NationStates Jolt Archive

2. Which I said was a legitimate concern. I hadnt heard of that before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention


Sorry I thought you were being sarcastic :p


3. She reasserted that it was merely an investigation


I assume Germany has a policy of keeping threats away from millitary bases. They view Scientology as a threat.


4. No I think they are discriminating against him because of his beliefs

Yes but why?

I'm mildly insulted that a nitwit like Tom Cruise is playing the part of Stauffenberg, a notable historical figure.

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

I don't, but I do care about freedom of belief and will call people out for what I see as no good reason for discrimination.

Though sometimesthere is a good reason: All Atheists are anarachists (secretly and currently under investigation) that want the govt. to go down and should therefore be thrown into work camps.

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

Yay :)
Of course, my first point was not entirely unserious. One would after all also not grant a known mobgangster, drugdealer or spokesperson for the party of childmolesters special liberties with government facilities.

question #1 While on Germany any member of Scientology can leave/change their religion without breaking the German Law.
True or False?True.
The problem will be if Scientology will let you go...

question number#2 Another Scientologist(s) canNOT force you to stay (with a gun or something) without braking the German Law.
True or false?

Sorry I thought you were being sarcastic :p



I assume Germany has a policy of keeping threats away from millitary bases. They view Scientology as a threat.



Yes but why?

1. nope
2. a threat to democracy if spread, not a threat to a military base. maybe they really are idiots who think Mission Impossible is a documentary about Tom Cruise. lol
3. Not sure, the stupidity of people constantly amaze me. Refer to next quoted post.

Awww, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings so badly that you needed to lie to try to make me feel bad too. Need some hugs? If it's not a lie then you can get Sinuhue to back you up on that right? The only thing I ever remember saying to Sinner about you is that you seem pretty anal about forum rules and therefore a real killjoy. though I'm sure you knew that. You are the best troll of them all in my opinion.

Come on guys its all getting a bit childish dont you think

2. a threat to democracy if spread, not a threat to a military base. maybe they really are idiots who think Mission Impossible is a documentary about Tom Cruise. lol


Although, you never know. Scientologists are very... sneaky. It's better to be safe then sorry like Cabra said.


3. Not sure, the stupidity of people constantly amaze me. Refer to next quoted post.


But the German government are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They are effectively discrediting scientology.

Yay :)
Of course, my first point was not entirely unserious. One would after all also not grant a known mobgangster, drugdealer or spokesperson for the party of childmolesters special liberties with government facilities.

Was your first point that Tom Cruise said that Germany recognized Scientology as a religion? Sorry I was unclear. If so, I don't see a valid comparison with mobsters, drug dealers or childmoleesters.

BTW, I did a poll and all the Germans that took it said I should be king of their country.

Come on guys its all getting a bit childish dont you think
I hate letting someone have the last word. lol

okay yes it's childish

I hate sinking to Fass' level but I also hate letting someone have the last word. lol

okay yes it's childish, I will leave him be

Phew thought I was going to be bitch slapped by both of you

Was your first point that Tom Cruise said that Germany recognized Scientology as a religion? Sorry I was unclear. If so, I don't see a valid comparison with mobsters, drug dealers or childmoleesters.

Allowing a spokesperson of a special interest group to have special freedoms with government facilities implies that said government has some respect for you and your group.
In the case of childmolesters, mafia and so on such an implication is undesireable. Apparantly the German government feels the same about scientology.

question #1 While on Germany any member of Scientology can leave/change their religion without breaking the German Law.
True or False?

question number#2 Another Scientologist(s) canNOT force you to stay (with a gun or something) without braking the German Law.
True or false?

True again. However, it's up to German law to prove that force was involved in keeping a person in the organisation, as well as proving that the force was applied by the organisation as such rather than an individual acting out of his/her own accord.

Although, you never know. Scientologists are very... sneaky. It's better to be safe then sorry like Cabra said.



But the German government are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They are effectively discrediting scientology.

1. well I can't say otherwise since of the infiltration thingy you linked to, but we in the US are not so good at countering threats anymore it seems so that is likely our own fault. we knew bin laden was out to get us and we laughed and worried about birth control and gay marriage instead

Allowing a spokesperson of a special interest group to have special freedoms with government facilities implies that said government has some respect for you and your group.
In the case of childmolesters, mafia and so on such an implication is undesireable. Apparantly the German government feels the same about scientology.

