Monday, February 25, 2008
UPDATE: Since my initial post on this topic, communication has been re-established between myself and the person that was ultimately being discussed here. I wish to make clear any mistakes on my part and to apologize for any hurt I may have caused. Certainly no ill will was meant on my part and I do not seek to upset anyone.
The main mistake perpetrated by me is a doozy and one that we should all be careful of in our lives. Namely, basing our entire opinion of a person or situation on a brief meeting. As they say, first impressions are the most important, and to a large degree that is true. However, many factors can influence the words and actions of a person, especially on initial meetings.
For this reason we should not be too quick to judge others, as first impressions are just that; impressions. Having had further contact with the person in question, I apologetically rescind anything I may have said below that could have been taken personally. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that the impression I walked away with was not an accurate picture of whom I was dealing with. Again, my intent was not to offend, merely to impart a thought process based on information as I had processed it at the time.
All of the previous being said, I will leave the post below more or less intact, though with one or two minor changes. Although the impression I was basing my opinions on may have been incorrect, the thoughts themselves are still valid, though just not applicable to the person in question. Please recognize that these concerns are broad and not limited to the actions of Anonymous or any other specific group. Though this may have been written with specifics in mind, it rings as true for any other organization.
I have to admit I was a bit shocked at meeting Anonymous. Not so much shocked at the presence of Anonymous, as I had seen from the reports on the net that they truly were everywhere. What I found shocking was that I knew so much more about the topic than he did. Now, I agree with his cause. I'm down with exposing Scientology. Their litigious behavior has been well demonstrated to the American public and it goes without question that they hide behind their barrier of "religious tolerance" and attack any who point out their flaws.
I'm an agnostic. I would say I lean more towards full blown atheism. I find being an ardent atheist is every bit as arrogant as being a born again. We don't know the answers. We likely will NEVER know the answers. As such, it feels pretty ignorant to me to decry that there is absolutely no way that a god can exist, as we don't really know all the rules to the game. I have not seen a proof of god nor do I dare to reckon that I even know what "god" is, if it were to exist. All of us are limited by our senses and can experience reality only so much as we are able to perceive it. The reality of a creature that sees outside our wavelengths or hears frequencies that we cannot or that can smell all of the ingredients of a mixture instead of the cumulative odor is so different as to be alien to us. If our experience cannot even extend past that, then I would state that it is arrogant to believe that it is impossible for something greater than yourself to exist. Is it out there? Could be. I may never know, but if I were to see something to make me believe otherwise, well, let's just say my eyes are always open.
Back to the larger topic, though. My problem lies not with the feelings of security that religion can bring. We all need our own answers. The issue is how faith can be used against people. I'm no big fan of organized religion, I find it to be nothing but pageantry and ritual designed to keep you in line with the Brothers Grimm version of history that they choose to present. But do I think less of someone for wanting that, in order to make existence just make more sense? Nope. Can't say I begrudge them.
But with any of the major religions on Earth, you can walk into one of their designated houses of worship and someone will be there to help educate, instruct and indoctrinate into their mode of thinking. Once they've got you hooked, that's when they'll ask for the donations. But at least they're not compulsory.
The issue I have with the Scientologists is that their teachings are not provided free of charge. In order to begin following their religion, heaps of money have to be put forward for books, tapes, cd's, dvd's, etc. It is designed to keep you indebted to them, even sometimes to the point of working at their centers to pay for your "education". The net result of education is being sucked further and further into their organization until you are so helplessly entwined that your mind is more or less controlled. They will convince you to break off contact with your family, should your family be considered outsiders. They will lead you to believe that doctors are unnecessary for certain ailments (particularly mental).
They have had years of accusations thrown at them and they persist in trying to destroy any who dare criticize the words of LRH. To have faith in something greater than ourselves is fine. When enlightenment cannot be found without debt a serious problem is at hand. This disregards all the weird cultish behaviors exhibited by the "church".
So to stand here with a man that is protesting a system of belief yet who seems to be lacking the basic details of what he's protesting is shocking. If you don't understand what you're protesting, how can you really be protesting? His anger is directed at a series of buzzwords and printouts that conveniently tell him what has upset him.
This is the same behavior you can see in any forum. This is indicative of the modern culture. In the 21st century, everybody is an expert in every field and feels that everything is expressed as absolutes. You're with us or you're against us. Libtards. Republicunts. Everywhere you go on the net there's another series of smug, self satisfied arguments about how stupid the left is while the left calls the right "sheeple". It's the schoolyard banter of uneducated little boys playing (not nicely) with their toys.
Everybody picks a side and just spews the same banter back and forth. Every side has its own set of complaints and insults. By this token, this man could have been protesting anything and it wouldn't have mattered. Without any understanding of the argument aside from a handful of sound bites, anybody can be led to argue, complain or protest against anything.
Seeing this made me worry a bit for the Anonymous movement in general. In order to succeed in any endeavor of this size, they need to win the hearts and minds of those they are trying to convince. There is little doubt in my mind that a great deal of Anonymous has a at least a general if not a profound understanding of the people they're dealing with.
It concerns me, however, that the visible front line force could be someone who professed to me of only having heard of this whole ordeal three weeks ago on the Something Awful forums. Really? Some guy on a forum says, "Scientology is bad" so you rush out and get leaflets to hand to the populous telling THEM to stop following herd mentality and just doing what they're told?!?! Pot...Kettle...
Since Saturday I've just had these visions in my head of myself standing outside a church handing out leaflets saying that Christianity is evil and should be abolished. And out of nowhere a rather vocal member comes up to me, berating me and rightly upset that I am insulting his belief system. And my only reply is, "Wait. Hold up. Who the fuck is this Jesus guy you're talking about?"
I'm not saying the efforts of Anonymous are in vain. I support what they're doing. I even told the guy, "You're doing god's work". Should Scientology be stopped altogether? I don't think that's necessary. But take away their power. Make them understand that faith is not purchased. It has no price.
You can't buy your ticket to Hell. You have to earn it.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment