Berlin Bans Cruise, Scoffs at Scientology!

[Overman]

Linky (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL253889920070625?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true)

They probably would have stood to make some money off this movie as well, so very very very very good for them, and us!!!

Cruise, also one of the film's producers, is a member of the Church of Scientology which the German government does not recognize as a church. Berlin says it masquerades as a religion to make money, a charge Scientology leaders reject.

Defense Ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said the film makers "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult".

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm so torn about this story. I definitely like the banning of Tom Cruise, but at the same time, I despise the state's endorsing of "recognized" religions.

[HarryKeogh]

Forbidding someone from filming in Germany because they belong to a group they don't like. Is this report from the 1930s or 2007?

[Overman]

I'm so torn about this story. I definitely like the banning of Tom Cruise, but at the same time, I despise the state's endorsing of "recognized" religions.

I don't think that not recognizing something as a religion is the same as endorsing other religions.

[brodski]

Forbidding someone from filming in Germany because they belong to a group they don't like. Is this report from the 1930s or 2007?

No, forbidding someone from filming on government property (specifically military bases) because he is a member of an organization which defrauds and brainwashes people.

When the US government lets Alex Jones film in the pentagon, I'll criticize Germany for this.

[Miss Anthrope]

Forbidding someone from filming in Germany because they belong to a group they don't like. Is this report from the 1930s or 2007?

I'm with ya. While I despise Cruise and Scientology, I think this is a wee extreme.......

[HarryKeogh]

No, forbidding someone from filming on government property (specifically military bases) because he is a member of an organization which defrauds and brainwashes people.

When the US government lets Alex Jones film in the pentagon, I'll criticize Germany for this.

Your correction is noted and appreciated. He is being forbidden from filming at a millitary base and not all of Germany.

But since this is not a Scientology event I still think forbidding him from filming there is wrong. He is there in the capacity of a film producer and actor. I know he sets up Scientology booths at films he works on. It seems simple enough to forbid him from setting them up while on gov't property.

[MelBrooksfan]

But since this is not a Scientology event I still think forbidding him from filming there is wrong. He is there in the capacity of a film producer and actor. I know he sets up Scientology booths at films he works on. It seems simple enough to forbid him from setting them up while on gov't property.

But Cruise's films do become Scientology events. I'll need to dig it up, but I do recall reading that Scientology missionaries are kept on the set, dealings with Cruise required some sort of scientology tour, etc. Where Cruise goes, Scientology follows.


Edit: Not sure of what to google I found this: http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/celebrities/celebrities63.html

[clerihew80]

From Wikipedia:

One of the countries which take the strongest stance against the organization is Germany. The Church of Scientology has waged a far-reaching public relations campaign to convince the world that Scientologists are persecuted regularly in Germany. The Church of Scientology has taken out full-page ads in the New York Times accusing the German government of persecuting Scientologists in Europe; while they have made repeated requests to the United Nations to have resolutions passed condemning the discrimination against Scientologists in Germany. Germany, in turn, classifies the Church of Scientology as a dangerous practice and a "sect," and it has placed the organization under surveillance for alleged unconstitutional activities.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversy

Apparently, Scientology has become for Germany what Freemasonry was for the United States in the 19th century. It is accused of being a dangerous cult that is trying to take over the government and the economy. In 1994 German Minister of Labor Norbert Blum issued a decree preventing Scientologists from obtaining licenses to operate private employment agencies. In 1996 Bavaria barred anyone connected with Scientology from any government job. Tom Cruise's movies have been boycotted and Scientologist musicians like Chick Corea have been banned from playing in the country.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I'm with Miss A on this. While Scientology is the biggest crap I've ever heard of, there is such a thing as freedom of religion.

I have a very cool story. :D When War of the the Worlds came out, I managed to get tickets to the red carpet at the Ziegfeld Theater and got to see Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.

He and she were incredibly gracious and polite to all the fans there and spent the majority of their time on the red carpet making the autograph and picture rounds among the three blocks of people that had lined up outside the Ziegfeld.

He, Katie Holmes and their respective entourages should have been given a medal. Speed competitive autograph signing. They were even kissing for people's cameras and calling people's friends. Tom Cruise was totally charming and delightful. He was even joking about the Oprah appearance and parodying himself.

I got an autograph and several pictures. :D

[Fnord]

I'm with Miss A on this. While Scientology is the biggest crap I've ever heard of, there is such a thing as freedom of religion.

Nicht in Deutschland, Schatz!

[Rasmus]

Can anyone just walk into any US Military installation and shoot a film? Or would they have to aks permission first - and could that potentially be denied - even on grounds of who was going to be part of the film crew?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Um, no one should be denied anything on grounds of their religion. Some arbitrary objection to their person doesn't sit well with me, either.

If Tom Cruise had a criminal record, now, that would be solid grounds for turning him away. Him individually, not the entire crew of the film he was to shoot, just because of his mere presence.

[HarryKeogh]

Can anyone just walk into any US Military installation and shoot a film?

No.

Or would they have to aks permission first - and could that potentially be denied - even on grounds of who was going to be part of the film crew?


Yes.

Of course I'd bet the family farm that the US gov't wouldn't ban Tom Cruise from filming there because of his affilliation with Scientology (which has nothing to do with the movie being shot.)

I don't think the US gov't would ban anyone and then list their religion/cult as the sole reason why.

[Moochie]

I'm with Miss A on this. While Scientology is the biggest crap I've ever heard of, there is such a thing as freedom of religion.

I have a very cool story. :D When War of the the Worlds came out, I managed to get tickets to the red carpet at the Ziegfeld Theater and got to see Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.

He and she were incredibly gracious and polite to all the fans there and spent the majority of their time on the red carpet making the autograph and picture rounds among the three blocks of people that had lined up outside the Ziegfeld.

He, Katie Holmes and their respective entourages should have been given a medal. Speed competitive autograph signing. They were even kissing for people's cameras and calling people's friends. Tom Cruise was totally charming and delightful. He was even joking about the Oprah appearance and parodying himself.

I got an autograph and several pictures. :D


And that's how it all starts.

M.

[Overman]

Um, no one should be denied anything on grounds of their religion. Some arbitrary objection to their person doesn't sit well with me, either.

What if their religion required them to kill another person as a rite or passage? Should this be denied?

[Rasmus]

I don't think the US gov't would ban anyone and then list their religion/cult as the sole reason why.

If that person is a prominent member of an organisation that is deemed to be in opposition to the values/rules of the constitution things would probably look different. That some might consider this organisation a religion has nothing to do with it as far as i can see.

If anyone member of Al Kaida wanted to work as part of a movie crew their membership alone would be all that xou'd need to cite as a reason. Then you could start arguing abourt how bad the organisatzion really was. I am certain there is a lot more room for debate regarding Germany's view of Scientology, of course. But given their current stance the descision to ban Cruise is a sensible one.

[bjb]

If Tom Cruise had a criminal record, now, that would be solid grounds for turning him away. Him individually, not the entire crew of the film he was to shoot, just because of his mere presence.

Perhaps this is the sort of thing the German government is trying to avoid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout

On July 8, 1977, however, the FBI raided Scientology offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., seizing over 48,000 documents. They revealed the extent to which the Church had committed "criminal campaigns of villification, burglaries and thefts ... against private and public individuals and organizations," as the U.S. Government prosecutor put it.

It seems reasonable to me that the German government is unwilling to fully cooperate with an organization that has such an unfortunate history.

[tsg]

What if their religion required them to kill another person as a rite or passage? Should this be denied?

I read that as "no one should be denied anything [because of] their religion", that is, denied anything that would normally be available to anyone not of that religion.

[HarryKeogh]

If that person is a prominent member of an organisation that is deemed to be in opposition to the values/rules of the constitution things would probably look different. That some might consider this organisation a religion has nothing to do with it as far as i can see.

If anyone member of Al Kaida wanted to work as part of a movie crew their membership alone would be all that xou'd need to cite as a reason. Then you could start arguing abourt how bad the organisatzion really was. I am certain there is a lot more room for debate regarding Germany's view of Scientology, of course. But given their current stance the descision to ban Cruise is a sensible one.

Interesting point (of course, Al Qaida doesn't claim to be a religion but I catch your drift). It could open up another discussion as well. Would Germany be right to deny Scientologists German citizenship if they feel so strongly on this issue?

It seems reasonable to me that the German government is unwilling to fully cooperate with an organization that has such an unfortunate history.

Wonder if they would allow a Catholic (I'm thinking of the Church's systematic covering up of the raping of children) to film at one of their bases? I mean, talk about your unfortunate histories.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is the part of "state recognition of religion" that I take issue with (from Wikipedia on "Religion in Germany"):

The German constitution guarantees freedom of faith and religion. It also states that no one may be discriminated against due to their faith or religious opinions. However, unlike some other countries, cooperation between the state and religious communities is entirely in keeping with the German constitution. Religious communities that are of considerable size and stability and are loyal to the constitution can be recognized as "corporations under public law". This gives them certain privileges, for example being able to give religious instruction in state schools to adherents' children and having membership fees collected by the German Finanzamt (the German equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service) or by themselves.

If you can teach about your invisible friend in a public school, then why can't the Scientologists teach their own insanity? It's a can of worms that should be kept tightly sealed.

