Guys, CoS isn't a religious organization. And seeing as there is no Protestant version of Scientology (i.e., individual interpretation, etc. etc.), that means anyone who calls themself a Scientologist is a member of CoS. Or rather, a customer.
This is the problem -- CoS is a company which provides both goods and services in direct and required exchange of money. One might as well call a psychaitrist a religious leader, and his patients as followers. Or a self-help-book publisher.
I genuinely think the fact that Scientology maintains ownership of its ideas, and requires payment for goods and services makes it a company, not a religion.
Guys, CoS isn't a religious organization. And seeing as there is no Protestant version of Scientology (i.e., individual interpretation, etc. etc.), that means anyone who calls themself a Scientologist is a member of CoS. Or rather, a customer.
This is the problem -- CoS is a company which provides both goods and services in direct and required exchange of money. One might as well call a psychaitrist a religious leader, and his patients as followers. Or a self-help-book publisher.
I genuinely think the fact that Scientology maintains ownership of its ideas, and requires payment for goods and services makes it a company, not a religion.
But a psychiatrist or author don't give insight to the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, which Scientology (and pretty much every other religion) do.
Though arguably the most deplorable trait, the deciding factor in a religion isn't that you have to pay for it.
Guys, CoS isn't a religious organization. And seeing as there is no Protestant version of Scientology (i.e., individual interpretation, etc. etc.), that means anyone who calls themself a Scientologist is a member of CoS. Or rather, a customer.
This is the problem -- CoS is a company which provides both goods and services in direct and required exchange of money. One might as well call a psychaitrist a religious leader, and his patients as followers. Or a self-help-book publisher.
I genuinely think the fact that Scientology maintains ownership of its ideas, and requires payment for goods and services makes it a company, not a religion.
But a psychiatrist or author don't give insight to the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, which Scientology (and pretty much every other religion) do.
Though arguably the most deplorable trait, the deciding factor in a religion isn't that you have to pay for it.
I think that give is the operative word in "give insight to the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."
I think when "give" becomes "sell," it ceases to be a religion. I don't see why insight into the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe should be considered altogether different from any other intellectual property. Especially when the so-called religion treats it as intellectual property by claiming copyright and taking legal action to maintain strict control of it.
Because a religion is defined as such based off of its ideas, not in the manner they are presented or endorsed.
Does the fact that monetary compensation is required to learn about their faith lower their message to the point of silliness? Absolutely. But this fact alone does not turn it into a business.
Does the fact that monetary compensation is required to learn about their faith lower their message to the point of silliness? Absolutely. But this fact alone does not turn it into a business.
It might be interesting to set as one criteria for being a religion that the religion's texts and scriptures are in the public domain. Nobody holds a copyright on the Bible or the Koran.
The only hang-up that I can see though is that the Anglican and Catholic churches (the only really monolithic religious organisations I can think of off the top of my head) likely do have documents and the such that they consider protected and not to be made publicly available.
Does the fact that monetary compensation is required to learn about their faith lower their message to the point of silliness? Absolutely. But this fact alone does not turn it into a business.
It might be interesting to set as one criteria for being a religion that the religion's texts and scriptures are in the public domain. Nobody holds a copyright on the Bible or the Koran.
The only hang-up that I can see though is that the Anglican and Catholic churches (the only really monolithic religious organisations I can think of off the top of my head) likely do have documents and the such that they consider protected and not to be made publicly available.
Most of the Catholic Church's hidden stuff are historical records and whatnot. Not canonical texts that are the bass of thier faith.
The more intersting case would be the apocyphal texts that manstream christianity rejects as canon. Still they're out there and nobody forces you to invest enormous amounts of money and time to read them.
The old fashioned Gnostics were arguably cult-like since they discirminated who they gave access to thier 'special" information. But there's not much solid onfo about them to really go on.
The only hang-up that I can see though is that the Anglican and Catholic churches (the only really monolithic religious organisations I can think of off the top of my head) likely do have documents and the such that they consider protected and not to be made publicly available.
