Your religious beliefs will not help you in court if you have broken a law. Stop arguing that line. Thats not what the laws of religious protection have ever meant.
Scientology is also a pyramid scheme. I don't think criminal enterprises of a financial nature should be awarded tax exempt status. That just strikes me as being anathema to the whole nature of our legal system.
They got tax exempt status because they would not stop suing the IRS and the IRS was having about no luck getting any money from them. So they just gave up.
Your religious beliefs will not help you in court if you have broken a law. Stop arguing that line. Thats not what the laws of religious protection have ever meant.
Scientology is also a pyramid scheme. I don't think criminal enterprises of a financial nature should be awarded tax exempt status. That just strikes me as being anathema to the whole nature of our legal system.
They got tax exempt status because they would not stop suing the IRS and the IRS was having about no luck getting any money from them. So they just gave up.
There need to be laws against abusive litigation like that.
Your religious beliefs will not help you in court if you have broken a law. Stop arguing that line. Thats not what the laws of religious protection have ever meant.
Scientology is also a pyramid scheme. I don't think criminal enterprises of a financial nature should be awarded tax exempt status. That just strikes me as being anathema to the whole nature of our legal system.
They got tax exempt status because they would not stop suing the IRS and the IRS was having about no luck getting any money from them. So they just gave up.
There need to be laws against abusive litigation like that.
Theres got to be more to the story than that. If the CoS was just straight up refusing to pay their taxes they would be brought down by law enforcement.
I get that Scientology is not a recognized religion in Germany, you don't have to keep bringing it up as if its a new point your making. A huge part of my argument since about page 5 in this thread has been that Germany is WRONG in its classification.
That the Church of Scientology has ridiculous teachings, makes a lot of money and is subverting governments isn't a unique characteristic that makes Scientology not a religion. Actually, its its defining similarity.
We both have laws that protect against the discrimination of religion. If we can agree that Scientology is a religion albiet slightly stupider than average, we must agree that Germany is wrong to deny Tom Cruise access to the movie set on the basis of his religion.
edit: Its members believe, really, truely, believe that Scientology is true. It has no evidence to support it, just a lot of evidence to contradict it. They believe it anyway. Therefore, religion.
I explained several pages back about subversive groups, and the right reserved by governments to protect themselves and their citizenry from these entities, even when said entities try and cloak themselves in the protective shroud of religion.
Whether it is Falun Gong in Japan, Scientology in Germany, or Branch Davidians in Texas, governments can and do say "Uh uh, this isn't a religion" and react accordingly.
This is the way it has always been, and it isn't going to change anytime soon.
And the difference between a cult and a religion is essentially how many people agree with it. Discriminating against a cult is no more justifiable than discriminating against a major religion.
No; they're totally different. An commercial organisation that decides to call itself a religion isn't a religion. When the founder of your 'religion' is on record saying "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." then DING DING DING we've found a cult. If Methodists extorted money from their followers and drove people to suicide then I'd damn well be down with blocking them at every step as well.
Not to mention the aspects of brainwashing, and actively trying to prevent followers from leaving the fold.
A cult is not simply a religion on a small scale. There are other factors in determining what is and isn't a cult.
Your religious beliefs will not help you in court if you have broken a law. Stop arguing that line. Thats not what the laws of religious protection have ever meant.
Scientology is also a pyramid scheme. I don't think criminal enterprises of a financial nature should be awarded tax exempt status. That just strikes me as being anathema to the whole nature of our legal system.
They got tax exempt status because they would not stop suing the IRS and the IRS was having about no luck getting any money from them. So they just gave up.
There need to be laws against abusive litigation like that.
Theres got to be more to the story than that. If the CoS was just straight up refusing to pay their taxes they would be brought down by law enforcement.
You overestimate the determination of a bunch of Accountants.
Not to mention that our nation is not necessarily known for being the most consistant when it comes to making organizations pay the proper taxes.
Your religious beliefs will not help you in court if you have broken a law. Stop arguing that line. Thats not what the laws of religious protection have ever meant.
