NationStates Jolt Archive

Your thoughts on this shitty excuse for a religion?

All religions are shitty. No need to single this one out.

It's as good a religion as any.

What purpose would be served in banning it?

Its not a religion. Its a pyramid scheme.

No, why?

I just think of it as satire

Its funny to see religious people finally get a glimpse of what they look like from the outside.

Its an awful silly picture sometimes.

yeah, all religions are like it, this one is esspecialy stupid. so.... normal people...just..i unno...everything is stupid all the time everywhere, always.

Problem is, it's not a religion, it's a massive money making scheme. Though I believe that people stupid enough to donate money to such an obviously stupid cause should get theirs, the methods they use to keep whistleblowers quiet are quite shady.

Any religion that isn't 2000 years old is a cult!! :D

No. Go back to church, Velkya. I'm sure they agree with you there.

*is too tired to even try working up to her usual $cientology rant*

*points people to www.xenu.net (www.xenu.net) in the mean time - THE best internet resource for all things $cientology*

Problem is, it's not a religion, it's a massive money making scheme.

Which makes it different from other religions in what sense?

Any religion that tries to hurt free speech by sueing people that made fun of it is bad, in my opinion. (That doesn't include Christianity and older religions, because it is not the church or the founder himself who is sueing).

Problem is, it's not a religion, it's a massive money making scheme. Though I believe that people stupid enough to donate money to such an obviously stupid cause should get theirs, the methods they use to keep whistleblowers quiet are quite shady.
Supressive Person! We've got ourselves a Suppressive Person here! Call out the Sea Org! Suppressive Person!

Which makes it different from other religions in what sense?
Fass seems more right than usual today...

All religions are shitty. No need to single this one out.

Indeed.

Any religion that isn't 2000 years old is a cult!! :D

Try 4,000 years and you're closer.

Which makes it different from other religions in what sense?
Let's see.

Scientologists are told to break off contact with any family or friends who don't want to become Scientologists.

Not too many Christians like that (with the exception of a few cult churches like the Branch Davidians were).

Scientologists also have "handlers" or "minders" for new spouses of famous Scientologists - to make sure that their former family members don't ever get a chance to speak to them again.

Scientologists also try to kill people who try to leave the "church".

Gee, I don't remember any time when a member of the Assembly of God was killed by a bomb or killed by poisonous snakes because he was trying to leave the church. Nor was anyone in my church ever told to give up all his money to the church, nor was anyone in my church ever told to stop all contact with friends and family who didn't belong to the church.

Maybe the churches in Sweden are rougher than I thought, Fass.

Which makes it different from other religions in what sense?
In the since that L. Ron Hubbard created this one. The only acceptable authorities on religion are dead Jews, anyone could tell you that much.

Obviously, I am in favour of banning Scientology, if only because I'm feeling peevish on account of it being President's Day, and all, so I want everything banned.

I'm not even that religious, so why bother. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about it.

Which makes it different from other religions in what sense?

Look, can you all look past your obvious bias on organized religion and take a look at the presented issue. Should Scientology be banned in the United States (as it has in Germany and elsewhere) because of obvious criminal activties?

Let's see.

Scientologists are told to break off contact with any family or friends who don't want to become Scientologists.

Not too many Christians like that (with the exception of a few cult churches like the Branch Davidians were).

Scientologists also have "handlers" or "minders" for new spouses of famous Scientologists - to make sure that their former family members don't ever get a chance to speak to them again.

Scientologists also try to kill people who try to leave the "church".

Gee, I don't remember any time when a member of the Assembly of God was killed by a bomb or killed by poisonous snakes because he was trying to leave the church. Nor was anyone in my church ever told to give up all his money to the church, nor was anyone in my church ever told to stop all contact with friends and family who didn't belong to the church.

Maybe the churches in Sweden are rougher than I thought, Fass.
Don't forget sueing people for making fun of their religion. Or being led by a sci-fi writer.:rolleyes:

"Fuck L. Ron Hubbard and fuck all his clones" -- Maynard James Keenan

That's all I have to say, thank you.

Don't forget sueing people for making fun of their religion. Or being led by a sci-fi writer.:rolleyes:
Don't forget copyrighting their religious material so they can sue anyone who reveals any of it.

No other religion does that.

Let's see.

Scientologists are told to break off contact with any family or friends who don't want to become Scientologists.

Not too many Christians like that (with the exception of a few cult churches like the Branch Davidians were).

Scientologists also have "handlers" or "minders" for new spouses of famous Scientologists - to make sure that their former family members don't ever get a chance to speak to them again.

Scientologists also try to kill people who try to leave the "church".

Gee, I don't remember any time when a member of the Assembly of God was killed by a bomb or killed by poisonous snakes because he was trying to leave the church. Nor was anyone in my church ever told to give up all his money to the church, nor was anyone in my church ever told to stop all contact with friends and family who didn't belong to the church.

Maybe the churches in Sweden are rougher than I thought, Fass.

Don't forget the fundamental difference, in that most other religions only encourage donations, whereas the practice of Scientology in any degree requires injections of money for every act of 'worship' or to advance to any extra state of enlightenment. (or you could sign yourself into de facto slavery to pay for the stuff)

If it makes Tom Cruise go away............nahh stupidity has as much right as intelligence.

Any religion that tries to hurt free speech by sueing people that made fun of it is bad, in my opinion. (That doesn't include Christianity and older religions, because it is not the church or the founder himself who is sueing).

Exactly. Also, I believe they wired FBI agents attempting to investigate their monetary transactions, which sent quite a few of them to prison (including the founders wife).

Don't forget sueing people for making fun of their religion. Or being led by a sci-fi writer.:rolleyes:

Or the fact that their god flies around in a Boeing 747.

Don't forget the fundamental difference, in that most other religions only encourage donations, whereas the practice of Scientology in any degree requires injections of money for every act of 'worship' or to advance to any extra state of enlightenment. (or you could sign yourself into de facto slavery to pay for the stuff)

Don't they, like most other cults, target depressed, lonely, emotionally unstable people?

Try 4,000 years and you're closer.

Sorry, my Tardis is hobbled -- the AD/BC switch has been broken for centuries, and my spares were jetisoned last regeneration... ;)

Or the fact that their god flies around in a Boeing 747.
Or that somehow we are all linked to Alien Souls stopping us from being super heroes.:rolleyes:

Exactly. Also, I believe they wired FBI agents attempting to investigate their monetary transactions, which sent quite a few of them to prison (including the founders wife).

Operation Snow White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White)

Or the fact that their god flies around in a Boeing 747.

Who do they worhship, anyways, the writer?

Or the fact that their god flies around in a Boeing 747.
Or the fact that they have their own Navy - not even the Salvation army has that.

:sniper: man scientology is just a stupid cult that uses the ignorence of its fallowers by takeing there money for those in charge ban that crap :gundge:

Or the fact that their god flies around in a Boeing 747.
And what is wrong with that? It is better for the environment and a lot classier than a flaming chariot.

They have a frickin navy? My God, they could be attacked and it wouldn't be genocide!

Or the fact that they have their own Navy - not even the Salvation army has that.

Your kidding me! There's no Salvation Navy?!

Don't tell me there's not a Salvation Air Force, either!

Who do they worhship, anyways, the writer?
To be honest, I'm not sure they could be said to worship anything, although they venerate Flash Hubbard to the heavens. That's why it's hard to classify as a religion, in fact it isn't classed as one in th UK.
It's more a course of alternate medicine to rid oneself of the Body Thetans who cause mental health problems and keep humans within their natural bounds.

And what is wrong with that? It is better for the environment and a lot classier than a flaming chariot.

Isn't that flaming chariot bit from Greek mythology?

Scientologists are told to break off contact with any family or friends who don't want to become Scientologists.

Not too many Christians like that (with the exception of a few cult churches like the Branch Davidians were).

Ah, yes. "They're not like that, apart from those who are like that."

Scientologists also have "handlers" or "minders" for new spouses of famous Scientologists - to make sure that their former family members don't ever get a chance to speak to them again.

That sounds almost Mormon or Jehova's Witness.

Scientologists also try to kill people who try to leave the "church".

Which is a concept alien to the Abrahamic religions, for sure...

Gee, I don't remember any time when a member of the Assembly of God was killed by a bomb or killed by poisonous snakes because he was trying to leave the church. Nor was anyone in my church ever told to give up all his money to the church, nor was anyone in my church ever told to stop all contact with friends and family who didn't belong to the church.

That's OK - your church doesn't have to be exploitative in the same way as they are to be exploitative.

Maybe the churches in Sweden are rougher than I thought, Fass.

Maybe religious history is a laxer subject in the US...

To be honest, I'm not sure they could be said to worship anything, although they venerate Flash Hubbard to the heavens. That's why it's hard to classify as a religion, in fact it isn't classed as one in th UK.
It's more a course of alternate medicine to rid oneself of the Body Thetans who cause mental health problems and keep humans within their natural bounds.
Well, serously, that sounds a lot like Satan, if you think about it.

Or the fact that they have their own Navy - not even the Salvation army has that.

Or that they hold the universe to be over four quadrillion years old. I'm pretty sure that even Catholicism has abandoned the 6000 year old Earth theory, right?

Someone should give them a very small island and force all their members to live there. Hopefully they'll all starve to death.

I don't even get it. Don't they believe that some alien came down and spawned life here? Sounds pretty insane to me. Anyways, what I do know is that it costs a lot of money to be in it; like hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think its just a money-making scheme.

Which is a concept alien to the Abrahamic religions, for sure...
In the modern day, yes.
That's OK - your church doesn't have to be exploitative in the same way as they are to be exploitative.
Con men > Muggers

I'm getting really sick and tired of totalitarian communists who want to ban everything they don't like. Why don't we just let people worship who or what the hell they want, and mind our own business. If some people are stupid enough to give all their money to Scientology, then let them.

Or that they hold the universe to be over four quadrillion years old. I'm pretty sure that even Catholicism has abandoned the 6000 year old Earth theory, right?

The Catholics were among the first (Europeans) to separate faith and science.

Isn't that flaming chariot bit from Greek mythology?

There were a few. The Egyptians had Ra the sun God. Helios was for the Greeks. The Egyptian God is probably older, if that matters.

I don't even get it. Don't they believe that some alien came down and spawned life here? Sounds pretty insane to me. Anyways, what I do know is that it costs a lot of money to be in it; like hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think its just a money-making scheme.
They believe that the alien lord Xenu attached alien souls to our bodies. It's weird.

Or that they hold the universe to be over four quadrillion years old. I'm pretty sure that even Catholicism has abandoned the 6000 year old Earth theory, right?

I believe so. Even though I attend a Catholic high school, I believe that most of the stuff they tack on in the mass is useless, and that all you need to be a good Christian is follow what Jesus said (which, cutting out the obvious religious motives, isn't such a bad message) and be a good, humble, charitable person.

Someone should give them a very small island and force all their members to live there. Hopefully they'll all starve to death.

That was tried before... it was called "Plymouth". ;)

The Catholics were among the first (Europeans) to separate faith and science.

So is that a yes or a no?

There were a few. The Egyptians had Ra the sun God. Helios was for the Greeks. The Egyptian God is probably older, if that matters.
Whoever is driving it, them things is just tacky. And then the blinding light that they send out when you start them at dawn wakes the neighbours, until eventually they have "astronomical manipulation" ordances instated to just to get some sleep.

I don't even get it. Don't they believe that some alien came down and spawned life here? Sounds pretty insane to me.

As opposed to some guy nailed to a tree, or a six armed blue elephant, or some dude with thunderbolts...

There were a few. The Egyptians had Ra the sun God. Helios was for the Greeks. The Egyptian God is probably older, if that matters.

Well, I remembered Greeks becuase we're studying the ancient Greek and Latin myths and we're on the tale of Phaethon (son of Helios). For those who don't know the story, Phaethon finds out that the sun god (Helios) is his father and travels to his temple/palace. During the reunion, Helios offers the son anything he wants. Phaethon then says he would like to drive the chariot of Helios, a feat impossible to all but Helios himself. Bound by his promise, Helios allows his son to drive the car, which he crashes, ending his life.

I'm getting really sick and tired of totalitarian communists who want to ban everything they don't like. Why don't we just let people worship who or what the hell they want, and mind our own business. If some people are stupid enough to give all their money to Scientology, then let them.
Unfortunately many modern societies have determined that their citizens, yes even the really gullible ones, should be protected from professional confidence tricksters, knowing how difficult it is to extricate oneself from such organisations even if you realise you are being conned. And knowing how harmful they can be to individuals and families, it is the duty, in my opinion, of responsible societies to legislate against them.

So is that a yes or a no?

The teaching of the Catholic Church allows for belief in an older universe, along with the big bang, and evolution, et al. (As long as you believe that G-d directed things) So, Yes.

As opposed to some guy nailed to a tree, or a six armed blue elephant, or some dude with thunderbolts...

Aren't you a little ray of sunshine? :rolleyes:

Aren't you a little ray of sunshine? :rolleyes:

If Scientology is ridiculous, so is any other religion. Which they are.

As opposed to some guy nailed to a tree, or a six armed blue elephant, or some dude with thunderbolts...
If to analyse everything from a logical perspective almost all religions are idiotic. That said, human logic is not flawless.

If Scientology is ridiculous, so is any other religion. Which they are.

Hey, I'd rather believe in a God and find out that he didn't exist then not believe in one and find out I was wrong.

Besides, what's so great about Atheism? I mean, you die and rot in the ground (or sit as a bunch of little white flakes in an urn). That's awfully final, if you ask me. :p

Unfortunately many modern societies have determined that their citizens, yes even the really gullible ones, should be protected from professional confidence tricksters, knowing how difficult it is to extricate oneself from such organisations even if you realise you are being conned. And knowing how harmful they can be to individuals and families, it is the duty, in my opinion, of responsible societies to legislate against them.

So people shouldn't be allowed to worship freely if you decide that their religion is not a "real" religion?
What if people actualy have a mind of their own?
Not everybody believes that it is the governments role to protect men from themselves.

I personally find the religion to be a joke, but if other people believe it, thats their right. I am huge on freedom religion, and freedom of expression (as long as it does not cause physical or emotional harm to another person).


thats my piece.


---Premier of the Armed Republic of Wanderjar

Whoever is driving it, them things is just tacky. And then the blinding light that they send out when you start them at dawn wakes the neighbours, until eventually they have "astronomical manipulation" ordances instated to just to get some sleep.

Dude... how did you survive the 70's? Disco EVERYWHERE! [/shudder]

So people shouldn't be allowed to worship freely if you decide that their religion is not a "real" religion?
What if people actualy have a mind of their own?
Not everybody believes that it is the governments role to protect men from themselves.

Hey, we'll adopt that viewpoint. Why bother having police at all, I'm sure people are smart enough to have guns to protect themselves, right?

If to analyse everything from a logical perspective almost all religions are idiotic. That said, human logic is not flawless.

Indeed. Satan's greatest trick was to convince people that he doesn't exist.

Dude... how did you survive the 70's? Disco EVERYWHERE! [/shudder]
I used the highly unconventional tactic of "not being born yet."

Indeed. Satan's greatest trick was to convince people that he doesn't exist.

Well, he is a tricky bastard, that Satan.

Hey, I'd rather believe in a God and find out that he didn't exist then not believe in one and find out I was wrong.

So, why don't you believe in Xenu or Ganesh? Because you are also an atheist. As my sig used to say: I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Besides, what's so great about Atheism? I mean, you die and rot in the ground (or sit as a bunch of little white flakes in an urn). That's awfully final, if you ask me. :p

A lot less delusional.

So people shouldn't be allowed to worship freely if you decide that their religion is not a "real" religion?
What if people actualy have a mind of their own?
Not everybody believes that it is the governments role to protect men from themselves.
I believe that there were several criteria that Scientolgy didn't meet for it to be considered a "real" religion in Britain, it's dubious if not to say nefarious reputation can't have helped.
Furthermore it's not so much about the government 'protecting people from themselves'. There are very real concerns that once you become a member your own free will is taken from you, with very convincing allegations of brain washing, threatening behaviour, and much much worse. This, not the 'religion' itself is what governments need to protect against. As it stands, given the highly secretive nature of the Scientologists, very little of this can be currently legislated against directly. Me personally I'd just whack an ASBO on the entire British branch.

Don't they believe that some alien came down and spawned life here? Sounds pretty insane to me.
Just about as insane as some guy in the "Kingdom of Heaven" deciding that he wants to create a whole universe and managing to do it in only 6 days.

-snip-

A person as sarcastic as yourself should recognize sarcasm when you see it.

Whether you like it or not, there's someone or something "up there". Something had to create all this big beautiful universe for a reason, right?

I used the highly unconventional tactic of "not being born yet."

That's cheating!!

So, why don't you believe in Xenu or Ganesh? Because you are also an atheist. As my sig used to say: I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
However, would you dismiss a person off-hand as an idiot if they choose to believe in the existence of a particular god and do not force this preference on others? Nothing proves nor disproves the existence of a deity up to now. So a person may lean either way.

A person as sarcastic as yourself should recognize sarcasm when you see it.

Whether you like it or not, there's someone or something "up there".

Yea, William McArthur and Valery Ivanovich Tokarev.

Something had to create all this big beautiful universe for a reason, right?
Wrong.

A person as sarcastic as yourself should recognize sarcasm when you see it.

I do not recognise the sub par kind.

Whether you like it or not, there's someone or something "up there". Something had to create all this big beautiful universe for a reason, right?

Yes, this world is so complex it has to have a designer infinitely more complex than it is, but for some reason, that designer doesn't need a designer. This wizard in the sky doesn't need an explanation, but the world does. Yeah, right.

And you still have not explained why you do not believe in Xenu or Ganesh.

Well, he is a tricky bastard, that Satan.

Yeah, but he does love the cheer of the crowd... normally, he plays for the Islanders...

From the 2006 Slovakia Olympic roster:
Forward - Miroslav Satan
http://www.nhl.com/olympics/2006/slovakia_oly_roster.html

Yes, this world is so complex it has to have a designer infinitely more complex than it is, but for some reason, that designer doesn't need a designer. This wizard in the sky doesn't need an explanation, but the world does. Yeah, right.

We could go on like this forever, you know. So what's your theory on why we're here?

However, would you dismiss a person off-hand as an idiot if they choose to believe in the existence of a particular god and do not force this preference on others?

Would you dismiss a person that believes in pixies and trolls and Red Riding Hoods as an idiot, as long as they did not force that on others?

Yeah, but he does love the cheer of the crowd... normally, he plays for the Islanders...

From the 2006 Slovakia Olympic roster:
Forward - Miroslav Satan
http://www.nhl.com/olympics/2006/slovakia_oly_roster.html

That's some bad luck right there.

That's some bad luck right there.

Yeah, but that dude can SKATE!

We could go on like this forever, you know.

It seems like we won't, since you are incapable of explaining why you don't believe in Ganesh or Xenu, and why an infinitely more complex designer doesn't need a designer, but his "design" does.

So what's your theory on why we're here?

I don't have one. That's the whole point of being an atheist.

Yes, this world is so complex it has to have a designer infinitely more complex than it is, but for some reason, that designer doesn't need a designer. This wizard in the sky doesn't need an explanation, but the world does. Yeah, right.
Anselm had a very good reason for that, but for some reason whenever I think about him too hard I black out and wake up half-naked in alleyway the next night.

Would you dismiss a person that believes in pixies and trolls and Red Riding Hoods as an idiot, as long as they did not force that on others?
I would. Yet in the case of the possibility of the universe, of which currently no explanation exists as to how it was created, potentially being wrought by a higher force I am not so quick to dismiss them. I would so dismiss them though if this belief was absolute and they did not recognise the possibility of this creator force existing being false altogether.

Would you dismiss a person that believes in pixies and trolls and Red Riding Hoods as an idiot, as long as they did not force that on others?

So, I'm automatically an idiot and you're automatically better than me becuase I happen to believe in a deity?

Not only sarcastic, but condescending as well. You're no fun at all. :rolleyes:

So, I'm automatically an idiot and you're automatically better than me becuase I happen to believe in a deity?

Your belief in your deity is no better than a Scientologist's belief in Xenu, or some Druid's belief in pixies and magic.

Not only sarcastic, but condescending as well. You're no fun at all. :rolleyes:

That's OK. Your inability to explain why yours is a better deity/mythical creature than theirs speaks volumes.

I would. Yet in the case of the possibility of the universe, of which currently no explanation exists as to how it was created, potentially being wrought by a higher force I am not so quick to dismiss them. I would so dismiss them though if this belief was absolute and they did not recognise the possibility of this creator force existing being false altogether.

Again: Why does the "design" need a designer, but not the designer need a designer?

So, I'm automatically an idiot and you're automatically better than me becuase I happen to believe in a deity?

Not only sarcastic, but condescending as well. You're no fun at all. :rolleyes:
Don't be hard on the man: he has to know everything about everything that might have existed anywhere. It isn't his fault that he was born, perfect in everyway, and that he had uncovered all the answers to the questions that mankind has spent centuries asking within five minutes of being born.
Even more terrible for him was the fact that he couldn't speak until 8 minutes after he was born, and had to spend almost 200 seconds not reminding everyone around him of how much smarter he was than them.

Anselm had a very good reason for that, but for some reason whenever I think about him too hard I black out and wake up half-naked in alleyway the next night.
The 11th century Archbishop of Canterbury?

Again: Why does the "design" need a designer, but not the designer need a designer?
Indeed. A very valid question of logic. Still, how does matter arise out of nothing? Neither theory makes sense.

All religions are shitty. No need to single this one out.

Amen

Indeed. A very valid question of logic. Still, how does matter arise out of nothing? Neither theory makes sense.

Quantum theory and physics are indeed complex and difficult to understand with certain seeming paradoxes, but they are a hell of a lot better quest for an answer than: It was magic! Some wizard did it!

Again: Why does the "design" need a designer, but not the designer need a designer?

Well, the easiest response to that would be that the designer always existed, but that raises the question of what motivated that designer to create at a particular point in time.

The 11th century Archbishop of Canterbury?
Yea, verily.

Quantum theory and physics are indeed complex and difficult to understand with certain seeming paradoxes, but they are a hell of a lot better quest for an answer than: It was magic! Some wizard did it!
Naturally, and I am inclined to agree. Perhaps one day science will be able to prove how the inception of the Universe came to be. Perhaps not.

Well, the easiest response to that would be that the designer always existed, but that raises the question of what motivated that designer to create at a particular point in time.

So, basically the infinitely complex designer doesn't need a designer, but the lot less complex Universe does, "because I say so"?

Well, the easiest response to that would be that the designer always existed, but that raises the question of what motivated that designer to create at a particular point in time.
So if the wizard didn't need a creator, why would the universe?

So, basically the infinitely complex designer doesn't need a designer, but the lot less complex Universe does, "because I say so"?
No, because He says so.

So, basically the infinitely complex designer doesn't need a designer, but the lot less complex Universe does, "because I say so"?

That's pretty much what it is. To justify that, the argument posited often goes that the very supernatural nature of the deity means that it doesn't have to follow the same laws as its creation and therefore does not require a creator.

Yea, verily.
What did he say?

No, because He says so.

Who he?

Well, the easiest response to that would be that the designer always existed, but that raises the question of what motivated that designer to create at a particular point in time.

The designer has to exist out of time because time is a part of our universe and came to existance at the big bang. But why should we include unnecesary parameters, just say the universe (or multiverse or whatever you want to call it) always existed. occam's razor!

That's pretty much what it is. To justify that, the argument posited often goes that the very supernatural nature of the deity means that it doesn't have to follow the same laws as its creation and therefore does not require a creator.

Which is just poppycock akin to "It's magic!".

Who he?
He, you know Him. Whatsisname.

Your belief in your deity is no better then a Scientologist's belief in Xenu, or some Druid's belief in pixies and magic.



That's OK. Your inability to explain why yours is a better deity/mythical creature than theirs speaks volumes.

Let's start. Pixies are fictional creatures, until someone proves me otherwise by sending me one in a cage. Magic, to my knowledge, is a child's tale and a falsity reserved for fairy tales. Xenu is also a fictional character, it was invented by a science fiction writer, remember.

I never said that my deity is better than anyone elses, yet you insinuate that I somehow am. However, I'm going to tell you why I believe in my particular deity. I chose the Judeo-Christian god because the message is that of love and peace towards all mankind, which is something that I admire and want to believe in. In all respects, you have pressed your beliefs as true, and therefore, better, than my beliefs. What makes you beliefs so true, and mine so fake? Who are you, in your infinite wisdom, to declare that belief in a deity is wrong and that your belief in no deity are right, simply because mine involves a "wizard in the sky" and yours does not?

He, you know Him. Whatsisname.

Xenu?

Which is just poppycock akin to "It's magic!".

That's pretty much what it is. The only real barrier to the total collapse of religion's logical system is the concept of the "supernatural", which effectively shields the religion from having to prove its beliefs.

heh, these threads crack me up. I'm an atheist myself and this scientology thing is just as whacky as all the other religions. Nothing against the people, just their religion. I find it oppressive.

Let's start. Pixies are fictional creatures, until someone proves me otherwise. Magic, to my knowledge, is a child's tale and a falsity reserved for fairy tales. Xenu is also a fictional character, it was invented by a science fiction writer, remember.

As opposed to Ganesh or Thor or Zeus or Jahwe or whoever.

I never said that my deity is better than anyone elses, yet you insinuate that I somehow am. However, I'm going to tell you why I believe in my particular deity. I chose the Judeo-Christian god because the message is that of love and peace towards all mankind, which is something that I admire and want to believe in. In all respects, you have pressed your beliefs as true, and therefore, better, than my beliefs. What makes you beliefs so true, and mine so fake? Who are you, in your infinite wisdom, to declare that belief in a deity is wrong and that your belief that no deity are right, simply because mine involves a "wizard in the sky" and yours does not?

Oh, the irony of the bolded part. As I said: You are dismissing their deities. I dismiss yours on the same grounds.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or probiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances."

-First Amendment of the US Constitution

The way I read it is that if someone views what they are doing as a religion, the US government has absolutely no rights whatsoever to limit said religion in any way shape or form. In other words, it doesn't matter that a lot of people think that Scientology is a load of malarky, it has as much right to exist as Southern Baptists or Satanists.

Let's start. Pixies are fictional creatures, until someone proves me otherwise by sending me one in a cage. Magic, to my knowledge, is a child's tale and a falsity reserved for fairy tales. Xenu is also a fictional character, it was invented by a science fiction writer, remember.

Did you forget about that when it came to typing this:

Who are you, in your infinite wisdom, to declare that belief in a deity is wrong and that your belief in no deity are right, simply because mine involves a "wizard in the sky" and yours does not?

?

That's pretty much what it is. The only real barrier to the total collapse of religion's logical system is the concept of the "supernatural", which effectively shields the religion from having to prove its beliefs.

I'm happy you realise this because very few religious people do :).
But still, wanting something to be true doesnt make it so, however much you like it.

I consider myself agnostic because it appears to be the only intelectually honest position.

EDIT: i confused you with Velkya :headbang:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or probiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances."

-First Amendment of the US Constitution

The way I read it is that if someone views what they are doing as a religion, the US government has absolutely no rights whatsoever to limit said religion in any way shape or form. In other words, it doesn't matter that a lot of people think that Scientology is a load of malarky, it has as much right to exist as Southern Baptists or Satanists.
Meh! That's just America - if you want to give those wackos tax breaks and stuff so they can indoctrinate more people that's your call.

I chose the Judeo-Christian god because the message is that of love and peace towards all mankind

Yes, and that's been followed directly since the very start of the religion. insert lame roll eyes emoticon

No religion can be determained better than the other because they are all based on an assumption of faith and the unknowns. You could argue the morality is better but it's pretty much agreed that morality is purely subjective. Some want to walk in Christ's footsteps, others want to walk into Valhalla. It's best if you just accept the "hocus pocus" of other religions.

Personally I think turning water into wine and coming back to life is a bunch of hocus pocus. But that's my opinion.

The way I read it is that if someone views what they are doing as a religion, the US government has absolutely no rights whatsoever to limit said religion in any way shape or form. In other words, it doesn't matter that a lot of people think that Scientology is a load of malarky, it has as much right to exist as Southern Baptists or Satanists.

I wonder how that works in regard to an organization whose beliefs include things considered criminal under the law?

This is a general question, not an implication that Scientology is criminal...bizarre and oppressive in my opinion, but not criminal.

That's pretty much what it is. The only real barrier to the total collapse of religion's logical system is the concept of the "supernatural", which effectively shields the religion from having to prove its beliefs.

Which makes this entire thread ridiculous, as it is started by someone who rejects someone else's "supernaturality," but clings to their own. "My voodoo is better than your voodoo."

Which makes this entire thread ridiculous, as it is started by someone who rejects someone else's "supernaturality," but clings to their own. "My voodoo is better than your voodoo."

Pretty much. That's why I have long since given up on religious debates...

Vetalia,
If said religion is doing things that are considered Illegal in the United States, there are several items that have been allowed due to religious practices (Peyote for some Native American tribes). It depends on the activity on whether it should be considered illegal.

Which makes this entire thread ridiculous, as it is started by someone who rejects someone else's "supernaturality," but clings to their own. "My voodoo is better than your voodoo."
Not really. Leaving aside the question of how feasible Hubbard's theogony is, or how he was quoteed as saying that the best way to make a million dollars was to start your own religion, there are plenty of question marks over scientology to see it banned no matter the religious grounds.

Pretty much. That's why I have long since given up on religious debates...

Alas, I should have too, were it not for the fact that this point needs to be re-established once in a while.

Vetalia,
If said religion is doing things that are considered Illegal in the United States, there are several items that have been allowed due to religious practices (Peyote for some Native American tribes). It depends on the activity on whether it should be considered illegal.

Thanks, I wasn't really sure.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or probiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances."

-First Amendment of the US Constitution

The way I read it is that if someone views what they are doing as a religion, the US government has absolutely no rights whatsoever to limit said religion in any way shape or form. In other words, it doesn't matter that a lot of people think that Scientology is a load of malarky, it has as much right to exist as Southern Baptists or Satanists.

The debate is over whether or not Scientology is actually a religion, or just a oppresive organization out to make money.

Let's start. Pixies are fictional creatures, until someone proves me otherwise by sending me one in a cage. Magic, to my knowledge, is a child's tale and a falsity reserved for fairy tales. Xenu is also a fictional character, it was invented by a science fiction writer, remember.

I think it's safe to say that Xenu is fake, with all the evidence that Scientolgy is simply a organization (or experiment, more accuratly) made to make large sums of money off society's more gullible members.

If George Lucas made his own religion tomorrow, and made Darth Vader one of the supreme gods, would that make it just as believable as Christianity?

The debate is over whether or not Scientology is actually a religion, or just a oppresive organization out to make money.

They consider it a religion, therefore it is. Get over it.

Not really. Leaving aside the question of how feasible Hubbard's theogony is, or how he was quoteed as saying that the best way to make a million dollars was to start your own religion, there are plenty of question marks over scientology to see it banned no matter the religious grounds.

You can ban their harmful actions - just like we have banned those of Christianity (stoning) or Hinduism (caste system) or Islam (stoning works here as well) or whatever. But you cannot ban it as a religion.

I think it's safe to say that Xenu is fake

But it's safe to say your god is real?

Alas, I should have too, were it not for the fact that this point needs to be re-established once in a while.
What point? All some one has to do is ascribe to Hinduism (or a similar religion that claims all deities are faces of the same Diety), and your entire argument is dead in the water.

They consider it a religion, therefore it is. Get over it.
Well that's f*cking stupid. If I have a business i can get tax breaks just be declaring it a religion- I didn't realise it was that easy.

If George Lucas made his own religion tomorrow, and made Darth Vader one of the supreme gods, would that make it just as believable as Christianity?

Yes. They would be just as unbelievable as Christianity.

Well that's fucking stupid. If I have a business i can get tax breaks just be declaring it a religion- I didn't realise it was that easy.

I say the same thing about Christianity.

i want to vote YES but the dead aliens in my head wont let me. so i regretfully vote NO.

What point? All some one has to do is ascribe to Hinduism (or a similar religion that claims all deities are faces of the same Diety), and your entire argument is dead in the water.

Well, even that concept is ultimately open to debate; after all, the nature of that Diety is not the same for everyone, and not everyone believes in one supreme diety or even the idea that all religions reflect the same concept.

What point? All some one has to do is ascribe to Hinduism (or a similar religion that claims all deities are faces of the same Diety), and your entire argument is dead in the water.

Not really, as then you get to the whole: Why does the designer not need a designer, but the Universe does? Which comes back to the magic.

Which makes this entire thread ridiculous, as it is started by someone who rejects someone else's "supernaturality," but clings to their own. "My voodoo is better than your voodoo."

Where have I said that my beliefs are better than any others?

If I remember correctly, you yourself have been declaring that "no voodoo is better than voodoo" this entire arguement. What proof do you have that some sort of deity or intelligent design does not exist, since you are pretty demanding of that proof from a religious person such as myself. I believe in God, but I accept that my beliefs may be wrong and that a different type of deity may exist.

And if this thread is so ridiculous, why bother posting? Merely to prove your belief's superiority over my own?

You can ban their harmful actions - just like we have banned those of Christianity (stoning) or Hinduism (caste system) or Islam (stoning works here as well) or whatever. But you cannot ban it as a religion.
I don't know whom you mean by 'you', but Britain doesn't consider it a religion. Given that that is the case banning it is not too far removed from banning pyramid schemes.

While I think Scientology is silly, people believe in it as a religion and they have the right to do so. No point in banning it because then a lot of people will follow the religion behind the government's back and it really will become a cult.

Where have I said that my beliefs are better than any others?

When you denied Xenu or pixies.

If I remember correctly, you yourself have been declaring that "no voodoo is better than voodoo" this entire arguement. What proof do you have that some sort of deity or intelligent design does not exist, since you are pretty demanding of that proof from a religious person such as myself. I believe in God, but I accept that my beliefs may be wrong and that a different type of deity may exist.

Again: Irony. Again: I dismiss your deity for the same reasons you dismiss Xenu.

The debate is over whether or not Scientology is actually a religion, or just a oppresive organization out to make money.

Aren't all religions to a certain extent jsut out for power?

Why would scientology be banned? Why would any religion be banned?
-----------------------------
"Man is immortal"

I don't know whom you mean by 'you', but Britain doesn't consider it a religion. Given that that is the case banning it is not too far removed from banning pyramid schemes.

Britain is inconsequential. Read up on the ECHR.

I see, a circle, and this thread is running around it.

Any religion that isn't 2000 years old is a cult!! :D

But its not a proper religion! L Ron just made it up as an interesting sci fi plot and money making scheme. sadly he died before he could admit it. I bet many of the religions in the world were started as either a joke or some kind of scheme. only scientology and jehovas witnesses spring to mind though. theres no need to ban it though unless they start hurting non members like other religions do.

I say the same thing about Christianity.
The chief difference being that if you do set objective criteria on what exactly makes a religion, such as worship of a higher being, benefit to society, rather than relying on self determination, Christianity would still qualify.

Even though I personally think that Sciencetology is nothing more than a scam, I am not in favor of banning it. Because once we banned one religious-nature organization, whats to stop us from banning another one? I don't want Catholicism to be banned.

The chief difference being that if you do set objective criteria on what exactly makes a religion, such as worship of a higher being,

Xenu.

benefit to society,

Scientology does tonnes of charity.

rather than relying on self determination, Christianity would still qualify.

As would Scientology.

This is actually quite pointless, really. I'm going to continue believing in the "Wizard in the Sky" and I'm going to continue believing that pixies are a fun fairy tale and that Xenu is the creation of a megalomaniac. While you may see this as weakness and go "HOORAH! HE'S STUPID BECAUSE HE CAN'T EXPLAIN HIS BELIEFS!", please note that you have never once said what makes Atheism better than any other religion. And yes, I consider Atheism a religion because it, while not being an organized religion, requires faith in the belief that there is no god(s) and that all this around us is simply a work of chance.

Also, I thank you for derailing this topic into a pointless trench war about the validity of religion and deities in general.

Not really, as then you get to the whole: Why does the designer not need a designer, but the Universe does?
Because the Universe, our hypothetical Hindu will insist, simply emerged from the Diety, as the Diety is everything/everywhere.
Which comes back to the magic.
If you had picked a random Swede up from the 11th century and showed him an X-Ray machine, he'd have dismissed it as sorcery. Saying that something is "magic" just because you haven't figured out how it might work is irrational.

I can't remember were I read this, but I remember reading somewhere that although they dont make a big deal of it, some of the more devoted wings of scientology believe the universe was created by an alien super being called Zeno, and that he destroyed all creation with a hydrogen bomb, and that only the traumatised souls survived. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I'm sure I remember reading about it in relation to scientology.

Britain is inconsequential. Read up on the ECHR.
Britain does have room to interpret the ECHR as it so pleases. Even though its judges are to interpret existing legislation with the ECHR in mind, it's not really entrenched in the UK's legal system. Of more consequence in Britain is the Human Rights Act 1998, which can however be removed by a future Parliament. One Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament, and thus the HRA can be repealed. The HRA is about as far as the ECHR permeates British law, directly at least.

Because the Universe, our hypothetical Hindu will insist, simply emerged from the Diety, as the Diety is everything/everywhere.

Again: And how does it do that? Magic!

If you had picked a random Swede up from the 11th century and showed him an X-Ray machine, he'd have dismissed it as sorcery. Saying that something is "magic" just because you haven't figured out how it might work is irrational.

Exactly, which is precisely what religion is: the explanation of the natural (x-rays) through the "supernatural"/irrational (magic).

The chief difference being that if you do set objective criteria on what exactly makes a religion, such as worship of a higher being, benefit to society, rather than relying on self determination, Christianity would still qualify.

Why?

I think back to the middle ages when people where murdered by the thousands because of their contradictions to the "benificial" religion.

And yes, I consider Atheism a religion because it, while not being an organized religion, requires faith in the belief that there is no god(s) and that all this around us is simply a work of chance.

It's not a belief in there being no gods, it's a lack of belief in gods.

So it's not a belief, it's a lack of belief; there's no faith involved. So how could it be a religion?

I can't remember were I read this, but I remember reading somewhere that although they dont make a big deal of it, some of the more devoted wings of scientology believe the universe was created by an alien super being called Zeno, and that he destroyed all creation with a hydrogen bomb, and that only the traumatised souls survived. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I'm sure I remember reading about it in relation to scientology.
No more ridiculous than the wizard who created the universe in 6 days.

I can't remember were I read this, but I remember reading somewhere that although they dont make a big deal of it, some of the more devoted wings of scientology believe the universe was created by an alien super being called Zeno, and that he destroyed all creation with a hydrogen bomb, and that only the traumatised souls survived. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I'm sure I remember reading about it in relation to scientology.

You got the name of the alien wrong (it's Xenu), and he blew up a bunch of bodies, not all of creation. But, besides that, you're pretty much on target.

I think mayhaps Scientology should be banned. Not for being a crazy religion, 'cause, yeah, all religions are rather crazy to one degree or another, but because some of the stuff I've read about the actual organization creep me out. Brainwashing and such... If that stuff is true, then definitely I think something should be done about Scientology.

Britain does have room to interpret the ECHR as it so pleases. Even though its judges are to interpret existing legislation with the ECHR in mind, it's not really entrenched in the UK's legal system. Of more consequence in Britain is the Human Rights Act 1998, which can however be removed by a future Parliament. One Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament, and thus the HRA can be repealed. The HRA is about as far as the ECHR directly permeates British law.

The ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights. It has the last say on matters pertaining to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CPHRFF). Not British courts or British law, which, by the way, cannot contradict the Convention. And the freedom of worship falls directly under the Court's purview under article 9.

Britain is inconsequential. Read up on the ECHR.
I'm not too hot on law, but doesn't the European Convention on Human Rights protect the rights of individuals. I'm only talking about shutting down dangerous confidence organisations. Also scanning the wikipedia article on it I notice this phrase "subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"." which seem to provide enough of a loophole. Apparently Germany also doesn't consider Scientology a religion.

The ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights. It has the last say on matters pertaining to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CPHRFF). Not British courts or British law. And the freedom of worship falls directly under the Court's purview under article 9.
ECHR is the European Convention on Human Rights. ECtHR is typically acknowledged as the Court itself. The HRA is basically what ensures that the UK adheres to the ECHR.

It's not a belief in there being no gods, it's a lack of belief in gods.

So it's not a belief, it's a lack of belief; there's no faith involved. So how could it be a religion?

If its not a belief, but a lack thereof, why are so many atheists so vocal about it?

i.e. I don't beleive in Santa Claus, yet I refrain from informing others of his non-existance.

I'm not too hot on law, but doesn't the European Convention on Human Rights protect the rights of individuals. I'm only talking about shutting down dangerous confidence organisations. Also scanning the wikipedia article on it I notice this phrase "subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"." which seem to provide enough of a loophole. Apparently Germany also doesn't consider Scientology a religion.

B-B-B-Banned!

My question is, y is it when people claim to be atheist, they suddenly feel they have the obligation to very rudely tear down religion. I wish atheists would practice what they preach, like maybe a little tolerance. I dont go around bashing people for being jews or muslims or atheists. Do i feel christianity is the only true religion. Yes. Do i believe that anyone who does not believe is gonna go to hell.. Yes. But do i like the fact that they will. Not really. The reasons christians (since they seem to be the main target if ure not attacking scientology) try to get people to convert to christianity, is because we want to share to the world the good news about gods gift to us. Granted some christian fundementalists, are little.........eccentric, and should be pushed on a barge headed for antarctica. Not because we hate them, which we dont, just theyre giving us a bad name.


NOW back to topic. As for scientology. I consider them Americas own little terrorist group. and i think they should be outlawed and disbanded.

Ooh I missed that as well, add belgium to the list of signatories of the ECHR that don't recognise Scientology as a religion.

If its not a belief, but a lack thereof, why are so many atheists so vocal about it?
Personally, I'm only 'vocal about it' when prompted.

i.e. I don't beleive in Santa Claus, yet I refrain from informing others of his non-existance.
Good for you.

NOW back to topic. As for scientology. I consider them Americas own little terrorist group. and i think they should be outlawed and disbanded.


they suddenly feel they have the obligation to very rudely tear down religion.

Hmmm *looks again*

What is it children? You see a clue?

I'm not too hot on law, but doesn't the European Convention on Human Rights protect the rights of individuals. I'm only talking about shutting down dangerous confidence organisations. Also scanning the wikipedia article on it I notice this phrase "subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"." which seem to provide enough of a loophole.

" 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "

You cannot ban a religion - you can only ban certain harmful aspects/manifestations of it, such as stoning or forceful membership or burning or whatever. You cannot just say "Scientology is banned." What you can however ban is extortion, kidnapping, compulsion to belong, murder, persecution and so on - just like those aspects of Christianity are banned, but Christianity itself cannot be banned and people cannot be banned from worshipping Jesus.

Apparently Germany also doesn't consider Scientology a religion.

Germany has not banned it, though, since it can't. It can refuse to recognise it, which in the end may even become a case for the Court, if a Scientologist feels that is undue discrimination and brings a case before it.

Why?

I think back to the middle ages when people where murdered by the thousands because of their contradictions to the "benificial" religion.
Well I think the simple answer to that is that we aren't living in the middle ages. Any way that was only a possible criterion, the main on is the worship of a superior being or beings, which Scientology doesn't meet.

Scientology shouldn't be banned, it should just be ridiculed and made fun of.

Ooh I missed that as well, add belgium to the list of signatories of the ECHR that don't recognise Scientology as a religion.

Again, not recognising != banning.

im talking about religion in general as in,

"All religions are shitty."

Scientology has been repeatedly involved with criminal behavior and crimes against humanity. I dont consider them a religion at all, or even a cult. Theyre a money making scam. they only want to make money and control people.

Scientology shouldn't be banned, it should just be ridiculed and made fun of.
Tom Cruise does that quite well as one of it's members. I can't believe how fanatic he has become.

Believe in scientology heathens! or Zenu will drop hydrogen bombs on your house!!!:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Well I think the simple answer to that is that we aren't living in the middle ages. Any way that was only a possible criterion, the main on is the worship of a superior being or beings, which Scientology doesn't meet.

Ok so if Scientology suddenly worshiped a superior being you'd be peachy keen with it?

Somehow I think not, the point is to be more tolerant of other religions. Something the book religions emphasize yet we see so little of it. It's fine if you think it's a big scam because you don't have to join it. Much like me and Christianity no matter how often a bible is shoved down my throat.

ECHR is the European Convention on Human Rights. ECtHR is typically acknowledged as the Court itself.

Nope. The Court is the ECHR. The Convention is the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. See how that does not fit "ECHR"? Just look at the Court's URL: http://www.echr.coe.int/echr

The HRA is basically what ensures that the UK adheres to the ECHR.

No, what ensures that the UK adheres to it is its membership in the Council as well as in the EU. The HRA may be the legal formality for it applying, but as long as the UK is a member of those two entities, it will adhere to the Convention.

Exactly, which is precisely what religion is: the explanation of the natural (x-rays) through the "supernatural"/irrational (magic).
You don't understand how it works, that doesn't make it "magic." The X-Ray machine could reveal the man's skeleton, yes?
Then, this Swede, never having seen it before and without any knowledge of how it works might declare the thing as magic and its users as gods. However, what if our Swede was cynical? What if he demanded to know every detail of the machines creation, where it came from, who made it, what physics it was based on, what developments led to those physics, the process through which it was made, etc?
There are somethings that just have to be taken on faith. I couldn't, so I don't, and apparently you couldn't either. That doesn't mean those that can are any less or more than anyone else.

im talking about religion in general as in,

"All religions are shitty."

Scientology has been repeatedly involved with criminal behavior and crimes against humanity. I dont consider them a religion at all, or even a cult. Theyre a money making scam. they only want to make money and control people.

Christianity has been doing that for roughly 1500 years, what makes them any better?

The crimes against humanity commited in the name of jesus are so numerous and gross that it makes scientology look like petty theft.

No, what ensures that the UK adheres to it is its membership in the Council as well as in the EU. The HRA may be the legal formality for it applying, but as long as the UK is a member of those two entities, it will adhere to the Convention.
And the HRA isn't even the legal formality for applying it. All it really does is make it so that you can bring cases concerning the Convention to British courts instead of having to go to the ECHR.

Ok so if Scientology suddenly worshiped a superior being you'd be peachy keen with it?

Somehow I think not, the point is to be more tolerant of other religions. Something the book religions emphasize yet we see so little of it. It's fine if you think it's a big scam because you don't have to join it. Much like me and Christianity no matter how often a bible is shoved down my throat.

if anyone actually tries to shove a bible down ure throat i give u permission to slap them silly.

You don't understand how it works, that doesn't make it "magic." The X-Ray machine could reveal the man's skeleton, yes?
Then, this Swede, never having seen it before and without any knowledge of how it works might declare the thing as magic and its users as gods. However, what if our Swede was cynical? What if he demanded to know every detail of the machines creation, where it came from, who made it, what physics it was based on, what developments led to those physics, the process through which it was made, etc?
There are somethings that just have to be taken on faith. I couldn't, so I don't, and apparently you couldn't either. That doesn't mean those that can are any less or more than anyone else.

Which again become poppycock: "It is that way because I say it, because it is magic I believe in."

No, what ensures that the UK adheres to it is its membership in the Council as well as in the EU. The HRA may be the legal formality for it applying, but as long as the UK is a member of those two entities, it will adhere to the Convention.
What I cannot fathom is why the UK does not entrench it, instead of relying on Statutes which can be repealed. I can understand not wanting to bind future Parliaments to the actions of former ones, yet in the case of fundamental rights I don't think this concern is justified.

Nope. The Court is the ECHR. The Convention is the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. See how that does not fit "ECHR"? Just look at the Court's URL: http://www.echr.coe.int/echr
How odd. It is referred to in law texbooks as the European Convention of Human Rights.

You cannot ban a religion - you can only ban certain harmful aspects/manifestations of it, such as stoning or forceful membership or burning or whatever. You cannot just say "Scientology is banned." What you can however ban is extortion, kidnapping, compulsion to belong, murder, persecution and so on - just like those aspects of Christianity are banned, but Christianity itself cannot be banned and people cannot be banned from worshipping Jesus.

Germany has not banned it, though, since it can't. It can refuse to recognise it, which in the end may even become a case for the Court, if a Scientologist feels that is undue discrimination and brings a case before it.
I wasn't proposing that scientology as a concept or a belief system be banned rather that the church in britain itself be shut down, or at least be committed to greater transparency . And I agree that just shutting it down arbitrarily is impossible or it would have happened already, but I see nothing wrong with it being treated as a business and forced to comply with Trading standards and so on.

And the HRA isn't even the legal formality for applying it. All it really does is make it so that you can bring cases concerning the Convention to British courts instead of having to go to the ECHR.

If that is true, even better, but one cannot be precluded from taking cases to the Court itself, as the UK has no choice but to comply with the Convention and the Rulings of the Court as long as it is part of the EU and/or the Council of Europe.

if anyone actually tries to shove a bible down ure throat i give u permission to slap them silly.

It's metaphorical smartass, but it's within a Christian and any branch of its right to spread and propagate their belief.

I think this is just the Christian faith jealous of the newcomer religion. :p

Ok so if Scientology suddenly worshiped a superior being you'd be peachy keen with it?

Yes. But for a given value of "worshipped". The whole objection to Scientology is that it is essentially in form a business, selling treatments of a dubious, and potentially dangerous, nature. If Scientology were to ditch that or at least present it as a sideline business related to the primary worship of their supreme being, in such a way that it could be regulated and monitored, then I can't see how i could have a problem with it religion or no. But that is not the case, and without a significant reorganisation, could not be the case.

What I cannot fathom is why the UK does not entrench it, instead of relying on Statutes which can be repealed. I can understand not wanting to bind future Parliaments to the actions of former ones, yet in the case of fundamental rights I don't think this concern is justified.

That's what you get when you don't have a proper Constitution - things tend to be more easily repealed. However, that does not mean the UK will repeal it. In fact, it can't as long as it's a member of the EU or the Council of Europe. In that sense, the convention itself becomes a sort of Constitution.

In fact, the Swedish constitution goes: "Art. 23. No act of law or other provision may be adopted which contravenes Sweden’s undertakings under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" - establishing the Convention as a secondary, "base line" constitution that is not to be violated.

That's what you get when you don't have a proper Constitution - things tend to be more easily repealed. However, that does not mean the UK will repeal it. In fact, it can't as long as it's a member of the EU or the Council of Europe. In that sense, the convention itself becomes a sort of Constitution.

In fact, the Swedish constitution goes: "Art. 23. No act of law or other provision may be adopted which contravenes Sweden’s undertakings under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" - establishing the Convention as a secondary, "base line" constitution that is not to be violated.
If only the UK were to adopt that mentality and draft itself a proper Constitution.

It's as dumb as a bag of hammers but only a fraction as harmful, so ignore it and it'll go away.

If only the UK were to adopt that mentality and draft itself a proper Constitution.

It is a bitter-sweet thing, though. The Convention is what got Åke Green acquitted. Sweet, because it was the right thing to do, bitter because it overruled Swedish law and he's a jerk. ;)

Which again become poppycock: "It is that way because I say it, because it is magic I believe in."
No, it is that way because of X, Where X is some cause that humans have yet to reach the level they can identify with.
The ancient Europeans thought it rained because the firmanent opened, pouring the vast reservoirs of water that it held at bay onto the ground. This would be "magic", and it is quite wrong.
However, are you to say that it never rained in Ancient Europe? After all, they attributed it to "magic", so obviously it couldn't happen.
Yet, people somehow survived in Europe until they figured out how that worked, so it must have rained. The same thing can apply to religion, just because we haven't advanced to the point that we can give a good method for how the Diety does what it does, doesn't mean that it doesn't do it.

It is a bitter-sweet thing, though. The Convention is what got Åke Green acquitted. Sweet, because it was the right thing to do, bitter because it overruled Swedish law and he's a jerk. ;)
Well at least now he's free to practise his right to be a jerk...however odd that may be.

No, it is that way because of X, Where X is some cause that humans have yet to reach the level they can identify with.
The ancient Europeans thought it rained because the firmanent opened, pouring the vast reservoirs of water that it held at bay onto the ground. This would be "magic", and it is quite wrong.
However, are you to say that it never rained in Ancient Europe? After all, they attributed it to "magic", so obviously it couldn't happen.
Yet, people somehow survived in Europe until they figured out how that worked, so it must have rained. The same thing can apply to religion, just because we haven't advanced to the point that we can give a good method for how the Diety does what it does, doesn't mean that it doesn't do it.

