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...

[Achán hiNidráne]

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.

[Achán hiNidráne]

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.

[Achán hiNidráne]

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.

[Achán hiNidráne]

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, 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.


If they're killing civilians, it's murder. Doing it during a "war" doesn't excuse it. Soldiers in war can still be convicted of murder.

-Gumboot

[tsg]

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.

Getting 501(c)(3) tax exempt status is fairly easy, not just for churches. All it really signifies is that the organization is a non-profit with some other qualifications and rules they must follow. I'm sure there are some charities that a lot of people don't think deserve tax exempt status.

If it were up to me, no churches would be tax exempt. But if you're going to exempt one, you have to exempt them all.

[ponderingturtle]

Getting 501(c)(3) tax exempt status is fairly easy, not just for churches. All it really signifies is that the organization is a non-profit with some other qualifications and rules they must follow. I'm sure there are some charities that a lot of people don't think deserve tax exempt status.

If it were up to me, no churches would be tax exempt. But if you're going to exempt one, you have to exempt them all.

Not necessarily. You should have certain requirements and if the church meets them, fine, if a non religious organization meets them, then they can tax exempt too.

Being a religion shouldn't matter at all for this status, it should be based on how it is organized.

[Georg]

EeneyMinnieMoe, I´d like to know if you still think that your statement of post 60

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.

is correct after being given the explanation that it has nothing to do with freedom of religion but everything with being opposed to the constitution of the country/government they would work for?

I´d also like to know, how you can fight Sylvia Browne (I applaud that), but be happy about getting an autograph of Tom Cruise, part of the PR machine of an inhuman organisation called Scientology. Is it because he´s a good actor in your opinion and you can suppress whatever else he is doing besides being an actor, or because you think Scientology is not that bad?

And I didn´t recognize this little gem when I read your post the first time:

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 there I was, thinking the main point of a typical democracy is that people are allowed to vote, select representatives that create the laws that are binding for everyone living or staying in that country. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean with “agree”. If you think that everyone has to follow the laws even if he doesn´t agree with them, you are right, and I apologize. If you think that means that every nutjob can follow his own rules, and the democracy has to accept that, than you are wrong. And a democracy has every right and even the duty to fight persons or organisations that don´t agree with the constitution and have the goal to overthrow it.

Before I forget:
Fred, would you please show the evidence, that children were thrown out of schools in Germany because their parents being members of Scientology? Or do you admit it was a lie or at least that you were mistaken about that one? The time should have been long enough to call back to your headquarters to get that information, shouldn´t it?

[tsg]

Not necessarily. You should have certain requirements and if the church meets them, fine, if a non religious organization meets them, then they can tax exempt too.

Poor choice of wording on my part. I don't think being a church should be sufficient for being tax exempt. They way the tax law is written now, churches are automatically exempt without having to file, although most do if only to be sure they qualify as a church. Religious organizations (the code makes a distinction between the two) have to file to become 501(c)(3) exempt.

Being a religion shouldn't matter at all for this status, it should be based on how it is organized.

I agree. I didn't mean to suggest that being a religious organization (or church) should disqualify them from being tax exempt.

From IRS Publication 4220 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf) p. 5:

exempt purpose—To be tax exempt, an organization
must have one or more exempt purposes, stated in
its organizing document. Section 501(c)(3) of the
IRC lists the following exempt purposes: charitable,
educational, religious, scientific, literary, fostering
national or international sports competition, preventing
cruelty to children or animals, and testing
for public safety.

I don't see the need for the word "religious" to appear in the list of exempt purposes. However, if a religious organization also has any of the other exempt purposes, I see no problem making them tax exempt.

[Oliver]

While I don't understand Scientology's obsession to get their Hands on germanies soil/citizens anyway:

For those who argue in favor of "Freedom of Religion", please consider this:

Source: German Embassy in Washington (http://search.germany.info/search?q=scientology&btnG=Go&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=default_collection)

The German government (http://www.bundesregierung.de/) has for quite some time maintained that the chief purpose of Scientology is not religious, but economical in nature. According to the Government, Scientology disguises itself as a religion if this might be advantageous. For example, in the remainder of Yugoslawia Scientology has claimed to be a non-religious organization. In Greece, Scientology (KEFE) claimed to be a philosophical, not a religious organization. And when Scientology as founded in South America in 1955, one of its goals was "... to lend and borrow money" (this slip has since then been corrected).

* Germany

In Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) Scientologist are free to practice. The German administrative courts and appeals courts have consistently held that the Scientology is to be afforded protection under the German Constitution.[123] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-RESOLUTION) But the church is considered a commercial business association and with no tax exemption. Scientology's attempts to be recognized as a church by courts have been without success. [136] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-112)[137] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-113)[138] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-114). Scientology is currently being monitored by some German intelligence agencies for perceived anti-constitutional ideology. [139] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-115) In the city of Hamburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg), the Scientology Task Force for the Hamburg Interior Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_Task_Force_for_the_Hamburg_Interior_Au thority) also monitors the group.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Germany

And:

Among the countries that do not consider Scientology as a religion:

* Belgium
* France
* Germany
* Great Britain
* Ireland
* Israel
* Italy
* Luxembourg
* Mexico
* Spain

Maybe Members from these countries can add their nations stances why Scientology isn't a Religion in their countries.

[Moochie]

EeneyMinnieMoe, I´d like to know if you still think that your statement of post 60



is correct after being given the explanation that it has nothing to do with freedom of religion but everything with being opposed to the constitution of the country/government they would work for?

I´d also like to know, how you can fight Sylvia Browne (I applaud that), but be happy about getting an autograph of Tom Cruise, part of the PR machine of an inhuman organisation called Scientology. Is it because he´s a good actor in your opinion and you can suppress whatever else he is doing besides being an actor, or because you think Scientology is not that bad?

And I didn´t recognize this little gem when I read your post the first time:



And there I was, thinking the main point of a typical democracy is that people are allowed to vote, select representatives that create the laws that are binding for everyone living or staying in that country. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean with “agree”. If you think that everyone has to follow the laws even if he doesn´t agree with them, you are right, and I apologize. If you think that means that every nutjob can follow his own rules, and the democracy has to accept that, than you are wrong. And a democracy has every right and even the duty to fight persons or organisations that don´t agree with the constitution and have the goal to overthrow it.

Before I forget:
Fred, would you please show the evidence, that children were thrown out of schools in Germany because their parents being members of Scientology? Or do you admit it was a lie or at least that you were mistaken about that one? The time should have been long enough to call back to your headquarters to get that information, shouldn´t it?

Thanks, Georg. You wrote much that had been in my own thinking regarding these two posters.

M.

[Deus Ex Machina]

While I don't understand Scientology's obsession to get their Hands on germanies soil/citizens anyway:

For those who argue in favor of "Freedom of Religion", please consider this:

Source: German Embassy in Washington (http://search.germany.info/search?q=scientology&btnG=Go&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=default_collection)

The German government (http://www.bundesregierung.de/) has for quite some time maintained that the chief purpose of Scientology is not religious, but economical in nature. According to the Government, Scientology disguises itself as a religion if this might be advantageous. For example, in the remainder of Yugoslawia Scientology has claimed to be a non-religious organization. In Greece, Scientology (KEFE) claimed to be a philosophical, not a religious organization. And when Scientology as founded in South America in 1955, one of its goals was "... to lend and borrow money" (this slip has since then been corrected).

* Germany

In Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) Scientologist are free to practice. The German administrative courts and appeals courts have consistently held that the Scientology is to be afforded protection under the German Constitution.[123] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-RESOLUTION) But the church is considered a commercial business association and with no tax exemption. Scientology's attempts to be recognized as a church by courts have been without success. [136] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-112)[137] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-113)[138] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-114). Scientology is currently being monitored by some German intelligence agencies for perceived anti-constitutional ideology. [139] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-115) In the city of Hamburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg), the Scientology Task Force for the Hamburg Interior Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_Task_Force_for_the_Hamburg_Interior_Au thority) also monitors the group.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Germany

And:

Among the countries that do not consider Scientology as a religion:

* Belgium
* France
* Germany
* Great Britain
* Ireland
* Israel
* Italy
* Luxembourg
* Mexico
* Spain

Maybe Members from these countries can add their nations stances why Scientology isn't a Religion in their countries.


I am not in Israel now but I was there in 1980 when Scientology made sure it was not registered as a religion - why? Because trying to convert Jews in Israel is mightily frowned upon. Scientology went out of its way to tell all and sundry that it was NOT a religion.

Rest assured that if Scientology tries to set up in a muslim country it will, for sure, not be mentioning the religious angle..

[Civilized Worm]

$cientology is a self help pyramid scheme that tries to achieve religious status in most countries because religious organisations enjoy certain benefits under their laws.


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

Because it's more of a philosophy than a religion. Few of them actually believe in Satan.

[arthwollipot]

And those who do often don't realise that satanism is only christianity with a black mask and heavy makeup.

[Big Les]

Yes, from what I've read it's much like the Golden Dawn, Freemasonry, Wicca, "chaos magic" and the other New Age individualist religions/philosophies/spiritualities - to a lesser or greater extent you are "god", or at least can be through whatever magical BS you're being sold. Same thing with Scientology; it's just a lot more commercial in approach. The other cult/new religion leaders were mostly interested in power, sex, and assured spiritual salvation, but Hubbard was all about the benjamins. And so it goes on.

[arthwollipot]

...but Hubbard was all about the benjamins.

Off topic, but I haven't heard this term before. I assume it's a reference to Ben Franklin, whose image appears on US currency? I've heard the term "dead presidents", but not "benjamins".

[quixotecoyote]

Off topic, but I haven't heard this term before. I assume it's a reference to Ben Franklin, whose image appears on US currency? I've heard the term "dead presidents", but not "benjamins".

You are correct. The phrase 'all about he benjamins' was popularized by a 2002 movie of the same name.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278295/

[tsg]

Off topic, but I haven't heard this term before. I assume it's a reference to Ben Franklin, whose image appears on US currency? I've heard the term "dead presidents", but not "benjamins".

The $100 bill to be precise.


Louis Black had a great line when there was a movement to get Ronald Reagan on the $10 bill. A spokesman for the movement was quoted as saying "Alexander Hamilton was a great Secretary of the Treasury, but he's the only person on a bill who wasn't president." Black said, "Oh yeah? I bet you a hundred dollars you're wrong."

[arthwollipot]

Thanks. And Lewis Black is a genius.

Well, sometimes.

[Georg]

Thanks, Georg. You wrote much that had been in my own thinking regarding these two posters.

M.

You are very welcome, Moochie. Normally it´s the other way round. I often decide not to post because I see others write the stuff that I think is right, but are better in expressing it than I ever will be.

P.S.: EeneyMinnieMoe, Fred, are you still there?

[Macoy]

Regrettably, any scientologists here appear to have clammed up.

[Georg]

To be fair, I don´t think EeneyMinnieMoe is a Scientologist. She(?) stated clearly that

While Scientology is the biggest crap I've ever heard of, there is such a thing as freedom of religion.

That would be a very blatant lie even for a Scientologist, so I´m very willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Still a twisted way of thinking in my opinion. Not the quoted sentence above, but the other things I mentioned earlier.
And strange that she is not coming back to either defend her points or admit she is wrong.
Probably I should just be more patient, I don´t have the time to post every day either.
Time will tell.

[Checkmite]

Regrettably, any scientologists here appear to have clammed up.

:D

[Rasmus]

Because it's more of a philosophy than a religion. Few of them actually believe in Satan.

I would argue that if you do not belive in Satan in one way or the other you are not a Satanist. That is, after all, what the word means.

But even if, where from comes the requirment to belive in a specific, personalized entitiy for something to be called a religion?

[Big Les]

I would argue that if you do not belive in Satan in one way or the other you are not a Satanist. That is, after all, what the word means.

But even if, where from comes the requirment to belive in a specific, personalized entitiy for something to be called a religion?

I know only what I've read online, but from what I can tell, you don't believe in Satan (because they don't even believe in God), but you follow what he represents (doing what you damn well please basically) and try to become "god" yourself via self-belief and "actual" magic. In other words, it's an ideal "religion" for angsty teenagers that want to cheese off their parents, teachers, and the local Baptists (or whoever).

Any resident Satanists, by all means feel free to correct my understanding.

[chillzero]

I knew a few satanists as a teenager, who felt that calling themselves that meant they distanced themselves from people who believed in God, but felt God was good. Their interpretation was that God was a selfish and vengeful force, and that Satan was wrongly expelled from heaven for his independant thinking, and questioning of God's will.

So, they believed in God, and in Satan, and mainly understood more about the bible, and theology than most christians I knew.

I don't know if there is a central 'doctrine' for what satanists should believe in, because I have met others since my teens, and their outlooks rarely agree.

[Civilized Worm]

I'm talking about people who belong to the Church of Satan, who to my knowledge don't make any supernatural claims and use the satanic symbolism as a way to wind up religious people.


And those who do often don't realise that satanism is only christianity with a black mask and heavy makeup.


Actually I think it's mostly based on Anton Lavey's plagiarism of Ayn Rand.

[Oliver]

I am not in Israel now but I was there in 1980 when Scientology made sure it was not registered as a religion - why? Because trying to convert Jews in Israel is mightily frowned upon. Scientology went out of its way to tell all and sundry that it was NOT a religion.

Rest assured that if Scientology tries to set up in a muslim country it will, for sure, not be mentioning the religious angle..


Thank you for Israels stance and Scientology's Background there, Deus Ex Machina. :)

So we have another country in which they flip-flopped on their "religious" roots. I have a hard time to understand why such flip-flopper are a religion ANYWHERE. This is ridiculous to me.

Anyone else from the other countries in which Scientology is no religion - and for what reasons?


While I don't understand Scientology's obsession to get their Hands on germanies soil/citizens anyway:

For those who argue in favor of "Freedom of Religion", please consider this:

Source: German Embassy in Washington (http://search.germany.info/search?q=scientology&btnG=Go&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=default_collection)

The German government (http://www.bundesregierung.de/) has for quite some time maintained that the chief purpose of Scientology is not religious, but economical in nature. According to the Government, Scientology disguises itself as a religion if this might be advantageous. For example, in the remainder of Yugoslawia Scientology has claimed to be a non-religious organization. In Greece, Scientology (KEFE) claimed to be a philosophical, not a religious organization. And when Scientology as founded in South America in 1955, one of its goals was "... to lend and borrow money" (this slip has since then been corrected).

* Germany

In Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) Scientologist are free to practice. The German administrative courts and appeals courts have consistently held that the Scientology is to be afforded protection under the German Constitution.[123] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-RESOLUTION) But the church is considered a commercial business association and with no tax exemption. Scientology's attempts to be recognized as a church by courts have been without success. [136] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-112)[137] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-113)[138] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-114). Scientology is currently being monitored by some German intelligence agencies for perceived anti-constitutional ideology. [139] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#_note-115) In the city of Hamburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg), the Scientology Task Force for the Hamburg Interior Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_Task_Force_for_the_Hamburg_Interior_Au thority) also monitors the group.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Germany

And:

Among the countries that do not consider Scientology as a religion:

* Belgium
* France
* Germany
* Great Britain
* Ireland
* Israel
* Italy
* Luxembourg
* Mexico
* Spain

Maybe Members from these countries can add their nations stances why Scientology isn't a Religion in their countries.