If I was in the German parliament, I'd have a motion up calling Scientology terrorists.
Its not like they don't have justifiable reasons, and if it launched a full investigation and released it to the world, then (I know, I'm dreaming) scientology would be brought down.
Theres got to be more to the story than that. If the CoS was just straight up refusing to pay their taxes they would be brought down by law enforcement.
You overestimate the determination of a bunch of Accountants.
Not to mention that our nation is not necessarily known for being the most consistant when it comes to making organizations pay the proper taxes.
Heres a timeline of what happened, starting in the 50s and on they basically waged war against the IRS, and were granted tax exempt status 93 in a secret agreement. There were lots of legal fights, possible blackmail of senior IRS officials, bugging and theft of IRS offices, etc.
Their status as a religion means, in a sane world, nothing.
Their beliefs are hazardous and to be suspected as intending harm to the state, just like any Jihadist group or Christian group ala Waco.
It's fine and dandy to believe in stupid shit, but the line is drawn when there is good reason to suspect criminal intent.
This is not something true of the average population, religious or otherwise, but it is a feature of various religious sects and some whole religions. Any such group should be equally suspected, watched over, and excluded from especially sensitive operations.
Scientology, as a group, works against the rights of others in a criminal manner. In doing so, they limit their own rights.
Whether it is Falun Gong in Japan, Scientology in Germany, or Branch Davidians in Texas, governments can and do say "Uh uh, this isn't a religion" and react accordingly.
This is the way it has always been, and it isn't going to change anytime soon.
Falun Gong is Chinese, and it's relatively peaceful, from what I understand. You're probably thinking of Shoko Asahara's Aum Shinrikyo cult that did the Sarin gas attack in the 90s.
So LiveWire, thoughts on Glaeal's reposting of the Operation Snow White details? Or of jeepguy's comparisons to similar subversive groups?
SithDrummer on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited June 2007
He's just trolling, so there's not much point into expecting him to actually read the relevant points.
It's not actually illegal to be a member of Al Queda, is it? So denying someone access to a military base because they're in Al Queda would be an illegal violation of their rights. :roll:
Your religious beliefs will not help you in court if you have broken a law. Stop arguing that line. Thats not what the laws of religious protection have ever meant.
Those are specific exemptions, written as exceptions to the law which allow consumption of peyote, and they're certainly not universal. If you're using the peyote in a religious ceremony in a state where it's legal for religious ceremonies, you have not broken a law.
I have seen a question posed whether someone could expect the same level of threat from a jihadist or a scientologist. Well, it really depends. Do you hate the CoS? Have you been vocal about it? Have you been vocal about your hatred about the jihadist's religion?
The thing is, all things being equal, if you piss both of them off, the repercussions may be the goddamn same.
I have seen a question posed whether someone could expect the same level of threat from a jihadist or a scientologist. Well, it really depends. Do you hate the CoS? Have you been vocal about it? Have you been vocal about your hatred about the jihadist's religion?
The thing is, all things being equal, if you piss ANYONE off, the repercussions may be the goddamn same.
So stop asking that question.
Fix'd
Religion doesnt come into it, and I agree. People in pretty much every religion have done nasty things. People suck, and you start getting into dodgy territory when you start judging an entire belief system by the actions of a crazy few.
I'm agnostic. If anyone tried to tell me that I was evil/wrong/misguided because some dude that I've never met did something crazy and called themself agnostic... I'd laugh in their face.
I have seen a question posed whether someone could expect the same level of threat from a jihadist or a scientologist. Well, it really depends. Do you hate the CoS? Have you been vocal about it? Have you been vocal about your hatred about the jihadist's religion?
The thing is, all things being equal, if you piss ANYONE off, the repercussions may be the goddamn same.
So stop asking that question.
Fix'd
Religion doesnt come into it, and I agree. People in pretty much every religion have done nasty things. People suck, and you start getting into dodgy territory when you start judging an entire belief system by the actions of a crazy few.