And again: The notion that it rains because of a deity did not become less stupid because they believed it, and does not become less stupid because people some people still go "it's magic!" over things we can't explain yet, and the only way we have to explain things is the natural way - not the supernatural, as that is in itself a ridiculous notion which indeed then gives place to pixies and Cthulthus and Ganeshs. To be explicable, the deity must be natural, and thus, not a deity.

Well at least now he's free to practise his right to be a jerk...however odd that may be.

Democratic freedoms are double-edged indeed.

Democratic freedoms are double-edged indeed.
As is democracy itself; both beauty and beast wrapped in one. Either way, this is off topic so I shall end it here.

Christianity, Mormonism, Catholicism, Scientology, etc, etc, etc ...

They're all the same thing; Money-making machines that prey on those who need something to follow because they can't lead on their own. Hubbard was smart enough to get rich off of lemmings. The rest of us should be so smart.

:cool:

And again: The notion that it rains because of a deity did not become less stupid because they believed it, and does not become less stupid because people some people still go "it's magic!" over things we can't explain yet, and the only way we have to explain things is the natural way - not the supernatural, as that is in itself a ridiculous notion which indeed then gives place to pixies and Cthulthus and Ganeshs.
And again, just because no one ever explained how the Diety works to you deosn't mean it doesn't work or exist.
The Diety would certainly operate within the natural realm, after all, why create something you'll never use? However, the Diety, fully knowing the natural realm, would be able to operate in it in ways that we can't comprehend. It is smarter than us, and therefore it can do things that we might call "magic" in our ignorance.

And again, just because no one ever explained how the Diety works to you deosn't mean it doesn't work or exist.
The Diety would certainly operate within the natural realm, after all, why create something you'll never use? However, the Diety, fully knowing the natural realm, would be able to operate in it in ways that we can't comprehend. It is smarter than us, and therefore it can do things that we might call "magic" in our ignorance.
You edited after I started responding, and so, you already addressed my point, so, a better addition: Why can't the Diety be natural? Something has to be the top shit, why can't the Diety just be the pinnacle of all "natural"?

And again, just because no one ever explained how the Diety works to you deosn't mean it doesn't work or exist.

Again: The deity cannot be explained unless it is natural, and thus not a deity at all.

The Diety would certainly operate within the natural realm, after all, why create something you'll never use? However, the Diety, fully knowing the natural realm, would be able to operate in it in ways that we can't comprehend. It is smarter than us, and therefore it can do things that we might call "magic" in our ignorance.

Which is itself poppycock. Things are either natural or they're not. The "supernatural" which we can explain is not supernatural at all - it is natural. If the way the deity works is explained, it is no longer a deity. If what it does is in any way explicable - and the only way things can be explained are if they are natural - then it is not a deity. So what you are left with in the end when clamouring to the supernatural is nonsense, which supernaturality in its core simply is.

Christianity, Mormonism, Catholicism, Scientology, etc, etc, etc ...

They're all the same thing; Money-making machines that prey on those who need something to follow because they can't lead on their own. Hubbard was smart enough to get rich off of lemmings. The rest of us should be so smart.

:cool:

That would aid my theory that the Jehovahs are a front organization for the doorbell manufacturing industry...

That would aid my theory that the Jehovahs are a front organization for the doorbell manufacturing industry...

Does that mean that if you don't have a door bell they will visit, or that if you do, they won't?

Does that mean that if you don't have a door bell they will visit, or that if you do, they won't?

I guess they'd visit in both cases; they probably would want a stake in both inital sales as well as replacement sales.

Which is itself poppycock. Things are either natural or they're not. The "supernatural" which we can explain is not supernatural at all - it is natural. If the way the deity works is explained, it is no longer a deity. If what it does is in any way explicable - and the only way things can be explained are if they are natural - then it is not a deity. So what you are left with in the end when clamouring to the supernatural is nonsense, which supernaturality in its core simply is.
And again, why can't the deity be natural? You can't just make such a claim without backing it up.

And again, why can't the deity be natural? You can't just make such a claim without backing it up.

Deities are per definition supernatural - beings or objects believed to have more than natural attributes and powers. They cannot be natural and have "more than natural attributes." That's just nonsense.

Your thoughts on this shitty excuse for a religion?

Scientology should be legal, but only in certain designated areas, like Scientology bars, or the privacy of your own home, that way the government can tax it and create the funding for programs designed to wean people off of their Scientology Dependency.

Deities are per definition supernatural - beings or objects believed to have more than natural attributes and powers. They cannot be natural and have "more than natural attributes." That's just nonsense.
That definition is human-centric, and weak. It relies on the same definition of magic that you were using earlier, namely that if we can't yet fully explain or do somethig, it must be supernatural.
What is supernatural to the Sentilese, is mundane to us, and what might appear supernatural to a resident of the the first world could be run of the mill natural to the Diety. You're trying to declare a winner we haven't even figured out all the rules.

Fass and Fiddle,

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I find this exchange interesting.

May I ask, if there were some kind of very advanced organism, some big, self-aware intelligence that had developed some kind of capacity or technology to superimpose its will on natural law,

(that is to say, it could, via its attention and will, excercise sufficient control over matter/energy/whatever such that its control over its area of observation was essentially total),

and were such a being to locate or create some planet, and beginning "farming" or developing some kind of sentient life form,

Could we call such a being a "deity", at least in the sense that it created "the world and all life therein and judges all" or something along those lines?

I realize this includes the dubious premise of a mind so powerful and insightful that it could subordinate (or at least manipulate) natural law (or the appearance of such principals as observed by the planet dwellers). But for the sake of argument, is this Big Thingy a God?

I guess they'd visit in both cases; they probably would want a stake in both inital sales as well as replacement sales.

Exactly! :D
They also have a share in the doorknocker manufacturers guild, but that's going the way of the telegraph...

That definition is human-centric, and weak. It relies on the same definition of magic that you were using earlier, namely that if we can't yet fully explain or do somethig, it must be supernatural.
What is supernatural to the Sentilese, is mundane to us, and what might appear supernatural to a resident of the the first world could be run of the mill natural to the Diety. You're trying to declare a winner we haven't even figured out all the rules.

You deal in nonsense right now. The only way things can be explained is if they are natural. You're basically saying "the circle is square." Gobbledegook.

well personally, i dont think it should be banned. but it should be watched, so should ever group with mass numbers of members and growing.

but if your going to be stupid enough to join a religion started by a science fiction writer (his entire career was based on telling people lies that seem some what believable somewhere in the universe), you deserve to lose all your money to them.

You deal in nonsense right now. The only way things can be explained is if they are natural. You're basically saying "the circle is square." Gobbledegook.
You're purposefully misinterpretating my words now. Just because something is beyond human capacity doesn't make it beyond the natural, it just makes it beyond humans. Since neither of us is presuming to say that humans are the center of the Universe, there may be things that exist beyond humanity but within Nature.
That thing is the Diety, fully explainable and real, yet capable of creating human life (whether by accident, practical joke, or a part of the grand design) and playing the role of the Diety.

Any religion that tries to hurt free speech by sueing people that made fun of it is bad, in my opinion. (That doesn't include Christianity and older religions, because it is not the church or the founder himself who is sueing).

Wow you danced around that whole "christianity attacking free speech" issue as gracefully as a three-hundred pound retarded dog on speed. Any religion that attacks free speech (and that's all of the older faiths and most of the newer ones kids) should be banned.