[Fnord]

One way to legally discriminate against someone for their religion: Declare that the religion in question is really a "Cult."

Ask any Branch Davidian...

[Mark A. Siefert]

I'm so torn about this story. I definitely like the banning of Tom Cruise, but at the same time, I despise the state's endorsing of "recognized" religions.

But Scientology isn't a religion, it's a criminal organization. Therefore "freedom of religion" does not apply.

[jimtron]

But Scientology isn't a religion, it's a criminal organization. Therefore "freedom of religion" does not apply.One could say that about the Catholic Church as well. Who's to say which religions are legit?

I think the German government went too far with this, and it could actually benefit the Church of Scientology. Now they get to point to more evidence of how they are victims of religious bigotry, and from the home of Nazism no less.

[clerihew80]

But Scientology isn't a religion, it's a criminal organization.
Alas, the terms are not mutually exclusive.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But Scientology isn't a religion, it's a criminal organization.


Alas, the terms are not mutually exclusive.

Amen! From sham "faith healings", to bogus "prophecies", to advocacy of violence and warfare, to misogyny, to crusades, conquistadores & jihads, to bizarre and arbitrary "moral" teachings--most religions have some element of the criminal in their history.

[ThatSoundAgain]

I don't think the US gov't would ban anyone and then list their religion/cult as the sole reason why.

No, but if you want access to military bases and gear for making a film, you have to take a "military advisor" on your crew to help you with the script..

That's why Oliver Stone had to rent his helicopters in the Philipines for Apocalypse Now.

Oh, and of course this is questionable. Seems they're going for him because of his high profile.

[arthwollipot]

I don't think that not recognizing something as a religion is the same as endorsing other religions.

In a way, but the state not recognising something as a religion implies that there are religions that it does recognise. In other words, there are religions that the state endorses as "true" or "real" religions. You have to have a group before you can exclude something from it.

The problem here is in the state recognising some religions as "true". Presumably this would include the Big Five and their related sects, except for those which the state decides are not "true".

Does that not seem more than a little arbitrary?

[jimtron]

That's why Oliver Stone had to rent his helicopters in the Philipines for Apocalypse Now.

That was Francis Ford Coppola.

[fredcarr]

Not really surprising. I know several german Scientologists that came to America because of the religious persecution they were being subjected to. Frankly this is one of the milder things I have read about.

Fred

[Kochanski]

I say hooray to this. They are sticking to their guns about the Co$. They have taken a strong stand against it and they get much applause from me. It is a money scam all the way and a dangerous one to boot.

[ThatSoundAgain]

That was Francis Ford Coppola.

Yes, obviously. Thank you for being my straight man the non-braindead person assisting me in putting yet one more dent in the table with my thick, thick skull.

D'oh!

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

What if their religion required them to kill another person as a rite or passage? Should this be denied?

If they break a law, jail their @ss. If they didn't, don't. It's that simple.

I don't believe in "preemptive" punishment.



Anyhow, this movie that's in question has nothing to do with Scientology. It's neither here or there to boot the production out because of Tom Cruise.

[arthwollipot]

From what I can tell, it's not Tom Cruise himself that's the problem. It's all his attendant baggage - the horde of Sea Scouts that tail him everywhere he goes trying to audit and point their fingers at people.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What if their religion required them to kill another person as a rite or passage? Should this be denied?
If they break a law, jail their @ss. If they didn't, don't. It's that simple.

I don't believe in "preemptive" punishment.


Another shout from the Amen Corner!

Much as I disagree with most religions, I don't think there is ANY religion that requires murder as a rite of passage. There are already laws against murder pretty much everywhere, so religious discrimination isn't necessary to outlaw murder.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Not really surprising. I know several german Scientologists that came to America because of the religious persecution they were being subjected to. Frankly this is one of the milder things I have read about.

Fred

And our resident Scientologist crawls out from under his rock.

Was what happened to your "friend" Lisa McPherson one of the milder things I've heard about the CoS, or are their worse things than leaving a woman to die of dehydration in a hotel room?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Another shout from the Amen Corner!

Much as I disagree with most religions, I don't think there is ANY religion that requires murder as a rite of passage. There are already laws against murder pretty much everywhere, so religious discrimination isn't necessary to outlaw murder.

High five :D .

I know, I don't think there is any religion that requires murder. Perhaps human sacrifice among Pre-Columbian native Americans and honor killing in the Middle East...but even then, that's only in a few very rare situations.

Murder for any reason is outlawed everywhere anyhow.

[Mark A. Siefert]

One could say that about the Catholic Church as well. Who's to say which religions are legit?

Maybe the Mafia and the Columbian drug cartels could declare themselves religions too?

[jimtron]

Maybe the Mafia and the Columbian drug cartels could declare themselves religions too?

Yes they could.

There are some very kooky religions out there, IMHO (and I'm not a fan of any of them). But who gets to draw the line, and where does it get drawn, when it comes to saying which ones are legit and which not legit? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

[Georg]

I´m definitely not a friend of teaching religion in schools and I don´t like the power the big churches in Germany (catholic, lutherian) have. But the difference to Scientology was already cited by clerihew80

…and it has placed the organization under surveillance for alleged unconstitutional activities.

I have absolutely no idea if those allegations are correct, but as far as I know, that´s the (official) reason for the special “treatment”. If those allegations are true, this part

In 1996 Bavaria barred anyone connected with Scientology from any government job.

would be alright for me. It makes no sense to let someone work for the government who is opposed to the constitution. And that is no special “Scientology Law”, the same goes for members of the extreme left and right wing parties.

[Mashuna]

Yes they could.

There are some very kooky religions out there, IMHO (and I'm not a fan of any of them). But who gets to draw the line, and where does it get drawn, when it comes to saying which ones are legit and which not legit? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

Well, in the case of scientology and Germany, the German government gets to draw the line.

[Herzblut]

In a way, but the state not recognising something as a religion implies that there are religions that it does recognise.
Hello,

the point is though, that there is no such thing as federal "recognition" of a
religion. It is weird for me how easily this SO propaganda has dropped into
your minds.

BTW, if you had read the article cited above you would have found this:

Kammerbauer said the ministry had not yet received official filming requests from the producers of "Valkyrie".

Thus, what are you talking about?

Cheers
Herzblut

[Herzblut]

Of course I'd bet the family farm that the US gov't wouldn't ban Tom Cruise from filming there because of his affilliation with Scientology (which has nothing to do with the movie being shot.)

No??? How do you know? What's the movie all about?

Dont wanna appear rude. But it makes more sense to get somewhat informed
instead of posting such uninformed rubbish.

Cheers
Herzblut

[Chaos]

I´m definitely not a friend of teaching religion in schools and I don´t like the power the big churches in Germany (catholic, lutherian) have.

I think none of us here in the forum are, or do.

But the difference to Scientology was already cited by clerihew80

This difference is the point. Scientology is NOT a religion. It is an organization with two goals: money and power.

I have absolutely no idea if those allegations are correct, but as far as I know, that´s the (official) reason for the special “treatment”. If those allegations are true, this part

would be alright for me. It makes no sense to let someone work for the government who is opposed to the constitution. And that is no special “Scientology Law”, the same goes for members of the extreme left and right wing parties.

The problem here is that Scientology claims to be religion. Or, more exactly, that anyone can claim to be religion, without being one, and that the mere claim is enough to make people go "awww, no, you must not prevent them from doing anything they want to". And Scientology milks that tendency for all it is worth - *especially* in light of Germany´s history... you know, the Holocaust and all that. Which brings me to the macabre (and probably not entirely serious) comment I once heard about the persecution claims: "This is Germany. If we were persecuting them for their religion, they wouldn´t be here to complain about it."

[Katana]

This difference is the point. Scientology is NOT a religion. It is an organization with two goals: money and power.


There are some here who would submit that this does not distinguish Scientology from more "accepted" religions.

[Georg]

There are some here who would submit that this does not distinguish Scientology from more "accepted" religions.

I agree. Most of them are greedy. And much too powerful. As long as they have any power at all, in my opinion :) . With my former post I just wanted to make clear, that the non-compatibility (does this word exist?) of the goals of Scientology with the constitution is the reason for the treatment they receive in Germany, and not the greed for money and power.

[ThatSoundAgain]

There are some here who would submit that this does not distinguish Scientology from more "accepted" religions.

True. And that's what makes it especially iffy, because it puts the government in a position where it has apparent standards for religion. Now, as an individual I'm free to do that, and say I don't want anything to do with CS or any other religion, and I do.

I agree that this is a grey area, as access to a military base is not really something you'd have anyway, but government decisions are subject to public scrutiny. If they ever allow anyone else to film there who are (privately) religious, a very reasonable question to them would be where they draw the line.

[JoeTheJuggler]

the point is though, that there is no such thing as federal "recognition" of a
religion. It is weird for me how easily this SO propaganda has dropped into
your minds.

Unless all the sources I've read that say otherwise are wrong, you are wrong. An officially recognized religion in Germany can teach its religion (to its own adherents) in a public school. Taxes for officially recognized churches can be collected (for the churches) by the Finanzamt. Religions that are not recognized don't enjoy these privileges.

The movie in question will be about Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg's attempt to assassinate Hitler. You're right that the news story said the official filming request has not been received yet, but the same story also states
Defense Ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said the film makers "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult."