[fredcarr]

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?

On my own inclination. Its rather unpleasant to communicate on this site as it is, I'd hate to be under orders to do so.

Seriously though, why bother asking me this question? It's clear that what I have to say isn't believed as it is.

Fred

[tsg]

It's clear that what I have to say isn't believed as it is.

You might say that is an intended consequence of making claims without providing evidence to support them.

[fredcarr]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117967816.html?categoryid=19&cs=1

Looks like there is a bit more to this story than was first reported.

Fred

[fredcarr]

Not that this will be taken seriously:

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/Conference/brazil/taylor.htm

http://www.germanytodayfreedom.org/page00.htm

http://www.humanrights-germany.org/press/page21.htm

http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol2704/discrim.htm

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/Conference/Dc/bratschi.htm

Of course my primary source is from talking to fellow Scientologists who have moved here from Germany. They have told me what they had to go through there. Not what anyone would consider proof but there it is.

It's so enjoyable to be called a liar. Nothing like the internet to bring out the best manners in people.

Fred

[Moochie]

I knew a few satanists as a teenager, who felt that calling themselves that meant they distanced themselves from people who believed in God, but felt God was good. Their interpretation was that God was a selfish and vengeful force, and that Satan was wrongly expelled from heaven for his independant thinking, and questioning of God's will.

So, they believed in God, and in Satan, and mainly understood more about the bible, and theology than most christians I knew.

I don't know if there is a central 'doctrine' for what satanists should believe in, because I have met others since my teens, and their outlooks rarely agree.


I think it was Bob Dylan who wrote, "Don't follow leaders...," although I think he was just paraphrasing others, like Buddha, for instance, and maybe Krishnamurti. But the import of that is, use your own intelligence, be your own boss, etc. It is quite possible to survive in this world without handing yourself over to morons like $cientologists and other middlemen and women who claim to know more than you do about you.

M.

[fredcarr]

You might say that is an intended consequence of making claims without providing evidence to support them.

Personally, I think it has more to do with bias and prejudice.

Fred

[fredcarr]

http://www.humanrights-germany.org/issues/eng/discrim/page33.htm

http://www.scientology.org/scnnews/hatewach/issues/eng/risehv/act.htm

Here are a couple more that also address the issue of schools.

Fred

[Oliver]

Not that this will be taken seriously:

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/Conference/brazil/taylor.htm

http://www.germanytodayfreedom.org/page00.htm

http://www.humanrights-germany.org/press/page21.htm

http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol2704/discrim.htm

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/Conference/Dc/bratschi.htm

Of course my primary source is from talking to fellow Scientologists who have moved here from Germany. They have told me what they had to go through there. Not what anyone would consider proof but there it is.

It's so enjoyable to be called a liar. Nothing like the internet to bring out the best manners in people.

Fred


Did you even read my last post entirely?

The Scientologists are protected by the German constitution. The only difference is that they don't accept Scientology as a Church, not only because Flip-Flopping, but also because many other issues, including the profit character of the Organization, exploitation of Members, psychological Methods to control members, infiltrating political positions for their "religion", bribing, lack of explaining their believes ("Holy Scripts") and so on.

So to me it doesn't look like Scientology is oppressed. It's simply judged by it's very own behavior. Drive to Clearwater if you want to complain about it - because Germany isn't responsible for Scientology's behavior and history.

But just out of curiosity: Do you have any criticism at all against Scientology? :confused:

[jimtron]

http://www.humanrights-germany.org/issues/eng/discrim/page33.htm

http://www.scientology.org/scnnews/hatewach/issues/eng/risehv/act.htm

Here are a couple more that also address the issue of schools.

Fred

Do you have this from any sources that are not related to the COS?

[fredcarr]

Did you even read my last post entirely?

The Scientologists are protected by the constitution. The only difference is that they don't accept Scientology as a Church, not only because Flip-Flopping, but also because many other issues, including the profit character of the Organization, exploitation of Members, psychological Methods to control members, infiltrating political positions for their "religion", bribing, explain their believes and so on.

So to me it doesn't look like Scientology is oppressed. It's simply judged by it's very own behavior. Drive to Clearwater if you want to complain about it - because Germany isn't responsible for Scientology's behavior and history.

But just out of curiosity: Do you have any criticism at all against Scientology?

Sorry I didn't read your post in its entirety. My point from post the various things was to show that Scientologists are not being protected by the German constitution.

Sure I have found things wrong with my church. I work very hard to do my part to make things better. We aren't a huge church so our resources are limited making it hard to expand as we would like to do. (We don't enjoy state support like some religions do in certain countries - not a criticism, just a statement of fact.) My main criticism would be at myself in that I could have done more in years past to help out my church.

Fred

[Katana]

Sorry I didn't read your post in its entirety. My point from post the various things was to show that Scientologists are not being protected by the German constitution.

Sure I have found things wrong with my church. I work very hard to do my part to make things better. We aren't a huge church so our resources are limited making it hard to expand as we would like to do. (We don't enjoy state support like some religions do in certain countries - not a criticism, just a statement of fact.) My main criticism would be at myself in that I could have done more in years past to help out my church.

Fred


What would you change if you could?

[fredcarr]

Do you have this from any sources that are not related to the COS?

Nope. (Some reports referenced at those links are from non-Scientologists but I think its fair to assume that discriminatory actions against Sceintologists are going to be reported by Scientologists and not by those doing the discimination. Yet if one cared to research it with a less than prejudicial bent one just might find out these are not a pack of lies.) I could pull up links about other religions that have been discriminated against in the nineties as well. (I certainly don't think we are unique in this respect. :) )

Fred

[Oliver]

Sorry I didn't read your post in its entirety. My point from post the various things was to show that Scientologists are not being protected by the German constitution.

Sure I have found things wrong with my church. I work very hard to do my part to make things better. We aren't a huge church so our resources are limited making it hard to expand as we would like to do. (We don't enjoy state support like some religions do in certain countries - not a criticism, just a statement of fact.) My main criticism would be at myself in that I could have done more in years past to help out my church.

Fred


Well, Fred - to me it's hard to understand why people believe in Scientology in the first place. If you like to, I would love to get a better understanding, especially because the German Government gave so much negative Statements about them.

Nevertheless: I guess you would agree that if a religion would flip-flop and state they are or are no religion as they pleased, you wouldn't support such a behavior, would you?

I heard the Story about Xenu on 60 Minutes and since Ron Hubbard was a science-fiction writer and also stated that "if I want to get rich, I would start a religion", I'm very skeptic about someone who did exactly that: Write down science-fiction and declare it as a religion.

But this isn't criticism on my side - I'm simply too sceptical for such things, including "my" Bible, too.

Would you like to explain it for those who aren't that familiar with the positive side of Scientology? I could start a new thread about it in JREF/Religion.

[HarryKeogh]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117967816.html?categoryid=19&cs=1

Looks like there is a bit more to this story than was first reported.

Fred

Well...that was four pages of interesting debate over a non-issue.

[tsg]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117967816.html?categoryid=19&cs=1

Looks like there is a bit more to this story than was first reported.

Fred

So, then, Tom Cruise is not being discriminated against because of his beliefs?