Such documents are largely of an administrative nature. See this thread for more details.
Most of the Catholic Church's hidden stuff are historical records and whatnot. Not canonical texts that are the bass of thier faith.
The more intersting case would be the apocyphal texts that manstream christianity rejects as canon. Still they're out there and nobody forces you to invest enormous amounts of money and time to read them.
Yeah, I just threw that out there to pre-empt any complaints ("b-b-but, the Catholic church!"). Everything one needs to be a Catholic is freely available - correspondences and records aren't needed.
The catholic church used to use a language barrier to prevent public access to the texts. It wasn't until after the invention of the printing press that this began to be broken down.
The catholic church used to use a language barrier to prevent public access to the texts. It wasn't until after the invention of the printing press that this began to be broken down.
Not until the Second Vatican Council in 1965, actually, did they allow languages other than Latin in services.
The catholic church used to use a language barrier to prevent public access to the texts. It wasn't until after the invention of the printing press that this began to be broken down.
Not until the Second Vatican Council in 1965, actually, did they allow languages other than Latin in services.
Vatican II was important for modernizing the church, but really has no bearing on this discussion. Bibles have been translated into other languages for a very long time.
Guys, CoS isn't a religious organization. And seeing as there is no Protestant version of Scientology (i.e., individual interpretation, etc. etc.), that means anyone who calls themself a Scientologist is a member of CoS. Or rather, a customer.
This is the problem -- CoS is a company which provides both goods and services in direct and required exchange of money. One might as well call a psychaitrist a religious leader, and his patients as followers. Or a self-help-book publisher.
I genuinely think the fact that Scientology maintains ownership of its ideas, and requires payment for goods and services makes it a company, not a religion.
I think this is a very important facet of this discussion. The problem is with members of the Church of Scientology, not with scientologists. It's a slight distinction, but an important one. Germany doesn't mind if you're a scientologist, but if you're a member of their 'Church' then they'll consider the Church's status when dealing with you.
Guys, CoS isn't a religious organization. And seeing as there is no Protestant version of Scientology (i.e., individual interpretation, etc. etc.), that means anyone who calls themself a Scientologist is a member of CoS. Or rather, a customer.
I'm having a difficult time swallowing the analogy that allowing Tom Cruise onto his on-base movie set is like allowing an Al-Queda member into your military-base. One represents a demonstrable hazard to security, the other one just does not. Yes, I have read all of the evidence against Scientology and its criminal dealings, but nothing suggests that Tom Cruise represents a threat to anyone by filming a movie on-base, and nothing suggests to me that Scientology is a crime syndicate and not a religion.
I fail to see how a list of misdeeds done in Scientology's name, perpetrated by its faithful, makes it less like a religion (I in fact see the opposite).
It seems to me that a lot of people just don't like Scientology and so are receptive to any way political machinery can be used against them. As an extremely active Atheist, you can well imagine how I privately feel about Scientology. But one should not give in to the temptation to discriminate against Scientology, because it opens the door for discrimination against any religion (read: my non-religion, which is the least tolerated in America). This is not a slippery slope; if we discriminate against Scientology we have already arrived at government sponsored religious persecution.
To Cat, and others who maintain that this is not legal discrimination because filming rights are a privilege: You still may not legally discriminate by religion or race. You have no legal right to be served in a privately owned restaurant. You may be refused for any reason at all, unless that reason is because of your race or your religion. The only way to wriggle around this is if you can demonstrate that your race/religion holds an implied danger to those around him(e.g. Al-Queda).
No such danger can be demonstrated for Tom Cruise on his movie set. Not even close.
So basically what you're saying is, if they had simply refused to let Tom Cruise film because they thought he was a poo-poo head, then that would be perfectly fine.
I think the crux of livewires argument is his own paranoia and fear over his chosen belief system being used against him in a similar fashion as to what happened to TC. Despite not belonging to a national cult that pursues illegal and immoral actions against those it finds enemies.