I'm agnostic. If anyone tried to tell me that I was evil/wrong/misguided because some dude that I've never met did something crazy and called themself agnostic... I'd laugh in their face.
There is a huge difference between crazy few and the founder and current high level leaders of the organization.
Your religious beliefs will not help you in court if you have broken a law. Stop arguing that line. Thats not what the laws of religious protection have ever meant.
Those are specific exemptions, written as exceptions to the law which allow consumption of peyote, and they're certainly not universal. If you're using the peyote in a religious ceremony in a state where it's legal for religious ceremonies, you have not broken a law.
Well, yes but they didn't start out that way. I'll grant that for big stuff religious tolerence goes out the window but for grey areas it still gets debated in court.
The Jehovas witnesses and their eschewment of some medical procedures for example. Well meaning Doctors, teachers, and relatives have decried some cases as child neglect or even criminal abuse when a kid dies for want of a basic procedure.
My point being that for some things that most people would consider criminal, i.e. letting a kid die while the blood that could save her life sits a few feet away, the law is not perfectly clear cut as to how far the court should indulge a particular groups beliefs and a savvy lawyer will play on such ambiguity in court. Given the CoS penchant for legal harassment I certainly wouldn't put it past them to try a similar tactic, if for no other reason then to bog down proceedings against them.
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
And the difference between a cult and a religion is essentially how many people agree with it. Discriminating against a cult is no more justifiable than discriminating against a major religion.
No; they're totally different. An commercial organisation that decides to call itself a religion isn't a religion. When the founder of your 'religion' is on record saying "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." then DING DING DING we've found a cult. If Methodists extorted money from their followers and drove people to suicide then I'd damn well be down with blocking them at every step as well.
This is indeed the problem. At some point there has to be a line drawn between corporation and religious group.
I think the fact that you are required to pay money to receive access to parts of the cult removes Scientology from the category of "religion."
At least the major cults are all free.
I mean for fuck's sake, if you sue people for spreading the word of your religion? That's not a religion. That's a corporation protecting its intellectual property.
I really think this is an important distinction.
On a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong with discriminating against people for their religion, because it's a choice they made. It's just that in practice that generally doesn't work out too well. I'd be totally fine with governmental discrimination against religious beliefs if I knew atheism would come out on top.
And the difference between a cult and a religion is essentially how many people agree with it. Discriminating against a cult is no more justifiable than discriminating against a major religion.
No; they're totally different. An commercial organisation that decides to call itself a religion isn't a religion. When the founder of your 'religion' is on record saying "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." then DING DING DING we've found a cult. If Methodists extorted money from their followers and drove people to suicide then I'd damn well be down with blocking them at every step as well.
This is indeed the problem. At some point there has to be a line drawn between corporation and religious group.
I think the fact that you are required to pay money to receive access to parts of the cult removes Scientology from the category of "religion."
At least the major cults are all free.
I mean for fuck's sake, if you sue people for spreading the word of your religion? That's not a religion. That's a corporation protecting its intellectual property.
I really think this is an important distinction.
On a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong with discriminating against people for their religion, because it's a choice they made. It's just that in practice that generally doesn't work out too well. I'd be totally fine with governmental discrimination against religious beliefs if I knew atheism would come out on top.
So you're okay with discrimination as long as YOUR beliefs aren't the ones being discriminated against? Imagine that.
Discriminating against some one for a choice isn't suddenly okay just because it is a choice. On the same token, when people make a choice that they care about, they should be prepared to make sacrifices because of it.
Ultimately, it is a whole matter of the fact that, discrimination, in and of itself, is not inherently a bad thing, just that unfair applications of it are bad. Discriminating based on an individual's physical body type, when hiring for a manual labor job, is discrimination in an area that the individual can't control, but is still done for the right reasons. It is the old argument of, if you are being rescued by a firefighter, do you want it t be the best guy who applied for the job, with the absolute top qualifications, or do you want it to be a guy who fell somewhere in the middle, but was the best all of all minority members who applied.
Of course, ceterus paribus you shouldn't discriminate.