I wouldn't say that that is a necessary conclusion. It could be easily seen as the Govt. wanting to make money off of a movie. They could allow the filming and say, we're unhappy about who Tom Cruise is playing because we don't like his cult, so we are doubling the charge for the use of the base to pay for the cost of added security in case Tom Cruise fools us all as well as the humiliation of him even being in Germany.

She was all "you can't tell him I told you". Well, I guess I did. She'll have to sue me (yeah, Sin, you will, because you double-crossed me with things I told you about "fuckface" and this is just equitable) and you'll have to take it up with her.


*wonders who fuckface is*

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.

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of "brainwashing".

*bitchslaps you to take some of the pain away from my continued silence in light of a recent post*

Hmmmm strangely nice :p

*hopes that will stop you*

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.

Don't forget that their holy texts are copyrighted.

Hmmmm strangely nice :p

*hopes that will stop you*

Remember this day. :D

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?

They have killed people for converting AWAY from it, though.

This may have been posted already, but I agree with the policy, if for no other reason than that the son of Stauffenberg doesn't want Cruise to make the movie. He (correctly) says that he can't do anything about it, but there's no reason to make it any easier to destroy an important event and turn it into a "Hollywood blockbuster", is there.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,490147,00.html

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

Ron.

They have killed people for converting AWAY from it, though.

Proof please. I asked before and you didn't give it. I don't have a bias in their favour but I would just like to see some evidence. A conviction perhaps. Something like that

They have killed people for converting AWAY from it, though.

Show me a conviction and I won't argue. Don't show me one and there's no use in continuing this line of discussion.

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?

one might presume that there are set criteria for allowing filming on military bases.

one would hope that "one of the actors has a stupid religion" isnt one of them.

in the US, for example, if a movie isnt pro-military it wont get military co-operation. this can make a huge difference to a (tom cruise) movie like "top gun" where the use of real military equipment adds so much to the tone of the film.

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of "brainwashing".
First of all, I am a little wary of the term "brainwashing". I am sure that Scientology does not convert people the same way Jehovah's Witnesses do, but I don't think the Scientologist Pope can control the actions of Tom Cruise at will. The CIA investigated brainwashing for a while, and if they haven't come up with a way to brainwash 700,00+ people, I don't think Scientology has. Keep in mind, no one commented on how normal Tom Cruise was before he became a Scientologist.
This may have been posted already, but I agree with the policy, if for no other reason than that the son of Stauffenberg doesn't want Cruise to make the movie. He (correctly) says that he can't do anything about it, but there's no reason to make it any easier to destroy an important event and turn it into a "Hollywood blockbuster", is there.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,490147,00.html

That's good enough for me. After doing a little research on the person, I don't really want Tom Cruise playing him either; I just think the decision should not be based on his personal beliefs (his acting is another story).

one might presume that there are set criteria for allowing filming on military bases.

one would hope that "one of the actors has a stupid religion" isnt one of them.

in the US, for example, if a movie isnt pro-military it wont get military co-operation. this can make a huge difference to a (tom cruise) movie like "top gun" where the use of real military equipment adds so much to the tone of the film.

"One of them is part of a group under governmental investigation" on the other hand........

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

i have quite a strong dislike of tom cruise.

but freedom of religion should pertain even when i dislike a man AND his religion. if he isnt free to hold whatever belief seems right to him, none of us are.

i have quite a strong dislike of tom cruise.

but freedom of religion should pertain even when i dislike a man AND his religion. if he isnt free to hold whatever belief seems right to him, none of us are.

As posted several times, Scientology in Germany is NOT a religion (and therefore doesn't enjoy the special status that religion does), it's a political extremist organisation that's under criminal investigation. Think Mafia, but slightly more subtle.

i have quite a strong dislike of tom cruise.

but freedom of religion should pertain even when i dislike a man AND his religion. if he isnt free to hold whatever belief seems right to him, none of us are.

Well, he is free to believe what he wants, he just can't go onto a German military base.

If Cruise were to play the Super-Nazi who wanted to win the war for Germany by removing Hitler, maybe it would show Cruise's true colors? What would a Cruise-film be about? The resistance rubbish that has spread everywhere about Stauffenberg? Or the real stuff about a man who sought to save national socialism from Hitler's incompetence as a military strategist in the war he was about to lose?
I agree, it's bound to be rubbish.

looks like there's still lots of Nazis running loose.

we need to keep belief and other matters of spiritual opinion separate from government.

i don't agree with scientology but i hope it's never banned in america, that would be just plain wrong. let them fight it out on the playing field of the competition of ideas.

nuff said.

