NationStates Jolt Archive

Tom Cruise Has A Crap Religion ('http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL253889920070625?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true')

So says the German Government...

Apparently, it's enough just to have one Scientologist on your film to have the German government cease cooperation with your film.

While I find this funny and hilarious, I was wondering what others might think of this.

Meh.

I wouldn't let a Scientology anywhere near a military base, they might try to set off a hydrogen bomb or something...

so how long till Germany gets nuked?

Its treatment of Scientology is one of the things where I support our government wholeheartedly.

They've been under government surveillance for decades here because they are classed as a "verfassungsfeindliche Organisation", i.e. an organisation whose means and aims are at odds with our constitution. It would be a farce if they were allowed onto government sites.

Tom Cruise has already filmed at tons of non-governmental sites here for the last Mission Impossible and spent months in Berlin for that, so it's not like poor CrazyBoy is stifled in his artistic expression... Fucker.

This is one version of state sponsored discrimination of religion I can support!

Actually it's one of many I support.

Why's that big news? :confused:

Cultists kept out of military bases. Seems prudent.

Cultists kept out of military bases. Seems prudent.

Shouldn't we keep abrahamic fundies out of there too?

Shouldn't we keep abrahamic fundies out of there too?That's an American problem, so feel free. ;)

Shouldn't we keep abrahamic fundies out of there too?

Don't be silly. Pragmaticism is just a fancy word for racism :rolleyes:

For once the government is on to something.

Why does Germany always do this stuff to people who disgree with their constitution. *extends list of ways in which Germany fails at democracy*

the government is on something.

And the edited version of your post explains the typically status of the government!

And the edited version of your post explains the typically status of the government!

(insert any government here).

Why does Germany always do this stuff to people who disgree with their constitution. *extends list of ways in which Germany fails at democracy*

^ seriously now?

that be a shit flim and good for the German government

Why does Germany always do this stuff to people who disgree with their constitution. *extends list of ways in which Germany fails at democracy*

Because it protects people from an evil cult. *nods*

This is something that has always confused me a little about Europe. In many ways, it is much more progressive than the US. On the other hand, things like this, or Sweden prosecuting people for hate speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17496-2005Feb11.html) seem very un-progressive. In the US, the ACLU (a liberal organization if there ever was one) worked so that hateful demonstrations (http://supreme.justia.com/us/432/43/) could go on, not because of their awful ideology, but because of free speech. Why is so different in Europe, or at least in some nations?

Because it protects people from an evil cult. *nods*

Still, this does not change that the german government is paranoid and obsessive.

Still, this does not change that the german government is paranoid and obsessive.

Thats a good thing.

Still, this does not change that the (insert any random piece of shit government here) government is paranoid and obsessive.

Fixed. :)

Still, this does not change that the german government is paranoid and obsessive.

Evidence?

This is something that has always confused me a little about Europe. In many ways, it is much more progressive than the US. On the other hand, things like this, or Sweden prosecuting people for hate speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17496-2005Feb11.html) seem very un-progressive.

*yawn*

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2590&date=20051129

In the US, the ACLU (a liberal organization if there ever was one) worked so that hateful demonstrations (http://supreme.justia.com/us/432/43/) could go on, not because of their awful ideology, but because of free speech. Why is so different in Europe, or at least in some nations?

The USA gets spooked by the human body and four letter words, which it censors and deals heavy fines to those who dear display or say them. We get spooked by urgings to genocide. I much more like Europe in that respect.

Still, this does not change that the german government is paranoid and obsessive.Riiiiiight.

This is something that has always confused me a little about Europe. In many ways, it is much more progressive than the US. On the other hand, things like this, or Sweden prosecuting people for hate speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17496-2005Feb11.html) seem very un-progressive. In the US, the ACLU (a liberal organization if there ever was one) worked so that hateful demonstrations (http://supreme.justia.com/us/432/43/) could go on, not because of their awful ideology, but because of free speech. Why is so different in Europe, or at least in some nations?
Well, we just have a fundamentally different understanding of what constitutes "freedom of speech" and hate speech isn't part of it.

It's something that has come up dozens and dozens of times on here or generally in discussions between Americans and for example Germans and the two sides have yet to even marginally agree on anything, really.

I've started to think it's just one of those things that you grow up with and that seems "right".

For the record, we don't think the American way of doing this is "progressive". ;)

Tom Cruise Has A Crap Religion ('http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL253889920070625?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true')

So says the German Government...

Apparently, it's enough just to have one Scientologist on your film to have the German government cease cooperation with your film.

While I find this funny and hilarious, I was wondering what others might think of this. its discrimination based on the beliefs of Mr Cruise, pure and simple.BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany has barred the makers of a movie about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler from filming at German military sites because its star Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, the Defense Ministry said on Monday.

The U.S. actor has been cast as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, leader of the unsuccessful attempt to assassinate the Nazi dictator in July 1944 with a bomb hidden in a briefcase.

Defense Ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said the film makers "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise,

*yawn*

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2590&date=20051129



The USA gets spooked by the human body and four letter words, which it censors and deals heavy fines to those who dear display or say them. We get spooked by urgings to genocide. I much more like Europe in that respect.

Yes, Fass, we know Sweden is infallible.

Say, another guy from Sweden was on here a while back was talking about how many people in Sweden are brainwashed into thinking Sweden is a paradise by government propaganda. Any idea what's up with that?

its discrimination based on the beliefs of Mr Cruise, pure and simple.

Can you NOT bold/color parts of your post? It's annoying.

The USA gets spooked by the human body and four letter words, which it censors and deals heavy fines to those who dear display or say them.That, too. Somehow I always forget that when I reply to one of these questions.

Yes, Fass, we know Sweden is infallible.

And I know that you like to invent things I am to have written instead of reading what I wrote. You amuse yourself so much easier that way.

Say, another guy from Sweden was on here a while back was talking about how many people in Sweden are brainwashed into thinking Sweden is a paradise by government propaganda. Any idea what's up with that?

Why don't you ask him?

Yes, Fass, we know Sweden is infallible.

Say, another guy from Sweden was on here a while back was talking about how many people in Sweden are brainwashed into thinking Sweden is a paradise by government propaganda. Any idea what's up with that?
Well, what in his statement you replied to isn't true?

The USA gets spooked by the human body and four letter words, which it censors and deals heavy fines to those who dear display or say them. We get spooked by urgings to genocide. I much more like Europe in that respect.

Fass, you're missing the point! Sticks and stone may break our bones, but words can corrupt our children's minds away from Jesus. Which is why violence is acceptable on TV, while four letter words are not.

...or something.

Edit: Oh, and it's spelled "dare," in this context. :p

And I know that you like to invent things I am to have written instead of reading what I wrote. You amuse yourself so much easier that way.

I have never seen you criticize any aspect of the Swedish government, but I have seen you ferociously attack anyone who questions it. Frankly, I don't need to invent anything for you to say. Everything you say is much more absurd then anything I could come up with.



Why don't you ask him?

I already know his opinion. I'm interested in yours.

That, too. Somehow I always forget that when I reply to one of these questions.

That's what's so weird about the self-righteousness of the USA "freedom of expression, rah, rah, rah!" crowd. They can incite to the most heinous acts and agitate quite broadly... but show one pastied (!) boobie, and their government agencies will bitchslap them faster than you can say "fuck" and have their government bleep it...

I have never seen you criticize any aspect of the Swedish government, but I have seen you ferociously attack anyone who questions it. Frankly, I don't need to invent anything for you to say. Everything you say is much more absurd then anything I could come up with.
Dude, if you have some beef with Fass, take it out in a thread where it's actually coming up.
Here, you still have to point out what in his post is not true, let alone "a ferocious attack" on anybody.

That's what's so weird about self-righteousness of the USA "freedom of expression, rah, rah, rah!" crowd. They can incite to the most heinous acts and agitate quite broadly... but show one pastied (!) boobie, and their government agencies will bitchslap them faster than you can say "fuck" and have their government bleep it...

We are not talking about the USA. This is not one of those "My country is better than yours!" pissing contests you so love. We're talking about Sweden. Stop bringing up the United States.

Can you NOT bold/color parts of your post? It's annoying.you request has been duly noted.. and sent to the OcceanDrive suggestions Box.

thank you for your participation. You are helping us to be the best we can be.

Scientology is a cult, plain and simple. No government should cooperate with them.

<snip>

Threadjacking is bad.

We are not talking about the USA. This is not one of those "My country is better than yours!" pissing contests you so love. We're talking about Sweden. Stop bringing up the United States.
Huh?

The poster who brought this up contrasted the American way of dealing with "free speech" with the European way.

Fass rightly pointed out that "freedom of speech" in the US is not all it's cracked up to be, which means it's a tad hypocritical to go around pointing fingers to the "un-progressive" Europeans.

its discrimination based on the beliefs of Mr Cruise, pure and simple.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

its discrimination based on the beliefs of Mr Cruise, pure and simple.

Germany discriminating against someone for their religous beliefs? That has never happened!

We are not talking about the USA. This is not one of those "My country is better than yours!" pissing contests you so love. We're talking about Sweden. Stop bringing up the United States.

We are in fact talking about Germany.