[Oliver]

So, then, Tom Cruise is not being discriminated against because of his beliefs?


The main crux I see is that someone could portray Tom Cruise role as "the good Scientology against the Nazi-Regime" - as metaphor for "Scientology's interests vs. Germanies interests". But even if I personally think that's pretty far-fetched, it could be a part of the Issue. And I have no clue how much Scientology was involved in this movie, if at all.

[jimtron]

Nope. (Some reports referenced at those links are from non-Scientologists but I think its fair to assume that discriminatory actions against Sceintologists are going to be reported by Scientologists and not by those doing the discimination.Both Scientologists and those who discriminate against them would be biased, when it comes to discussing a case of discrimination against Scientologists. There are objective sources such as newspapers, magazines, the ACLU, etc. who report on discrimination. If the American Psychiatric Association made claims about how psychiatrists were mistreated, and there was no other evidence (by independent sources), you might be skeptical--I would be.

One thing that bugs me about the COS, is that Hubbard made claims about his tech being scientific, yet there is no independent scientific evidence (that I know of) to corroborate his claims. Also, the Church is not shy about criticizing Psychiatry, in the harshest and broadest sense, but when they (the COS) get criticized they cry religious bigotry, or unfair treatment. Or they say, "what's true is what's true for you." Does that aphorism apply to psychiatry too--if psych drugs and treatment are helpful to me, then that's the truth?

The reason science is valued here, is it's the best way we have so far to look at things in an objective way, and to determine to the best of our abilities, which treatments truly work, and which don't.

[tsg]

Not that this will be taken seriously:

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/Conference/brazil/taylor.htm

Yet more claims of discrimination with no evidence to support it, published by a member of the Church of Scientology.

http://www.germanytodayfreedom.org/page00.htm

Published by The Church of Scientology International. Sorry, I'm not wading through 29 pages to figure out what you want me to read. If there's something in there that supports a claim you've made, quote it.

http://www.humanrights-germany.org/press/page21.htm

A press release by the CoSI containing allegations and no evidence.

http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol2704/discrim.htm

Published by the CoSI containing no citations of fact.

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/Conference/Dc/bratschi.htm

Another member of CoS with many allegations and no evidence.

Of course my primary source is from talking to fellow Scientologists who have moved here from Germany. They have told me what they had to go through there. Not what anyone would consider proof but there it is.

Yet you offer it as such anyway. I'm sorry, "I know a guy who has been discriminated against" is not evidence.

It's so enjoyable to be called a liar.

Asking you to support your claims isn't calling you a liar.

Nothing like the internet to bring out the best manners in people.

Nor is it impolite.

[Herzblut]

Some reports referenced at those links are from non-Scientologists but I think its fair to assume that discriminatory actions against Sceintologists are going to be reported by Scientologists and not by those doing the discimination.

Not at all. It is fair to assume that in dubio pro reo holds.
If you accuse somebody please prove your accusation. Hitherto, he/she
is innocent. Your lack of understanding of the most basic principles of
democratic judgements is striking.


Yet if one cared to research it with a less than prejudicial bent one just might find out these are noprovt a pack of lies.

You dont get it. Nobody has to prove he's innocent. YOU have to prove
he's guilty if you accuse somebody.

Cheers
Herzblut

[Oliver]

Not at all. It is fair to assume that in dubio pro reo holds.
If you accuse somebody please prove your accusation. Hitherto, he/she
is innocent. Your lack of understanding of the most basic principles of
democratic judgements is striking.

You dont get it. Nobody has to prove he's innocent. YOU have to prove
he's guilty if you accuse somebody.

Cheers
Herzblut


Just out of curiosity because "Heartblood". Where are you from? :confused:

[Herzblut]

Just out of curiosity because "Heartblood". Where are you from? :confused:
Oliver, I added it to my profile. Wasn't tough to guess, right?

Cheers Herzblut

[tsg]

Personally, I think it has more to do with bias and prejudice.


You'd be wrong.

[Herzblut]

I think it was Bob Dylan who wrote, "Don't follow leaders...,"
Thus, Dylan being the leader whose directive to follow? :D

Cheers H.

[Oliver]

Oliver, I added it to my profile. Wasn't tough to guess, right?

Cheers Herzblut


*lach* Ich weiß, aber aus welcher Gegend? :D
Viele Grüße von Rhein und Mosel. :)

Translation:

*lol* I know, but which part of Germany? :D
Cheers from Rhine and Moselle. :)

[Moochie]

Thus, Dylan being the leader whose directive to follow? :D

Cheers H.

I swear, I don't know. I think He mentioned something about parking meters...

M.

[Herzblut]

*lach* Ich weiß, aber aus welcher Gegend? :D
Viele Grüße von Rhein und Mosel. :)

Aus Düsseldorf natürlich. :D

Auf ein Alt
Herzblut

[Oliver]

Aus Düsseldorf natürlich. :D

Auf ein Alt
Herzblut


*lach* "Natürlich". :D Aber auch wenn mir ein Alt lieber wäre und ich mich hier mit einem Whiskey-Cola zufrieden geben muss, Prosit aus dem Hunsrück. :D

*lol* "of course". :D But even if I would prefer an "Alt" now, too - and have to enjoy an Whiskey-Coke instead, cheers from the "Hunsrück". :D

[Herzblut]

I swear, I don't know. I think He mentioned something about parking meters...

M.
Haha! Very good. Now that makes sense. :cool:

And I already thought he gave some leading guidance by claiming at the same time we should not follow it! That had confused me first. :confused:

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

Cheers H.

[Moochie]

Aus Moers, natürlich. :biggrin:

M.

[Herzblut]

*lach* "Natürlich". :D Aber auch wenn mir ein Alt lieber wäre und ich mich hier mit einem Whiskey-Cola zufrieden geben muss, Prosit aus dem Hunsrück. :D


Cheers Philosopher! Glad 2 meet u here.

[Herzblut]

Aus Moers, natürlich. :biggrin:

M.
Nettes Städtchen! Kenne da eine Brasil..., aber das ist eine andere Geschichte.

(Nice village.) :D

Prost Herzblut

[Oliver]

Aus Moers, natürlich. :biggrin:

M.

Cheers Philosopher! Glad 2 meet u here.


*lol* You guys are practically neighbors. :D
Howdy, Moochie! What are you drinking tonight: Beer or Whiskey? :boxedin:

[Overman]

We aren't a huge church so our resources are limited....


http://www.anti-scientologie.ch/freewinds.jpg

Many dentists who have unwittingly been drawn into the cult are filing or threatening lawsuits as well. Dentist Robert Geary of Medina, Ohio, who entered a Sterling seminar in 1988, endured "the most extreme high-pressure sales tactics I have ever faced." Sterling officials told Geary, 45, that their firm was not linked to Scientology, he says. but Geary claims they eventually convinced him that he and his wife Dorothy had personal problems that required auditing. Over five months, the Gearys say, they spent $130,000 for services, plus $50,000 for "gold-embossed, investment-grade" books signed by Hubbard. (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html)Geary contends that Scientologists not only called his bank to increase his credit card limit but also forged his signature on a $20,000 loan application. "It was insane," he recalls. "I couldn't even get an accounting from them of what I was paying for." At one point, the Gearys claim, Scientologists held Dorothy hostage for two weeks in a mountain cabin, after which she was hospitalized for a nervous breakdown.

I'm too lazy to print the other infinate examples of their 'limited' resources.

[Moochie]

Nettes Städtchen! Kenne da eine Brasil..., aber das ist eine andere Geschichte.