You ignored the evidence of the illegal actions of CoS and continue to hammer a point that is false in the case of religious persecution, Germany doesn't recognize CoS as a religion despite you claiming them to be so, so as far as them discriminating him based on his outspoken association with a group that Germany considers a threat to its countries well being and does not recognize as a religion, I really can't see what your point is other then to make implications that show no grounds outside of your own paranoia.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Germany has well founded beliefs that the CoS (or a branch thereof, if you want to discuss semantics) has actively tried to undermine and steal from the government of Germany.
Did they send a suicide bomber in their subways? no. But they still commited a crime against the government of Germany and, as such, it is perfectly reasonable for Germany to associate anyone who actively supports or is a member of the CoS with this criminal behaviour.
In Germany's eyes, the Church of Scientology is a criminal enterprise, which trumps whatever belief system they happen to adhere to.
Dramatic example: I follow the ancient Aztec religion that demands the sacrifice of a virgin maiden at every winter solstice. Should I be allowed to do so? Bear in mind that the virgin in question is also a member of my religion and submits herself to this fate willingly. Does that mean no one outside my faith has the right to intervene?
And before you say "but Scientology never killed anyone!" stop, because it has been now explained several times that one of the basic tenets of Scientology, written by L.R.H. himself is that any perceived "enemy" of the church can be harrassed and "destroyed". They may not be murderers, but they certainly are destroying lives.
Germany has well founded beliefs that the CoS (or a branch thereof, if you want to discuss semantics) has actively tried to undermine and steal from the government of Germany.
Did they send a suicide bomber in their subways? no. But they still commited a crime against the government of Germany and, as such, it is perfectly reasonable for Germany to associate anyone who actively supports or is a member of the CoS with this criminal behaviour.
In Germany's eyes, the Church of Scientology is a criminal enterprise, which trumps whatever belief system they happen to adhere to.
Dramatic example: I follow the ancient Aztec religion that demands the sacrifice of a virgin maiden at every winter solstice. Should I be allowed to do so? Bear in mind that the virgin in question is also a member of my religion and submits herself to this fate willingly. Does that mean no one outside my faith has the right to intervene?
And before you say "but Scientology never killed anyone!" stop, because it has been now explained several times that one of the basic tenets of Scientology, written by L.R.H. himself is that any perceived "enemy" of the church can be harrassed and "destroyed". They may not be murderers, but they certainly are destroying lives.
Okay, I'm quoting this because I am loving it.
I agree wholly with the "Scientology = Business" thing. It was even founded as a moneymaking venture.
On top of all that is stated above regarding Germany, Scientology has also had some bad history with the FBI. Seriously. Actual offenses against the FBI.
They also look down upon psychology, viewing themselves as an alternative. And let's face it, some aspects of psychiatry is a little off (throwing medication at any percieved problem is not the way to go), but it's certainly a LOT better than... well...
Half the Scientolgoy stuff I've read is just really bad psychology with different terms. They consider haye psychiatry and psychology but they're direct competetion with thier ideas(except one is based off of science and the other making money)
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.
So saying "you're a douche, go away" is fine, but "you're a member of an organisation we consider suspect at best, outright criminal at worst, go away" isn't?
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.
urbman on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
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.
Well, theoretically they could have and it just didn't make it into the final edit of the books...but that is a whole other kettle of fish.
(go on, act out every scene and described action in the Qu'ran like it was a play about the guy's life. I guarantee it won't take you 36 years to get through, so what was he doing the rest of the time? No-one knows...)
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.
So saying "you're a douche, go away" is fine,
Yes, they don't owe Tom Cruise anything, filming rights are a privilege. They don't have to give him anything.
but "you're a member of an organisation we consider suspect at best, outright criminal at worst, go away" isn't?
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.