"One of them is part of a group under governmental investigation" on the other hand........

depends on the group and the investigation now doesnt it?

if they are bent on terrorist acts on military installations, they would be a bit stupid to allow access. if they are having tax code violation problems, its not a big deal.

i have quite a strong dislike of tom cruise.

but freedom of religion should pertain even when i dislike a man AND his religion. if he isnt free to hold whatever belief seems right to him, none of us are.

that's basically it right there

this amuses me a little......but i'm easily amused...makes me laugh too...oh god how i hate tom cruise and his teeth...

this amuses me a little......but i'm easily amused...makes me laugh too...oh god how i hate tom cruise and his teeth...and his poor acting, his poor mindset, and his arrogance

As posted several times, Scientology in Germany is NOT a religion (and therefore doesn't enjoy the special status that religion does), it's a political extremist organisation that's under criminal investigation. Think Mafia, but slightly more subtle.
I understand why it isn't considered a religion, but I am dubious of any government attempts to classify what is and what is not a religion. Let's say Germany is a theocracy, run by Lutherans. It would be easy to say that all non-Lutheran beliefs are not religions, and therefore do not receive the same rights as Lutheranism does.
Of course, this is a far-fetched situation, and Scientology is very different from Lutheranism. But it's the principle of the thing that is troublesome.

depends on the group and the investigation now doesnt it?

if they are bent on terrorist acts on military installations, they would be a bit stupid to allow access. if they are having tax code violation problems, its not a big deal.

Not particularly. If they are under criminal investigation

Not particularly. If they are under criminal investigation

i think not.

if i am a member of the fraternal organization of eagles and they are having tax code problems in germany, i dont see why that should have any bearing on whether or not i can act in a scene on a military base.

I understand why it isn't considered a religion, but I am dubious of any government attempts to classify what is and what is not a religion. Let's say Germany is a theocracy, run by Lutherans. It would be easy to say that all non-Lutheran beliefs are not religions, and therefore do not receive the same rights as Lutheranism does.
Of course, this is a far-fetched situation, and Scientology is very different from Lutheranism. But it's the principle of the thing that is troublesome.

German law distinguishes between religions and dangerous sects. If a religious group is found to harm members, threaten both believers and non-believers, and generally act illegally, it very soon finds itself under investigations similar to the one Scientology is under at the moment. It's not so much a question of what you believe in, but how much you harm you do.
Some Muslim sects have found itself under investigation for that reason, as have numerous Christian sects. Believe what you want, but don't harm others. Simple.

Religions get certain privileges, such as the state collecting their taxes for them (you state what religion you are on your tax form). Dangerous sects get criminal investigations.

I understand why it isn't considered a religion, but I am dubious of any government attempts to classify what is and what is not a religion. Let's say Germany is a theocracy, run by Lutherans. It would be easy to say that all non-Lutheran beliefs are not religions, and therefore do not receive the same rights as Lutheranism does.
Of course, this is a far-fetched situation, and Scientology is very different from Lutheranism. But it's the principle of the thing that is troublesome.No it's not. Scientology is not a religion, and that's it. It's wet shit that a failed actor/writer pulled out his arse. There is no reason to tolerate this ideology or the organization around it. Scientology is under surveillance of the German secret services ever since it appeared in Germany. Because the practices allegedly used by Scientology are in violation of or at least very close to violate rights that are granted by the German constitution, according to which "human dignity is inviolable". Believe me, Germany knows a fascistoid organization when it encounters one, and Germany (i.e. the government as well as the people) considers Scientology dangerous and harmful.

i think not.

if i am a member of the fraternal organization of eagles and they are having tax code problems in germany, i dont see why that should have any bearing on whether or not i can act in a scene on a military base.

Ok before I go any further. Explain the term "tax code" violations. I'm not familiar with it

i think not.

if i am a member of the fraternal organization of eagles and they are having tax code problems in germany, i dont see why that should have any bearing on whether or not i can act in a scene on a military base.

Well, if it was taxes I might agree. However, they're under investigation for being verfassungsfeindlich (anti-constitutional), in violation of several constitutional and human rights as well as physical and mental injury cases. It's a slightly different caliber.