(Nice village.) :D

Prost Herzblut

I've lived in Australia for several decades, but have relatives in Moers, Gelsenkirchen, and a few other places.

Cheers,

M.

[Big Les]

I'm too lazy to print the other infinate examples of their 'limited' resources.

Don't worry - the irony of the "limited resources" thing wasn't lost. I hope one day Fred starts to actually think critically about things.

[Oliver]

Don't worry - the irony of the "limited resources" thing wasn't lost. I hope one day Fred starts to actually think critically about things.


Hello Big Les, :)

would you mind to add the UK's concerns about Scientology to this thread?
I'm collecting them since I wonder why Germany is so controversial about Scientology - even if the reasons for great Britain and Ireland may be the same as the ones in Germany. :)

[Moochie]

*lol* You guys are practically neighbors. :D
Howdy, Moochie! What are you drinking tonight: Beer or Whiskey? :boxedin:


Cheap vodka, if it's any of your business...

M.

[fredcarr]

Well, Fred - to me it's hard to understand why people believe in Scientology in the first place. If you like to, I would love to get a better understanding, especially because the German Government gave so much negative Statements about them.

I usually just recommend studying the doctrines of the religion itself to get a better understanding of what its all about. We have published thousands of web pages that cover a lot of the fundamentals. There are a number of books that cover the subject as well as hundreds of lectures by Ron on the subject.

A good starting point would of course be - www.scientology.org (http://www.scientology.org)

Nevertheless: I guess you would agree that if a religion would flip-flop and state they are or are no religion as they pleased, you wouldn't support such a behavior, would you?I'm assuming you meant 'if members of a religion/church/ flip-flopped', etc. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I haven't changed my mind after deciding for myself about thirty years ago as to whether Scientology was a religion or not.


But this isn't criticism on my side - I'm simply too sceptical for such things, including "my" Bible, too.

Would you like to explain it for those who aren't that familiar with the positive side of Scientology? I could start a new thread about it in JREF/Religion.I'd be more inclined if this forum maintained a higher level of decency and respect as a whole. I'd rather just send people to our website.

Fred

[Oliver]

I usually just recommend studying the doctrines of the religion itself to get a better understanding of what its all about. We have published thousands of web pages that cover a lot of the fundamentals. There are a number of books that cover the subject as well as hundreds of lectures by Ron on the subject.

A good starting point would of course be - www.scientology.org (http://www.scientology.org)

I'm assuming you meant 'if members of a religion/church/ flip-flopped', etc. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I haven't changed my mind after deciding for myself about thirty years ago as to whether Scientology was a religion or not.

I'd be more inclined if this forum maintained a higher level of decency and respect as a whole. I'd rather just send people to our website.

Fred


I understand your argumentation, Fred - what I don't understand is how you were convinced about Scientology in the first place. From what I know -and I may be wrong about it- the whole religion is about Xenu and Thetans, but I also learned that Scientology Members themselves ridicule this issue.

So may I ask: What is this religion about? And what did they tell you in the beginning about it?

[Moochie]

I usually just recommend studying the doctrines of the religion itself to get a better understanding of what its all about. We have published thousands of web pages that cover a lot of the fundamentals. There are a number of books that cover the subject as well as hundreds of lectures by Ron on the subject.

A good starting point would of course be - www.scientology.org

Yeah, but you're assuming that folks are looking for something -- you know, to be "clear"? -- and you could be mistaken in that belief. I doubt that many here would be interested in your idea of "clear," given that your "church" has yet to produce such an august being. (Please, do not present Mr. Cruise as being such!)


I'm assuming you meant 'if members of a religion/church/ flip-flopped', etc. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I haven't changed my mind after deciding for myself about thirty years ago as to whether Scientology was a religion or not.
Here you demonstrate the fallacy I have pointed out before, not just about $cientology, but about most/all religions -- that they posit an unattainable vision of perfection -- a "perfection" that doesn't appear anywhere in nature. That "perfection" is certainty, and you express it in saying that, "I haven't changed my mind after deciding for myself about thirty years ago as to whether Scientology was a religion." Nothing more needs to be said.


I'd be more inclined if this forum maintained a higher level of decency and respect as a whole. I'd rather just send people to our website.


Fred
Yada yada yada. Why is it that so many of those who come here wanting to convince us of their beliefs resort to this? Sir, please show some respect toward us and answer the questions that have been put to you. Otherwise, you can just f*** off.

M.

[fredcarr]

So may I ask: What is this religion about? And what did they tell you in the beginning about it?

Good but simple question.

As an aside, It's hard to tell people the answer to this question (or any question) when they have already decided they know the answer.

IN THE BEGINNING...j/k. No one told me about it when I first learned of it. Thirty years later I would be hard pressed to remember a conversation in which someone told me what Scientology was about.

In learning Scientology one is expected to study the texts/doctrines/scriptures for himself without the interpretation of another.

Although we do have Sunday services in which a minister gives a sermon he usually reads directly from the writings of Mr. Hubbard and doesn't give his opinion as to what Ron means. How I got introduced to the subject is the way most of the Scientologists I know did. And that is by reading a book on it. I was reading various books one summer ranging from Astrology all the way to yoga. One of the books I read was by Mr. Hubbard. Although some of it made sense most of it seemed far out! (This was the seventies.)

I found another book by him which made more sense and in applying it to various experiences in my life found it helped me to understand what was occurring with me and others. And so it went...

This is a rather concise summation of Scientology. You should realize there are over 40 million words on the subject by Mr. Hubbard so its a tad difficult to summarize in a single post.

http://www.theta.com/goodman/fundamen.htm


"The essential tenets of Scientology (http://www.scientology.org/) are these: You are an immortal spiritual being. Your experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. And your capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized.

Furthermore, man is basically good. He is seeking to survive. And his survival depends upon himself and his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe."



Just My Opinion -> For me the subject of Scientology is based on and derives from a subject we call the ARC triangle. This is one of the, if not the most important, building block of the entire subject.





http://www.scripturaltraining.org/



To me the whole religion is about this subject and all points expand upon it but of course that is an oversimplification. If I were to explain Scientology to someone so they had a basic idea what is was about I would start with this as it permeates all parts of life which is really what Scientology is about - Life. (This is my take on it at least.)



What convinced me to study Scientology? By applying it to my life things got better. Not much more to say about it than that. It works.


Fred

[fredcarr]

Oliver - I hope my prior post isn't taken as an attempt to convince any of anything or that I am making some claim. I was simply trying to answer your question succintly and honestly.

Fred

[tsg]

I'd be more inclined if this forum maintained a higher level of decency and respect as a whole.

If, by that, you mean blindly accept your claims without evidence, it isn't going to happen.

[Oliver]

Oliver - I hope my prior post isn't taken as an attempt to convince any of anything or that I am making some claim. I was simply trying to answer your question succintly and honestly.

Fred


Well, give me some time to review your links, Fred. I really thought that this is a secret about the religions philosophy. That's one of the hurdles they couldn't make in Germany - but is required to be accepted.

While I will look into your links - may I ask what Xenu is about? I mean is this story part of Scientology's faith - or to a much smaller degree? You have to admit that we don't hear much about it - for reasons I don't know nor understand.

[fredcarr]

Oliver - It is my understanding that some confidential doctrines were stolen from our church and released on the internet. In any case, the confidential materials of Scientology represent a small percentage of the total scriptures on the subject. All the fundamentals (and much more) are open to anyone to study who has a desire to spend the time.

