Scientology is awful! Why not help Anonymous in their current mission to dissolve the church?

It's a matter of mutually exclusive goals and perspectives. My problem with the 'church' of Scientology is an ethical one; Scientology is not a religion of any sort, it's an organized criminal syndicate intent of accumulating vast sums of wealth & power through the subversion of freedom of speech via information control & intelligence gathering. Anonymous's problem with Scientology is that it's a competitive body.

How dare you say that! The only thing most of the protestors at Anonymous rallies want is to protect freedom of speech!

And the only thing most members of the church of Scientology want is to rid the world of pain and achieve a utopian state. In both cases, the motives and desires of the flock are irrelevant, as it is the aims of the core membership/leadership that will direct their behavior.

And, no - the motives of those behind the 'chanology' movement is not to protect your freedom of speech.

What do you know about Project Chanology, anyway?

4chan - the parent body of Anonymous - is, and always has been, a miscreant criminal organization empowered by the contemporary ease of access to information. The group has never had any obvious goal, aside from simply sewing misery wherever the opportunity is presented, and has largely excused their actions as 'social experimentation'. Since their inception, no interest was taken on the part of either 4chan or Anonymous in confronting religious bigotry - a fact that is somewhat at odds with the notion that the group is merely interested in the noble effort of liberating people from brainwashing.

It is not at all unreasonable to speculate that Anonymous has targeted Scientology strictly because they wish to prove themselves the stronger hand in the field of social control / manipulation. The two groups are hardly indistinguishable from one another, but the common threads shared where information gathering is used to intimidate critics and increase power / notoriety does not leave us with a 'lesser evil' one should support over the the other if the goal is the promote freedom of speech & free exchange of ideas.

Well, even if that's true, shouldn't we just work with Anonymous in the meantime, until Scientology is gone?

Personally, I think this perspective lacks any depth. It's the same rationalization I hear from some atheists regarding Christians and Muslims; since the religious right in the United States is as Hell-bent as anyone in their right mind should be at demolishing Islam, we should work alongside them as allies of convenience.

Unless you believe in exchanging one dictator for another, this is moronic.

If/when the goal is achieved, what then? Anonymous has eliminated it's competitor, and we're still left with a maligned organization whose intent it is to ultimately destroy free speech & information exchange. Moreover, they're likely to gain momentum and influence as the campaign against Scientology presses forward!

Scientology needs to be dealt with, swiftly and sharply. But it needs to be done without lending support to bodies who will only use such a triumph to cement themselves as the 'church's successor.

How do you justify--

Enough questions from you. I have a couple of my own I'd like answered:

Why the moniker 'Anonymous'?

This appears to be paying homage to the wonderment of Internet anonymity; that you can act as you please on the Internet, as you're perpetually wearing a mask the whole time. Here we see something rather ugly: a mocking of the virtue of transparency, and championing of deceit as an ideal. These are among the key attributes of information control, and that they are touted proudly before the 'sheeple' to praise seems to be consistent with the brazen arrogance of 4chan regulars.

Why wear Guy Fawkes masks?

I'm dubious that those as educated as most of Anonymous's core membership are ignorant of who Guy Fawkes was (the majority of protesters perhaps just think the V for Vendetta movie was cool, granted); a violent revolutionary who plotted to blow-up parliament with a few kegs of gunpowder because he was disdainful towards any form of governance (an anarchist. The irony here is that anarchy does not mean what even most 4channers think it means; it is not an 80s-esque 'eff the man' punk rock attitude, certainly).

If you're interested in preserving the institute of free speech, why do you wear the face of a man opposed to any institutes at all?

We can, swiftly and decisevely, cut-away the cancer that Scientology has become. We can do it without enlisting the aid of & empowering goons that are no better.

Please, do not support one group of criminals just because they share your dislike of another.