Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Filming of Tom Cruise movie banned in Germany

17891012

Posts

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2007
    Euroxenuland.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    So, for all of you pro-Scientology, "Germans are being discriminatory" people: if the Mafia were to register as a religion, would you consider it discriminatory to keep them from filming on a military base?

    Thanatos on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2007
    That's a bit of a straw-man, Than, as I don't think anybody is pro-Scientology.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    urbman wrote: »
    Well of all these people who have a problem with Tommy boy not allowed to film on location, how many of you are German Citizens?

    If your not oh well get over it its not your country.

    Also most religions in the USA where brought here by other people. and those religions where not designed to be profit organizations. CoS on the other hand was started by a guy who stated it was about making money. So did Jesus and Moses and Muhammad go "yea i cant wait to get rich off this shit before I die." I dont think so.

    That's impossible to say. Who knows how those religions were started. The modern versions of their religious texts sure aren't a reliable source. You're right at least that after all this time they're practitioned for non-profit reasons, and scientology definitely isn't.

    Zek on
  • KoekjesKoekjes Registered User
    edited June 2007
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Godsdamnit Germany, you'd won the internet debate!

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2007
    What the hell, Germany? We had an 18 page discussion over this. 18 pages! You're waffling on some serious business.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    You know, some others said it before, but from the not-really-a-retraction you can see what German officials are focusing on: the history element.
    The German film industry, however, sees Cruise and production partner Paula Wagner's film as an important piece of historical nonfiction, with Studio Babelsberg heads Christoph Fisser and Carl Woebcken—who are in talks with UA to sign on as co-producers—calling Valkyrie one of the "too few examples of military opposition to Hitler's regime."

    "The assassination attempt against Hitler is hardly known outside Germany," Fisser told the Hollywood Reporter. "We should therefore be delighted and welcome this wonderful opportunity to improve the image of our country."


    An official mentioning scientology as a "cult" in Germany isn't really a big deal after all.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Koekjes wrote: »

    Doesn't look like they've approved it explicitly yet, more like refuting that one parliament member's statement that it would be denied outright. I'd imagine lobbying from the german film industry might have played a part in this somehow.
    LiveWire wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    LiveWire wrote: »
    No such danger can be demonstrated for Tom Cruise on his movie set. Not even close.
    Jesus people.

    Maybe the Germans just don't like the idea of a crazy person playing a national hero.

    And since they can't prevent the film from being made, they're going to take the route of non-cooperation with the production.

    If they had denied him on that basis it would be 100% fine. They denied him on the basis of religion, and that is not fine.

    No they didn't, they (initially) denied him on the basis of an organization he belongs to that is not a religion, in the eyes of Germany. Thus, there can't be any claim of discrimination based upon religion.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • QuazarQuazar Registered User
    edited June 2007
    OtakuD00D wrote: »
    Thing is, the Germans are right. Scientology isn't a religion. It's a load of bullshit.

    That comment made me laugh.

    Regardless, the problem is, yes, Scientology is a religion, and it's just as bullshit filled as the rest of them, and I don't see any reason why it deserves any particular discrimination.
    You've said this more than once in different threads, specifically commenting on how Scientology and Christianity are both bullshit, so one shouldn't be treated differently from the other.

    I'm pretty sure most people on here are with you in your thought that religions should be treating equally. The problem isn't the beliefs, no matter how wacky they seem to most of us. The problem is that you have to PAY TO ADVANCE TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

    No other recognized/respected religion FORCES people to pay a specific amount of money to see the next set of religious teachings.

    Quazar on
    Your sig is too tall. -Thanatos
    atl7hahahazo7.png
    XBL: QuazarX
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Quazar wrote: »
    OtakuD00D wrote: »
    Thing is, the Germans are right. Scientology isn't a religion. It's a load of bullshit.

    That comment made me laugh.

    Regardless, the problem is, yes, Scientology is a religion, and it's just as bullshit filled as the rest of them, and I don't see any reason why it deserves any particular discrimination.
    You've said this more than once in different threads, specifically commenting on how Scientology and Christianity are both bullshit, so one shouldn't be treated differently from the other.

    I'm pretty sure most people on here are with you in your thought that religions should be treating equally. The problem isn't the beliefs, no matter how wacky they seem to most of us. The problem is that you have to PAY TO ADVANCE TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

    No other recognized/respected religion FORCES people to pay a specific amount of money to see the next set of religious teachings.

    I don't quite see how this would even come to the point of mattering, since in the context of Germany scientology is not recognized as a religion, and cannot fall back upon institutional protections against discrimination of religion. Okay, it's recognized as a religion in the United States, but that doesn't mean Germany has to automatically follow suit in the same classification.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2007
    It's not about Germany's rights, it's about ethics. We all know they have the right to deny him admittance, should they so choose, but is it ethically and morally sound?

    I mean, yeah, it is, but some disagree.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited June 2007
    It's not about Germany's rights, it's about ethics. We all know they have the right to deny him admittance, should they so choose, but is it ethically and morally sound?

    I mean, yeah, it is, but some disagree.

    MORAL RELATIVISM ALERT.

    Batten down the hatches!

    Gorak on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Seriously Germany what the hell

    nexuscrawler on
  • LiveWireLiveWire Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Ha Ha, they let him in.

    LiveWire on
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited June 2007
    I guess Germany made it's point. Pity they didn't have the balls to follow it through.

    Gorak on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Quazar wrote: »
    You've said this more than once in different threads, specifically commenting on how Scientology and Christianity are both bullshit, so one shouldn't be treated differently from the other.

    I'm pretty sure most people on here are with you in your thought that religions should be treating equally. The problem isn't the beliefs, no matter how wacky they seem to most of us. The problem is that you have to PAY TO ADVANCE TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

    No other recognized/respected religion FORCES people to pay a specific amount of money to see the next set of religious teachings.

    That strikes me as a particularly irrelevant difference. You're only being "forced" insofar as your relationship with the church goes. You might be stigmatized and threatened if you balk, but it's not like that hasn't happened in other religions, both throughout history and today.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Quazar wrote: »
    You've said this more than once in different threads, specifically commenting on how Scientology and Christianity are both bullshit, so one shouldn't be treated differently from the other.

    I'm pretty sure most people on here are with you in your thought that religions should be treating equally. The problem isn't the beliefs, no matter how wacky they seem to most of us. The problem is that you have to PAY TO ADVANCE TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

    No other recognized/respected religion FORCES people to pay a specific amount of money to see the next set of religious teachings.

    That strikes me as a particularly irrelevant difference. You're only being "forced" insofar as your relationship with the church goes. You might be stigmatized and threatened if you balk, but it's not like that hasn't happened in other religions, both throughout history and today.

    I have to agree with LM here. To suggest that the Church of Scientology, or whatever their official name is, is "forcing" people to pay to move through the religion is to suggest that they are somehow rounding people up and taxing them against their will. I'm fairly convinced that the Church of Scientology is brainwashing actors and actresses somehow, but are these people being "forced" to pay tithes to the church? No. These people are doing so of their own will. "Forced" is the wrong verb.

    That said, I support Germany's right - legal, moral, and ethical - to bar those crazy fuckers from their country.

    Drez on
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Quazar wrote: »
    You've said this more than once in different threads, specifically commenting on how Scientology and Christianity are both bullshit, so one shouldn't be treated differently from the other.

    I'm pretty sure most people on here are with you in your thought that religions should be treating equally. The problem isn't the beliefs, no matter how wacky they seem to most of us. The problem is that you have to PAY TO ADVANCE TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

    No other recognized/respected religion FORCES people to pay a specific amount of money to see the next set of religious teachings.

    That strikes me as a particularly irrelevant difference. You're only being "forced" insofar as your relationship with the church goes. You might be stigmatized and threatened if you balk, but it's not like that hasn't happened in other religions, both throughout history and today.

    I have to agree with LM here. To suggest that the Church of Scientology, or whatever their official name is, is "forcing" people to pay to move through the religion is to suggest that they are somehow rounding people up and taxing them against their will. I'm fairly convinced that the Church of Scientology is brainwashing actors and actresses somehow, but are these people being "forced" to pay tithes to the church? No. These people are doing so of their own will. "Forced" is the wrong verb.

    That said, I support Germany's right - legal, moral, and ethical - to bar those crazy fuckers from their country.

    "Forced" is only the wrong verb when you look at the treatment of celebrities.

    Gorak on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2007
    What happens if you choose not to pay? Do they go 'meh' and leave you alone?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Elkamil wrote: »
    What happens if you choose not to pay? Do they go 'meh' and leave you alone?

    I imagine it would be about the same as what you get for not paying your tithe in a community where the church insists on it.

    Incenjucar on
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    I think they lock you in a room with no food or water for a week. Or that might only be for "attempting to see a psychiatrist without authorisation." Of course, it's the same punishme^H^H treatment as for "asking permission to see a psychiatrist"...

    Mr_Rose on
    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Quazar wrote: »
    You've said this more than once in different threads, specifically commenting on how Scientology and Christianity are both bullshit, so one shouldn't be treated differently from the other.

    I'm pretty sure most people on here are with you in your thought that religions should be treating equally. The problem isn't the beliefs, no matter how wacky they seem to most of us. The problem is that you have to PAY TO ADVANCE TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

    No other recognized/respected religion FORCES people to pay a specific amount of money to see the next set of religious teachings.