As far as government allowances for religion in court cases, the first thing I'd say is that, in cases that are essentially victimless, the govenment should let it go. As far as the Jehovah's witness type cases, I wouldn't look at what wasn't done, but rather, at what was done. If the doctor refused to try alternative ideas, thinking that he could getthe parents to come around, I'd lay the fault on the doctor at least as much as the parents. If absolutely everything was tried, though, and the parents still refused, I would ignore the religious leanings, because I believe that, in the end, human life should trump all.
Ironically, this is a teaching that I learned from my religion.
Personally, I think stuff like this is bullshit. I realize Germany's censorship laws aren't the same as ours, and that this is probably constitutionally acceptable there, but they're essentially saying "We aren't fans of this religion, so it's okay to discriminate against it."
it's fucking scientology, why would it deserve to be protected from discrimination?
Personally, I think stuff like this is bullshit. I realize Germany's censorship laws aren't the same as ours, and that this is probably constitutionally acceptable there, but they're essentially saying "We aren't fans of this religion, so it's okay to discriminate against it."
it's fucking scientology, why would it deserve to be protected from discrimination?
It's a slippery slope argument, but if you start picking and choosing who is and isn't potected, you get into dangerous territory.
This is why you will often find Jews protecting the rights of Neo-Nazis to hold demonstrations, and will generally stage counter-protests, rather than trying to get the demonstration prevented. If you start deciding that one goup an be quieted, where will you stop?
That being said, Scientology, like it or not, is a religion. It's a religion that is of questionable backround and uses very sketchy practices, but it's still a religion. Personally I don't think much of it, mostly because the depth of the doctrine depends on how much money you put into it. I think if they publically released their beliefs it wouldn't get as much of the rep that it does.
Actually, has anyone from the Church of Scientology stated exactly why they charge enormous amounts of money to learn about their faith? I can't imagine them not having some sort of rationale for it, but I haven't been able to find anything of the sort.
Javen on
0
Options
FalloutGIRL'S DAYWAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered Userregular
edited June 2007
I realize that Scientology is a religion, I just don't know why that should keep it from being treated as obviously ridiculous bullshit.
Unless I'm much mistaken, if scientology was recognized by the German governments as a religion, they would have to fund Scientology as per how many Germans declared themselves Scientologists.
And seriously- it is a made up con-job cult that fucks with people's heads, tries to fuck over society in general and free speech in particular, and has ordered people to die. It has a dangeorus disregard for established medicin and is, in fact, a pyramid scheme that has destroyed many, many people.
But it's different from other religions in that it's so obvious at it. It aint a crime if you don't get caught, right? Well, they did. Sucks to be them.
I realize that Christianity/Islam/Judaism is a religion, I just don't know why that should keep it from being treated as obviously ridiculous bullshit.
Ritchmeister on
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
It's a religion that is of questionable background and uses very sketchy practices, but it's still a religion. Personally I don't think much of it, mostly because the depth of the doctrine depends on how much money you put into it. I think if they publicly released their beliefs it wouldn't get as much of the rep that it does.
The trouble is that whilst Scientology (and all those gribbly alien ghost dudes) may be a religion in its own right, regardless of whether or not people think it's silly/stupid/clinically insane, the Church of Scientology is widely regarded ass a borderline criminal organisation, except in those places where it has been officially labelled a criminal organisation and put under watch.
Unfortunately, with the way the whole thing is set up (with even the junior level adherents being essentially part of the clergy) it is nearly impossible for outside entities to separate the CoS from the Scientologists, which is what they would need to do to make this a bit fairer.
Personally, I can't wait for the first Great Schism of Scientology, when one half of the congregation decides that the words of the Hubbard should be interpreted one way and the other half decides to go the other. This would of course leave both sides claiming to be the true Scientology and probably cause them to settle into attacking each other rather than everyone else. It would probably legitimise the whole operation in the eyes of the general public, 'cause you're not a Real Religion without a Great Schism.:P
Actually, has anyone from the Church of Scientology stated exactly why they charge enormous amounts of money to learn about their faith? I can't imagine them not having some sort of rationale for it, but I haven't been able to find anything of the sort.