Well, if it was taxes I might agree. However, they're under investigation for being verfassungsfeindlich (anti-constitutional), in violation of several constitutional and human rights as well as physical and mental injury cases. It's a slightly different caliber.

no really its not.

it MIGHT be if it were an official of the church. especially if he were acting in his capacity as official of the church

but a well known church member who has no history of trouble and no reason to cause trouble now? no, its just discrimination.

which is germany's business if they want to discriminate against every member of unofficial churches. *shrug*

it still doesnt make it right.

or wise.

Ok before I go any further. Explain the term "tax code" violations. I'm not familiar with it

you dont think i know anything about the tax code of germany do you?

i put that up as an example of a nonviolent nonthreatening reason why a govt might be investigating a group. you can substitute any similar reason.

you keep bringing up violent organizations who ARE a threat to public safety when the scientologists in general and tom cruise in specific are no threat to public safety whatsoever.

the govt is, according to the article which is all we can go by, discriminating against tom cruise because of his religious beliefs. not because he is any kind of threat to anything.

the germans might go along with that kind of thing but its not right. surely freedom of religious belief is one of the international human rights planks that we hear so much about in the "america sucks" threads.

you dont think i know anything about the tax code of germany do you?

i put that up as an example of a nonviolent nonthreatening reason why a govt might be investigating a group. you can substitute any similar reason.

you keep bringing up violent organizations who ARE a threat to public safety when the scientologists in general and tom cruise in specific are no threat to public safety whatsoever.

the govt is, according to the article which is all we can go by, discriminating against tom cruise because of his religious beliefs. not because he is any kind of threat to anything.

the germans might go along with that kind of thing but its not right. surely freedom of religious belief is one of the international human rights planks that we hear so much about in the "america sucks" threads.

what exactly is the "religious belief" in Scientology? and why is it worth protection?

no really its not.

it MIGHT be if it were an official of the church. especially if he were acting in his capacity as official of the church

but a well known church member who has no history of trouble and no reason to cause trouble now? no, its just discrimination.


Most members of Al Qaida are not high up. Doesn't mean they are not a threat.


which is germany's business if they want to discriminate against every member of unofficial churches. *shrug*


Whats the difference between an unofficial church and an official church?


it still doesnt make it right.


In your opinion.


or wise


Actually it's very wise, for a number of different reasons.

No it's not. Scientology is not a religion, and that's it. It's wet shit that a failed actor/writer pulled out his arse. There is no reason to tolerate this ideology or the organization around it. Scientology is under surveillance of the German secret services ever since it appeared in Germany. Because the practices allegedly used by Scientology are in violation of or at least very close to violate rights that are granted by the German constitution, according to which "human dignity is inviolable". Believe me, Germany knows a fascistoid organization when it encounters one, and Germany (i.e. the government as well as the people) considers Scientology dangerous and harmful.
I'm not saying that it is; one of my qualifiers is "the founder must have believed it", and I don't think Hubbard did. But I also don't think the government should be allowed to officially declare one thing a religion, and call something else...something else. There are many beliefs which are not as clear-cut as the Scientology case.

Most members of Al Qaida are not high up. Doesn't mean they are not a threat.


when scientology becomes like alqaeda we can talk about it


Whats the difference between an unofficial church and an official church?


ask germany. its their law not mine. in the US we dont judge religion except as it affects the tax code or drug laws.


In your opinion.

Actually it's very wise, for a number of different reasons.

yes, in my opinion, and the opinion of anyone who believes in freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of thought.

yeah, wise if you dont care that you can be punished for your religious beliefs.

what exactly is the "religious belief" in Scientology? and why is it worth protection?

im not a scientologist. that question would be better answered by going to their website. the freedom to worship as we please (or not at all) is a cornerstone of human rights. ALL religious belief should be protected.

when scientology becomes like alqaeda we can talk about it


It's still dangerouse. It has done more to the US government the Al Qaida.


ask germany. its their law not mine. in the US we dont judge religion except as it affects the tax code or drug laws.


I still see this as irellavent. Scientology only has one church, so you have to judge that church. That church is seen as a criminal organization. It's more because he belongs to this organization rather then because he shares belief scientology. It's like discriminating against someone because he is part of Al Qaida, not because he is just a muslim. So even if scientology is a religion, it's not technically discrimination of it.


yes, in my opinion, and the opinion of anyone who believes in freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of thought.

yeah, wise if you dont care that you can be punished for your religious beliefs.