So I'm back to my first ambivalence. I hate Tom Cruise and the Co$, but I also despise religious discrimination and state support of religion (even if they did so indiscriminately).

[brodski]

There are some here who would submit that this does not distinguish Scientology from more "accepted" religions.

There are two important distinctions between the Scientology cult and mainstream religions.

1) They are not open about what they believe, in fact the Co$ has gone to court to try and prevent its "holy" texts from being more widely distributed- and spokes people for the church are on record denying that the "church" teaches things which prominent members of the "church", including its founder, are on record advocating.
2) It is impossible to be a Scientologist without paying the Co$, whilst religious groups may emotionally blackmail their members into financial support, or command that a certain portion of income be given away to "good causes", no genuine religion requires payment to the church in order to practice- the Co$ is set up to sell books and courses- indeed ether is no religious practice aside from those provided (for profit) by the cult itself. It is this last reason why the Co$ does not have charitable status in the UK.


These reasons are totally aside from the blackmail and criminal conspiracy which this dangerious cult engages in.

[Mark A. Siefert]

There are some here who would submit that this does not distinguish Scientology from more "accepted" religions.

One religion at a time, Katana. One religion at a time...

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree with brodski and others who show that Scientology is exceptionally nefarious, but no government should make that decision for an individual. If there are crimes being committed, prosecute the crimes.

That's why even Nazis get First Amendment protection here in the U.S. Let the world see how idiotic they are.

I also understand that the Defense Ministry has the right to refuse anyone to film on their bases for security issues, but the issue here is that it was explicitly stated that their decision was based on Cruise's membership in Co$, and a concern for how he (as a member of that religion) would portray Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg in the film.

[Kochanski]

And there is also the bait and switch they use to get people involved in the Co$. Free "stress tests" and copies of Dianetics with no indication that this is a "religion". How many religions do you know hide who they are when they are proselytizing? They are dangerous in oh so many ways.

[Katana]

There are two important distinctions between the Scientology cult and mainstream religions.

1) They are not open about what they believe, in fact the Co$ has gone to court to try and prevent its "holy" texts from being more widely distributed- and spokes people for the church are on record denying that the "church" teaches things which prominent members of the "church", including its founder, are on record advocating.
2) It is impossible to be a Scientologist without paying the Co$, whilst religious groups may emotionally blackmail their members into financial support, or command that a certain portion of income be given away to "good causes", no genuine religion requires payment to the church in order to practice- the Co$ is set up to sell books and courses- indeed ether is no religious practice aside from those provided (for profit) by the cult itself. It is this last reason why the Co$ does not have charitable status in the UK.


These reasons are totally aside from the blackmail and criminal conspiracy which this dangerious cult engages in.


I don't disagree with this. I was only pointing out that the desire for money and power wouldn't necessarily distinguish Scientology from what are more traditionally-accepted religions. Other things do, to be sure.

One religion at a time, Katana. One religion at a time...


Oh, OK.

:wackyskeptical:





;)

[Fnord]

I know, I don't think there is any religion that requires murder.

All of the following have, at one time or another, either inflicted death on their members and/or enemies, or include a death clause in their initiation vows.

Branch Davidians (Waco, Texas)
People's Temple (Guyana and San Francisco, California)
Islamic Jihadists (New York and various others)
Roman Catholicism (Ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition?)
Aum Shinrikyo (Japan)
SCEN (Support and Consultation on Euthanasia in the Netherlands)
Skull & Bones (Yale University)
Freemasonry (Check the Yellow Pages for your town)

Also: Heaven's Gate, Order of the Solar Temple, and the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God.

Still looking...

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

-Everyone, for the love of God, please don't derail this thread-

I wouldn't say Muslim suicide bombers are committing murder. They see themselves as guerilla soldiers fighting back against an occupation in a war. You could argue they're terrorists because there's a slippery slope between guerillas and terrorists in today's world but I wouldn't say it was murder.

[ponderingturtle]

Forbidding someone from filming in Germany because they belong to a group they don't like. Is this report from the 1930s or 2007?

So what, the US military has editorial control over any film that uses any of its property in the creation of the film.

So the US also lacks this so called free speech just as much as Germany.

[Chaos]

There are some here who would submit that this does not distinguish Scientology from more "accepted" religions.

But then, most people freely admit that more "accepted" religions cannot even in their wildest nightmares compete with Scientology, as far as naked greed and the widespread use of... uh... questionable methods and techniques to retain (or regain) the loyalty of members is concerned. At least in the time since the inception of the Federal Republic of Germany - which is the only period German law can be concerned with - the two accepted churches - the Catholic Church and the German Protestant Church - have been innocent as babies compared to Scientology.

That said, I wouldn´t mind to see the priviledges of the accepted churches going away, either.

[ponderingturtle]

From Wikipedia:





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversy

Apparently, Scientology has become for Germany what Freemasonry was for the United States in the 19th century. It is accused of being a dangerous cult that is trying to take over the government and the economy. In 1994 German Minister of Labor Norbert Blum issued a decree preventing Scientologists from obtaining licenses to operate private employment agencies. In 1996 Bavaria barred anyone connected with Scientology from any government job. Tom Cruise's movies have been boycotted and Scientologist musicians like Chick Corea have been banned from playing in the country.


So freemasonry in the late 19th century was shown to be actively spying on many governments around the world?

[ponderingturtle]

Um, no one should be denied anything on grounds of their religion. Some arbitrary objection to their person doesn't sit well with me, either.

If Tom Cruise had a criminal record, now, that would be solid grounds for turning him away. Him individually, not the entire crew of the film he was to shoot, just because of his mere presence.

So being a member of an organization that has been spying on various governments at various times should not be considered at all for any potential job? Can't agree with that.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I agree with brodski and others who show that Scientology is exceptionally nefarious, but no government should make that decision for an individual. If there are crimes being committed, prosecute the crimes.

That's why even Nazis get First Amendment protection here in the U.S. Let the world see how idiotic they are.

I also understand that the Defense Ministry has the right to refuse anyone to film on their bases for security issues, but the issue here is that it was explicitly stated that their decision was based on Cruise's membership in Co$, and a concern for how he (as a member of that religion) would portray Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg in the film.


I couldn't agree more, Joe.

I'd also like to add that it's going way too far to bar a Scientologist from a government job, if that's the case in Bavaria.

Besides the other reasons why it's wrong, this is something the most medieval church-backed monarchies used to do- hire or fire people in government based on their religion.

That's why the Constitution of the United States guarantees that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Oh and btw, as to the Co$ being in direct conflict with the German constitution, that's the point of a democracy, that not everyone has to agree with the law of the land.

And they shouldn't be in the first place because of something called freedom of religion.

[ponderingturtle]

High five :D .

I know, I don't think there is any religion that requires murder. Perhaps human sacrifice among Pre-Columbian native Americans and honor killing in the Middle East...but even then, that's only in a few very rare situations.

Murder for any reason is outlawed everywhere anyhow.

Look into Yahweh Ben Yahweh.

To become a member of the inner circle of his organization, applicants had to kill a "white devil" and bring Mitchell a body part - an ear, nose or finger - as proof of the kill. Between April and October 1986, according to court papers, Mitchell's "Death Angels" descended on Miami frequently to kill random white people
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_ben_Yahweh)

[ponderingturtle]

Yes they could.

There are some very kooky religions out there, IMHO (and I'm not a fan of any of them). But who gets to draw the line, and where does it get drawn, when it comes to saying which ones are legit and which not legit? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

How about when members of the organizational hierarchy start to institutionalize illegal acts? How do you sort out the members who are stealing secrets for Scientology from the others, and would you accept a higher degree of surveillance on members of criminal churches?

[Macoy]

t seems that the German government has reached a similar opinion of Mr Cruise's cult as others.

Namely:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2633468162652e810.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6561)

[Niobe]

Forbidding someone from filming in Germany because they belong to a group they don't like. Is this report from the 1930s or 2007?Godwin on the 3rd post, that's talent.

[Macoy]

There may even be a scientologist or two posting on this forum.

Perhaps it's a duty, or maybe some like to volunteer?

[Fnord]

I wouldn't say Muslim suicide bombers are committing murder. They see themselves as guerilla soldiers fighting back against an occupation in a war.



Intentionally taking someone's life against their will without due process under the pre-established laws of a leagally-enfranchised government is murder. With this in mind, the American legal system has defined three degrees of murder:

Premeditated Murder: A Homicide that is carried out with the planned and deliberate intention of killing somebody ("1st-Degree Murder").

Non-Premeditated Murder: A Homicide that is carried out with the deliberate intention of killing somebody, but without an advance plan to do so ("2nd-Degree Murder")

Manslaughter: A Homicide that is carried out without the planned or deliberate intention of killing somebody -- an accidental homicide ("3rd-Degree Murder").


What all dgrees of murder have in common is the death of one or more victims. Thus, those who kill others are committing murder. This includes hijacking one or more airplanes and flying them and their passengers into buildings full of people. Those suicide bombers committed over 3000 murders.

Soldiers who kill enemy combatants are also committing murder, but their actions are authorized under the lawful intent of their respective and legally-enfranchised governments.

Al-Q'uaida is not a legally-enfranchised government. It is a terrorist group. Therefore, the suicide bombers they send out are murderers.