Should we keep Catholic Cardinals off of government - owned parks in Los Angeles because they are high-ranking members of an organization with a lengthy and well-documented recent history of boy-raping?
edit: To the two posts above me, during the middle-ages would you have considered the Catholic Church to be a corporation and not a religion because it made money for its higher ups through nefarious means? I find that hard to do when one considers the millions and millions of people who utterly believed it to be the word of god. I'm fine for treating it as a corporation in a fiscal sense, but so long as people actually believe it, it is also a religion and its members should be afforded the associated protection from persecution.
LiveWire on
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
Should we keep Catholic Cardinals off of government - owned parks in Los Angeles because they are high-ranking members of an organization with a lengthy and well-documented recent history of boy-raping?
If we ever find evidence that said boy-raping was an internal directive handed down from someone in authority then hell yes. I'd fucking expect it, seriously.
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.
So saying "you're a douche, go away" is fine,
Yes, they don't owe Tom Cruise anything, filming rights are a privilege. They don't have to give him anything.
but "you're a member of an organisation we consider suspect at best, outright criminal at worst, go away" isn't?
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.
Should we keep Catholic Cardinals off of government - owned parks in Los Angeles because they are high-ranking members of an organization with a lengthy and well-documented recent history of boy-raping?
edit: To the two posts above me, during the middle-ages would you have considered the Catholic Church to be a corporation and not a religion because it made money for its higher ups? I find that hard to do when one considers the millions and millions of people who utterly believed it to be the word of god. I'm fine for treating it as a corporation in a fiscal sense, but so long as people actually believe it, it is also a religion.
So if say 1 million people believed Spot the dog was god incarnate and did as he barked makes it a religion?
Alot of wackos believe they are Jesus, that doesnt make them right.
Yeah, Rose hit on exactly why you're incorrect there LiveWire. The priests were acting on their own accord, and it was something that was happening independently of their religious affiliation. Their activities were discouraged by the Vatican.
Scientologists, however, are encouraged to do the subversive things they do. It went from the highest-ranking members (Hubbard's wife) to the grunts and strongarms. And that's not just speculation, that's proven by the documents the CIA confiscated after Operation Snow White. Why, at that moment, America didn't do exactly what Germany did is beyond me. Nevertheless, Germany doesn't only have the right to deny him access, it is their responsibility to keep organizations that are proven to take illegal actions against world governments from their government facilities.
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.
So saying "you're a douche, go away" is fine,
Yes, they don't owe Tom Cruise anything, filming rights are a privilege. They don't have to give him anything.
but "you're a member of an organisation we consider suspect at best, outright criminal at worst, go away" isn't?
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.
Should we keep Catholic Cardinals off of government - owned parks in Los Angeles because they are high-ranking members of an organization with a lengthy and well-documented recent history of boy-raping?
edit: To the two posts above me, during the middle-ages would you have considered the Catholic Church to be a corporation and not a religion because it made money for its higher ups? I find that hard to do when one considers the millions and millions of people who utterly believed it to be the word of god. I'm fine for treating it as a corporation in a fiscal sense, but so long as people actually believe it, it is also a religion.
So if say 1 million people believed Spot the dog was god incarnate and did as he barked makes it a religion?
Alot of wackos believe they are Jesus, that doesnt make them right.
If they really believed spot was god, then yes, then it would be a religion.
Urbman, welcome to religion through the eyes of an Atheist. You are all whacked-out weirdos to me. But I don't want whacked-out weirdos persecuting other whacked-out weirdos for being a different shade of weird. And I certainly don't want them persecuting me for being normal. The founding fathers thought the same, and so it is.
LiveWire: some people believe it's alright to sacrifice a human being for religious purposes. We don't let them. Scientologists are more subversive, but they take criminal actions as well.
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.
So saying "you're a douche, go away" is fine,
Yes, they don't owe Tom Cruise anything, filming rights are a privilege. They don't have to give him anything.
but "you're a member of an organisation we consider suspect at best, outright criminal at worst, go away" isn't?