Don't give me this crap. Accessing a millitary base isn't a right, it's hardly even a privilege. No one is being punished, the government can bar whoever the fuck they want. It has nothing to do with freedom of religion, thought or conscience. They are not banning people from believing in what they have been brainwashed into believing.

what exactly is the "religious belief" in Scientology? I have absolutely no idea.

and why is it worth protection?it is not.

no belief group (religion) should get special protection.. or special treatments.

because that automatically makes second class citizens of the other religion members (and the atheists).

when scientology becomes like alqaeda we can talk about it

you mean like engaging in criminal activities and trying to subvert the state?

ALL religious belief should be protected.

As I understand it. It's not the belief that is the problem. It is that (from the German government's point of view) he is affilliated with an anti-democratic organisation.

The government doesn't appear to find Scientologies belief worries. But it has it's reservations over its methods

you mean like engaging in criminal activities and trying to subvert the state?anyone committing a crime belongs in Jail.

So why is Mr Cruise not in a German Jail? I guess its because he has not been charged.

So why doesn't Germany charge Mr Cruise? Probably because he has committed no crime.

anyone committing a crime belongs in Jail.

So why is Mr Cruise not in a German Jail? I guess its because he has not been charged.

So why doesn't Germany charge Mr Cruise? Probably because he has committed no crime.

It's not that easy to just charge someone. Thats why loads of mafia members havn't been charged, even though we all know they have probably done a lot of bad shit.

anyone committing a crime belongs in Jail.

So why is Mr Cruise not in a German Jail? I guess its because he has not been charged.

So why doesn't Germany charge Mr Cruise? Probably because he has committed no crime.

I never said that Tom Cruise had commited a crime. I said that Scientology can be seen as an organisation that engages in criminal activities and that it can be argued undermines liberal democracy.

Where in that post did I mention Mr Cruise?

http://cache.defamer.com/hollywood/cruise-podium.jpg

=

http://eer-music.com/pics2/hitler.jpg

Suck my Godwin.

As I understand it. It's not the belief that is the problem. It is that (from the German government's point of view) he is affilliated with an anti-democratic organisation.

The government doesn't appear to find Scientologies belief worries. But it has it's reservations over its methods

i dont have a problem with the way they deal with scientology in general. its a difficult organization that needs to be reigned in in some ways. not so very different from needing to enforce medical treatments on the seriously ill children of christian scientists. belief doesnt automatically allow you to break the law.

but that isnt what this is. this is punishing a man for being a scientologist. not for anything he has done or is likely to do.

you mean like engaging in criminal activities and trying to subvert the state?

has mr cruise been doing that?

i dont have a problem with the way they deal with scientology in general. its a difficult organization that needs to be reigned in in some ways. not so very different from needing to enforce medical treatments on the seriously ill children of christian scientists. belief doesnt automatically allow you to break the law.

but that isnt what this is. this is punishing a man for being a scientologist. not for anything he has done or is likely to do.

But he is requesting permission to be on military land. I don't see a huge a problem with a government not allowing a member of an anti-democratic group access to its military resources.

He is still free to travel and his right to expression, belief or worship are not being infringed.

I think saying that he is being "punished" is stretching it a bit. He is simply not being given a privelege due to the unsavoury nature of certain affiliates of his.

has mr cruise been doing that?

No, but one can argue that Scientology has.

Don't give me this crap. Accessing a millitary base isn't a right, it's hardly even a privilege. No one is being punished, the government can bar whoever the fuck they want. It has nothing to do with freedom of religion, thought or conscience. They are not banning people from believing in what they have been brainwashed into believing.

as i said before, im sure there are criteria all set up for when to give a film crew access to a military base.

in the US these include showing the military in a good light, being generally pro-american, perhaps even being a certain caliber of production company. there are probably even stricter rules on foreign film companies.

there is no real problem with that. crews are denied access to govt property of all sorts all the time. the tv show COPS has been banned from filming the albquerque police force because the mayor decided that it made albquerque look bad.

to have an acceptable criteria be that one of the actors has a weird religious belief IS to punish him for having that belief. his religion has nothing to do with anything but himself and his family. mr cruise is not a danger to anyone. he is not a security risk. he is not a criminal. he is being punished for being a member of a church that germany doesnt like.

No, but one can argue that Scientology has.

one can.

but mr cruise is not scientology.

As I understand it. It's not the belief that is the problem. It is that (from the German government's point of view) he is affilliated with an anti-democratic organisation.hmmm

the thing is all religions -i know- are anti-democratic organizations.

No, but one can argue that Scientology has.In my book (and in some Democracies) : You are innocent until proven guilty.

In my book: "Argue-ing" its several levels below "Prove-ing"

Man, I can't believe people are seriously defending a sci-fi writer's money-making scheme taken to seriously. And it brainwashes and kills people.

Man, I'm out of here. This thread isn't going to get more pleasant.

one can.

but mr cruise is not scientology.

Irrelevent. He is a member of that group and he should not expect to be treated differently than anyother scientologist who requests access to German military resources.


to have an acceptable criteria be that one of the actors has a weird religious belief IS to punish him for having that belief. his religion has nothing to do with anything but himself and his family. mr cruise is not a danger to anyone. he is not a security risk. he is not a criminal. he is being punished for being a member of a church that germany doesnt like.

I think the problem is that I (and I think Hydesland and the German Government) are seeing this as Tom Cruise being a member of a dodgy organisation. Whilst on the other hand you are seeing him as an individual with a perculiar belief.

However, it is not the belief that is the problem. He is not being denied access because he believes in thetans, e-meters ot Xenu. But because he is a member of an organisation that the German government has got good reason to be wary about.

The faith is completely and utterly irrelevent. The fact that he is an open and prominent member of an organisation that is seen as being a threat to the state is relevent.

Man, I can't believe people are seriously defending a sci-fi writer's money-making scheme taken to seriously. And it brainwashes and kills people.

Man, I'm out of here. This thread isn't going to get more pleasant.

OK for the third time i'm asking for the evidence. Pretty please. I'm begging you

in some Democracies You are innocent until proven guilty.

"argue-ing" its several levels below "Prove-ing"

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

Some democracies also take a dim view of groups with a history of attempted governmental infiltration and theft.

in some Democracies You are innocent until proven guilty.

"argue-ing" its several levels below "Prove-ing"

OK, it has been proved that Scientology has conducted the largest domestic espionage programme on the US government ever.

High church members (hubbard included) have been convicted of fraud, embezzelment and breaching the public trust.

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

Some democracies also take a dim view of groups with a history of attempted governmental infiltration and theft.

Funny that really

hmmm

the thing is all religions -i know- are anti-democratic organizations.

Possibly, but that is hardly germane to the issue at hand.

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

Given what Scientology is all about and what it's done. No. It's prudent. Scientology isn't a religion, it's a dangerous cult.

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

Beliefs which incidentally include doing harm to those proving said beliefs are a bunch of crock.

Or would you not mind a blood cult that demands human sacrifice? Preferably as your neighbors.

In my book (and in some Democracies) : You are innocent until proven guilty.

In my book: "Argue-ing" its several levels below "Prove-ing"

Oceandrive, WTF is wrong with you? Defending Scientology of all things. Did your brains leak out of your head lately? It's been long proven that Scientology is nothing more than the collection of brain droppings by Hubbard morphed into something dangerous and subversive.

the freedom to worship as we please (or not at all) is a cornerstone of human rights. ALL religious belief should be protected.

Exactly. I'm honestly shocked by how many here in NSG are willing to jettison this principle on the basis that "Scientology=bad"

Oceandrive, WTF is wrong with you? Defending Scientology of all things. Did your brains leak out of your head lately? It's been long proven that Scientology is nothing more than the collection of brain droppings by Hubbard morphed into something dangerous and subversive.

There is a difference between defending Scientology and defending freedom of religion.

Occeandrive appears to appreciate that difference. You do not.

Exactly. I'm honestly shocked by how many here in NSG are willing to jettison this principle on the basis that "Scientology=bad"

If you're fine with people having their money taken and their minds brainwashed, it's okay with us. But don't act like we have to put up with such a disgusting religion. Haven't you said in the past that racists should be discriminated against? I'll tell you what-Scientology is about a thousand times worse than most racist organizations.

There is a difference between defending Scientology and defending freedom of religion.

Occeandrive appears to appreciate that difference. You do not.

If central tenets of a religion call for breaking established laws against trespass and murder, can you still call that freedom of religion?

Or can I start up a blood cult demanding the still beating hearts of human sacrifices and call it freedom of religion?

How far do the boundaries of freedom of religion go?

And no, I don't really proscribe to the whole freedom of religion thing. Too many nutters do bad things with it to really make it any good overall.