*yawn*

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2590&date=20051129
That doesn't change the fact that saying hateful things is a crime (Chapter 15, Section 8 of the criminal code, to be exact).
The USA gets spooked by the human body and four letter words, which it censors and deals heavy fines to those who dear display or say them. We get spooked by urgings to genocide. I much more like Europe in that respect.
I'm not sure what you mean by the USA: the national government? the people? the FCC? Fines are given to television stations for showing images or saying words that are deemed inappropriate only if they are available to everyone. Things on cable aren't monitored as closely because it is harder for children or innocent adults to see them (so the theory goes). However, discussing the human body or four letter words are okay.

Well, we just have a fundamentally different understanding of what constitutes "freedom of speech" and hate speech isn't part of it.

It's something that has come up dozens and dozens of times on here or generally in discussions between Americans and for example Germans and the two sides have yet to even marginally agree on anything, really.

I've started to think it's just one of those things that you grow up with and that seems "right".

For the record, we don't think the American way of doing this is "progressive". ;)
Fair enough. However, I still can't believe that the Swedish/German freedom of speech is more progressive or freer than the American version. Better maybe, but not more progressive.

Huh?

The poster who brought this up contrasted the American way of dealing with "free speech" with the European way.

Fass rightly pointed out that "freedom of speech" in the US is not all it's cracked up to be, which means it's a tad hypocritical to go around pointing fingers to the "un-progressive" Europeans.

Fassigen tried to bank the topic away from anything that could possibly damage his opinion of his precious country.

I apologize for the threadjack, it's just I can't stand blind patriots.

We can get back to the topic now.

I have never seen you criticize any aspect of the Swedish government,

It's not my fault you are remiss in your stalking of me.

but I have seen you ferociously attack anyone who questions it.

Oh, really? And here I was under the impression that I didn't really give a fuck about the "questionings" of people here. I don't need to "defend" Sweden, nor do I really feel like doing it.

Frankly, I don't need to invent anything for you to say. Everything you say is much more absurd then anything I could come up with.

You give yourself too little credit, which might just mean that you know yourself as poorly as you do your nation.

I already know his opinion. I'm interested in yours.

What, about his nonsense?

*Snip*

Ooo! First person on my ignore list!

I hope you can enjoy your trolling without me.

EDIT: Eh, screw it. Fass's alright as long as Sweden doesn't come up.

Ooo! First person on my ignore list!

Mature.

its discrimination based on the beliefs of Mr Cruise, pure and simple.

The German government don't have to let Tom Cruise or anyone else film on their military bases.

Mature.

I'm sorry he's not worth my time. Maybe he's worth yours.

Fassigen tried to bank the topic away from anything that could possibly damage his opinion of his precious country.He answered the guy's question.

Germany discriminating against someone for their religous beliefs? That has never happened!Man, seriously, pull your head out of your ass.

Do you have any idea how much Scientology loves you right now for making a fool out of yourself, like they did with their "Open Letter to the Government" in 1997, signed by Tom Cruise et.al., comparing the fact that their criminal business schemes didn't get the coveted tax-exempt status of a church to, oooh, millions of people killed in the Holocaust?

Seriously?

I'm sorry he's not worth my time. Maybe he's worth yours.

Given that you've already devoted two threads on Sweden to what can only be described as sordid and ineffective attempts at Fass-bashing, he's obviously worth yours.

Fair enough. However, I still can't believe that the Swedish/German freedom of speech is more progressive or freer than the American version. Better maybe, but not more progressive.Oh, I agree with you on that, I was just denying the "progressive" label to the American version, too.

Given that you've already devoted two threads on Sweden to what can only be described as sordid and ineffective attempts at Fass-bashing, he's obviously worth yours.

Fine. He's not worth any more of my time. I apologize for using the "ignore" function so I don't have to put up with trolls. I know it's really there for decoration.

Eh, on the other hand, he's alright as long as Sweden doesn't come up, and he occasionally makes an intelligent point.

Now for fuck's sake, could we get back to the thread?

That doesn't change the fact that saying hateful things is a crime (Chapter 15, Section 8 of the criminal code, to be exact).

Actually, it does change that "fact". Let me guess, you don't know how Supreme Court rulings work, do you?

I'm not sure what you mean by the USA: the national government? the people? the FCC? Fines are given to television stations for showing images or saying words that are deemed inappropriate only if they are available to everyone. Things on cable aren't monitored as closely because it is harder for children or innocent adults to see them (so the theory goes). However, discussing the human body or four letter words are okay.

And "hate speech" is prosecuted only if it is widely available - really, did you not read that Chapter 15, section 8 of Brottsbalken you referred to?

Actually, you probably didn't, seeing as Chapter 15 deals with perjury, false prosecution and untrue statements, and section 8 is about the distortion and disposing of evidence. Care to try quoting the proper law next time?

In any case, in the USA freedom of speech ends with naughty words and boobies. Here it ends with urgings to genocide. Big whoop.

It's not even a real religion.

Its a scam, made by and believed by idiots.

Should just ban them on that ground.

Ooo! First person on my ignore list!

I hope you can enjoy your trolling without me.

Mature.
Er, I wasn't really criticizing Sweden, and I'm sorry it has gotten to this point. In a perfect world, there would be laws like that. In the same perfect world, I would have endless power, and rule over the earth. That doesn't mean it's more democratic or free.

As to the Tom Cruise thing, I still think it's silly to stop filming because one of the cast belongs to a group that is, at best, a small religion, and at worst, a scam.
At the same time, I'm surprised the government was every considering let them film at a military base. Doesn't seem particularly safe, even without a Scientologist.

You say that like it's a bad thing.I am just stating a fact.

It is Discrimination based on his beliefs.
Someone had to say it. And if no-one else will say it.. I will.

obviously Scientology is not very popular with me..
but.. popular or not.. -it is Discrimination-

As to the Tom Cruise thing, I still think it's silly to stop filming because one of the cast belongs to a group that is, at best, a small religion, and at worst, a scam.

You mean "criminal organisation".

Do you have any idea how much Scientology loves you right now for making a fool out of yourself, like they did with their "Open Letter to the Government" in 1997, signed by Tom Cruise et.al., comparing the fact that their criminal business schemes didn't get the coveted tax-exempt status of a church to, oooh, millions of people killed in the Holocaust?
[I]
Seriously?


wow so its OK to bar a man from working in your country for a short time because of his religious AND political beliefs, none of which include doing illegal things on military bases?

while i dont care what the germans do that doesnt affect me--its their country to run as they see fit--its still discrimination and still wrong.

And "hate speech" is prosecuted only if it is widely available

There, right there. People should be allowed to voice hatred without being prosecuted about it. Thats whats wrong.


In any case, in the USA freedom of speech ends with naughty words and boobies. Here it ends with urgings to genocide. Big whoop.

I'm not sure if tv censorship laws are the same as freedom of speech. In fact they are definately not so.

I am just stating a fact.

It is Discrimination based on his beliefs.
Someone had to say it. And if no-one else will say it.. I will.

obviously Scientology is not very popular with me..
but it does not change the fact: -It is Discrimination-

im with you occean. its discrimination even if i dont like the person being discriminated against.

You mean "criminal organisation".

What's the current tally on people scientology has murdered or had imprisoned?

Anyway, NSG is a bit less interesting then other sites, because from what I've heard, on some more mainstream sites groups of accounts just created that day show up and start defending scientology.

Ooo! First person on my ignore list!

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sad021.gif

I hope you can enjoy your trolling without me.

Somehow, I think I'll manage to find the strength and resolve to carry on.

Oh, I agree with you on that, I was just denying the "progressive" label to the American version, too.

Progressive really has become a fairly loaded term. It's one of those things you can only really accurately label in hindsight. After all, who's to say what constitutes progressive for any given period.

You mean "criminal organisation".
The Church of Scientology has engaged in criminal activity, I'll admit. But that is not their goal, they are more like a corporation with a past than the Mafia.
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Tom Cruise has not engaged in any criminal activity at all, at least not related to Scientology.

I am just stating a fact.

It is Discrimination based on his beliefs.
Someone had to say it. And if no-one else will say it.. I will.

obviously Scientology is not very popular with me..
but it does not change the fact: -It is Discrimination-

No one else said it because it's so obvious. Nobody's denying that it's discrimination, the point is that discrimination isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as you're discriminating about who you discriminate against.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sad021.gif



Somehow, I think I'll manage to find the strength and resolve to carry on.

Meh. Read the edited post. You're fairly funny and a decent arguer. The only thing I can't stand is your sheer amount of blind patriotism.

wow so its OK to bar a man from working in your country for a short time

No they are barring him from accessing a military base. The government should be able to stop who the fuck they want from entering.

There, right there. People should be allowed to voice hatred without being prosecuted about it. Thats whats wrong.



I'm not sure if tv censorship laws are the same as freedom of speech. In fact they are definately not so.

While self-censorship by a TV station isn't, the FCC in the US, which is a government organization, frequently hands out large fines for what usually amounts to a single uncensored four letter word or some equally trivial thing.

As to the Tom Cruise thing, I still think it's silly to stop filming because one of the cast belongs to a group that is, at best, a small religion, and at worst, a scam.
At the same time, I'm surprised the government was every considering let them film at a military base. Doesn't seem particularly safe, even without a Scientologist.
Well, for one, a Tom Cruise project is *never* just a movie where he is simply one of the cast. He's also the Executive Producer of the movie in question, he's been personally ("personally!" :D) scouting locations in Berlin for weeks now, and there's Scientologist handlers and staff and brochures and massage tents and whatnot all over his sets.

And Scientology is much worse than just a "scam", they're downright criminal and are already spying on and intimidating ex-members, critics and journalists. Letting those people anywhere near government or military facilities would be ludicrous.

The Church of Scientology has engaged in criminal activity, I'll admit. But that is not their goal, they are more like a corporation with a past than the Mafia.

Yeah, a corporation that brainwashes people into buying it's product and hasn't cut ties with it's Mafia past.

There, right there. People should be allowed to voice hatred without being prosecuted about it.

And people should be able to show the human body without being fined for it, or say fuck without having it bleeped and subject to censorship.

Thats whats wrong.

Bitch to Her Majesty.

I'm not sure if tv censorship laws are the same as freedom of speech. In fact they are definately not so.

Actually, they are definitely so, with of course the big difference that censorship is pre-emptive and thus a tad worse.

Meh. Read the edited post. You're fairly funny and a decent arguer. The only thing I can't stand is your sheer amount of blind patriotism.

Thought you had him on ignore :rolleyes:

Bitch to Her Majesty.


Huh?

Thought you had him on ignore :rolleyes:

Once again, did you read the edited post? I decided that just because I can't stand one thing about him doesn't diminish my amusement from seeing him steamroll conservatives.

Frankly, I think you're the only one (Except, of course, me, because I'm responding to your post) who's still on that topic. We're back on the topic of censorship and religious nutters.

No one else said it because it's so obvious.Ahh damn.. then forgive my intrusion.


Nobody's denying that it's discrimination,I can leave this thread then. Elvis has just lef...


the point is that discrimination isn't necessarily a bad thing, wait.. What? :confused:

so long as you're discriminating about who you discriminate against.Whaaaaat?
...

I think i am going to stick around for a bit longer.
:p

No they are barring him from accessing a military base. The government should be able to stop who the fuck they want from entering.

sure.

that still doesnt make it right.

Meh. Read the edited post. You're fairly funny and a decent arguer.

Aww, so you're not gonna put me on ignore? Fitta, också!

The only thing I can't stand is your sheer amount of blind patriotism.

The only thing blinder than this figment of your imagination would seem to be your eyes when you read my posts.

Once again, did you read the edited post? I decided that just because I can't stand one thing about him doesn't diminish my amusement from seeing him steamroll conservatives.

Frankly, I think you're the only one (Except, of course, me, because I'm responding to your post) who's still on that topic. We're back on the topic of censorship and religious nutters.

Fair enough.

And Scientology is much worse than just a "scam", they're downright criminal and are already spying on and intimidating ex-members, critics and journalists. Letting those people anywhere near government or military facilities would be ludicrous.
Right, I am not denying it has done criminal things. However, calling it a criminal organization makes it sound like their main source of income is smuggling drugs, or illegal gambling. Their main source of income is from converting/brainwashing people like Tom Cruise, and the criminal things they have done are mostly to cover that up. Like I said, they are more like Shell Oil than the Mafia.

While self-censorship by a TV station isn't, the FCC in the US, which is a government organization, frequently hands out large fines for what usually amounts to a single uncensored four letter word or some equally trivial thing.

Yeah well i'm not too bothered about the US, I just felt like arguing. :p

Tom Cruise Has A Crap Religion ('http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL253889920070625?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true')

So says the German Government...

Apparently, it's enough just to have one Scientologist on your film to have the German government cease cooperation with your film.

While I find this funny and hilarious, I was wondering what others might think of this.Evidence that Germany is on the right way. There is no need to let anyone onto military who is a member of a group under surveillance by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Scientology is absolute ideological crap and thus should not be endorsed by any government.

Fair enough.

Oh, well, Fass appears to have just caught the post. But the point is, we're back on topic.

Speaking of which, what the fuck is up with that name? Scientology. It sounds like something you'd major in. "Oh yeah, I majored in Scientology when I went to Yale."

wow so its OK to bar a man from working in your country for a short time because of his religious AND political beliefs, none of which include doing illegal things on military bases?

while i dont care what the germans do that doesnt affect me--its their country to run as they see fit--its still discrimination and still wrong.
Like Hydesland pointed out, he isn't "barred from working in our country for a short time". His production didn't get a permit to film on military and government sites like the Department of Defense. I sorta think that it's not exactly discrimination to not allow a criminal organization onto one's military bases or into one's department of defense.

The Church of Scientology has engaged in criminal activity, I'll admit. But that is not their goal, they are more like a corporation with a past than the Mafia.
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Tom Cruise has not engaged in any criminal activity at all, at least not related to Scientology.
Of course Tom Cruise hasn't, Tom Cruise likely also believes that Scientology is all about saving the world and we're just haters who can't see that.

The "goal" of Scientology, however, is to make more money by whatever illegal and inhuman means possible. That is not the past, that is the now and it sure as hell is all they want for the future.

Yeah well i'm not too bothered about the US, I just felt like arguing. :p

Fair enough. I merely used the US as an example because it's what I know.

Right, I am not denying it has done criminal things. However, calling it a criminal organization makes it sound like their main source of income is smuggling drugs, or illegal gambling. Their main source of income is from converting/brainwashing people like Tom Cruise, and the criminal things they have done are mostly to cover that up. Like I said, they are more like Shell Oil than the Mafia.

Since when is brainwashing people better then running an illegal gambling ring?

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Tom Cruise has not engaged in any criminal activity at all, at least not related to Scientology.

I refuse to believe that 'War of the Worlds' can be considered legal by any civilised society.

sure.

that still doesnt make it right.It doesn't have to be made right. It is right.

Oh, well, Fass appears to have just caught the post. But the point is, we're back on topic.

Speaking of which, what the fuck is up with that name? Scientology. It sounds like something you'd major in. "Oh yeah, I majored in Scientology when I went to Yale."

You'd have to ask L. Ron's ghost that one. Or read Dianetics. Personally I'd rather try the L. Ron seance first.

sure.

that still doesnt make it right.

Right and wrong do not apply to this situation.

Personally I think it is rather stupid to ban him from a military base because he states publically that he belongs to a lame cult.

Does anyone really think that Tom Cruise is going to be able to pull off his Mission Impossible character in real life and do some intelligence work? he can't be too intelligent if he belongs to Scientology. I would think no higher of him if he were to convert to any other religion.

Seriously people, they have security at these bases you know, and they watch shit especially close when having guests.

Do they ask everyone who comes onto base what their 'religious' affiliation is?

Have the Scientologists ever been found to steal govt property/secrets, or pulled off some terrorist action?

Someone please tell me a real concern from having a popular scientologist on their military base and make it convincing because I'm really not seeing it.

Actually, they are definitely so, with of course the big difference that censorship is pre-emptive and thus a tad worse.

Well "protecting teh children" censorship is more trivial then political censorship.

Well "protecting teh children" censorship is more trivial then political censorship.

Except when it's carried out by the government.

No they are barring him from accessing a military base. The government should be able to stop who the fuck they want from entering.The reuters article makes it crystal clear that the film makers will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise -because he is a Scientologist-

otherwise I would not have even posted here.

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany has barred the makers of a movie about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler from filming at German military sites because its star Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, the Defense Ministry said on Monday.

Defense Ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said the film makers "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise,

Ahh damn.. then forgive my intrusion.


I can leave this thread then. Elvis has just lef...


wait.. What? :confused:

Whaaaaat?
...

I think i am going to stick around for a bit longer.
:p

:D

He answered the guy's question.

Man, seriously, pull your head out of your ass.

Do you have any idea how much Scientology loves you right now for making a fool out of yourself, like they did with their "Open Letter to the Government" in 1997, signed by Tom Cruise et.al., comparing the fact that their criminal business schemes didn't get the coveted tax-exempt status of a church to, oooh, millions of people killed in the Holocaust?

Seriously?

The German government don't have to let Tom Cruise or anyone else film on their military bases.

I have no love for Scientology, but when they base their reasoning for keeping Tom Cruise out of their military bases soely on his religous beliefs, I have to wonder if this is a good thing. Is Tom Cruise's religous beliefs so dangerous that he is a threat to national security? If that is the case, does Germany ban Islamic Fundalmentalists from its bases? Though in re-reading the article is it seems the reasoning is that the Germans don't want Tom Cruise to play Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg because they don't like the idea of a Scientologist portraying a German hero.

Defense Ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said the film makers "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult".

"In general, the Bundeswehr (German military) has a special interest in the serious and authentic portrayal of the events of July 20, 1944 and Stauffenberg's person," Kammerbauer said.


If that is the case, then this is unquestionable discrimination. As a test, insert the religion of you choice in the following phrase: "The film makers will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the <insert religion here> cult"

Like Hydesland pointed out, he isn't "barred from working in our country for a short time". His production didn't get a permit to film on military and government sites like the Department of Defense. I sorta think that it's not exactly discrimination to not allow a criminal organization onto one's military bases or into one's department of defense.


yes im sure that seems quite correct to you.

to deny a man and his company something because of his religion.

tom cruise is a scientologist, he's not scientology itself.

if you are OK with your government discriminating against those who have a religion it doesnt like, i guess thats your business.

sure.

that still doesnt make it right.
See, to us, Scientology is NOT a "religion". The government sees it as a criminal global business venture cloaked in the trimmings of a dangerous cult.

If they didn't have their "religion" cloak, nobody would cry discrimination.

Well "protecting teh children" censorship is more trivial then political censorship.What about "protecting everyone" ?

The reuters article makes it crystal clear that the film makers will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise -because he is a Scientologist-

otherwise I would not have even posted here.

How does that counter what I said. I never denied they are barring him because he is a scientologist.

Well "protecting teh children" censorship is more trivial then political censorship.

Not when carried out by the government, and not when the political "censorship" is not censorship.

I have no love for Scientology, but when they base their reasoning for keeping Tom Cruise out of their military bases soely on his religous beliefs, I have to wonder if this is a good thing. Is Tom Cruise's religous beliefs so dangerous that he is a threat to national security? If that is the case, does Germany ban Islamic Fundalmentalists from its bases?

Germany bans extremist Islamic groups like Hizb al-tahir (sp?) completely if their stated goals are in breach of the German constitution.

See, to us, Scientology is NOT a "religion". The government sees it as a criminal global business venture cloaked in the trimmings of a dangerous cult.

If they didn't have their "religion" cloak, nobody would cry discrimination.

To me it is only different from the other major religions by means of age. They are all global business ventures looking to gain power and money.

Not when carried out by the government, and not when the political "censorship" is not censorship.

Well since there is no way to legitimately measure how trivial something is, we may as well drop this argument.

yes im sure that seems quite correct to you.

to deny a man and his company something because of his religion.

Scientology is not a religion. Your "argument" fails big time by that.

Well since there is no way to legitimately measure how trivial something is, we may as well drop this argument.

Which has been my point all along. People in the USA don't like boobies and naughty words, we don't like genocide. Pick your poison - I've already said which I prefer.

yes im sure that seems quite correct to you.

to deny a man and his company something because of his religion.

tom cruise is a scientologist, he's not scientology itself.

if you are OK with your government discriminating against those who have a religion it doesnt like, i guess thats your business.
Yes, because this is totally about religion. :rolleyes:

To me it is only different from the other major religions by means of age. They are all global business ventures looking to gain power and money.Oh yeah (http://www.xenu.net/)?

To me it is only different from the other major religions by means of age. They are all global business ventures looking to gain power and money.

Not really. Other religions are divided into thousands of different sects, they are not all united together and most sects. Most sects don't have anyway near as much power as scientology, except the vatican (which is not a threat) and muslim terrorist groups. I would never allow a muslim fundy into a millitary base either.

Scientology is not a religion. Your "argument" fails big time by that.

oh does it?

scientology might not be recognized by the german govt but as far as tom cruise is concerned it IS his religion.

its still discrimination based on an irrelevant personal belief. its still wrong.

yes im sure that seems quite correct to you.

to deny a man and his company something because of his religion.

tom cruise is a scientologist, he's not scientology itself.

if you are OK with your government discriminating against those who have a religion it doesnt like, i guess thats your business.In Germany the government as well as the population do not consider Scientology a religion, but just a venture.

yes im sure that seems quite correct to you.

to deny a man and his company something because of his religion.


thats the spirit!

Yes, because this is totally about religion. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah (http://www.xenu.net/)?

how is it NOT totally about religion and about germany's decision to discriminate against someone of a certain religion?

oh does it?

Yes, resoundingly so.

scientology might not be recognized by the german govt but as far as tom cruise is concerned it IS his religion.

Tom Cruise could claim that pelting placentas were his religion - wouldn't make it so, and doesn't mean any government has to view it as such.

its still discrimination based on an irrelevant personal belief. its still wrong.

It isn't irrelevant, since the organisation is counter to the German constitution, and it's not wrong for the German government to defend it.

oh does it?

scientology might not be recognized by the german govt but as far as tom cruise is concerned it IS his religion.

its still discrimination based on an irrelevant personal belief. its still wrong.
So, what, if I start a new religion tomorrow based on the belief that the government has to be violently destroyed because it stands between me and God they still have to let me into the department of defense because it would be discrimination if they didn't because I called my twisted criminal bullshit "religion"?

In Germany the government as well as the population do not consider Scientology a religion, but just a venture.

as is their right. as is their right to discriminate against anyone for belonging to any religion whether they recognize it or not.

that still doesnt make it right.

What if Tom Cruise were a Wahhabi Muslim? That is a faith closely connected with the Saudi Arabian government, and is pretty conservative (I think the nearest Christian equivalent would be the Puritans). Would that be sufficient to ban Cruise?

How does that counter what I said. I never denied they are barring him because he is a scientologist.
*picks DVD remote*
*stop.. *
*rewind <<..*
*changes one variable.. *
*play-slow-motion*


OccD: They German Gov says they canNOT film inside on a base because one of the actors is Black. Its discrimination.

Hydesland: The German Gov can ban whoever they want from a Base.

OccD: Sure they can, but they did say it was for the skin color, never mentioned any security clearance issues.

Hydesland: The German Gov can ban whoever they want from a Base.

OccD: Sure they can, its still discrimination.

Hydesland:How does that counter what I said. I never denied they are barring him because he is black.

how is it NOT totally about religion and about germany's decision to discriminate against someone of a certain religion?

Because Scientology is not a religion.

that still doesnt make it right.

It still doesn't make it wrong.

Tom Cruise could claim that pelting placentas were his religion - wouldn't make it so, and doesn't mean any government has to view it as such.

That is by far the strangest euphemism for vaginal intercourse I've ever heard or read.

What if Tom Cruise were a Wahhabi Muslim? That is a faith closely connected with the Saudi Arabian government, and is pretty conservative (I think the nearest Christian equivalent would be the Puritans). Would that be sufficient to ban Cruise?
I have no idea, but unless the Wahhabi faith happens to be under surveillance by the national intelligence agency for being in violation of the constitution, I certainly wouldn't think so...

It still doesn't make it wrong.

Depends on whether or not you're in Sweden.

So, what, if I start a new religion tomorrow based on the belief that the government has to be violently destroyed because it stands between me and God they still have to let me into the department of defense because it would be discrimination if they didn't because I called my twisted criminal bullshit "religion"?

they dont have to do anything but acknowledge that they are discrminating against a man for his religion.

Depends on whether or not you're in Sweden.

The actions of the German government have nothing to do with Sweden.

they dont have to do anything but acknowledge that they are discrminating against a man for his religion.

Wow.

Yes, because this is totally about religion. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah (http://www.xenu.net/)?


Could you summarize? it's different from other religions in that...

they dont have to do anything but acknowledge that they are discrminating against a man for his religion.

It's not a religion.

oh does it?

scientology might not be recognized by the german govt but as far as tom cruise is concerned it IS his religion.

its still discrimination based on an irrelevant personal belief. its still wrong.Tom Cruise determines what is a religion an what is not?
BTW personal beliefs are never irrelevant. And people should be shunned who adhere to harmful ideologies and their respective organizations.

The actions of the German government have nothing to do with Sweden.

But your opinions have everything to do with Sweden.

I have no idea, but unless the Wahhabi faith happens to be under surveillance by the national intelligence agency for being in violation of the constitution, I certainly wouldn't think so...
How is Scientology in violation of the constitution? I ask this out of curiosity, it is not a rhetorical question.

It's not a religion.

so what?

its still the basis of the discrimination against him and its still wrong.

they dont have to do anything but acknowledge that they are discrminating against a man for his religion.

Of course they acknowledge that. And thinking what a good decision.

Tom Cruise determines what is a religion an what is not?
If not him, then who?

Tom Cruise determines what is a religion an what is not?Mr Cruise could be an Atheist.. and If he is banned for that.. Its Discrimination. pure and simple.

In that it isn't recongnized by a govt. body? what makes a religion a religion then?

The German government probably has criteria that scientology doesn't mean. Besides, you'd have to be an idiot to consider scientology a religion. This isn't about what a religion is or not, it is about scientology claiming to be a religion and the German government not being idiots to believe them.

Tom Cruise determines what is a religion an what is not?

tom cruise determines what HIS religion is.

the german govt has every right to decide what qualifies as an official religion in germany and what doesnt.

and its still wrong to discriminate for a personal belief that is irrelevant to the project at hand.

so what?

its still the basis of the discrimination against him and its still wrong.

Anything that embaresses scientology is right not wrong.

so what?

You keep claiming that it's religious discrimination. It's not, because it would have to be a religion for that to be the case.

its still the basis of the discrimination against him and

And, again, since it's not a religion, it's not religious discrimination. Discrimination it is, but... "so what?"

its still wrong.

No, it's not.

again

Personally I think it is rather stupid to ban him from a military base because he states publically that he belongs to a lame cult.

Does anyone really think that Tom Cruise is going to be able to pull off his Mission Impossible character in real life and do some intelligence work? he can't be too intelligent if he belongs to Scientology. I would think no higher of him if he were to convert to any other religion.

Seriously people, they have security at these bases you know, and they watch shit especially close when having guests.

Do they ask everyone who comes onto base what their 'religious' affiliation is?

Have the Scientologists ever been found to steal govt property/secrets, or pulled off some terrorist action?

Someone please tell me a real concern from having a popular scientologist on their military base and make it convincing because I'm really not seeing it.

yes im sure that seems quite correct to you.

to deny a man and his company something because of his religion.

tom cruise is a scientologist, he's not scientology itself.

if you are OK with your government discriminating against those who have a religion it doesnt like, i guess thats your business.

I feel I have to correct something here : Scientology is not a religion under German law. If it was, it couldn't be used to prevent him from accessing public property (uness there were other concerns, of course).
Scientology is regarded as semi-legal threat to German public security. As a member of such a group, the government has every right to refuse Tom Cruise access to any military facility.

This has nothing to do with religion, but with belong to a group that is considered potentially dangerous and harmful.
Would there be such any outcry if a member of the ETA was refused access to German military facilities? Would you consider that discrimination?

Anything that embaresses scientology is right not wrong.

that a wrong thing has a good part doesnt make it right.

I'm not even sure if scientologists themselves think of it as a religion.

But your opinions have everything to do with Sweden.

And your opinions have everything to do with what you pull out of your ass (or asses, if you share this troll puppet among your group as well).

Mr Cruise could be an Atheist.. and If he is banned for that.. Its Discrimination. pure and simple.Discrimination isn't always bad. E.g. it's OK to discriminate against neo-nazis. Scientology also deserves to be discriminated against. A society has no obligation at all to tolerate every mental dirt.

tom cruise determines what HIS religion is.

the german govt has every right to decide what qualifies as an official religion in germany and what doesnt.

and its still wrong to discriminate for a personal belief that is irrelevant to the project at hand.


We're talking about military facilities here. Not even ordinary German citizens would simply be able to walk in and out of these as they please. And you're asking the government to grant access to somebody who belongs to an organisation that is under federal surveyance for previous acts?

Germany on the whole tends to be a lot less paranoid about security than any other country I've been to in my life (maybe with the exception of Italy). It takes quite a bit to come under federal surveyance there.

No, you'd have to be an idiot to believe in scientology. To believe it is a religion only takes teh knowledge of what a religion is. Shall I gather the definition for you?

No need, since scientology is not a religion.

I feel I have to correct something here : Scientology is not a religion under German law. If it was, it couldn't be used to prevent him from accessing public property (uness there were other concerns, of course).
Scientology is regarded as semi-legal threat to German public security. As a member of such a group, the government has every right to refuse Tom Cruise access to any military facility.

This has nothing to do with religion, but with belong to a group that is considered potentially dangerous and harmful.
Would there be such any outcry if a member of the ETA was refused access to German military facilities? Would you consider that discrimination?

and is there some reason to believe that tom cruise might actually do something illegal in a military base? if so, it wasnt mentioned in the article so you might want to provide some proof of that.

all i saw was bigotry against a religion that the germans dont like.

Germany defines Scientology as an organization which has primarily economical interests, and I can accept that. However, I don't see how that makes stopping Tom Cruise any better. There are plenty of organizations with "primarily economical interests" (any business would be one), but members of those organizations are not prevented from shooting a movie on a military base. ExxonMobil is one of these, and although it doesn't announce it publicly, I'm pretty sure it isn't any keener on democracy than Scientology. But no one keeps ExxonMobil away from military bases.

tom cruise determines what HIS religion is.

the german govt has every right to decide what qualifies as an official religion in germany and what doesnt.

and its still wrong to discriminate for a personal belief that is irrelevant to the project at hand.Maybe you are right, Tom Cruise, or any other of his retarded Scientologists could easily play a high ranking fascist Nazi, couldn't they? You know what, Tom Cruise should not even be allowed to enter Germany.

I feel I have to correct something here : Scientology is not a religion under German law. If it was, it couldn't be used to prevent him from accessing public property (uness there were other concerns, of course).
Scientology is regarded as semi-legal threat to German public security. As a member of such a group, the government has every right to refuse Tom Cruise access to any military facility.

This has nothing to do with religion, but with belong to a group that is considered potentially dangerous and harmful.
Would there be such any outcry if a member of the ETA was refused access to German military facilities? Would you consider that discrimination?


In what way?

It has to do with a mans beliefs (as lame as they may be). Do you honestly believe that Tom Cruise is a threat to Germany or any other nation? Please elaborate if so.

all i saw was bigotry against a religion

It's not a religion.

all i saw was bigotry against a religion that the germans dont like.

...or recognise as religion

We're talking about military facilities here. Not even ordinary German citizens would simply be able to walk in and out of these as they please. And you're asking the government to grant access to somebody who belongs to an organisation that is under federal surveyance for previous acts?

Germany on the whole tends to be a lot less paranoid about security than any other country I've been to in my life (maybe with the exception of Italy). It takes quite a bit to come under federal surveyance there.

oh im sorry, i assumed that they would not allow people to ever walk in and out of a base as they please.

we certainly dont do that in the US. if a group has permission to film on a military base all access is controlled and planned, everyone is escorted in and out and no one wanders around where they will.

so you think that the german military wouldnt keep a film crew under constant watch if it didnt include tom cruise?

and is there some reason to believe that tom cruise might actually do something illegal in a military base? if so, it wasnt mentioned in the article so you might want to provide some proof of that.

all i saw was bigotry against a religion that the germans dont like.
what makes scientology a religion?

and is there some reason to believe that tom cruise might actually do something illegal in a military base? if so, it wasnt mentioned in the article so you might want to provide some proof of that.

all i saw was bigotry against a religion that the germans dont like.

Just out of curiosity what would happen if I belonged to a religion which saw the German military as a work of an evil force. Would they be allowed to discriminate against me then?

I love ridiculous possibilities

It's not a religion.

that means so much more to you than it does to me.

so its OK to discriminate based on thought and belief as long as you can rule that its not a religion?

and is there some reason to believe that tom cruise might actually do something illegal in a military base? if so, it wasnt mentioned in the article so you might want to provide some proof of that.

all i saw was bigotry against a religion that the germans dont like.

He is a member of a group that keeps mostly in the grey area between not really legal but not really illegal yet (at least not provably so). As such, there doesn't have to be any concern about his own person, the membership alone is enough to deny him access.

Lame cop out. I was interested in a real discussion about it but I guess you could see that you were on the losing side of that debate :D

I wasn't "losing" since scientology is not a religion.

Just out of curiosity what would happen if I belonged to a religion which saw the German military as a work of an evil force. Would they be allowed to discriminate against me then?

I love ridiculous possibilities

they are "allowed" to do as they please.

it would still be wrong as long as you are not an actual threat to them.

oh im sorry, i assumed that they would not allow people to ever walk in and out of a base as they please.

we certainly dont do that in the US. if a group has permission to film on a military base all access is controlled and planned, everyone is escorted in and out and no one wanders around where they will.

so you think that the german military wouldnt keep a film crew under constant watch if it didnt include tom cruise?

Germany is spending millions to work against Scientology. Do you really want the German tax payer to then go ahead and pay so that a member of such a group can use a military facility?

bottom line - this has to do with a mans beliefs (whether the German govt considers it a valid religion or not) and not any threat that Tom Cruise presents to the nation of German.

yes they have the right to keep anyone off their bases, but that doesnt make ther reasoning any less lame.

what makes scientology a religion?

the beliefs of its membership.

Right, I am not denying it has done criminal things.well.. If Mr Cruise has committed any Crimes under the German Law, then yes by all means, arrest him, -present the evidence- and send him to jail where he belongs.

.. or declare him enemy combatant.. or something..

they are "allowed" to do as they please.

it would still be wrong as long as you are not an actual threat to them.

Ok, let's follow that argument through.
Let's say a known member of the Red Army Fraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Fraction) applied to the US government to use facilities for filming. And let's further assume they're denied for security reasons.

Would you still shout about discrimination?

He is a member of a group that keeps mostly in the grey area between not really legal but not really illegal yet (at least not provably so). As such, there doesn't have to be any concern about his own person, the membership alone is enough to deny him access.

yes i understand that that might be how the law works in germany.

that doesnt make it right.

He is a member of a group that keeps mostly in the grey area between not really legal but not really illegal yet (at least not provably so). As such, there doesn't have to be any concern about his own person, the membership alone is enough to deny him access.

Exactly.

Scientology is hugely opposed to european governments, they have tried to infiltrate the US government before and was partially successful.

But whats more, Germany should keep consistent with their law.

And whats even more so, even if Tom Cruise has no specific threat, it's pragmatic to make a mockery of Scientology anyway.

It's win win whatever the situation.

Germany defines Scientology as an organization which has primarily economical interests, and I can accept that. However, I don't see how that makes stopping Tom Cruise any better. There are plenty of organizations with "primarily economical interests" (any business would be one), but members of those organizations are not prevented from shooting a movie on a military base. ExxonMobil is one of these, and although it doesn't announce it publicly, I'm pretty sure it isn't any keener on democracy than Scientology. But no one keeps ExxonMobil away from military bases.

Hell, that's Hollywood in general. Does anyone think that Hollywood gives a rat's ass about the German constitution? There are producers who would kill their own Mothers if it would give them an extra point of profit.

so its OK to discriminate based on thought and belief

Yes, especially when it comes to whom one lets onto military installations.

Germany is spending millions to work against Scientology. Do you really want the German tax payer to then go ahead and pay so that a member of such a group can use a military facility?

The German tax payer would pay to let someone make a movie on their base? I would think that the German Govt would be makign money out of that deal. Might as well recoup some losses no?

Still wondering how Scientology is a threat to anyone and specifically tom Cruise.

bottom line - this has to do with a mans beliefs (whether the German govt considers it a valid religion or not) and not any threat that Tom Cruise presents to the nation of German.

yes they have the right to keep anyone off their bases, but that doesnt make ther reasoning any less lame.

Beliefs - yes.
Religion - no.

yes i understand that that might be how the law works in germany.

that doesnt make it right.

Do you really think the US military would grant a member of a group that's under federal investigation access to any military bases? Seriously?

Ok, let's follow that argument through.
Let's say a known member of the Red Army Fraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Fraction) applied to the US government to use facilities for filming. And let's further assume they're denied for security reasons.

Would you still shout about discrimination?

Damn I was just gonna go for an IRA / British base reference. Damn you to Scientology hell

Or how about a member of a Muslim group considered dangerous by the US being allowed onto an American base

Ok, let's follow that argument through.
Let's say a known member of the Red Army Fraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Fraction) applied to the US government to use facilities for filming. And let's further assume they're denied for security reasons.

Would you still shout about discrimination?

What is particularly harmful or violent about Scientology?

Germany is spending millions to work against Scientology. Do you really want the German tax payer to then go ahead and pay so that a member of such a group can use a military facility?

certainly not. i would expect the production company to pay for every penny it costs to film there.

and do you REALLY find it ok to confuse scientology with tom cruise that way?

he is not the church of scientology, he is an actor and a producer who wants (perhaps) to do some filming on a military base. as such, he should be allowed or denied on some basis other than his personal religious beliefs.

Are you telling me that Scientology is not "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"?

Because it's not generally agreed upon. It's brainwashed into believing (yes you could say this about religion, but with religion there is no one united absolute set of beliefs, just general common principles. Unlike scientology, where everyone has to part of the one church and do what they say.

Are you telling me that Scientology is not "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"?

What, so any fundamental set of beliefs that people agree on is suddenly a religion? You might want to tell environmentalists, communists, capitalists, existentialists, terrorists, criminals... and so on, that. They all have "common fundamental beliefs" - none of them are religions. Just like scientology is not a religion.

Do you really think the US military would grant a member of a group that's under federal investigation access to any military bases? Seriously?

Do you seriously think Tom Cruise is any danger whatsoever? Examples of how that might be so please.


Waiting and waiting and....

the beliefs of its membership.by what criteria?

Do you seriously think Tom Cruise is any danger whatsoever?Haven't you seen his movies or interviews? This man has an IQ below 20.

Ok, let's follow that argument through.
Let's say a known member of the Red Army Fraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Fraction) applied to the US government to use facilities for filming. And let's further assume they're denied for security reasons.

Would you still shout about discrimination?

if a bonefide actor/director who is a COMMUNIST (the biggest bugaboo of the us govt) were to be denied filming on a military base based on the supposed danger of his personal beliefs, of course it would be discrimination.

if he were an actual threat, then not.

im not comfortable discussing an organization i know nothing about.

Yes, especially when it comes to whom one lets onto military installations.Yeah.. not so long ago we did not allow Gays into the Military institutions. (heck.. maybe we still dont?)

Discrimination is Discrimination is Discrimination.
If its not a security clearance issue.. then its Discrimination.

Do you seriously think Tom Cruise is any danger whatsoever? Examples of how that might be so please.


Waiting and waiting and....

I shall repeat a post in a shorter way.

1) Scientology have infiltrated government before.

2) Germany needs to be consistent with it's law

3) Even if Tom isn't a threat, it's pragmatic to make a mockery of scientology.

Ok, let's follow that argument through.
Let's say a known member of the Red Army Fraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Fraction) applied to the US government to use facilities for filming. And let's further assume they're denied for security reasons.

Would you still shout about discrimination?

If it was only about security, then why are the Germans blocking access to all filming:

Defense Ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said the film makers "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult".

Here is the real reason:

"In general, the Bundeswehr (German military) has a special interest in the serious and authentic portrayal of the events of July 20, 1944 and Stauffenberg's person," Kammerbauer said.

Whether or not Scientology is called a religion is irrelevant. Suppose a Russian communist wanted to film a movie at a military base in Germany. Now, as a whole, Russian communists have had a negative impact on Germany (invading and running it for sixty years), but this person does not have an army behind them and has not publicly said they support dismantling the German government. Wouldn't this Russian communist serve just as grave a threat as Tom Cruise?

EDIT:I now see someone already brought up the communist analogy. Oh well, mine is more relevant to Germany.

by what criteria?

this is a topic im not interested in.

if a person truly claims something as their religion, thats enough for me.

Because it's not generally agreed upon. It's brainwashed into believing (yes you could say this about religion, but with religion there is no one united absolute set of beliefs, just general common principles. Unlike scientology, where everyone has to part of the one church and do what they say.


You contradicted youself there. A religion can't be a religion unless there are differing beliefs within its ranks? Whaaaaaaa? All religions look like cults to me.

he is not the church of scientology, he is an actor and a producer who wants (perhaps) to do some filming on a military base.

"He's not Al Qaida itself. He's just a supporter of Al Qaida who wants to get onto a military base. He should be allowed or denied on some other basis than his personal beliefs that terrorism is peachy."

as such, he should be allowed or denied on some basis other than his personal religious beliefs.

They're not religious beliefs.

The German tax payer would pay to let someone make a movie on their base? I would think that the German Govt would be makign money out of that deal. Might as well recoup some losses no?

Still wondering how Scientology is a threat to anyone and specifically tom Cruise.

I found the German position on Scientology in the hopes of clearing this matter up. German View of Scientology (http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html)

At the top of the page:

The German government considers the Scientology organization a commercial enterprise with a history of taking advantage of vulnerable individuals and an extreme dislike of any criticism. The government is also concerned that the organization's totalitarian structure and methods may pose a risk to Germany's democratic society. Several kinds of evidence have influenced this view of Scientology, including the organization's activities in the United States.

There are three notable American court cases involving Scientology that illustrate why Germany's concerns about this organization are justified. In the early 1980s, American courts convicted 11 top Scientologists for plotting to plant spies in federal agencies, break into government offices and bug at least one IRS meeting. In 1994, in a case involving Lawrence Wollersheim, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a California court's finding of substantial evidence that Scientology practices took place in a coercive environment and rejected Scientology's claims that the practices were protected under religious freedom guaranties. In September 1997, the Illinois Supreme Court found there was evidence enough to allege that Scientology had driven the Cult Awareness Network into bankruptcy by filing 21 lawsuits in a 17-month period. The court stated that "such a sustained onslaught of litigation can hardly be deemed 'ordinary', if [the Network] can prove that the actions were brought without probable cause and with malice."

Under a section entitled "Is Scientology a Threat?", I found this:

In its March 22, 1995, the Federal Labor Court also found that Scientology utilizes "inhuman and totalitarian practices." Often members are separated from their families and friends. The organization is structured so as to make the individual psychologically and financially dependent on a Scientology system

...

Other countries, too, view the Scientology organization with great concern. In France, a government commission led by then-Prime Minister Juppé, and charged with monitoring the activities of sects, first convened in mid-November 1996. On November 22, 1996, French courts in Lyon judged several leading Scientologists guilty of involuntary manslaughter and fraud in a case where methods taught by Scientology were found to have driven a person to suicide.

In Greece, a judge declared in January 1997 that an Athens Scientology group was illegal after ruling that the group had used false pretenses to obtain an operating license.

Given that this is the German government's view of Scientology, banning a Scientologist from a military base seems to be a logical step for them.

if a bonefide actor/director who is a COMMUNIST (the biggest bugaboo of the us govt) were to be denied filming on a military base based on the supposed danger of his personal beliefs, of course it would be discrimination.

if he were an actual threat, then not.

im not comfortable discussing an organization i know nothing about.

Scientology is a church where everyone holds the same beliefs, beliefs which are a threat.

Beliefs vary in communism, and are not inherently dangerouse.

this is a topic im not interested in.

if a person truly claims something as their religion, thats enough for me.

The bold is the problem

Still wondering how Scientology is a threat to anyone and specifically tom Cruise.

It's regarded as a politically extremist group, with declared "verfassungswidrigen" (unconstitutional) goals. It's regarded as a thread to public security, as are all self-declared religions that will take extreme measures against leavers.

As I said before, Tom Cruise may not be, but the organisation of which he is a member definitly is.

Whether or not Scientology is called a religion is irrelevant. Suppose a Russian communist wanted to film a movie at a military base in Germany. Now, as a whole, Russian communists have had a negative impact on Germany (invading and running it for sixty years), but this person does not have an army behind them and has not publicly said they support dismantling the German government. Wouldn't this Russian communist serve just as grave a threat as Tom Cruise?

EDIT:I now see someone already brought up the communist analogy. Oh well, mine is more relevant to Germany.

The RAF isn't specific enough to germany for your liking?

That's a definition for religion and they claim to be a religion.

And I can give you a definition of a duck and try to imitate one and then claim to be one. Won't make me one.

You don't recognize something unless a govt. says it is valid or what? You are really reaching hard there Fassypie.

I don't have to reach at all. Scientology is not a religion.

Scientology is a church where everyone holds the same beliefs, beliefs which are a threat.
I cannot believe everyone who practices Scientology is a cookie-cutter image of Ron L. Hubbard, with 700,000+ members it is just too statistically improbable.

Haven't you seen his movies or interviews? This man has an IQ below 20.Discrimination to retarded people.
in that case all he need is a German MP "escorting" him.. paid for by the Film company.

Damn I was just gonna go for an IRA / British base reference. Damn you to Scientology hell

Or how about a member of a Muslim group considered dangerous by the US being allowed onto an American base

has tom cruise been advocating violent activities while i havent been paying attention. (one would think that it is impossible for him to take a shit without the world being informed)

i expect my government to keep track of every single person it lets onto its military bases whether they belong to a pootinky religion or not.

You contradicted youself there. A religion can't be a religion unless there are differing beliefs within its ranks? Whaaaaaaa? All religions look like cults to me.


Yes, if everyone is forced to believe the same thing. It's a cult not a religion. But if the founder of the cult didn't even believe it, and started it for money then it becomes a cult intended only for money and power, i.e. scientology.

Whether or not Scientology is called a religion is irrelevant. Suppose a Russian communist wanted to film a movie at a military base in Germany. Now, as a whole, Russian communists have had a negative impact on Germany (invading and running it for sixty years), but this person does not have an army behind them and has not publicly said they support dismantling the German government. Wouldn't this Russian communist serve just as grave a threat as Tom Cruise?

EDIT:I now see someone already brought up the communist analogy. Oh well, mine is more relevant to Germany.

More relevant than the Red Army Fraction??? *lol

If a member of that group would ask to film in German military facilities, he most likely wouldn't get permission either.
If you belong to a group that the government sees as unconstitutional, a public security risk and as good as illegal, that's one of the consequences, yes.

Scientology is a church where everyone holds the same beliefs, beliefs which are a threat.

Beliefs vary in communism, and are not inherently dangerouse.

now thats just silly.

The RAF isn't specific enough to germany for your liking?
I wasn't talking about your thread, although that also brings up communists. The Red Army Faction is an army (hence the name). Communism is the broader ideology which has connections with the RAF, but they are not one and the same.

EDIT: Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12811579&postcount=184) is the thread I was referring to.

Haven't you seen his movies or interviews? This man has an IQ below 20.

:rolleyes:

I shall repeat a post in a shorter way.

1) Scientology have infiltrated government before.

2) Germany needs to be consistent with it's law

3) Even if Tom isn't a threat, it's pragmatic to make a mockery of scientology.

1. So have the Catholics, Christians, Atheists, Freemasons and Environmentalist to a much greater extent. In this 'infiltration' what exactly happened and what was the outcome?

2. Huh? what law?

3. Lamest of all arguments (if it could be called that) I have seen regarding this.



Whether or not Scientology is called a religion is irrelevant. Suppose a Russian communist wanted to film a movie at a military base in Germany. Now, as a whole, Russian communists have had a negative impact on Germany (invading and running it for sixty years), but this person does not have an army behind them and has not publicly said they support dismantling the German government. Wouldn't this Russian communist serve just as grave a threat as Tom Cruise?

EDIT:I now see someone already brought up the communist analogy. Oh well, mine is more relevant to Germany.



I wonder how hard it would be for the Germans to supply some security on a military base. Sounds like an impossible mission to me.

I cannot believe everyone who practices Scientology is a cookie-cutter image of Ron L. Hubbard, with 700,000+ members it is just too statistically improbable.

You'd be suprised. It's all administered through centralised control.

I found the German position on Scientology in the hopes of clearing this matter up. German View of Scientology (http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html)

At the top of the page:



Under a section entitled "Is Scientology a Threat?", I found this:


Given that this is the German government's view of Scientology, banning a Scientologist from a military base seems to be a logical step for them.

Thanks for doing all that work. All I could find were German pages, which would have been no good to the majority here :)

Thanks for doing all that work. All I could find were German pages, which would have been no good to the majority here :)

Damn could have done with the practice

I wonder how hard it would be for the Germans to supply some security on a military base. Sounds like an impossible mission to me.

Why should they, though?

1. So have the Catholics, Christians, Atheists, Freemasons and Environmentalist to a much greater extent.

But they have generally stopped this shit now. But who says that the government isn't trying to take care of this shit too?


In this 'infiltration' what exactly happened and what was the outcome?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White


2. Huh? what law?


The law that carbra mentioned.


3. Lamest of all arguments (if it could be called that) I have seen regarding this.

It may seem flippant, but it's totally true. Lets not pretend that this isn't one of their major goals.

1. So have the Catholics, Christians, Atheists, Freemasons and Environmentalist to a much greater extent. In this 'infiltration' what exactly happened and what was the outcome?
Er, Catholics are Christians. Doesn't affect what you say, but it's a slight error.
I wonder how hard it would be for the Germans to supply some security on a military base. Sounds like an impossible mission to me.
Well, anyone who has seen the stream of documentaries about Tom Cruise (the Mission Impossible reports) knows that this is not a man to be trifled with.

now thats just silly.

It is indeed. If it was a person declaring his political beliefs to be communist, I'd agree with you. If it was a member of a semi-legally and potentially dangerous communist group (such as the RAF in my example), I'd consider it wise not to let them into the facilities

You'd be suprised. It's all administered through centralised control.

And officially the lower ranked members do not know of Xenu.

Simplest reason to treat scientology different from other religions is that it does not openly declare its agenda, policies and beliefs and refuses outside observers during services. For all we know they could be teaching people how to make biological weapons of mass destruction.

If they want to be treated with respect - share the teachings.

I found the German position on Scientology in the hopes of clearing this matter up. German View of Scientology (http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html)

At the top of the page:



Under a section entitled "Is Scientology a Threat?", I found this:


Given that this is the German government's view of Scientology, banning a Scientologist from a military base seems to be a logical step for them.

Thank you!

A lame reason to label them a threat but finally a reason nonetheless.

Scientology is a church where everyone holds the same beliefs, beliefs which are a threat.

Beliefs vary in communism, and are not inherently dangerouse.

Please state in precise terms how Scientologies beliefs are inherently a threat. Shall we push forward on technology that will help us produce chips that we can implant in people that will ensure they do nt belief anythign that govt. doesn't want them to believe?

It's regarded as a politically extremist group, with declared "verfassungswidrigen" (unconstitutional) goals. It's regarded as a thread to public security, as are all self-declared religions that will take extreme measures against leavers.

As I said before, Tom Cruise may not be, but the organisation of which he is a member definitly is.


Well then, lets just not let Tom Cruise act on our military base because he holds certain beliefs even though he poses no threat whatsoever and we are losing money from denying the filming there.

Like I said "stupid reason"

what makes scientology a religion?I dont know.

What makes...
* 1.1 Bábism
* 1.2 Bahá'í
* 1.3 Christianity
* 1.4 Gnosticism
* 1.5 Islam
* 1.6 Judaism
* 1.7 Samaritanism
* 2.1 Ajivika
* 2.2 Ayyavazhi
* 2.3 Buddhism
* 2.4 Hinduism
* 2.5 Jainism
* 2.6 Panth Religions
* 2.7 Sikhism
* 3.1 Caodaism
* 3.2 Chondogyo
* 3.3 Confucianism
* 3.4 Shinto
* 3.5 Taoism
* 3.6 Yiguandao
* 4.1 Atenism
* 4.2 Manichaeism
* 4.3 Mithraism
* 4.4 Orphism
* 4.5 Yazdânism
* 4.6 Zoroastrianism
* 5.1 African Traditional Religion
* 5.2 European Religion
* 5.3 Near Eastern religions
* 5.4 Native American religions
* 5.5 Pacific religions
* 6.1 Reconstructionist Pagan religions
* 6.2 Syncretic and eclectic Pagan religions
Left-Hand Path religions
African diasporic religions
# 9 Non-revealed religions
# 10 Syncretic religions
# 11 Entheogen religions
# 12 Cargo cults
# 13 New religious movements
* 13.1 Abrahmic-oriented NRMs
o 13.1.1 Christian-oriented NRMs
o 13.1.2 Islam-rooted NRMs
o 13.1.3 Judaism-oriented NRMs
* 13.2 Dharmic-oriented NRMs
o 13.2.1 Buddhist-oriented NRMs
o 13.2.2 Hindu-oriented NRMs
* 13.3 Monotheistic NRMs
* 13.4 Indigenous NRMs
* 13.5 Asian-oriented NRMs
o 13.5.1 Chinese-oriented NRMs
o 13.5.2 Filipino-oriented NRMs
o 13.5.3 Indonesian-oriented NRMs
o 13.5.4 Japanese-rooted NRMs
o 13.5.5 Korean-oriented NRMs
o 13.5.6 Malaysian-oriented NRMs
o 13.5.7 Vietnamese-oriented NRMs
* 13.6 Native American-oriented NRMs
* 13.7 Western esoteric NRMs
* 13.8 Supremacist religions
o 13.8.1 Black-supremacist religions
o 13.8.2 White-supremacist religions
* 13.9 Alien-based religions
* 13.10 Other NRMs etc,etc,etc

what makes any of them a religion?

So have the Catholics, Christians, Atheists, Freemasons and Environmentalist to a much greater extent. In this 'infiltration' what exactly happened and what was the outcome?



None of these are under investigation for being unconstitutional and a threat to public security...

Well then, lets just not let Tom Cruise act on our military base because he holds certain beliefs even though he poses no threat whatsoever and we are losing money from denying the filming there.

Like I said "stupid reason"

Their decision. *shrugs*

Yes, if everyone is forced to believe the same thing. It's a cult not a religion. But if the founder of the cult didn't even believe it, and started it for money then it becomes a cult intended only for money and power, i.e. scientology.

They are a young 'religion/cult' - give them time and I am sure they will split up into sects too.

Were you around when they started the Christian religion? How do you know they weren't started for the same reason?

At least Scientology hasn't killed anyone if they didn't convert to their religion eh?

Well then, lets just not let Tom Cruise act on our military base because he holds certain beliefs even though he poses no threat whatsoever and we are losing money from denying the filming there.

Like I said "stupid reason"

So you can let anyone onto an army base if they don't pose a threat? I can let any member of any organisations (under investigation or openly hostile) onto a military base as long as I let them on one at a time with a large escort?