I have been in Scientology quite a while and haven't covered all the material as of yet. If you listened to 300 recorded lectures you would have only listened to about 10 percent of the lectures he made. I understand its a bit much to ask someone to listen to 300 hundred hours to get an idea of what a subject is really about, but I wouldn't expect to have a conversation about the New Testament with someone who hasn't read it. I'd simply tell them to read it.

Here is a link that briefly explains why some of the scriptures are confidential:

http://www.scientology.org/html/opencms/cos/scientology/en_US/religion/catechism/pg027.html

Why does the Church have confidential scriptures?
The vast majority of Scientology scriptures are widely available to the general public and can be read and studied by anyone. However, a very small portion of the scriptures that deal with the most advanced levels of spiritual counseling is restricted to those parishioners who have attained the prior levels of spiritual awareness.


Scientologists believe that one must be properly prepared — spiritually and ethically — to receive these materials and that premature exposure could impede spiritual development. For this reason, the information in these advanced scriptures is kept confidential.


It is not unusual for a religion to have confidential scriptures and practices. Similar religious practices exist in Judaism and Mormonism, for example.


Obviously, I only discuss authorized published works of Mr. Hubbard.

A small commentary about what Scientologists believe....Scientology doesn't ask one to have faith:

http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part01/chp03/pg0138.html


Fred

[fredcarr]

Oliver - It's amusing to be declared so secretive when we put our "vast" resources into making the subject available to as many as possible.

Fred

[Gurdur]

Aus Düsseldorf natürlich. :D
Auf ein Alt
Herzblut
Grüße!
Aus Solingen hier -- ungefähr inzwischen Köln und Düsseldorf. Allerdings, ich bin kein Deutscher, sondern ein Australier. Aber Danke an Joshua Kirosi, Dir, und Oliver für dem Arbeit hier -- manche hier sind ziemlich doof, oder?

[Macoy]

Oliver - It is my understanding that some confidential doctrines were stolen from our church and released on the internet. In any case, the confidential materials of Scientology represent a small percentage of the total scriptures on the subject. All the fundamentals (and much more) are open to anyone to study who has a desire to spend the time.

I have been in Scientology quite a while and haven't covered all the material as of yet. If you listened to 300 recorded lectures you would have only listened to about 10 percent of the lectures he made. I understand its a bit much to ask someone to listen to 300 hundred hours to get an idea of what a subject is really about, but I wouldn't expect to have a conversation about the New Testament with someone who hasn't read it. I'd simply tell them to read it.

/snip

Always good to see you're back, Fred!

Can I assume from your previous posts that you are fairly low on the "ot" ladder?

eg , you cannot yet talk to animals?

[Gurdur]

Oliver - It's amusing to be declared so secretive when we put our "vast" resources into making the subject available to as many as possible.
Fred
But for a fee, for a fee, yes? Kinda expensive to get anywhere up high in that world, yes?

[Gurdur]

...But if you're going to exempt one, you have to exempt them all.


Nonsense.
There you go; an unsubstantiated assertion countered by a flat negation. Such artificial absolutes as you demand exist nowhere in the real world whatsover.

[fredcarr]

But for a fee...Although we do have a tithing system that wasn't what I was referring to. We have libraries in our church that are open to public use. One can borrow materials as well. There is no cost for this service.


Scientologists donate books to public libraries as well as the extensive web sites which provide lots of material.

http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/catechism/pg028.html

This explains our tithing system briefly.


Fred

[Macoy]

What... 5? ....4?

[Gurdur]

Although we do have a tithing system
I wasn't referring to the tithing system but to the practice of charging fees (or demanding donations) for certain tests and so on.
that wasn't what I was referring to.
I'm aware of that, but it's rather an important aspect to mention, don't you think?

[Herzblut]

Grüße!
Aus Solingen hier -- ungefähr inzwischen Köln und Düsseldorf.

Na sowas! Meine Freundin kommt aus Solingen!

Na dann Prost!

H.

P.S. Solingen liegt zwischen Düsseldorf und Wuppertal, aber egal...

[tsg]

Nonsense.
There you go; an unsubstantiated assertion countered by a flat negation. Such artificial absolutes as you demand exist nowhere in the real world whatsover.

Uh, what?

[cloudshipsrule]

Fred,

Why would you take the stories of a fiction author as, er, gospel? Do you actual believe the alien part of scientology theology? Just curious.

[Oliver]

Oliver - It's amusing to be declared so secretive when we put our "vast" resources into making the subject available to as many as possible.

Fred


Hello Fred,

I reviewed your links in parts and I have some criticism concerning this information. One thing I'm interested in is the Story of Xenu, but none of the links mentioned it and the searches also showed no results about it.

The OCA-Test was pretty lingering and reminded me to a typical psychological test. Is this a standard test for new or interested people?

While the Triangle reminded me to a modern version of the Trinity in
the first place, after reading it's description, it much more describes discoveries of Neuro-linguistic programming. Also the churchs description to enhance the personal character, reminded me to NLP.

I really have a hard time to find something spiritual in Scientology.
And do you know where I can get information about the prices of the services and sessions you mentioned?

[Gurdur]

Uh, what?
You claimed: "But if you're going to exempt one, you have to exempt them all."

I told you that was nonsense. It's an absolutist claim of yours which is easily destroyed by reductio ad absurdum and by the real world.

I'ld say that's quite easy to understand.

[Gurdur]

...P.S. Solingen liegt zwischen Düsseldorf und Wuppertal, aber egal...
Für diejenigen, die nicht wissen, wo Wuppertal ist. Meisten wissen wohl wo Köln und Düsseldorf sind.

[Chaos]

Für diejenigen, die nicht wissen, wo Wuppertal ist. Meisten wissen wohl wo Köln und Düsseldorf sind.

Egal. Ist eh alles ein Durcheinander da drüben. :D


Gruß,
Chaos

(stolzer Frankfurter)

[Georg]

Not that this will be taken seriously:

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/Conference/brazil/taylor.htm

http://www.germanytodayfreedom.org/page00.htm

http://www.humanrights-germany.org/press/page21.htm

http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol2704/discrim.htm

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/Conference/Dc/bratschi.htm

Of course my primary source is from talking to fellow Scientologists who have moved here from Germany. They have told me what they had to go through there. Not what anyone would consider proof but there it is.

It's so enjoyable to be called a liar. Nothing like the internet to bring out the best manners in people.

Fred

Fred, while it´s nice to see that you are not a coward and and have the balls to came back to the thread, you have still shown no evidence that children were thrown out of public schools in Germany because their parents being Scientologists. I waded through a couple of your links, and didn´t find anything. Since I´m not willing to spend a couple of hours on Scientology sources just to find a bit more of propaganda crap with no evidence whatsoever, I´m asking again:
Where is the evidence? If you don´t show it or retract your statement about that, I indeed will call you a liar. I know, that´s not nice. But it´s not nice either to defame a whole country without a reason.
And don´t give me the sh… that of course there are only Scientology sources for that. If it were true, it would have made headlines in the real world as well. So?


Eeney MinnieMoe, what about you? Not interested either in backing up the points you made earlier?

Grüße aus dem Landkreis Augsburg

Georg

[Moochie]

Grüße!
Aus Solingen hier -- ungefähr inzwischen Köln und Düsseldorf. Allerdings, ich bin kein Deutscher, sondern ein Australier. Aber Danke an Joshua Kirosi, Dir, und Oliver für dem Arbeit hier -- manche hier sind ziemlich doof, oder?


:D


M.

[tsg]

You claimed: "But if you're going to exempt one, you have to exempt them all."

I told you that was nonsense. It's an absolutist claim of yours which is easily destroyed by reductio ad absurdum and by the real world.

