are sects and individuals from widely recognised religions that have views that are utterly vile.  Mel Gibson’s father is a good example of Catholicism gone wrong.

So, are people right to protest Scientology?  Absolutely. The record of litigation against opponents of Scientology is something they should be ashamed of.  In purely practical, amoral terms, it doesn’t seem to have worked.  If anything it has made the situation worse.  And the money they charge is a valid thing to criticise.  Their attitude towards the media, specifically removing clips of Tom Cruise, was anti-free speech, and should be criticised.  Abuse of things like the DMCA and asymmetrical litigation through attrition are problems of our age.  People with loads of money, suing people with little money, until they give up.

The bad things that have happened within Scientology are an emotionally charged issue.  I cannot rationally say that any of the things that have happened within Scientology (notably the Lisa McPherson case) are any better or worse than things that have happened within mainstream religions.  Even limiting the scope of inquiry to the Twentieth Century.  In mainstream religions there have been deaths, suicides, exorcisms, child abuse, extremism, racism, financial irregularities and more. 

So lets not, for a second, think that mainstream religions are any better. But two wrongs do not make a right.  The behaviour of other religions doesn’t justify the things Scientology stands accused of.

Fundamentally speaking, I’m a wimp.  I can’t bring myself to be anti-religious - people have a right to make up their own mind.  My belief is that all religion is wrong.  That’s my choice.  Other people have theirs.  It’s not my place to be evangelical about my beliefs or to tell others what they can and can’t believe.  The thing that pisses me off about religion is when it steps outside of its domain.  Interfering with politics, science, and law. That is as bad as atheists expecting a say in theology or giving advice on the ’spirit’ (whatever the fuck that is). 

I don’t think anonymous is anti-religious either. 

People have as much right to criticise religion as religion has to criticise atheism.  Free speech is the way it should be.  I think we live in a better world if there is critical dialogue between people who disagree.

The best thing that Scientology can do in response to anonymous is to prove everyone wrong by not attacking well meaning people in masks.  If they attack ‘anonymous’ they are proving all of their critics right. Scientologists have a right to practice their faith and people have a right to peacefully protest.

I am going to take pictures and to lurk.  In real life anonymous is new shit and therefore interesting. If anyone wants to meet up, or is going, or wants to go, drop me an email.   I’ll be lurking around all day. 

Links:

London Lulz.