Those silly guys at GetReligion.org are either overstating the current trend against Scientology, or else they’re projecting their fears as usual.
Scientology attack news reaches MSM – GetReligion
They’re plenty worried when any religion is “attacked” by protesters. Even if the “attacks” are nothing more than “protesting”:
News of a growing, sometimes militant, movement targeting Scientology has been brewing in tech publications for a number of weeks now, and mainstream press is finally stepping up to the plate to cover this rather significant situation. In a lenghy[sic] story Monday, The Los Angeles Times covers a couple of months worth of Internet and street protests against Scientology.
Worse still, they seem to be misunderestimating Scientology’s general nature:
If this were merely a group of hackers interested in causing an organization problems there would not be a story. But Scientology has become “defensive” and is therefore changing the nature of its behavior.
Scientology hasn’t just now become defensive. They’ve always been this way. They use lawyers like holy warriors; they copyright their own religious texts to prevent other people from critically commenting on them; and as GetReligion cites in their own article, they try to prevent used e-meters from being sold on eBay. This isn’t something that’s just started happening.
Scientology has a rich history of harassment, intimidation, spying, and destroying its critics. This was official doctrine, and it was called “Fair Game” until they realized it was bad PR to call it that.
They’re also a little like the boy who called wolf when it comes to bomb threats. Who’s to say that any of the latest ones are real? These are the people who said the BBC made “terrorist death threats” on them.
And then comes the classic X-tian fear mongering. You know the “oh, we’re all being persecuted, even though we comprise 79.8% of the U.S. population“. For some reason GetReligion projects this fear on to all religions, as if the protesters are somehow going to bring about the end of Scientology, before moving on to the Baptists, or something:
Someone needs to ask the question of whether this form of Internet-vigilantism is what’s best for society and for religions in general. Should a religion or group on the unpopular end of an event be subject to treatment on the Internet (and in real life) that crosses the boundary of decency and law?
The other big question is who is next?
No one is “next”. Quit being so insecure. It’s not like it’s the Atheists are invading your homes and stealing your bibles.