If you're fine with people having their money taken and their minds brainwashed, it's okay with us. But don't act like we have to put up with such a disgusting religion.

You miss the point. I'm not fine with Scientology. I dislike it immensely.

The question is whether you believe in freedom of religion. You don't get to pick and choose which religions people are free to believe in. Freedom of thought is our most basic human right. You fight bad thoughts in the marketplace of ideas, not with the power of government discrimination.

Haven't you said in the past that racists should be discriminated against? I'll tell you what-Scientology is about a thousand times worse than most racist organizations.

I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about. Racist actions should be discriminated against - obviously. Racist thoughts are abhorrent and should be discouraged, but are a protected liberty.

I in no way wish to defend Scientology, but I do have to question when Scientologist carried out their last lynching. Your hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

If you're fine with people having their money taken and their minds brainwashed, it's okay with us. But don't act like we have to put up with such a disgusting religion. Haven't you said in the past that racists should be discriminated against? I'll tell you what-Scientology is about a thousand times worse than most racist organizations.

you should seperate the religion from its adherents.

scientology should be held to the law. those things that they do that break the law should be punished. those that dont should be left alone.

tom cruise is not scientology, he is a scientologist and as such he should not be penalized because you (or germany) doesnt like his religion. if HE breaks the law, he should be held accountable; if he doesnt, he shouldnt be treated as if he did because someone in his relgion may have broken the law.

that is guilt by association eh?

If central tenets of a religion call for breaking established laws against trespass and murder, can you still call that freedom of religion?

Or can I start up a blood cult demanding the still beating hearts of human sacrifices and call it freedom of religion?

How far do the boundaries of freedom of religion go?

Freedom of religion "embraces two concepts-- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.'' Cantwell v. Connecticut (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=310&invol=296#304), 310 U.S. 296, 304 (1940). The line is not always easy to draw, but the principle is simple to understand.

Freedom of religion does not prohibit a state from applying generally applicable criminal penalties to religiously motivated conduct.

Freedom of religion does prohibit laws that are motivated by animus against certain religions. And laws should not unnecessarily impigne upon religious conduct.


And no, I don't really proscribe to the whole freedom of religion thing. Too many nutters do bad things with it to really make it any good overall.

Sorry that you feel that way.

Realize that I am a devout athiest. I am openly hostile to most organized religion. But much as with the free speech idea of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," I believe that just as I have a right to believe what I will, so do others.

I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about. Racist actions should be discriminated against

So why shouldn't members of an illegal business be discriminated against?

Oh, just so you know, you can't shoot down the business one. Legally, Scientology is considered a business in Germany.

So why shouldn't members of an illegal business be discriminated against?

Oh, just so you know, you can't shoot down the business one. Legally, Scientology is considered a business in Germany.

Why is Scientology an illegal business, but the Catholic Church is not?

I am opposed to the German laws in this area, so claiming they support you doesn't really effect me.

Putting labels on those you are discriminating against may make such discrimination appear more palatable, but it is still discrimination.

Perhaps you can persuade me that I am wrong. What generally applicable, neutral laws has Scientology violated? (EDIT: Note, I fully admit I have not read the entire thread carefully. If this has already been addressed, simply repeat it or point out where I missed it.)

Also, actions are different than belief. Generally applicable laws can be enforced if they are violated. To do that one does not need to discriminate against members of a religious group.

Freedom of religion does not prohibit a state from applying generally applicable criminal penalties to religiously motivated conduct.


And if religiously motivated conduct involves subversive activities towards established government, why should there be a problem if they are barred de facto from important government facilities?

The fox in the hen house might not eat your chickens, but I don't think you'll ever find a farmer letting one near his.


Freedom of religion does prohibit laws that are motivated by animus against certain religions. And laws should not unnecessarily impigne upon religious conduct.


Operation Snow White? Deliberate falsification and destruction of government documents? Trespass and destruction of private property belonging to their detractors? Abduction of members from hospitals and murder by torture?

There may be times when it becomes clear that the very existence of a religious cult and its central tenets are an anti-thesis to government established criminal laws.

I see no reason why they should be allowed to operate despite as their very existence makes them at best, a criminal organization. Application of "freedom of religion" argument only makes it as defensible as an organization calling themselves the "Holy Bank Robbers of Saint Larcerny"


Sorry that you feel that way.

Realize that I am a devout athiest. I am openly hostile to most organized religion. But much as with the free speech idea of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," I believe that just as I have a right to believe what I will, so do others.