It doesn't even matter if scientology is a "religion" or not, I would still suppor them from restricting Tom.

At least Scientology hasn't killed anyone if they didn't convert to their religion eh?

For leaving it on the other hand...
Though that is of course all rumour.

We wont know until we do an autopsy.

Or grow a pair of eyes and a brain and see that I am clearly not a duck, but just someone trying to fool you to think I am one.

Your arguments suck.

Look who's talking.

You could at least put some effort into making a statement that isn't void of intellectual honestly once in a while.

And you could try putting some effort into making a statement that isn't devoid of intelligence.

They are a young 'religion/cult' - give them time and I am sure they will split up into sects too.


Like we gave the catholics time to fuck the world over? No thanks.


Were you around when they started the Christian religion? How do you know they weren't started for the same reason?

At least Scientology hasn't killed anyone if they didn't convert to their religion eh?

Scientologists have killed people actually.

Why should they, though?



Because they would if there was a Scientologist acting in the movie or not.

Does anyone that isn't a scientologist get to roam their base freely? No.

Again, it's stupid to keep him from acting on their base since he is no threat.

Because they would if there was a Scientologist acting in the movie or not.

Does anyone that isn't a scientologist get to roam their base freely? No.

Again, it's stupid to keep him from acting on their base since he is no threat.

Better safe than sorry ;)

Again, it's stupid to keep him from acting on their base since he is no threat.

How do you know ?
Do you know what people get taught in scientology meetings ?

Like we gave the catholics time to fuck the world over? No thanks.



Scientologists have killed people allegedly.

Fixed

They are a young 'religion/cult' - give.. they are a very unpopular group.. I am against any groups retaliating against "traitors"

I think Freedom of religion must respect and protect:

#1 the right NOT to belong (Atheists)
#2 The right to change your mind. (the right to leave the group)

But Mr Cruise was discriminated against.

But they have generally stopped this shit now. But who says that the government isn't trying to take care of this shit too?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White



The law that carbra mentioned.



It may seem flippant, but it's totally true. Lets not pretend that this isn't one of their major goals.

i1. because 99.99999999999% of them are all Christians

2. Eeeep, people will go to some crazy extents to keep people from badmouthing their organization. that's a legitimate concern right there.

3. She mentioned no law... only an investigation right?

4. Any reason like this belongs in Kindergarten

Fixed

Isn't it interesting how your "fix" actually falsified the post?

Allow me to quote a much more accurate version of your post:

Falsified

they are a very unpopular group.. I am against any groups retaliating against "traitors"

I think Freedom of religion must respect and protect:

#1 the right NOT to belong (Atheists)
#2 The right to change your mind. (the right to leave the group)

That second one is exactly why the German government doesn't view Scientology too kindly. They don't give their members that right, so it's up to the state to enforce that.

Isn't it interesting how your "fix" actually falsified the post?

Allow me to quote a much more accurate version of your post:

I'll happily take it back if you show me a court case that shows someone was convicted of murder directly due to Scientology. Its just that the last time someone told me this they linked to rumours and nothing else

That second one is exactly why the German government doesn't view Scientology too kindly. They don't give their members that right, so it's up to the state to enforce that.

Then again, neither do several Muslim denominations.

I've heard that his family members have said in the past that he said on more than one occasion something along the lines of "If you want to make a lot of money, start a religion."

And officially the lower ranked members do not know of Xenu.

Simplest reason to treat scientology different from other religions is that it does not openly declare its agenda, policies and beliefs and refuses outside observers during services. For all we know they could be teaching people how to make biological weapons of mass destruction.

If they want to be treated with respect - share the teachings.

Do you think Freemasons should not be allowed to run for Govt>?

Their decision. *shrugs*

Do you agree with it? Not their right to, I agree that they have a right, but their reasoning.

So you can let anyone onto an army base if they don't pose a threat? I can let any member of any organisations (under investigation or openly hostile) onto a military base as long as I let them on one at a time with a large escort?

Sure why not?


Like we gave the catholics time to fuck the world over? No thanks.

Scientologists have killed people actually.

Are you as devoutly against the Freemasons?

I've heard that his family members have said in the past that he said on more than one occasion something along the lines of "If you want to make a lot of money, start a religion."

Ron L said that I believe. (Sorry didn't know if you meant him or Tom)

3. She mentioned no law... only an investigation right?


An investigation looking into the lawfulness of Scientology, yes. There's serious concern that they aren't.

i1. because 99.99999999999% of them are all Christians


The US government maybe, but I never said that was a good thing. And we are talking about the german government.


2. Eeeep, people will go to some crazy extents to keep people from badmouthing their organization. that's a legitimate concern right there.


"the single largest infiltration of the United States government in history"


3. She mentioned no law... only an investigation right?


I can't be bothered to find it. But Germany should keep consistent with it's policy on keeping threats away from millitary bases.


4. Any reason like this belongs in Kindergarten

So you think that Germany believe Tom Cruise is actually capable of doing any damage?

I'll happily take it back if you show me a court case that shows someone was convicted of murder directly due to Scientology. Its just that the last time someone told me this they linked to rumours and nothing else

I apologize that I cannot bring up a member of a huge, rich cult with many influential members being prosecuted for murder.

They did, however, kill someone. They locked her in one of their "hotels" and starved her to death.

I apologize that I cannot bring up a member of a huge, rich cult with many influential members being prosecuted for murder.

They did, however, kill someone. They locked her in one of their "hotels" and starved her to death.

So its alleged then since there hasn't been a conviction in a court of law?

You used to have a sense of humor.

I never had a sense of "humor", thankfully.

Do you think Freemasons should not be allowed to run for Govt>?

Correct. If you desire a government position you need to be open about your beliefs and motivations.
Of course, in practice quite a few politicians are not - but that is unfortunate.

Then again, neither do several Muslim denominations.

And neither do certain Christian denominations. And they all get the same treatement in Germany.

Scientologists have killed people actually.

Christians were viewed, by Romans, as a dangerous and a very secretive cult worshipping a convicted criminal and singing in the sewers after midnight.

Don't assume there were no Christian radicals because the Bible never mentioned them.

That second one is exactly why the German government doesn't view Scientology too kindly. They don't give their members that right..
question #1 While on Germany* any member of Scientology can leave/change their religion without breaking the German* Law. (*feel free to insert your Country)

True or False?

D
Are you as devoutly against the Freemasons?

I don't know enough about them.

Christians were viewed, by Romans, as a dangerous and a very secretive cult worshipping a convicted criminal and singing in the sewers after midnight.

Don't assume there were no Christian radicals because the Bible never mentioned them.

Huh? When did I ever say there were no Christian radicals? Since when did I give a shit about what the Bible says?

Better safe than sorry ;)

How do you know ?
Do you know what people get taught in scientology meetings ?

Please tell me how one Scientologist (recognized by everybody) under scrutiny at a military base could do anythign whatsoever to harm German secirity interest. Just one single plausible way.


But Mr Cruise was discriminated against.

I agree

That second one is exactly why the German government doesn't view Scientology too kindly. They don't give their members that right, so it's up to the state to enforce that.

Scientologist don't have a right to leave the 'religion/cult'? What do they do if someone tries. Honestly, this is news to me.

An investigation looking into the lawfulness of Scientology, yes. There's serious concern that they aren't.

Once they conclude the investigation and find them to be criminals, are they going to imprison all the Scientologists they can find? Maybe they can make them wear arm bands so people can recognize them on the street. :p kay I kid I kid. They should only do that to the gays and bisexuals.

question #1 While on Germany (or any other Country I am aware of) any member of Scientology can leave/change their religion without breaking the German Law.

True or False?

True.
The problem won't lie with German law, on the contrary. There are several groups in Germany dedicated to help people who want to leave. The problem will be if Scientology will let you go...

Please tell me how one Scientologist (recognized by everybody) under scrutiny at a military base could do anythign whatsoever to harm German secirity interest. Just one single plausible way.

Using the fact he was allowed there in propganda campaigns claiming the german government recognises scientology as religion ?
Sue the German military (scientology is good at that) ?
Suicide terrorist strike ? (if only we could be so lucky...)

The US government maybe, but I never said that was a good thing. And we are talking about the german government.



"the single largest infiltration of the United States government in history"



I can't be bothered to find it. But Germany should keep consistent with it's policy on keeping threats away from millitary bases.



So you think that Germany believe Tom Cruise is actually capable of doing any damage?


1. My bad
2. Which I said was a legitimate concern. I hadnt heard of that before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention
3. She reasserted that it was merely an investigation
4. No I think they are discriminating against him because of his beliefs

In the end, who gives a wet fart for the fate of Tom Cruise?

I never had a sense of "humor", thankfully.

I guess all this time I have been laughing at you rather than with you then :D

Correct. If you desire a government position you need to be open about your beliefs and motivations.
Of course, in practice quite a few politicians are not - but that is unfortunate.

So then hypnosis and truth syrum for all who run for govt!

I don't know enough about them.

Most higher ups in the Us and European countries are Freemasons. nearly every US President was one.

Using the fact he was allowed there in propganda campaigns claiming the german government recognises scientology as religion ?
Sue the German military (scientology is good at that) ?
Suicide terrorist strike ? (if only we could be so lucky...)


you're funny, I think I'll keep you

It doesn't even matter if scientology is a "religion" or not, I would still suppor them from restricting Tom.
Yeah, keeping people who are batshit insane off military bases just seems like a good idea in general.