You could choose to join of your own free will, and still be forced to pay later.
Or be born into it by having Scientologist parents who indoctrinate you into the religion, and then be forced to pay your own way when you reach adulthood or the 'rents stop paying for you.
You could choose to join of your own free will, and still be forced to pay later.
Or be born into it by having Scientologist parents who indoctrinate you into the religion, and then be forced to pay your own way when you reach adulthood or the 'rents stop paying for you.
Kids being born into Scientology is quite a scary thought. Poor Suri.
The great thing about all of the Tom Cruise stuff over the last couple of years is that everybody in the WORLD now knows why Nicole Kidman divorced him.
And for the record, I think he's a great actor. Sean Penn is a great actor, too. It doesn't change the fact that they're loony.
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.
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.
Wait, what about all their criminal spying, wiretapping, blackmailing of government officials and attempts to infiltrate government? That's not a reason not to let them onto a military base?
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.
Tom Cruise is a spokesman for the CoS, he is one of their most spiritually advanced practicioners. He isn't merely an actor who happens to be a Scientologist.
Also, you seriously don't understand anything about physical security if you don't see how access to a secure facility is a major threat in and of itself.
All that's needed for a security incident is access and opportunity.
So no, the military doesn't grant access on the basis of "OH, BUT IF WE SAY NO SOMEONE WILL FEEL BAD". :roll:
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).
I utterly fail to see how that makes any fucking difference in why Tom Cruise should be granted access to a military base to film a movie.
s an extremely active Atheist, you can well imagine how I privately feel about Scientology.
Actually as an fundementalist atheist, I think you have fallen victim to the peculiar ailment that afflicts many fundies: inability to distinguish qualitative differences in religion and religious practices other than your own.
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.
You still frame this in the light of discrimination. The CoS hasn't been denied goods or services from the government. One of their members has only been denied access to a controlled military facility, which is something that is not a right, something that the German military reserves the right to give or refuse as they see fit.
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.
There is no legal discrimination. Period. There was not a denial of goods or services. Filming on a military base is something you have to ask permission to do, and it can always be denied. You ignore all the very good reasons that a military force has for not wanting a member of a disident group to have access to their secure facilities, so all that's left is to say that it's a good thing you are not (and never will be) in a position to influence military policy.
I guess since the Pope visits the President and so does the Queen Elizabeth II (head of the Church of England) that means that David Miscavige must be allowed to go to the White House and meet with the President also, and must be allowed access to the White House.
Posts
Or... is it that you want to get rid of it, but you can't find any practical differences? Germany has some good ideas, I believe.
They're mostly all batshit crazy.
But the AND dangerous thing is the clincher.
BRAWL: 1160-9686-9416
Tom Cruise is not a good actor usually, sometimes he pulls it out though.
Haven't seen it, but that one he did with Jamie Foxx, where he was the hit man, I hear was good.
It was the same character he always plays, just with his hair dyed grey.
I really enjoy his movies.
He was really good in Vanilla Sky and Minority Report.
It's hard work to memorize all of those lines with so many thetans hanging around.
The great thing about all of the Tom Cruise stuff over the last couple of years is that everybody in the WORLD now knows why Nicole Kidman divorced him.
And for the record, I think he's a great actor. Sean Penn is a great actor, too. It doesn't change the fact that they're loony.
XBL: QuazarX
Yes, he always plays a ruthless, aging hitman...
That's exactly what I was thinking of, thank you.
Wait, what about all their criminal spying, wiretapping, blackmailing of government officials and attempts to infiltrate government? That's not a reason not to let them onto a military base?
Tom Cruise is a spokesman for the CoS, he is one of their most spiritually advanced practicioners. He isn't merely an actor who happens to be a Scientologist.
Also, you seriously don't understand anything about physical security if you don't see how access to a secure facility is a major threat in and of itself.
All that's needed for a security incident is access and opportunity.
So no, the military doesn't grant access on the basis of "OH, BUT IF WE SAY NO SOMEONE WILL FEEL BAD". :roll:
I utterly fail to see how that makes any fucking difference in why Tom Cruise should be granted access to a military base to film a movie.
This isn't political, it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with physical security.
Actually as an fundementalist atheist, I think you have fallen victim to the peculiar ailment that afflicts many fundies: inability to distinguish qualitative differences in religion and religious practices other than your own.
You still frame this in the light of discrimination. The CoS hasn't been denied goods or services from the government. One of their members has only been denied access to a controlled military facility, which is something that is not a right, something that the German military reserves the right to give or refuse as they see fit.
There is no legal discrimination. Period. There was not a denial of goods or services. Filming on a military base is something you have to ask permission to do, and it can always be denied. You ignore all the very good reasons that a military force has for not wanting a member of a disident group to have access to their secure facilities, so all that's left is to say that it's a good thing you are not (and never will be) in a position to influence military policy.
I guess since the Pope visits the President and so does the Queen Elizabeth II (head of the Church of England) that means that David Miscavige must be allowed to go to the White House and meet with the President also, and must be allowed access to the White House.
Otherwise it's discrimination?
This is your logic, dude. It's bad.
even if they started calling themselves a religion.
oh wait...
I like the moral conundrum angle but I didn't feel like it was in the foreground enough. It devolved into a chase movie a little too quickly.