It's just that simple.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Your correction is noted and appreciated. He is being forbidden from filming at a millitary base and not all of Germany.

But since this is not a Scientology event I still think forbidding him from filming there is wrong. He is there in the capacity of a film producer and actor. I know he sets up Scientology booths at films he works on. It seems simple enough to forbid him from setting them up while on gov't property.

as scientology has a history of infiltrating government agencies - including the BND, banning a high profile supporter such as Cruise from Military and government bases is a smart idea.

The ludicrous idea of Cruise playing someone trying to overthrow a dictator is, of course, a supreme piece of irony.

[fredcarr]

As I mentioned this is hardly a new thing for the German government to do in response to my church. In the nineties Scientologists had a difficult time simply getting a job or keeping it. This was due to a form all business were being encouraged to have filled out by its employees. On it would would have to declare that he/she had no affiliation with the Church of Scientology in order to maintain or get employment with said business.

Children were ejected from schools for having parents that were Scientologists.


The fact that some of you condone these sorts of activities per your posts above speaks volumes for your tolerance of others.

Fred

[Tumblehome]

If Tom Cruise would just keep his s--t eating cult to himself while he works, I'd have more sympathy for him in this case. But since he uses his acting work to spread Co$ influence, I'm siding with the Germans on this one.

Do you think Tom Almighty would refrain from proselytising to German forces on the base if he had the chance? I don't either, and, I suspect, neither does the German gov't.

[HarryKeogh]

No??? How do you know? What's the movie all about?

Dont wanna appear rude. But it makes more sense to get somewhat informed
instead of posting such uninformed rubbish.

Cheers
Herzblut

The movie's about an assassination attempt on Hitler. I know cause I read the article. So not very uninformed.

And btw, it's hard not to appear rude when you are so blatantly so.

Godwin on the 3rd post, that's talent.

Yeah, I almost called Godwin on myself...but I still stand by my comment.

[JayT]

I'm curious as to what and who defines what constitutes a religion. Obviously, the dictionary definition is not adequate. There are so many 'religions' that I don't think anyone has a reliable count of them.

What do they ALL have in common that specifically qualifies them to claim they are legitimate religions?

Anyone can start a 'religion' complete with all sorts of pompous regalia, ceremonies, rituals and 'holy' texts and use it to get rich without in any way being a 'true religion', whatever that is.

These pseudo-religions operate much like pseudo-science. They define and speak of themselves using religious terms and language just like quacks define their wares in scientific terms and language, but are nevertheless bogus to the bone.

As long as fools outnumber intelligent people 1000 to 1, as has apparently sadly been the case throughout all of human history, up to the present day, this kind of thing will go on forever.

I'm almost of the opinion that at this late time in the 21st century, anyone who falls for this sham deserves to be taken for all they have. Sometimes it takes a good shot in the foot to awaken common sense.

I have little regard for religions when I see their malignancy outweigh their benefits, but in the case of Scientology, considering the vile and well documented legal history of its actions and methods, I wouldn't denigrate the dignity of the concept of religion by equating them with it. They bastardised any right to that privilege a long time ago. They had their chance and they blew it.

Their motto is: In Greed We Trust

Don't forget, Scientology started with:


Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard

quoted in the Los Angeles Times (Sunday, 27 August 1978)


AMEN

[Kilgore Trout]

Citing "freedom of religion" as a basis to condemn this policy would only valid if a religion is at question. Scientologists may claim Scientology is a religion, but that doesn't necessarily make it one. Debate, perhaps, the merits of Scientology as a religion vs. a cult, but the assumption that it is a religion needs to be looked at far more rigorously before yelling 'freedom of religion.'

[ThatSoundAgain]

That's why even Nazis get First Amendment protection here in the U.S. Let the world see how idiotic they are.


Interestingly, in Germany Nazis aren't granted free speech. Understandable, I guess.



Al-Q'uaida is not a legally-enfranchised government. It is a terrorist group. Therefore, the suicide bombers they send out are murderers.

It's just that simple.

True, and to put it even simpler - anyone who targets civilians specifically, government or not, are in violation of the Geneva convention and the rules of war.

[Fnord]

(Duplicate post, deleted)

[Fnord]

"Religion is the Politics of Faith."

I perceive Religion as the social application of the belief in things unprovable, while Politics is the social application of the belief in things that are provable.

Thus, if you believe that a sky-fairy will bestow eternal goodwill on all who believe in him/her/it, that's Faith. But if you also believe that your particular sky-fairy requires that women should be covered from head to toe, and that all men shall summarily execute anyone who does not believe the same thing (e.g., heresy is a capital offense), then you now have a religion, albeit a sexist and brutal religion, but a religion nonetheless.

But if instead you believe that rulership of the People should involve some system of Laws based on Reason (more or less), then you have Politics.

This is an ad hoc definition, of course. Your results may vary.

[jimtron]

Scientologists may claim Scientology is a religion, but that doesn't necessarily make it one.

What does make it one? How do you distinguish between a true/legit religion, and a bogus one?

It seems likely to me that all religions are bogus, but I believe in freedom of religion. Although I find the Church of Scientology to be ridiculous and potentially dangerous, I don't exactly see how it's less a religion than any of the others. That's why I've been asking, who draws the line, and based on what criteria?

[tbm]

I'm with Miss A on this. While Scientology is the biggest crap I've ever heard of, there is such a thing as freedom of religion. ............ :D

The truth is that Scientology is crap masquerading as a religion so freedom of religion does no apply in this case. Scientologyis a money-making, brainwashing cult (as could be said of many religions, BTW). The German government has is exactly right in this case.

I believe that L. Ron Hubbard stated (before Scientology began) that if ge wanted to become rich, he would start a religion..................

tbm

[arthwollipot]

What does make it one? How do you distinguish between a true/legit religion, and a bogus one?

Surely the answer to this question is easy?

[Georg]

I'd also like to add that it's going way too far to bar a Scientologist from a government job, if that's the case in Bavaria.

Besides the other reasons why it's wrong, this is something the most medieval church-backed monarchies used to do- hire or fire people in government based on their religion.

That's why the Constitution of the United States guarantees that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Oh and btw, as to the Co$ being in direct conflict with the German constitution, that's the point of a democracy, that not everyone has to agree with the law of the land.



May I repeat it for you again: The members are not barred because of their beliefs, they are barred from government jobs because the goals of Scientology conflict with the constitution, in which frame they would be required to work! See the discrepancy? Would Scientology employ me if I´d tell them that they are a bunch of (rule8)s? Would the U.S. government employ someone who actually has the goal to infiltrate/overthrow it? Someone who belongs to a revolutionary communist party? Is that really so hard to grasp? Please tell me! It has nothing to do with freedom of religion but with the government taking security measures. If you do not understand that, you might as well argue for OBL taking a government job in the U.S. He is a muslim. Shouldn´t he be granted the freedom of religion as well?

[Georg]

Children were ejected from schools for having parents that were Scientologists.


Care to provide an example for that assertion? That may be right for private run schools, but not for the ones run by the government/state. But of course I´m willing to have a look at the evidence that you´ll surely show right here in this thread.

[jimtron]

Surely the answer to this question is easy?

What is the answer?

[Georg]

The fact that some of you condone these sorts of activities per your posts above speaks volumes for your tolerance of others.
Fred

Congratulations, you are right with this one. I have zero tolerance for a criminal, inhuman organisation like Scientology. But I still fail to see what´s wrong with that attitude. Care to clear me up?

[Ducky]

As I mentioned this is hardly a new thing for the German government to do in response to my church. In the nineties Scientologists had a difficult time simply getting a job or keeping it. This was due to a form all business were being encouraged to have filled out by its employees. On it would would have to declare that he/she had no affiliation with the Church of Scientology in order to maintain or get employment with said business.

Children were ejected from schools for having parents that were Scientologists.


The fact that some of you condone these sorts of activities per your posts above speaks volumes for your tolerance of others.

Fred

I believe you ignored a direct question put to you, fred.

Was what happened to your "friend" Lisa McPherson one of the milder things I've heard about the CoS, or are their worse things than leaving a woman to die of dehydration in a hotel room?

[Macoy]

Fredcarr - as the only 'open' scientologist on this forum that I know of, please answer this question:

Are you here of your own inclination - or

Have you been ordered to be here -or

Did you volunteer to be here?

Many thanks.

[ponderingturtle]

What does make it one? How do you distinguish between a true/legit religion, and a bogus one?

It seems likely to me that all religions are bogus, but I believe in freedom of religion. Although I find the Church of Scientology to be ridiculous and potentially dangerous, I don't exactly see how it's less a religion than any of the others. That's why I've been asking, who draws the line, and based on what criteria?

How about when people commit espionage on the government in the name of their religion?

[ponderingturtle]

I would like to know why the supporters Scientology in Germany think that a criminal religious organizations should be treated differently than a criminal organization for the purposes of government employment?

I also wonder why the non scientologists who are against this discrimination keep ignoring Scientology's history of stealing government documents.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Scientology is a cult, it should be treated as such.

[ponderingturtle]

Scientology is a cult, it should be treated as such.

No scientology is a criminal organization. Cult is such a variable word that all it seems to mean is religion I think is highly immoral.