Care to explain exactly what about that statement you have a problem with, or are we just going to play "is too!", "is not!"?

[Gurdur]

Care to explain exactly what about that statement you have a problem with,
Do you even actually understand your own statement? Which part of a flat-out negation do you not grasp?
or are we just going to play "is too!", "is not!"?
It's not my problem you fail to understand that you made an unsubstantiated assertion, and I flatly negated it.

Which part of:
Your statement is false on both empirical and on ethical grounds
do you not wish to deal with?

I won't bother quoting your statement a third time; if you can't even try backing it up, it's a dead duck from the word go even without my intervention. To make it even clearer for you, since you obviously have not thought through your own position, I am telling you that both in real life and on good ethical grounds one group claiming to be a religion may be assigned a tax-exempt or tax-minimization status, and another group refused.

[strathmeyer]

It's so enjoyable to be called a liar. Nothing like the internet to bring out the best manners in people.

Why should we have a conversation with someone who enjoys lying?

What other social forums do you participate in that are comparably more well mannered than here?

[Complexity]

http://www.xenu.net/

The only Scientology link that really matters.

[Georg]

Bump for Fred and EeneyMinnieMoe

[Moochie]

http://www.xenu.net/

The only Scientology link that really matters.


Seconded.

It seems to me that on balance, Mr. Carr's posts equate exactly to spam. Doesn't the JREF have a policy about that?

M.

[Georg]

Seconded.

It seems to me that on balance, Mr. Carr's posts equate exactly to spam. Doesn't the JREF have a policy about that?

M.

spoilsport:(

[Moochie]

spoilsport:(

Oh, sorry, I forgot. He's merely pointing to his company's "scriptures."

My bad. :(

M.

[Jekyll]

Fred, while it´s nice to see that you are not a coward and and have the balls to came back to the thread, you have still shown no evidence that children were thrown out of public schools in Germany because their parents being Scientologists. I waded through a couple of your links, and didn´t find anything. Since I´m not willing to spend a couple of hours on Scientology sources just to find a bit more of propaganda crap with no evidence whatsoever, I´m asking again:
Where is the evidence? If you don´t show it or retract your statement about that, I indeed will call you a liar. I know, that´s not nice. But it´s not nice either to defame a whole country without a reason.
And don´t give me the sh… that of course there are only Scientology sources for that. If it were true, it would have made headlines in the real world as well. So?

Bumped for Fred.

I read those links as well, the mention of kids being expelled was this:
1987, Hamburg: Two pupils from Hamburg were thrown out of school because their mother’s religion was Scientology. With the approval of school management, one teacher sent a circular to all parents and pupils inciting them against Scientology.
From the bottom of this page (http://www.humanrights-germany.org/issues/eng/discrim/page33.htm).

Is there anything more substantial than this? Or is this just one of those stories that as been repeated so many times you guys accept it as truth?

[tsg]

Do you even actually understand your own statement? Which part of a flat-out negation do you not grasp?

It's not my problem you fail to understand that you made an unsubstantiated assertion, and I flatly negated it.

Which part of:
Your statement is false on both empirical and on ethical grounds
do you not wish to deal with?

Do you want to discuss this or do you want to act like an ass? Because I don't want to waste my time if it's the latter.

I won't bother quoting your statement a third time; if you can't even try backing it up, it's a dead duck from the word go even without my intervention. To make it even clearer for you, since you obviously have not thought through your own position, I am telling you that both in real life and on good ethical grounds one group claiming to be a religion may be assigned a tax-exempt or tax-minimization status, and another group refused.

The sentence you took completely out of context was part of a discussion on tax exempt status and how it relates to the US Constitution, specifically the freedom to exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment. It was not a statement on what should be done on ethical or moral grounds, nor was it a statement on what is currently being done. Therefore, neither of those arguments have anything to do with my position and the statement you responded to with nothing but "nonsense", arrogance and derision. And had you just explained your position the first time instead of making me ask you twice what the hell you were talking about, we could have avoided all this.

Free hint: try actually reading what you're responding to, and drop that smug self-righteous attitude. Nothing will get you ignored faster.

[Georg]

Oh, sorry, I forgot. He's merely pointing to his company's "scriptures."

My bad. :(

M.

Yes. He´s just contributing to the best of his knowledge…..:D
And as long as he doesn´t flood the forum with this drivel, I actually enjoy that kind of posts for showing exactly how deluded one has to be to fall for that kind of BS. Since he doesn´t seem to be one of the evil suckers, one could hope that he will learn someday…….

By the way:
Fred, would you please provide evidence for the allegation that children have been thrown out of public schools in Germany because of their parents being Scientologists?
This is what Germany officially has to say to that topic:

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.

taken from that link:

http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html

EeneyMinnieMoe, would you please come back and tell the excited audience why you rightfully attack Sylvia Browne, but sort of defend and admire Tom Cruise, part of the PR machine of that inhuman, criminal organisation called Scientology, that brought more grief to people than “The Claws” ™ ever will be able to?
Would you also explain, why a state should employ people opposed to its constitution?

Thanks in advance,

Georg

[Flo]

Good but simple question.

As an aside, It's hard to tell people the answer to this question (or any question) when they have already decided they know the answer.

IN THE BEGINNING...j/k. No one told me about it when I first learned of it. Thirty years later I would be hard pressed to remember a conversation in which someone told me what Scientology was about.

In learning Scientology one is expected to study the texts/doctrines/scriptures for himself without the interpretation of another.

Although we do have Sunday services in which a minister gives a sermon he usually reads directly from the writings of Mr. Hubbard and doesn't give his opinion as to what Ron means. How I got introduced to the subject is the way most of the Scientologists I know did. And that is by reading a book on it. I was reading various books one summer ranging from Astrology all the way to yoga. One of the books I read was by Mr. Hubbard. Although some of it made sense most of it seemed far out! (This was the seventies.)

I found another book by him which made more sense and in applying it to various experiences in my life found it helped me to understand what was occurring with me and others. And so it went...

Reminds me of this quote:

· It was amazing, this mystic business. You tell them a lie, and then when you don't need it any more you tell them another lie and tell them they're progressing along the road to wisdom. Then instead of laughing they follow you even more, hoping that at the heart of all the lies they'll find the truth. And bit by bit they accept the unacceptable. (Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!)

[Flo]

Oliver - It is my understanding that some confidential doctrines were stolen from our church and released on the internet. In any case, the confidential materials of Scientology represent a small percentage of the total scriptures on the subject. All the fundamentals (and much more) are open to anyone to study who has a desire to spend the time.

I have been in Scientology quite a while and haven't covered all the material as of yet. If you listened to 300 recorded lectures you would have only listened to about 10 percent of the lectures he made. I understand its a bit much to ask someone to listen to 300 hundred hours to get an idea of what a subject is really about, but I wouldn't expect to have a conversation about the New Testament with someone who hasn't read it. I'd simply tell them to read it.

Here is a link that briefly explains why some of the scriptures are confidential:

http://www.scientology.org/html/opencms/cos/scientology/en_US/religion/catechism/pg027.html

Might the real explanation not rather be that that confidential "doctrine" is so laughable that nobody (especially those people aware of the kind of SF litterature Mr Hubbard used to produce, or with any real knowledge of the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and sound science, not to mention common sense) would ever enroll into $cientology on its basis ?

[Flo]

Yes. He´s just contributing to the best of his knowledge…..:D
And as long as he doesn´t flood the forum with this drivel, I actually enjoy that kind of posts for showing exactly how deluded one has to be to fall for that kind of BS. Since he doesn´t seem to be one of the evil suckers, one could hope that he will learn someday…….