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.
Should we keep Catholic Cardinals off of government - owned parks in Los Angeles because they are high-ranking members of an organization with a lengthy and well-documented recent history of boy-raping?
edit: To the two posts above me, during the middle-ages would you have considered the Catholic Church to be a corporation and not a religion because it made money for its higher ups? I find that hard to do when one considers the millions and millions of people who utterly believed it to be the word of god. I'm fine for treating it as a corporation in a fiscal sense, but so long as people actually believe it, it is also a religion.
So if say 1 million people believed Spot the dog was god incarnate and did as he barked makes it a religion?
Alot of wackos believe they are Jesus, that doesnt make them right.
If they really believed spot was god, then yes, then it would be a religion.
Urbman, welcome to religion through the eyes of an Atheist. You are all whacked-out weirdos to me. But I don't want whacked-out weirdos persecuting other whacked-out weirdos for being a different shade of weird. And I certainly don't want them persecuting me for being normal. The founding fathers thought the same, and so it is.
I guess what Im arguing is that just because you have a belief system and call it a religion doesnt make it a religion. To me a religion has to take part in the world and atlest try to better it (but sometimes that idea of better is very different). CoS to me is a bunch of fucktawts that want my money and just because they say they are a religion to me does not make them one. Hell anyone can believe anything they want to get them to heaven that doesnt make it a religion, that makes it a faith. The two re TOTALY different.
Urbman, welcome to religion through the eyes of an Atheist. You are all whacked-out weirdos to me. But I don't want whacked-out weirdos persecuting other whacked-out weirdos for being a different shade of weird. And I certainly don't want them persecuting me for being normal. The founding fathers thought the same, and so it is.
Hint: what "the founding fathers" thought is pretty fucking irrelevant in Germany..
And again, he isn't being persecuted because of his religion. He is being denied access to a facility because he is a known member of an organization who's faults have been repeated MANY times in this thread. If the Catholic Church had, on orders from the pope, attempted to destroy all records relating to the abuse cases you might have a point. As it is you don't.
Phoenix-D on
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
edit: To the two posts above me, during the middle-ages would you have considered the Catholic Church to be a corporation and not a religion because it made money for its higher ups through nefarious means? I find that hard to do when one considers the millions and millions of people who utterly believed it to be the word of god. I'm fine for treating it as a corporation in a fiscal sense, but so long as people actually believe it, it is also a religion and its members should be afforded the associated protection from persecution.
Yes, you are correct; if the Catholic Church of the twelve-hundreds were in existence today, it might easily get the same charges levelled at it as Scientology does. In c1200 the Roman Catholic Church was the Holy Roman Empire, which made its own laws and killed anyone that got in their way. So what? You want to go back in time and retroactively deny the HRE access to German military bases?
I dunno if you've noticed, but, and keep this under your hat, it isn't the middle ages any more! I know! I couldn't believe it myself, but then I looked at the calendar.
More to the point, I don't recall anyone denying that Scientology is a religion except the German government, which would be the only relevant authority on sensitive military installations in Germany.
You know, Ive been thinking on this and if I was the chancellor of germany, not only would the cult be illegal, I'd arrest people who are known to be part of it as members of a suspected terrorist organisation.
Then I would do a full, public investigation, and bring all these dark little stories to the surface about scientology and in the public eye.
What are they going to do? Call all of germany pedophiles?
Posts
This is the problem -- CoS is a company which provides both goods and services in direct and required exchange of money. One might as well call a psychaitrist a religious leader, and his patients as followers. Or a self-help-book publisher.
I genuinely think the fact that Scientology maintains ownership of its ideas, and requires payment for goods and services makes it a company, not a religion.
But a psychiatrist or author don't give insight to the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, which Scientology (and pretty much every other religion) do.
Though arguably the most deplorable trait, the deciding factor in a religion isn't that you have to pay for it.
I think that give is the operative word in "give insight to the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."
I think when "give" becomes "sell," it ceases to be a religion. I don't see why insight into the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe should be considered altogether different from any other intellectual property. Especially when the so-called religion treats it as intellectual property by claiming copyright and taking legal action to maintain strict control of it.
Does the fact that monetary compensation is required to learn about their faith lower their message to the point of silliness? Absolutely. But this fact alone does not turn it into a business.
Click image for my huge backlog
The only hang-up that I can see though is that the Anglican and Catholic churches (the only really monolithic religious organisations I can think of off the top of my head) likely do have documents and the such that they consider protected and not to be made publicly available.
Most of the Catholic Church's hidden stuff are historical records and whatnot. Not canonical texts that are the bass of thier faith.
The more intersting case would be the apocyphal texts that manstream christianity rejects as canon. Still they're out there and nobody forces you to invest enormous amounts of money and time to read them.
The old fashioned Gnostics were arguably cult-like since they discirminated who they gave access to thier 'special" information. But there's not much solid onfo about them to really go on.
Such documents are largely of an administrative nature. See this thread for more details.
Vatican II was important for modernizing the church, but really has no bearing on this discussion. Bibles have been translated into other languages for a very long time.
I think this is a very important facet of this discussion. The problem is with members of the Church of Scientology, not with scientologists. It's a slight distinction, but an important one. Germany doesn't mind if you're a scientologist, but if you're a member of their 'Church' then they'll consider the Church's status when dealing with you.
I fail to see how a list of misdeeds done in Scientology's name, perpetrated by its faithful, makes it less like a religion (I in fact see the opposite).
It seems to me that a lot of people just don't like Scientology and so are receptive to any way political machinery can be used against them. As an extremely active Atheist, you can well imagine how I privately feel about Scientology. But one should not give in to the temptation to discriminate against Scientology, because it opens the door for discrimination against any religion (read: my non-religion, which is the least tolerated in America). This is not a slippery slope; if we discriminate against Scientology we have already arrived at government sponsored religious persecution.
To Cat, and others who maintain that this is not legal discrimination because filming rights are a privilege: You still may not legally discriminate by religion or race. You have no legal right to be served in a privately owned restaurant. You may be refused for any reason at all, unless that reason is because of your race or your religion. The only way to wriggle around this is if you can demonstrate that your race/religion holds an implied danger to those around him(e.g. Al-Queda).
No such danger can be demonstrated for Tom Cruise on his movie set. Not even close.
So basically what you're saying is, if they had simply refused to let Tom Cruise film because they thought he was a poo-poo head, then that would be perfectly fine.
You ignored the evidence of the illegal actions of CoS and continue to hammer a point that is false in the case of religious persecution, Germany doesn't recognize CoS as a religion despite you claiming them to be so, so as far as them discriminating him based on his outspoken association with a group that Germany considers a threat to its countries well being and does not recognize as a religion, I really can't see what your point is other then to make implications that show no grounds outside of your own paranoia.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Germany has well founded beliefs that the CoS (or a branch thereof, if you want to discuss semantics) has actively tried to undermine and steal from the government of Germany.
Did they send a suicide bomber in their subways? no. But they still commited a crime against the government of Germany and, as such, it is perfectly reasonable for Germany to associate anyone who actively supports or is a member of the CoS with this criminal behaviour.
In Germany's eyes, the Church of Scientology is a criminal enterprise, which trumps whatever belief system they happen to adhere to.
Dramatic example: I follow the ancient Aztec religion that demands the sacrifice of a virgin maiden at every winter solstice. Should I be allowed to do so? Bear in mind that the virgin in question is also a member of my religion and submits herself to this fate willingly. Does that mean no one outside my faith has the right to intervene?
And before you say "but Scientology never killed anyone!" stop, because it has been now explained several times that one of the basic tenets of Scientology, written by L.R.H. himself is that any perceived "enemy" of the church can be harrassed and "destroyed". They may not be murderers, but they certainly are destroying lives.