[Georg]

I believe you ignored a direct question put to you, fred.


Are you here of your own inclination - or

Have you been ordered to be here -or

Did you volunteer to be here?



Fred needs time to sort the answers out with the Scientology headquarters, I guess......

[Kilgore Trout]

What does make it one? How do you distinguish between a true/legit religion, and a bogus one?

It seems likely to me that all religions are bogus, but I believe in freedom of religion. Although I find the Church of Scientology to be ridiculous and potentially dangerous, I don't exactly see how it's less a religion than any of the others. That's why I've been asking, who draws the line, and based on what criteria?

I deliberately didn't attempt to answer that question because it would be only the opinion of a lay person. I suspect even experts would disagree on several factors. I just feel the discussion needs to start with if it's a religion before citing freedom of religion.

To hazard my own opinion, it's not a religion because its goal isn't to freely enlighten the world by spreading its message and ridding the people of Body Thetans (Suppressive Persons excluded, I suppose) but instead to make money. In addition, it does this by way of nefarious practices. It is also a cult as defined in more than one way and, though that may not exclude it from also being a religion, it may figure into the decision.

In any event, I find the bottom line to lie with the laws of the country that is said to give that freedom of religion. The German government is the one that protects its population's freedom of religion, not some other body, and it's the German government that determines just what freedoms it is protecting.

To bring this around rather circuitously, whether or not you agree with the German government is based entirely on if you believe Scientology is a religion that should be protected. However, the United Nations doesn't seem to be to bothered by it which may weigh in a bit. ("Germany's handling of Scientology has also been called into question before open hearings of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The hearings ended up without any consequences or criticism from the Comittee regarding Germany's handling of Scientology." [wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)])

[J. Arthur Hastur]

No scientology is a criminal organization. Cult is such a variable word that all it seems to mean is religion I think is highly immoral.

All 'religions' are cults, and criminal organizations.

[Katana]

There are two important distinctions between the Scientology cult and mainstream religions.

1) They are not open about what they believe, in fact the Co$ has gone to court to try and prevent its "holy" texts from being more widely distributed- and spokes people for the church are on record denying that the "church" teaches things which prominent members of the "church", including its founder, are on record advocating.
2) It is impossible to be a Scientologist without paying the Co$, whilst religious groups may emotionally blackmail their members into financial support, or command that a certain portion of income be given away to "good causes", no genuine religion requires payment to the church in order to practice- the Co$ is set up to sell books and courses- indeed ether is no religious practice aside from those provided (for profit) by the cult itself. It is this last reason why the Co$ does not have charitable status in the UK.


These reasons are totally aside from the blackmail and criminal conspiracy which this dangerious cult engages in.


I thought that this was a reasonable attempt to distinguish Scientology from religion.

[Deus Ex Machina]

As I mentioned this is hardly a new thing for the German government to do in response to my church. In the nineties Scientologists had a difficult time simply getting a job or keeping it. This was due to a form all business were being encouraged to have filled out by its employees. On it would would have to declare that he/she had no affiliation with the Church of Scientology in order to maintain or get employment with said business.


And why was that, Fred? I notice that you left out the best part.

Scientology and Scientologists in Hamburg had, since the late 80's been responsible for many financial shenanigans - including the avoidance of paying taxes (Detlef Fouillois for example - an IAS "Patron" no less who got to spend a couple years in jail for his pains).

When the city of hamburg expressed concern over it what was Scientology's reaction? To start calling them Nazi's! And lo and behold the German governments got interested in why this cult was busy trying to cover up.

Nothing to do with persecution, Fred. But then you probably weren't briefed on that before you cam scuttling over here. Everything to do with finanical crimes.


Children were ejected from schools for having parents that were Scientologists.
Wan't to be a little more specific Fred or are you afraid that it will dilute your point somewhat?


The fact that some of you condone these sorts of activities per your posts above speaks volumes for your tolerance of others.

Fredwell Fred, you support an organization that advocates the elimination of homosexuals, you support a founder who claimed that bantus were too stupid to "get" scientology and you support an organization that has ruthlessly tried to infiltrate and suppress "splinter" organizations trying to practice Scientology on their own. Your organization does not support freedom of religion, nor does it support free speech.

Who would care what someone who supports an organization like that would think?

[JoeTheJuggler]

For what it's worth, the Jehovah's Witnesses also had a difficult time being allowed to incorporate (to be officially recognized as a religion) in Germany because of questions about their loyalty to the state. (JWs usually refuse military service and refuse to salute flags.)

I'm quite sure if you asked ANY believer in any faith whether they put God ahead of their country they will say yes they do. So again, questioning a religion's loyalty to country and loyalty to the constitution (which in my mind is a contradiction if that constitution prohibits religious discrimination yet gives privileges to religions discriminately) is a can of worms best left unopened.

Back to the Co$--to the people alleging that they are a criminal organization, surely there are laws against the specific crimes already. Punishing it as an organization in itself is casting too wide a net--or do you believe that every member is necessarily a criminal?

I would say you can make the same arguments about the Nazis or the KKK in the US, and yet we don't criminalize them as organizations. If a Klansman commits a crime, bust him. If he wants to speak in public (showing the world what a racist moron he is), let him.

[ponderingturtle]

For what it's worth, the Jehovah's Witnesses also had a difficult time being allowed to incorporate (to be officially recognized as a religion) in Germany because of questions about their loyalty to the state. (JWs usually refuse military service and refuse to salute flags.)

I'm quite sure if you asked ANY believer in any faith whether they put God ahead of their country they will say yes they do. So again, questioning a religion's loyalty to country and loyalty to the constitution (which in my mind is a contradiction if that constitution prohibits religious discrimination yet gives privileges to religions discriminately) is a can of worms best left unopened.

Back to the Co$--to the people alleging that they are a criminal organization, surely there are laws against the specific crimes already. Punishing it as an organization in itself is casting too wide a net--or do you believe that every member is necessarily a criminal?

I would say you can make the same arguments about the Nazis or the KKK in the US, and yet we don't criminalize them as organizations. If a Klansman commits a crime, bust him. If he wants to speak in public (showing the world what a racist moron he is), let him.

But then neither of those groups have a history in infiltrating the goverment and stealing documents.

[YourSpleen]

I felt the same way that someone earlier in the thread - sorry I didn't take notes, doh! - that a key difference between a recognized religion and a cult was essentially transparency. Most recognized religions stand to scrutiny and make their beliefs clear (often overly so), whereas most cults shrink from scrutiny and keep their beliefs secret.

[MortFurd]

For what it's worth, the Jehovah's Witnesses also had a difficult time being allowed to incorporate (to be officially recognized as a religion) in Germany because of questions about their loyalty to the state. (JWs usually refuse military service and refuse to salute flags.)

I'm quite sure if you asked ANY believer in any faith whether they put God ahead of their country they will say yes they do. So again, questioning a religion's loyalty to country and loyalty to the constitution (which in my mind is a contradiction if that constitution prohibits religious discrimination yet gives privileges to religions discriminately) is a can of worms best left unopened.

Back to the Co$--to the people alleging that they are a criminal organization, surely there are laws against the specific crimes already. Punishing it as an organization in itself is casting too wide a net--or do you believe that every member is necessarily a criminal?

I would say you can make the same arguments about the Nazis or the KKK in the US, and yet we don't criminalize them as organizations. If a Klansman commits a crime, bust him. If he wants to speak in public (showing the world what a racist moron he is), let him.
But what if he wants access to the White House to work on the movie in which he (KKK member) is playing Abraham Lincoln?

That's somewhat extreme.
In actuality, you have an actor of a particular belief who drags a group of believers with him on the set. These other believers are there to try to make converts for the religion.
1. They are asking for permission to film on a military base.
2. They are making a film about a national hero.
In the US, number 1 gets you a conflict with the evangelizing Cruise hangers-on.

Truth be known, I'd think this is Co$ stirring a **** pot. Cruise knows that scientology is unwelcome here, and he's going to come over here and make a film about a German national hero?

If Cruise wants to film in Germany, no problem. If Cruise wants to film on a military installation, then I don't think that's OK. Co$ is a subversive organization, and Cruises' entourage seems to promote the beliefs of Co$ at every opportunity.

[Jekyll]

As I mentioned this is hardly a new thing for the German government to do in response to my church. In the nineties Scientologists had a difficult time simply getting a job or keeping it. This was due to a form all business were being encouraged to have filled out by its employees. On it would would have to declare that he/she had no affiliation with the Church of Scientology in order to maintain or get employment with said business.

Children were ejected from schools for having parents that were Scientologists.


The fact that some of you condone these sorts of activities per your posts above speaks volumes for your tolerance of others.

Fred
You guys need to find some fresh lies, these old ones are starting to smell.

What is the Truth about the Scientologists' Claims?

In its campaign to discredit Germany, Scientology uses the tactic of supplying only incomplete information to back up its claims, making it extremely difficult for the German government to research and respond to charges. However, the German government continues its attempts to investigate Scientologists allegations, as it would any citizen's.

The Scientologists' repeated allegations that artists belonging to Scientology cannot perform in Germany are false. Freedom of artistic expression is guaranteed in Article 5 (3) of the German Basic Law (Germany's Constitution), thus artists are free to perform or exhibit in Germany anywhere they please.