Not that I've seen, but I expect it's some kind of test-of-faith/self-sacrifice-for-the-greater-good type dealie. It usually is.
I think it bears repeating that there was no discrimination in this case. There was a denial of requested priviledge, which is entirely different.
Isn't denial of something purely on the grounds of someone's beliefs considered discrimination? I'm actually asking the question, not just responding snarkily. It seems to indicate that the request would have been granted to someone else, subscribing to a more accepted belief system.
If the resons were due to seciruty issues, then fine. But perhaps that should have been made clearer?
I think it bears repeating that there was no discrimination in this case. There was a denial of requested priviledge, which is entirely different.
Isn't denial of something purely on the grounds of someone's beliefs considered discrimination? I'm actually asking the question, not just responding snarkily. It seems to indicate that the request would have been granted to someone else, subscribing to a more accepted belief system.
If the resons were due to seciruty issues, then fine. But perhaps that should have been made clearer?
It's a pretty broad term, but generally speaking, discrimination is treatment, be it positive or negative, based on group or class, rather than individual merit.
Whenever I think of the Church of Scientology I'm reminded of the tactic the Catholic Church used to employ (not recently, I'm talking hundreds of years ago) where you could pay for forgiveness of sins. I know there's a name for it, but it's not coming to me at the moment. Anyone remember what it was called?
I realize that Christianity/Islam/Judaism is a religion, I just don't know why that should keep it from being treated as obviously ridiculous bullshit.
A lot of us in here really do feel that way. I don't think you're being as controversial as you think you are.
I think it bears repeating that there was no discrimination in this case. There was a denial of requested priviledge, which is entirely different.
Isn't denial of something purely on the grounds of someone's beliefs considered discrimination? I'm actually asking the question, not just responding snarkily. It seems to indicate that the request would have been granted to someone else, subscribing to a more accepted belief system.
If the resons were due to seciruty issues, then fine. But perhaps that should have been made clearer?
Only denial of something accorded to everyone else as a matter of course. Access to secure foreign military installations (for whatever reason) is not one of those things.
Whenever I think of the Church of Scientology I'm reminded of the tactic the Catholic Church used to employ (not recently, I'm talking hundreds of years ago) where you could pay for forgiveness of sins. I know there's a name for it, but it's not coming to me at the moment. Anyone remember what it was called?
Whenever I think of the Church of Scientology I'm reminded of the tactic the Catholic Church used to employ (not recently, I'm talking hundreds of years ago) where you could pay for forgiveness of sins. I know there's a name for it, but it's not coming to me at the moment. Anyone remember what it was called?
Oh yeah... this was the church selling "Indulgences". Martin Luther was a German Monk who was really against this, and caused a schism in the church that was the Protestant Reformation. I learnt about this when I travelling through Germanty, but had to use a little wiki-fu to get the name.
Whenever I think of the Church of Scientology I'm reminded of the tactic the Catholic Church used to employ (not recently, I'm talking hundreds of years ago) where you could pay for forgiveness of sins. I know there's a name for it, but it's not coming to me at the moment. Anyone remember what it was called?
Oh yeah... this was the church selling "Indulgences". Martin Luther was a German Monk who was really against this, and caused a schism in the church that was the Protestant Reformation. I learnt about this when I travelling through Germanty, but had to use a little wiki-fu to get the name.
Yeah, I knew about the 95 Theses and the Protestant Reformation and all that jazz, the name just managed to escape me.
My biggest problem with Scientology is that it's quite obviously a for-profit organization, which I don't think any mainstream religion should be.
Posts
They got tax exempt status because they would not stop suing the IRS and the IRS was having about no luck getting any money from them. So they just gave up.
Theres got to be more to the story than that. If the CoS was just straight up refusing to pay their taxes they would be brought down by law enforcement.