    That strikes me as a particularly irrelevant difference. You're only being "forced" insofar as your relationship with the church goes. You might be stigmatized and threatened if you balk, but it's not like that hasn't happened in other religions, both throughout history and today.

    I have to agree with LM here. To suggest that the Church of Scientology, or whatever their official name is, is "forcing" people to pay to move through the religion is to suggest that they are somehow rounding people up and taxing them against their will. I'm fairly convinced that the Church of Scientology is brainwashing actors and actresses somehow, but are these people being "forced" to pay tithes to the church? No. These people are doing so of their own will. "Forced" is the wrong verb.

    That said, I support Germany's right - legal, moral, and ethical - to bar those crazy fuckers from their country.

    "Forced" is only the wrong verb when you look at the treatment of celebrities.

    Nobody is forced into Scientology. The way "forced" is being used here is to suggest that people have no other choice but to pay tithes to the Church of Scientology. If they choose to join the ranks of Scientology and are then forced to pay tithes to stay in it, then it still isn't "forced" in the same way people are using the word. Because unless the Church of Scientology is holding people at gunpoint and telling them to join or else, nobody's forced to join and by extension nobody is forced to pay their way upward through the church.

    Drez on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Quazar wrote: »
    You've said this more than once in different threads, specifically commenting on how Scientology and Christianity are both bullshit, so one shouldn't be treated differently from the other.

    I'm pretty sure most people on here are with you in your thought that religions should be treating equally. The problem isn't the beliefs, no matter how wacky they seem to most of us. The problem is that you have to PAY TO ADVANCE TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

    No other recognized/respected religion FORCES people to pay a specific amount of money to see the next set of religious teachings.

    That strikes me as a particularly irrelevant difference. You're only being "forced" insofar as your relationship with the church goes. You might be stigmatized and threatened if you balk, but it's not like that hasn't happened in other religions, both throughout history and today.

    I have to agree with LM here. To suggest that the Church of Scientology, or whatever their official name is, is "forcing" people to pay to move through the religion is to suggest that they are somehow rounding people up and taxing them against their will. I'm fairly convinced that the Church of Scientology is brainwashing actors and actresses somehow, but are these people being "forced" to pay tithes to the church? No. These people are doing so of their own will. "Forced" is the wrong verb.

    That said, I support Germany's right - legal, moral, and ethical - to bar those crazy fuckers from their country.

    "Forced" is only the wrong verb when you look at the treatment of celebrities.

    Nobody is forced into Scientology. The way "forced" is being used here is to suggest that people have no other choice but to pay tithes to the Church of Scientology. If they choose to join the ranks of Scientology and are then forced to pay tithes to stay in it, then it still isn't "forced" in the same way people are using the word. Because unless the Church of Scientology is holding people at gunpoint and telling them to join or else, nobody's forced to join and by extension nobody is forced to pay their way upward through the church.
    Just because people aren't being held at gunpoint does not mean there isn't any kind of coercion or deception going on. They have shady ways of sucking vulnerable people in, and go to great lengths to make the lives of runaways a living hell.

    Azio on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Nobody is forced into Scientology. The way "forced" is being used here is to suggest that people have no other choice but to pay tithes to the Church of Scientology. If they choose to join the ranks of Scientology and are then forced to pay tithes to stay in it, then it still isn't "forced" in the same way people are using the word. Because unless the Church of Scientology is holding people at gunpoint and telling them to join or else, nobody's forced to join and by extension nobody is forced to pay their way upward through the church.

    Putting a gun to your head isn't forcing you to do something either, really. You still have the option to get shot.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2007
    You could choose to join of your own free will, and still be forced to pay later.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Nobody is forced into Scientology. The way "forced" is being used here is to suggest that people have no other choice but to pay tithes to the Church of Scientology. If they choose to join the ranks of Scientology and are then forced to pay tithes to stay in it, then it still isn't "forced" in the same way people are using the word. Because unless the Church of Scientology is holding people at gunpoint and telling them to join or else, nobody's forced to join and by extension nobody is forced to pay their way upward through the church.

    Putting a gun to your head isn't forcing you to do something either, really. You still have the option to get shot.

    I'll concede that.

    Drez on
  • ColdredColdred Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Whee, round and round we go, on the merry-go-round of Semantics. Have fun guys.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Again:
    You might be stigmatized and threatened if you balk, but it's not like that hasn't happened in other religions, both throughout history and today.

    I mean, let's not get into the treatment for apostates in other religions.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Well according ot former members they do keep records of your "sessions" with them and have been known to use very private information against people who leave.

    nexuscrawler on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Well according ot former members they do keep records of your "sessions" with them and have been known to use very private information against people who leave.

    This is neither unique nor remarkable in any way.