Jazz pianist Chick Corea performed in Germany on March 24, 1996, during the 27th International Jazz Week held in Burghausen, an event which received approximately $10,000 in funding from the Bavarian Ministry of Culture.

"Mission Impossible," starring Tom Cruise, was a hit in Germany, grossing $23.6 million.

Likewise, the Scientologists' claim that a teacher who taught near the city of Hannover was fired for her beliefs is untrue. The woman was not fired, though she repeatedly violated school regulations by using the classroom to recruit students and their parents to Scientology. After multiple warnings, the woman was transferred from classroom to administrative duties to prevent further violations.

Contrary to Scientology's allegations, no child can be prevented from attending public school in Germany. In fact, like all children in the country, Scientologists children must be enrolled in either public or private institutions.

From half way down:
http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html

[fredcarr]

You guys need to find some fresh lies, these old ones are starting to smell.

Not sure what you think I was lying about.

All 'religions' are cults, and criminal organizations.

This is "critical thinking"?

Fred

[Macoy]

Ah, Fred!

Please look at this:

As the only 'open' scientologist on this forum that I know of, please answer this question:

Are you here of your own inclination - or

Have you been ordered to be here -or

Did you volunteer to be here?

[jimtron]

How about when people commit espionage on the government in the name of their religion? How about when priests molest children, and the leadership of the Catholic Church looks the other way while the same priests molest more children. My point is not to defend the COS, but to point out the difficulty in "proving" that they are a cult, not a religion. I think the Catholic Church and the COS would say they had bad people in their church doing bad things, but that it wasn't part of their belief system or something they advocate (raping children/breaking in to government offices).

To hazard my own opinion, it's not a religion because its goal isn't to freely enlighten the world by spreading its message and ridding the people of Body Thetans (Suppressive Persons excluded, I suppose) but instead to make money.I agree that the goal of the COS seems to be making money. But it's hard to prove that's their goal---they claim they need the money to run their Church. And on the other hand, why can't making money be a religious goal? And who says "enlightening the world" is an essential part of a real religion?

Originally Posted by brodski http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2721191#post2721191)
There are two important distinctions between the Scientology cult and mainstream religions.

1) They are not open about what they believe, in fact the Co$ has gone to court to try and prevent its "holy" texts from being more widely distributed- and spokes people for the church are on record denying that the "church" teaches things which prominent members of the "church", including its founder, are on record advocating.
2) It is impossible to be a Scientologist without paying the Co$, whilst religious groups may emotionally blackmail their members into financial support, or command that a certain portion of income be given away to "good causes", no genuine religion requires payment to the church in order to practice- the Co$ is set up to sell books and courses- indeed ether is no religious practice aside from those provided (for profit) by the cult itself. It is this last reason why the Co$ does not have charitable status in the UK.1. This is true, but why can't a religion be secret? I realize that COS keeps secrets about their teachings for the wrong reasons, but I don't buy the argument that they're not a religion because they keep their beliefs secret.

2. Again, what does "genuine religion" mean? Seriously. As I pointed out before, I'm not sure profit motive can't be a part of religion.

Back to the Co$--to the people alleging that they are a criminal organization, surely there are laws against the specific crimes already. Punishing it as an organization in itself is casting too wide a net--or do you believe that every member is necessarily a criminal?I agree.

Should governments regulate religions? To me a big problem is defining religion--who should get to define what a "genuine religion" is?

[Overman]

Ah, Fred!

Please look at this:

As the only 'open' scientologist on this forum that I know of, please answer this question:

Are you here of your own inclination - or

Have you been ordered to be here -or

Did you volunteer to be here?

Fred!

Pretty pretty Please with sugar on top answer the above questions, many of us are very intrigued by them...

[HarryKeogh]

And who says "enlightening the world" is an essential part of a real religion?

In regards to Scientology "clearing the planet" is one of their goals.

And at the rate they're going this should happen approximately 40 years after the earth has fallen into the sun.

[Moochie]

There may even be a scientologist or two posting on this forum.

Perhaps it's a duty, or maybe some like to volunteer?

Not only $cientologists -- not by a long shot. I sometimes doubt there are any actual skeptics here.

M.

[Moochie]

Children were ejected from schools for having parents that were Scientologists.


The fact that some of you condone these sorts of activities per your posts above speaks volumes for your tolerance of others.

Fred

Yeah, how about that, eh? :D

M.

[Chaos]

Not sure what you think I was lying about.
*snip*

How about "every single of the claims he quoted"?

[Kilgore Trout]

I agree that the goal of the COS seems to be making money. But it's hard to prove that's their goal---they claim they need the money to run their Church. And on the other hand, why can't making money be a religious goal? And who says "enlightening the world" is an essential part of a real religion?
How could making money not be their goal? From xenu.net: "The current (conservative) total cost for the whole bridge to OT9 readiness is estimated at $365,000 - $380,000." OT9 is definitely a lofty goal, but that's still a great deal of money by anyone's standards. Just reaching clear is around $128,000. There are also annual memberships (though it seems you can get by on paying those if you recruit people into Scientology. :rolleyes: ) And there's also L. Ron's own words. "Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors." Find me some information that comes to a different conclusion and I'll change my mind. Running Scientology may be a costly business operation but I'd love to find out if they're teaching the poor their "technology" for free. Bottom line, if they aren't going to be open about their operational costs, and yet charge large sums of money, and don't allow their beliefs and "technology" to be available to the public, I can't see how any other conclusion can be drawn but they are out to make money.

I don't have an immediate problem with a religion that teaches making money. But I do have a problem with a (purportedly) "religious" organization that has making money as it's goal.

As for "enlightening the world" it just seems the goal of many religions. Finding Jesus to be your personal savior and that sort of thing. There may be other reasons religions exist, but saving souls by way of enlightenment seems a big one anyway. Maybe I didn't put it well with the enlightenment business, but Scientology is about ridding people of Body Thetans and they aren't just giving that "technology" away.

If nobody can define what is a government, then any group can suddenly claim it is a religion and enjoy all the protections other religions have. This doesn't make sense to me.

[JayT]

Surely the answer to this question is easy?

Oy!

I don't think it's quite as easy as you suggest.

There are too many groups that call themselves 'religions' to count.

Finding a simple definition that all of them conform to would be very, very difficult.

If we created a simple definition, then nearly anyone could start a new religion and could claim all the government benefits thereof. If we make the definition complex, then all manner of religions would be at war with the government for recognition.

In the final analysis, by what authority would such a definition be established?

Under the US Constitution:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



The statement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...


seems to imply that the government is prohibited from passing a law defining what exactly constitutes a valid religion because to do so would give state sanction to one religion (respecting) while rejecting another as legitimate. In which case, what criterion do they use and how do they justify it for a religion claiming tax exemption?

They are not to prohibit "the free exercise" of religion. Does that mean they have to allow suicide bombings because it's a religious expression or that they have to allow people to run naked at the mall because their religion forbids wearing clothes?

What if a religion dictates to its followers: Thou shalt not pay taxes to any government.

Where do we draw the line and why? What authority authorizes this decision without Constitutional violation?

Not that it matters, since they have repeatedly broken every Constitutional rule in the book, making the Constitution a bad joke for all practical purposes.

Perhaps we should only consider religions with at least a 1000 year history of practice to be valid religions.

It's a can-o-worms in any event.

[jimtron]

How could making money not be their goal? From xenu.net: "The current (conservative) total cost for the whole bridge to OT9 readiness is estimated at $365,000 - $380,000." OT9 is definitely a lofty goal, but that's still a great deal of money by anyone's standards. Just reaching clear is around $128,000. There are also annual memberships (though it seems you can get by on paying those if you recruit people into Scientology. :rolleyes: ) And there's also L. Ron's own words. "Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors." Find me some information that comes to a different conclusion and I'll change my mind. Running Scientology may be a costly business operation but I'd love to find out if they're teaching the poor their "technology" for free. Bottom line, if they aren't going to be open about their operational costs, and yet charge large sums of money, and don't allow their beliefs and "technology" to be available to the public, I can't see how any other conclusion can be drawn but they are out to make money.

I don't have an immediate problem with a religion that teaches making money. But I do have a problem with a (purportedly) "religious" organization that has making money as it's goal.

As for "enlightening the world" it just seems the goal of many religions. Finding Jesus to be your personal savior and that sort of thing. There may be other reasons religions exist, but saving souls by way of enlightenment seems a big one anyway. Maybe I didn't put it well with the enlightenment business, but Scientology is about ridding people of Body Thetans and they aren't just giving that "technology" away.

If nobody can define what is a government, then any group can suddenly claim it is a religion and enjoy all the protections other religions have. This doesn't make sense to me.

I did say that I thought their goal was to make money, and I have a problem with this too. But what can be done about it? I think the goal of some religions is to control people, or subjugate women. So what? If we're for freedom of religion (I am), I think we need to allow religions to exist as religions.

I agree that the COS is probably the most transparently bogus religions around, but IMHO they're all bogus. The core beliefs of all religions are not backed up by evidence (correct me if I'm wrong). I still don't buy that there are "genuine" religions and "non-genuine" religions.