I explained several pages back about subversive groups, and the right reserved by governments to protect themselves and their citizenry from these entities, even when said entities try and cloak themselves in the protective shroud of religion.
Whether it is Falun Gong in Japan, Scientology in Germany, or Branch Davidians in Texas, governments can and do say "Uh uh, this isn't a religion" and react accordingly.
This is the way it has always been, and it isn't going to change anytime soon.
Not to mention the aspects of brainwashing, and actively trying to prevent followers from leaving the fold.
A cult is not simply a religion on a small scale. There are other factors in determining what is and isn't a cult.
You overestimate the determination of a bunch of Accountants.
Not to mention that our nation is not necessarily known for being the most consistant when it comes to making organizations pay the proper taxes.
uh, peyote?
Its not like they don't have justifiable reasons, and if it launched a full investigation and released it to the world, then (I know, I'm dreaming) scientology would be brought down.
Heres a timeline of what happened, starting in the 50s and on they basically waged war against the IRS, and were granted tax exempt status 93 in a secret agreement. There were lots of legal fights, possible blackmail of senior IRS officials, bugging and theft of IRS offices, etc.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/timeline.html
Their beliefs are hazardous and to be suspected as intending harm to the state, just like any Jihadist group or Christian group ala Waco.
It's fine and dandy to believe in stupid shit, but the line is drawn when there is good reason to suspect criminal intent.
This is not something true of the average population, religious or otherwise, but it is a feature of various religious sects and some whole religions. Any such group should be equally suspected, watched over, and excluded from especially sensitive operations.
Scientology, as a group, works against the rights of others in a criminal manner. In doing so, they limit their own rights.
Falun Gong is Chinese, and it's relatively peaceful, from what I understand. You're probably thinking of Shoko Asahara's Aum Shinrikyo cult that did the Sarin gas attack in the 90s.
It's not actually illegal to be a member of Al Queda, is it? So denying someone access to a military base because they're in Al Queda would be an illegal violation of their rights. :roll:
The thing is, all things being equal, if you piss both of them off, the repercussions may be the goddamn same.
So stop asking that question.
Click image for my huge backlog
Fix'd
Religion doesnt come into it, and I agree. People in pretty much every religion have done nasty things. People suck, and you start getting into dodgy territory when you start judging an entire belief system by the actions of a crazy few.
I'm agnostic. If anyone tried to tell me that I was evil/wrong/misguided because some dude that I've never met did something crazy and called themself agnostic... I'd laugh in their face.
There is a huge difference between crazy few and the founder and current high level leaders of the organization.
Well, yes but they didn't start out that way. I'll grant that for big stuff religious tolerence goes out the window but for grey areas it still gets debated in court.
The Jehovas witnesses and their eschewment of some medical procedures for example. Well meaning Doctors, teachers, and relatives have decried some cases as child neglect or even criminal abuse when a kid dies for want of a basic procedure.
My point being that for some things that most people would consider criminal, i.e. letting a kid die while the blood that could save her life sits a few feet away, the law is not perfectly clear cut as to how far the court should indulge a particular groups beliefs and a savvy lawyer will play on such ambiguity in court. Given the CoS penchant for legal harassment I certainly wouldn't put it past them to try a similar tactic, if for no other reason then to bog down proceedings against them.
This is indeed the problem. At some point there has to be a line drawn between corporation and religious group.
I think the fact that you are required to pay money to receive access to parts of the cult removes Scientology from the category of "religion."
At least the major cults are all free.
I mean for fuck's sake, if you sue people for spreading the word of your religion? That's not a religion. That's a corporation protecting its intellectual property.
I really think this is an important distinction.
On a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong with discriminating against people for their religion, because it's a choice they made. It's just that in practice that generally doesn't work out too well. I'd be totally fine with governmental discrimination against religious beliefs if I knew atheism would come out on top.
So you're okay with discrimination as long as YOUR beliefs aren't the ones being discriminated against? Imagine that.
Discriminating against some one for a choice isn't suddenly okay just because it is a choice. On the same token, when people make a choice that they care about, they should be prepared to make sacrifices because of it.