I'm afraid there's little hope, given that he started with $ciento in the seventies already ...

I was reading various books one summer ranging from Astrology all the way to yoga. One of the books I read was by Mr. Hubbard. Although some of it made sense most of it seemed far out! (This was the seventies.)



EeneyMinnieMoe, would you please come back and tell the excited audience why you rightfully attack Sylvia Browne, but sort of defend and admire Tom Cruise, part of the PR machine of that inhuman, criminal organisation called Scientology, that brought more grief to people than “The Claws” ™ ever will be able to?

Trying to eliminate concurrence ? ;)

[Georg]

Trying to eliminate concurrence ? ;)

Could it be that what you mean is "competition"?
That´s what my dictionary tells me would be the translation of French "concurrence" or German "Konkurrenz" to English. Then I think it´s funny. Otherwise I don´t understand the joke........

[Flo]

Could it be that what you mean is "competition"?
That´s what my dictionary tells me would be the translation of French "concurrence" or German "Konkurrenz" to English. Then I think it´s funny. Otherwise I don´t understand the joke........


That's it, point to my failings ... (sob ...) ;)

[Georg]

That's it, point to my failings ... (sob ...) ;)

Come on, I did appreciate your joke. Isn´t that worth something?

[fredcarr]

Why would you take the stories of a fiction author as, er, gospel? Do you actual believe the alien part of scientology theology? Just curious.

I don't take anything as gospel. Not do I "believe" in any aspect of Scientology. (I've covered this in earlier threads.)


It's amazing to me how intolerant some of you make yourselves out to be via the internet.

Example -

Why should we have a conversation with someone who enjoys lying?

What other social forums do you participate in that are comparably more well mannered than here?


Fred

[Macoy]

I don't take anything as gospel. Not do I "believe" in any aspect of Scientology. (I've covered this in earlier threads.)



Does this mean that you do not believe in the 'operating thetan' courses?

[ConkerTheSquirrel]

People are moaning about freedom of religion. Well scientology isn't even considered a religion in Germany. In fact it's considered a criminal organization isn't it? So I have no problem with Germany telling Cruise to **** off.

[Big Les]

Hello Big Les, :)

would you mind to add the UK's concerns about Scientology to this thread?
I'm collecting them since I wonder why Germany is so controversial about Scientology - even if the reasons for great Britain and Ireland may be the same as the ones in Germany. :)

Sorry Oliver, I somehow missed this before. To answer your question, plenty of people are aware of them, via the occasional expose like the Panorama and Big Story programmes, but mostly I think through celebrity gossip magazines and the Internet. They're seen as crazy, but as Douglas Adams said, "Mostly Harmless". They are denied charity status, and in Scotland, can't even call themselves a church, which I find endlessly amusing.

The danger I suppose is that we'll underestimate them, but then natural British cynicism and suspicion of organised religion should prevent them ever getting a foothold. There was that new London HQ opened by some top bod in the Met police who either didn't know any better or had been "got to".

Oh, and Fred; this is not the place to play the "religious intolerance" card. Assuming for one moment that any of us were to regard your organisation as such, the JREF forum is full of people that see no reason to afford religion any more tolerance than any other belief.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Sorry I didn't read your post in its entirety. My point from post the various things was to show that Scientologists are not being protected by the German constitution.

Sure I have found things wrong with my church. I work very hard to do my part to make things better. We aren't a huge church so our resources are limited making it hard to expand as we would like to do. (We don't enjoy state support like some religions do in certain countries - not a criticism, just a statement of fact.) My main criticism would be at myself in that I could have done more in years past to help out my church.

Fred


Why Fred, you didn't toe the party line and say how Scientology is just expanding like crazy and has 12 million members... instead you are saying that the official Scientology propaganda is merely lies?? Wow.

How long do you think it will take you to get through the sec checks to get on to services now that you have publicly said the church is lying?

Or given the cringing attitude of the last sentence - maybe you can blame yourself for it?

[Deus Ex Machina]

Of course my primary source is from talking to fellow Scientologists who have moved here from Germany. They have told me what they had to go through there. Not what anyone would consider proof but there it is.

Fred

How many have you talked to Fred? What part of Germany were they from? Did they move to Utah or did you meet them somewhere else?

[Flo]

I don't take anything as gospel. Not do I "believe" in any aspect of Scientology. (I've covered this in earlier threads.)

You don't take anything as gospel yet you still defend $cientology after all that's been revealed about it ?


It's amazing to me how intolerant some of you make yourselves out to be via the internet.

Oh, poor you ! You arrive on a skeptical forum and expose "faith" in one of the best understood scam of the 20th century, claim discrimination without evidence, and then those horrible skeptics take you to task. If it isn't persecution by intolerance, I really wonder what is ... :D

[Georg]

Fred, what a whiny little boy you are. You are trying to defame a whole country for its policy regarding Scientology. When asked for evidence for the allegations that you made, all you do is provide some links to that criminal organisation, which merely repeat the allegations without any evidence. When called out on that repeatedly, all you have to say is

It's amazing to me how intolerant some of you make yourselves out to be via the internet.


Wow, just wow. You call people intolerant because they don´t take your word as fact? On a sceptics forum? I guess now it´s time to award you the new username "fredthewhinyliarcarr". And no, this has nothing to do with the internet. Be sure, I would call you a liar in real life as well. Of course I´m willing to take that back, if you finally provide some evidence that children were thrown out of public schools in Germany because their parents are Scientologists.

EeneyMinnieMoe, since you keep posting in other threads, would you please come back to this one and answer the questions posed to you? I don´t want to steal too much of your precious time with looking them up, so I repeat them for you:

Why do you rightfully attack Sylvia Browne, but sort of defend and admire Tom Cruise, part of the PR machine of that inhuman, criminal organisation called Scientology, that brought more grief to people than “The Claws” ™ ever will be able to?
Would you also explain, why a state should employ people opposed to its constitution?

[ConkerTheSquirrel]

Hi Fred, are we supressive persons yet? Haha. I suppose you'll be using fair game on us soon? Oh lord, please don't!! I promise I won't hail Lord Xenu any more!!!

[Gurdur]

People are moaning about freedom of religion. Well scientology isn't even considered a religion in Germany. In fact it's considered a criminal organization isn't it? So I have no problem with Germany telling Cruise to **** off.
Unfortunately, Germany does not officially consider $cientology to be a "criminal organization"; it merely refuses to give tax-free status as a religion to $cientology, insisting it be legally an association or business instead.

This of course arouses the hatred by many $cientologists of Germany.

Mind you, $cientologists also hate psychiatrists, anyone exposing internal $cientology shenanigans, and criticism.

The absolute worst would be a German psychiatrist who vocally and trenchently exposes the dark underbelly.

[Moochie]

I'm just wondering if all or only some of ellron's pulp fiction is considered "scripture."

M.

[Deus Ex Machina]

I'm just wondering if all or only some of ellron's pulp fiction is considered "scripture."

M.

but of course - he just labelled it confidential and called it "OT levels"

[Macoy]

but of course - he just labelled it confidential and called it "OT levels"

I have been a science fiction reader for more than 40 years and i say that i think that ron's stuff is crap.

[Moochie]

I have been a science fiction reader for more than 40 years and i say that i think that ron's stuff is crap.


Crap, yes, but scriptural crap. :D

M.

[fredcarr]

Oh, and Fred; this is not the place to play the "religious intolerance" card. Assuming for one moment that any of us were to regard your organisation as such, the JREF forum is full of people that see no reason to afford religion any more tolerance than any other belief.

Point well taken.

Fred