[Diamond]

Germany doesn't establish a religion either. Nevertheless it regards Scientology as a moneymaking enterprise first and foremost, with religious trappings in order to hide behind the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Since Scientology was firstly a self-help organization that made money AND THEN became a religion with ministers and "donations" and so on, would tend to back up the position of the Bundesrepublik.

It's difficult to say where a cult ends and a religion begins, but most of the activities of Scientology in its conduct with everyone else and especially the State falls squarely into cult territory. I don't accept that Scientologists are all brainwashed or crazed or both. But Scientology clearly belongs to a select group of extremely secretive and paranoid sects that appear designed to make secular authorities extremely nervous.

[tsg]

Under the US Constitution:

The statement:

seems to imply that the government is prohibited from passing a law defining what exactly constitutes a valid religion because to do so would give state sanction to one religion (respecting) while rejecting another as legitimate. In which case, what criterion do they use and how do they justify it for a religion claiming tax exemption?

From IRS Publication 1828 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf) p 23: Church. Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches.
These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and
by court decisions. They include: distinct legal existence; recognized
creed and form of worship; definite and distinct ecclesiastical
government; formal code of doctrine and discipline; distinct religious
history; membership not associated with any other church or
denomination; organization of ordained ministers; ordained ministers
selected after completing prescribed courses of study; literature
of its own; established places of worship; regular congregations;
regular religious services; Sunday schools for the religious
instruction of the young; schools for the preparation of its ministers.
The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics,
together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether
an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes.

The IRS makes no attempt to evaluate the content of whatever
doctrine a particular organization claims is religious, provided the
particular beliefs of the organization are truly and sincerely held by
those professing them and the practices and rites associated with
the organization’s belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to
clearly defined public policy."

501(c)(3) Tax exempt organizations also have other requirements:
■ the organization must be organized and operated
exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other
charitable purposes,
■ net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any
private individual or shareholder,
■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting
to influence legislation,
■ the organization may not intervene in political
campaigns, and
■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not
be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

They are not to prohibit "the free exercise" of religion. Does that mean they have to allow suicide bombings because it's a religious expression or that they have to allow people to run naked at the mall because their religion forbids wearing clothes?

Historically, the establishment clause has been interpreted to mean that any prohibition or regulation of behavior must have a secular purpose. Suicide bombings are prohibited because they kill people, not because they violate a religious tenet. The free exercise clause is similarly restricted in that the government cannot restrict a behavior for religious reasons that it would otherwise permit for secular reasons. For example, if a town permits groups to use a public park for gatherings, parties, performances, etc., they cannot deny access to the park to a particular group because the activities they want to use it for are religious. And if the town does not permit any groups to use the park, they are not violating the freedom of expression clause by denying a religious group access to the park.

What if a religion dictates to its followers: Thou shalt not pay taxes to any government.

Where do we draw the line and why? What authority authorizes this decision without Constitutional violation?

For the purposes of a US Constitutional discussion, there is no reason to draw a line between "valid" and "invalid" religion. The government is required by the Constitution to operate in a secular manner. With the exception of tax exempt status (which is not as simple as just calling something a religion), the law is the same for everyone regardless of religious affiliation. You cannot start a religion that doesn't believe in stopping at red lights and expect to be given exemption for running red lights. Not because it isn't a "real" religion, but because the law requires all people to stop at red lights.

[luchog]

I would say you can make the same arguments about the Nazis or the KKK in the US, and yet we don't criminalize them as organizations.
The modern KKK and ANP don't have a history of espionage, advocating overthrow of the US government, advocating violent crime, or harrassment of government officials. Splinter groups from these organizations do, and have been accordingly criminalized.

And your chosing of the KKK in particular shows your ignorance of American history. The original incarnation of the KKK was heavily suppressed, and finally eliminated, by the US government because of it's advocating of and engaging in violent act against both US citizens and the US Government; leading to the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which, among other things, addressed the pre-emtping of state autonomy by federal forces when state officials were acting in a manner contrary to the US Constitution and it's Civil Rights protections. This was a reaction to the support of the KKK by many local-government officials in the southern states, and in particular the use of police forces to support a number of mass killings of blacks by the Klan, culminating in the notorious Colfax massacre. Most of it is still in force today

The original Klan was finally eliminated in 1874, and not refounded until 1915, with a radically different charter, avoiding openly advocating the anti-Constitutional practices of it's first incarnation. Although it has engaged in charitable work, it has never been allowed to claim non-profit status. The second incarnation was also subject to government scrutiny, and during the '60s was decimated by the FBI's COINTELPRO program following an increase in violent acts by Klan groups. A number of high-profile, multi-million-dollar lawsuits a couple decades later effectively eliminated it as anything but a small handful of tiny groups; with an estimated membership of only about 3000 nationwide.

[Rasmus]

Germany doesn't establish a religion either.

But it does. Germany affords certain rights to organisations it deems "religions" that no one else has. This doesn't mean you can't still be a religion without that recognition, maybe.

Nevertheless it regards Scientology as a moneymaking enterprise first and foremost, with religious trappings in order to hide behind the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

I would be very suprised indeed if the German Govermant gave a rat's ass about the US Constitution...

Since Scientology was firstly a self-help organization that made money AND THEN became a religion with ministers and "donations" and so on, would tend to back up the position of the Bundesrepublik.

I dislike that Germany is making that distinction - and I don't think you will be able to make a reasonale argument that shows what can and can't be a religion that way.

Not that it matters: Even if anyone agreed that scientology was a religion it wouldn't change who they are and what they do.

It's difficult to say where a cult ends and a religion begins, but most of the activities of Scientology in its conduct with everyone else and especially the State falls squarely into cult territory.

I find the distinction between "cults" and "religions" to be inherently dishonest. It's a tool of the "religions" to keep a check on the competition.

I don't accept that Scientologists are all brainwashed or crazed or both. But Scientology clearly belongs to a select group of extremely secretive and paranoid sects that appear designed to make secular authorities extremely nervous.


... and in light of that, why should anyone care if it's a religion, a cult, a political party or a local flavour of the boy scouts organisation?

[Herzblut]

Children were ejected from schools for having parents that were Scientologists.

Please prove your claim!

It is absurd since German authorities will do all they can to maintain those kids
in public school and away from parental indoctrination.

Cheers
Herzblut

[Jekyll]

Not sure what you think I was lying about.
I'll try and make it clearer.
In the nineties Scientologists had a difficult time simply getting a job or keeping it.
I think this is a lie.
On it[a form] [one] would would have to declare that he/she had no affiliation with the Church of Scientology in order to maintain or get employment with said business.
I think this is a lie.
Children were ejected from schools for having parents that were Scientologists.
And I think this is a lie.

Any Scientologist (Do we have any names?) who got fired or wasn't hired, got fired/whatever for being a dumbass and not doing the job they were being paid to do.*

Any children who were forced to leave schools because of their parents(names again?) were forced out because of their parents stupidity and insistence of pushing their agenda on other members of the school.*

Of course if you can back any of these stories up, I will sincerely apologise.

*Frankly, I doubt these events happened.

[jimtron]

Not that it matters: Even if anyone agreed that scientology was a religion it wouldn't change who they are and what they do.Exactly. What is the point of making a distinction between a "genuine" religion and otherwise? In the U.S., what should the government do about cults that call themselves religions? Obviously, crimes by religious organizations should be punished (child-molesting by priests, burglary by Mary Sue Hubbard). Should governments regulate religion? Should they declare which religions are "genuine" and which not? If so, what criteria should they use?

[Herzblut]

Unless all the sources I've read that say otherwise are wrong, you are wrong. An officially recognized religion in Germany can teach its religion (to its own adherents) in a public school. Taxes for officially recognized churches can be collected (for the churches) by the Finanzamt. Religions that are not recognized don't enjoy these privileges.

You recognize how you mix up the words "religion" and "church"? A religion
being a believe system is no item of public "recognition". Certain churches,
NOT religions, are granted a certain form to organize themselves. This
organization form is by no means restricted to churches nor is it designed
for those. It more relates to Universities and Schools (plus a few churches).

Since we are talking about forms of organization and not about believe systems,
your critizism becomes unvalid. Organizations simply have to comply to defined
criteria, which SO unfortunately do not comply to. That's all. There is no relation
whatsoever to "recognition as a religion".


The movie in question will be about Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg's attempt to assassinate Hitler.

And this is unrelated to Cruise being the mighty Tethan of SO, you think?

You're right that the news story said the official filming request has not been received yet,

Thus, there cannot be any official response by "the German government".


So I'm back to my first ambivalence. I hate Tom Cruise and the Co$, but I also despise religious discrimination and state support of religion (even if they did so indiscriminately).