Ultimately, it is a whole matter of the fact that, discrimination, in and of itself, is not inherently a bad thing, just that unfair applications of it are bad. Discriminating based on an individual's physical body type, when hiring for a manual labor job, is discrimination in an area that the individual can't control, but is still done for the right reasons. It is the old argument of, if you are being rescued by a firefighter, do you want it t be the best guy who applied for the job, with the absolute top qualifications, or do you want it to be a guy who fell somewhere in the middle, but was the best all of all minority members who applied.
Of course, ceterus paribus you shouldn't discriminate.
As far as government allowances for religion in court cases, the first thing I'd say is that, in cases that are essentially victimless, the govenment should let it go. As far as the Jehovah's witness type cases, I wouldn't look at what wasn't done, but rather, at what was done. If the doctor refused to try alternative ideas, thinking that he could getthe parents to come around, I'd lay the fault on the doctor at least as much as the parents. If absolutely everything was tried, though, and the parents still refused, I would ignore the religious leanings, because I believe that, in the end, human life should trump all.
Ironically, this is a teaching that I learned from my religion.
It was a denial of requested priviledge based on group as opposed to individual merit.
It wasn't unlawful discrimination, but it was still discrimination.
it's fucking scientology, why would it deserve to be protected from discrimination?
technically even if it was based on individual merit, it would still be discrimination.
discrimination is a rather broad term
It's a slippery slope argument, but if you start picking and choosing who is and isn't potected, you get into dangerous territory.
This is why you will often find Jews protecting the rights of Neo-Nazis to hold demonstrations, and will generally stage counter-protests, rather than trying to get the demonstration prevented. If you start deciding that one goup an be quieted, where will you stop?
Actually, has anyone from the Church of Scientology stated exactly why they charge enormous amounts of money to learn about their faith? I can't imagine them not having some sort of rationale for it, but I haven't been able to find anything of the sort.
And seriously- it is a made up con-job cult that fucks with people's heads, tries to fuck over society in general and free speech in particular, and has ordered people to die. It has a dangeorus disregard for established medicin and is, in fact, a pyramid scheme that has destroyed many, many people.
But it's different from other religions in that it's so obvious at it. It aint a crime if you don't get caught, right? Well, they did. Sucks to be them.
Unfortunately, with the way the whole thing is set up (with even the junior level adherents being essentially part of the clergy) it is nearly impossible for outside entities to separate the CoS from the Scientologists, which is what they would need to do to make this a bit fairer.
Personally, I can't wait for the first Great Schism of Scientology, when one half of the congregation decides that the words of the Hubbard should be interpreted one way and the other half decides to go the other. This would of course leave both sides claiming to be the true Scientology and probably cause them to settle into attacking each other rather than everyone else. It would probably legitimise the whole operation in the eyes of the general public, 'cause you're not a Real Religion without a Great Schism.:P Not that I've seen, but I expect it's some kind of test-of-faith/self-sacrifice-for-the-greater-good type dealie. It usually is.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Isn't denial of something purely on the grounds of someone's beliefs considered discrimination? I'm actually asking the question, not just responding snarkily. It seems to indicate that the request would have been granted to someone else, subscribing to a more accepted belief system.
If the resons were due to seciruty issues, then fine. But perhaps that should have been made clearer?
It's a pretty broad term, but generally speaking, discrimination is treatment, be it positive or negative, based on group or class, rather than individual merit.
Only denial of something accorded to everyone else as a matter of course. Access to secure foreign military installations (for whatever reason) is not one of those things.
Indulgence.
Oh yeah... this was the church selling "Indulgences". Martin Luther was a German Monk who was really against this, and caused a schism in the church that was the Protestant Reformation. I learnt about this when I travelling through Germanty, but had to use a little wiki-fu to get the name.
Yeah, I knew about the 95 Theses and the Protestant Reformation and all that jazz, the name just managed to escape me.
My biggest problem with Scientology is that it's quite obviously a for-profit organization, which I don't think any mainstream religion should be.