    Incenjucar on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Also, the concept of a heretic (and their abuse) definitely predates L. Ron Hubbard.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Well according ot former members they do keep records of your "sessions" with them and have been known to use very private information against people who leave.

    This is neither unique nor remarkable in any way.

    Does the Catholic Church publish your confessions if you stop going to church now?

    nexuscrawler on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Well according ot former members they do keep records of your "sessions" with them and have been known to use very private information against people who leave.

    This is neither unique nor remarkable in any way.

    Does the Catholic Church publish your confessions if you stop going to church now?

    As noted: Scientology is that Old Time Religion.

    That said: I wouldn't be surprised if some groups do this, I'm just not really that connected with any modern church groups, so I can't vouch for any group at this exact moment.

    Incenjucar on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Well according ot former members they do keep records of your "sessions" with them and have been known to use very private information against people who leave.

    This is neither unique nor remarkable in any way.

    Does the Catholic Church publish your confessions if you stop going to church now?

    As noted: Scientology is that Old Time Religion.

    That said: I wouldn't be surprised if some groups do this, I'm just not really that connected with any modern church groups, so I can't vouch for any group at this exact moment.

    Again with many other things they all happen in all religions to a degree. What makes Scientology different is these things are basically their official policies.

    nexuscrawler on
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Again:
    You might be stigmatized and threatened if you balk, but it's not like that hasn't happened in other religions, both throughout history and today.

    I mean, let's not get into the treatment for apostates in other religions.

    Bad is not the same as worse.

    As of yet, no Christian groups have targetted Dawkins with a mix of barely legal and downright illegal operations in an attempt to shut him up and ruin his life.

    I'm no cheerleader for religion, but honestly guys, they're not all the same, and the fact that scientology blends it's mob-syndicate activities with some bad science fiction on the side doesn't make it worthy of first-amendment protection.

    MrMister on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Again with many other things they all happen in all religions to a degree. What makes Scientology different is these things are basically their official policies.

    Which is why they need to be removed from the species before they start ripping hearts out of people.

    Incenjucar on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    I'm no cheerleader for religion, but honestly guys, they're not all the same, and the fact that scientology blends it's mob-syndicate activities with some bad science fiction on the side doesn't make it worthy of first-amendment protection.

    I don't disagree- you're correct, they aren't all the same. But Scientology isn't super special as far as depraved policy towards critics and apostates goes. It's worse than many in the world today, and it has a rather unique history, but it's not super-special, and hardly has a monopoly on craziness and paranoia.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User
    edited June 2007
    LiveWire wrote: »
    If they had cited Tom Cruise as a documented law-breaker that would be different. They didn't, probably because he hasn't broken any laws. His being a member of an organization that has broken laws doesn't mean shit unless by that association you can reasonably assert he would attempt to commit an offense (like say, being a member of Al-Queda might imply). Without that, it is simple discrimination by religion.

    So you do admit that if people believe X is a dangerous criminal organization, and are discriminating on that account, they're not discriminating based on religion?

    Because you seem to blindly assume the latter, not the former.

    People have already shown why Germany might believe CoS to be a criminal organization that needs to be discriminated against. You haven't show any reason for Germany to discriminate against CoS for their beliefs.

    And remember... even if Germany is wrong about their alleged criminal activities... they're still discriminating based on criminal activities. Maybe it's wrong to discriminate against all neo-Nazis, but that's got nothing to do with religion either.
    Quazar wrote: »
    You've said this more than once in different threads, specifically commenting on how Scientology and Christianity are both bullshit, so one shouldn't be treated differently from the other.

    I'm pretty sure most people on here are with you in your thought that religions should be treating equally. The problem isn't the beliefs, no matter how wacky they seem to most of us. The problem is that you have to PAY TO ADVANCE TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

    No other recognized/respected religion FORCES people to pay a specific amount of money to see the next set of religious teachings.

    That strikes me as a particularly irrelevant difference. You're only being "forced" insofar as your relationship with the church goes. You might be stigmatized and threatened if you balk, but it's not like that hasn't happened in other religions, both throughout history and today.

    It's irrelevant if you just want to say "it's a religion, just like X" and win some atheist points. It's not irrelevant if you want to make some actually useful legal distinctions in order to protect people from being fucked over.

    There's plenty of differences between christianity and scientology, for example. If we can pinpoint the more dangerous differences and make 'em illegal, we've already fixed "half" the problem with religion. Sure we still got Jehova's witnesses banging on our doors, but at least they're harmless.
    Again:
    You might be stigmatized and threatened if you balk, but it's not like that hasn't happened in other religions, both throughout history and today.

    I mean, let's not get into the treatment for apostates in other religions.

    Oh, I know this one... Two wrongs don't make a right.

    DeepQantas on
    m~
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    I've never said Scientology isn't bad. I've been saying that it isn't special.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.