Tell the Brits with their State Church. :D

Cheers
Herzblut

[jimtron]

By the way, speaking of the IRS, Scientology enjoys a tax break (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30916FD3F540C778EDDAA0894DC4044 82&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations %2fC%2fChurch%20of%20Scientology) that apparently no other religion benefits from:
Trial is to beginin Los Angeles to determine whether Jewish couple Michael and Marla Sklar can deduct cost of religious education for their five children, tax benefit they say federal government has granted to members of just one religion, Church of Scientology; potential ramifications are huge, for ruling in favor of couple could affect millions of Americans who send their children to religious schools of all types; at stake is whether people of all religions can deduct cost of religious education as charitable gift, as Scientologists are allowed to do under officiallysecret 1993 agreement with Internal Revenue Service

And of course the COS won their battle with the IRS (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30C16F638550C728FDDAB0994DF494D 81):

New details of 1993 settlement between Church of Scientology and Internal Revenue Service show church paid $12.5 million to Federal Government and, in turn, was granted exempt status saving it millions fo dollars in taxes; in addition to $12.5 million payment, agreement required church to create internal oversight committee of high-level church officials to monitor its compliance with tax laws and report annually to tax agency for three years; church agreed to drop lawsuits against IRS and its officials and to stop helping church members who, along with church itself, had brought 2,200 lawsuits agency and its officials over period of years; in exchange, agency stopped audits of 13 major Scientology organizations, dismissed tax penalties and liens against some church organizations and granted tax-exempt status to 114 Scientology-related entities in US...

I'm not sure if any religions should get tax exemptions.

[strathmeyer]

It is absurd since German authorities will do all they can to maintain those kids in public school and away from parental indoctrination.

Exactly. Isn't removing the children from the parents the correct intolerant thing to do?

[bignickel]

One wikipedia link has already been mentioned, but here's a few more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29

The last one describes Hubbard's authorization of "Fair Game": "ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

Now, while the Scientologists have tried to distance themselves from this, or use terminology to try to indicate it's 'cancellation'... It can not be canceled. It came from L Ron himself, and can never be removed, unless the Church organized itself into something that wasn't COS. (Maybe they should invoke the Islamic "Satanic Verses" and offer up that Hubbard was possessed by Thetans, who spoke through him from time to time) (Except he was supposed to be free of Thetans)

Seriously: what government would want to have anything to do with an organization that declared it had the right to go after it's enemies by these means: "May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

[JayT]

From IRS Publication 1828 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf) p 23:

501(c)(3) Tax exempt organizations also have other requirements:




Historically, the establishment clause has been interpreted to mean that any prohibition or regulation of behavior must have a secular purpose. Suicide bombings are prohibited because they kill people, not because they violate a religious tenet. The free exercise clause is similarly restricted in that the government cannot restrict a behavior for religious reasons that it would otherwise permit for secular reasons. For example, if a town permits groups to use a public park for gatherings, parties, performances, etc., they cannot deny access to the park to a particular group because the activities they want to use it for are religious. And if the town does not permit any groups to use the park, they are not violating the freedom of expression clause by denying a religious group access to the park.



For the purposes of a US Constitutional discussion, there is no reason to draw a line between "valid" and "invalid" religion. The government is required by the Constitution to operate in a secular manner. With the exception of tax exempt status (which is not as simple as just calling something a religion), the law is the same for everyone regardless of religious affiliation. You cannot start a religion that doesn't believe in stopping at red lights and expect to be given exemption for running red lights. Not because it isn't a "real" religion, but because the law requires all people to stop at red lights.




Thanks for the useful info.

I was aware of some of it, but was interested in other opinions. I don't really agree with the way the government makes this decision though.

Even the Church of Satan is eligible for recognition as a religion, but then, if it weren't for Satan, we wouldn't need religion - he keeps them in business between executive orders.
LOL


On Oct. 8, 1993, 10,000 cheering Scientologists thronged the Los Angeles Sports Arena to celebrate the most important milestone in the church's recent history: victory in its all-out war against the Internal Revenue Service.

For 25 years, IRS agents had branded Scientology a commercial enterprise and refused to give it the tax exemption granted to churches. The refusals had been upheld in every court. But that night the crowd learned of an astonishing turnaround. The IRS had granted tax exemptions to every Scientology entity in the United States.

"The war is over," David Miscavige, the church's leader, declared to tumultuous applause.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/nytimes.html




Talk about irony:


On the basis of the IRS ruling, the State Department formally criticized Germany for discriminating against Scientologists. The German government regards the organization as a business, not a tax-exempt religion, the very position maintained for 25 years by the U.S. government.



I think the standards are too lax in that they seem to make it too easy for bogus religions and outright cults to pass muster. If Scientology qualifies as a legitimate religion, then the standards suck in my opinion.

It also makes me wonder. What if the government changed some laws and then certain religious practices suddenly became illegal. All hell would break loose!

LOL

[Rasmus]

Regarding the banning of children from schools: This is extremely unlikely to have happened.

Home schooling is not legal in Germany, children must go to a regular school. It is not easy to even chose which school to send a child to, as it usually depends on where you live. (In short, the police will take your child to school if you refuse to send it. They are a lot less strict if the child just skips school, though.)

There are some private schools as well as some run by churches. They may have more freedom in chosing whom they teach, I wouldn't know.

But on the whole it would be extremely difficult for a school to refuse to teach any child - much less based on the religion of their parents.

[jimtron]

One wikipedia link has already been mentioned, but here's a few more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29

The last one describes Hubbard's authorization of "Fair Game": "ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

Now, while the Scientologists have tried to distance themselves from this, or use terminology to try to indicate it's 'cancellation'... It can not be canceled. It came from L Ron himself, and can never be removed, unless the Church organized itself into something that wasn't COS. (Maybe they should invoke the Islamic "Satanic Verses" and offer up that Hubbard was possessed by Thetans, who spoke through him from time to time) (Except he was supposed to be free of Thetans)

Seriously: what government would want to have anything to do with an organization that declared it had the right to go after it's enemies by these means: "May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

Bignickel: what, if anything, should the U.S. Government do about the COS?

I think the standards are too lax in that they seem to make it too easy for bogus religions and outright cults to pass muster. If Scientology qualifies as a legitimate religion, then the standards suck in my opinion.

JayT: What criteria do you use to distinguish between a "bogus religion" and a non-bogus one? What are your standards regarding "legitimate religions"?

[Checkmite]

Germany likely won't give any member of the Scientology organization access to government property because it has in the past been the official policy of that organization to engage in subversive or espionage-ish activities against the government of Germany. Evidences. (http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/)

[Herzblut]

Exactly. Isn't removing the children from the parents the correct intolerant thing to do?
There is zero tolerance for parents trying to home educate their children.
Constitutional right for education, compulsary schooling stand against it.

The rights of the children ranks higher than those of the parents and the
state will try to enforce it. Even by delivering a kid to school in a police car
(as already stated) though this is the last resort and rarely takes place for
the good of the child.

All this makes the claim about children being "ejected from school" just
more ridiculous.

Where is your prove, Fred?

Cheers Herzblut

[arthwollipot]

What is the answer?

All 'religions' are cults, and criminal organizations.

That is the answer.

[Herzblut]

But what if he (Klansman) wants access to the White House to work on the movie in which he (KKK member) is playing Abraham Lincoln?

Would somebody from the US be so kind to address this question?

It corresponds to the German feelings you haven't sensed at all about a huge
national symbol against totaritarism (Stauffenberg) being played by an actor
with a leading role in a totalitarian organization.

Does that make sense?

Cheers
Herzblut

[Macoy]

Would somebody from the US be so kind to address this question?

It corresponds to the German feelings you haven't sensed at all about a huge
national symbol against totaritarism (Stauffenberg) being played by an actor
with a leading role in a totalitarian organization.

Does that make sense?

Cheers
Herzblut

Yes, his son has stated as much.

From the BBC:


Stauffenberg's son Berthold told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper earlier this week that he objected to Cruise taking the role because of his involvement with Scientology.
"He should keep his hands off my father," Mr von Stauffenberg said.

[Rasmus]

Exactly. Isn't removing the children from the parents the correct intolerant thing to do?

If the parents continiously refuse to let the children go to school and if other approaches fail, then yes.

Mere indoctrination as such is unlikely to meet any resistence I think. You can raise your kids religiously, some of the limits including that they will go to school and be exposed to other children as well as ideas.

[Rasmus]

Even the Church of Satan is eligible for recognition as a religion, but then, if it weren't for Satan, we wouldn't need religion - he keeps them in business between executive orders.
LOL

Why "even"? What makes the Church of Satan less of a real religion than the Catholic Church or Buddhism?

I think the standards are too lax in that they seem to make it too easy for bogus religions and outright cults to pass muster. If Scientology qualifies as a legitimate religion, then the standards suck in my opinion.

Same here.

I don't think there is any realy difference between a "bogus" religion, a cuilt and any other religion. By what standards would you make the distinction?

How is Christianity any less bogus than Pastafarianism? If anyone took the PIU (BBHH) seriously, why should we view it any different than Hinduism?

It also makes me wonder. What if the government changed some laws and then certain religious practices suddenly became illegal. All hell would break loose!

No, why? Freedom of rewligion does not mean that you can do whatefer the f**c you please just because you have an old, dusty book backing you up.

Granted, Germany is pretty messed up in that regard and there are things only churches can do, but if they were finally ruled illegal I would expect hell to be the same imaginary place it's always been, lacking any desire to manifest itself in any measurtable way let alone "break lose".

[HarryKeogh]

The modern KKK and ANP don't have a history of espionage, advocating overthrow of the US government, advocating violent crime, or harrassment of government officials.

Yeah, that sounds more like the early Mormon church.

[gumboot]

No, forbidding someone from filming on government property (specifically military bases) because he is a member of an organization which defrauds and brainwashes people.



All religions defraud and brainwash people.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

-Everyone, for the love of God, pl