I agree wholly with the "Scientology = Business" thing. It was even founded as a moneymaking venture.
On top of all that is stated above regarding Germany, Scientology has also had some bad history with the FBI. Seriously. Actual offenses against the FBI.
They also look down upon psychology, viewing themselves as an alternative. And let's face it, some aspects of psychiatry is a little off (throwing medication at any percieved problem is not the way to go), but it's certainly a LOT better than... well...
Come on, DIANETICS?
He's a high profile member of a dangerous cult.
Whether or not you agree with that assessment is irrelevant. They are well within their rights to make it.
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.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
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.
(go on, act out every scene and described action in the Qu'ran like it was a play about the guy's life. I guarantee it won't take you 36 years to get through, so what was he doing the rest of the time? No-one knows...)
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
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.
Should we keep Catholic Cardinals off of government - owned parks in Los Angeles because they are high-ranking members of an organization with a lengthy and well-documented recent history of boy-raping?
edit: To the two posts above me, during the middle-ages would you have considered the Catholic Church to be a corporation and not a religion because it made money for its higher ups through nefarious means? I find that hard to do when one considers the millions and millions of people who utterly believed it to be the word of god. I'm fine for treating it as a corporation in a fiscal sense, but so long as people actually believe it, it is also a religion and its members should be afforded the associated protection from persecution.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
So if say 1 million people believed Spot the dog was god incarnate and did as he barked makes it a religion?
Alot of wackos believe they are Jesus, that doesnt make them right.
Scientologists, however, are encouraged to do the subversive things they do. It went from the highest-ranking members (Hubbard's wife) to the grunts and strongarms. And that's not just speculation, that's proven by the documents the CIA confiscated after Operation Snow White. Why, at that moment, America didn't do exactly what Germany did is beyond me. Nevertheless, Germany doesn't only have the right to deny him access, it is their responsibility to keep organizations that are proven to take illegal actions against world governments from their government facilities.
If they really believed spot was god, then yes, then it would be a religion.
Urbman, welcome to religion through the eyes of an Atheist. You are all whacked-out weirdos to me. But I don't want whacked-out weirdos persecuting other whacked-out weirdos for being a different shade of weird. And I certainly don't want them persecuting me for being normal. The founding fathers thought the same, and so it is.
I guess what Im arguing is that just because you have a belief system and call it a religion doesnt make it a religion. To me a religion has to take part in the world and atlest try to better it (but sometimes that idea of better is very different). CoS to me is a bunch of fucktawts that want my money and just because they say they are a religion to me does not make them one. Hell anyone can believe anything they want to get them to heaven that doesnt make it a religion, that makes it a faith. The two re TOTALY different.
Hint: what "the founding fathers" thought is pretty fucking irrelevant in Germany..
And again, he isn't being persecuted because of his religion. He is being denied access to a facility because he is a known member of an organization who's faults have been repeated MANY times in this thread. If the Catholic Church had, on orders from the pope, attempted to destroy all records relating to the abuse cases you might have a point. As it is you don't.
Yes, you are correct; if the Catholic Church of the twelve-hundreds were in existence today, it might easily get the same charges levelled at it as Scientology does. In c1200 the Roman Catholic Church was the Holy Roman Empire, which made its own laws and killed anyone that got in their way. So what? You want to go back in time and retroactively deny the HRE access to German military bases?
I dunno if you've noticed, but, and keep this under your hat, it isn't the middle ages any more! I know! I couldn't believe it myself, but then I looked at the calendar.
More to the point, I don't recall anyone denying that Scientology is a religion except the German government, which would be the only relevant authority on sensitive military installations in Germany.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Then I would do a full, public investigation, and bring all these dark little stories to the surface about scientology and in the public eye.
What are they going to do? Call all of germany pedophiles?
So does that mean we get to move them all to their own country and displace a bunch of people who hate them?
Because I am so totally for that.
Scientologea?