Right of belief ends when said belief calls for criminal acts.

I'm ultimately a cynical person. Rights, especially rights of belief, are too often left in the hands of mentally incompetent noodniks, who turn it into some dangerous and criminal drug from which they launch criminal acts from.

Faith's a powerful tool. Too bad it's in the hands of children.

Realize that I am a devout athiest. I am openly hostile to most organized religion. But much as with the free speech idea of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," I believe that just as I have a right to believe what I will, so do others.

Good job Scientology is not a real religion then, isn't it?

Why is Scientology an illegal business, but the Catholic Church is not?

Because scientology is even more blatantly about money than the Catholic Church, and that's saying something.


Perhaps you can persuade me that I am wrong. What generally applicable, neutral laws has Scientology violated? (EDIT: Note, I fully admit I have not read the entire thread carefully. If this has already been addressed, simply repeat it or point out where I missed it.)

As has been posted several billion times in this thread, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/operation_snow_white


In addition, they have allegedly murdered at least one woman for quitting their business-religion. They trapped her in one of their "hotels" and let her starve to death.

As has been posted several billion times in this thread, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/operation_snow_white

Yes. I read that. I'm not impressed.

So several leaders of their religion did naughty things more than 30 years ago and were convicted and punished for it.

Does that mean that every member of the Catholic Church is guilty of pedophilia?


In addition, they have allegedly murdered at least one woman for quitting their business-religion. They trapped her in one of their "hotels" and let her starve to death.

Who are "they"? And what evidence do you have against them?

Operation Snow White? Deliberate falsification and destruction of government documents? Trespass and destruction of private property belonging to their detractors? Abduction of members from hospitals and murder by torture?

I think you exaggerate. Certainly this is not part of Operation Snow White.

There may be times when it becomes clear that the very existence of a religious cult and its central tenets are an anti-thesis to government established criminal laws.

I see no reason why they should be allowed to operate despite as their very existence makes them at best, a criminal organization. Application of "freedom of religion" argument only makes it as defensible as an organization calling themselves the "Holy Bank Robbers of Saint Larcerny"

If you can prosecute members of a church for violating generally applicable, neutral laws, then you should do so. That is what happened in Operation Snow White.

But that shouldn't make every member of a religion that has had some naughty leaders a criminal.

Right of belief ends when said belief calls for criminal acts.

One's right to belief ends when it comes to criminal acts. There is a small but vital distinction.

I'm ultimately a cynical person. Rights, especially rights of belief, are too often left in the hands of mentally incompetent noodniks, who turn it into some dangerous and criminal drug from which they launch criminal acts from.

Again, sorry that you feel that way. Liberty is dangerous, no doubt about it. But it is also worth it.

Faith's a powerful tool. Too bad it's in the hands of children.

Again, you miss the point. I am no more a fan of faith than you are. But I object to the majority imposing faith on anyone, including me and you.

I think you exaggerate. Certainly this is not part of Operation Snow White.

No, that was just what they did for members who attempted to leave.


If you can prosecute members of a church for violating generally applicable, neutral laws, then you should do so. That is what happened in Operation Snow White.

But that shouldn't make every member of a religion that has had some naughty leaders a criminal.

Cat, I think we're having a disconnect here. The problem is that their so called 'religion' in effect tells its members to "go out there, and commit crimes"

If an arms dealer can get time for knowingly selling weapons that he knows will be used to commit crimes with, can't a religion/cult as a whole get punished for encouraging crime?

It's culpability, right there. Ignoring the beliefs and only catching the perps is criminal negligence. Why not stop making cars with safety belts? Why bother with fire extinguishers?

The source of the problem's right there. But nothing is being done until it's too late. So while low level mooks are being sent to jail, the masterminds are sitting pretty, defended by "freedom of religion".

In medical terms, treating the symptoms, not the cause.


One's right to belief ends when it comes to criminal acts. There is a small but vital distinction.

And if those beliefs encourage criminal acts? Should those beliefs be allowed to perpetuate themselves?


Again, sorry that you feel that way. Liberty is dangerous, no doubt about it. But it is also worth it.


Short term, maybe. Long term, almost never. It always ends up being abused to promote idiocy.


Again, you miss the point. I am no more a fan of faith than you are. But I object to the majority imposing faith on anyone, including me and you.

I don't intend for anyone to impose faith on another. Unfaith maybe. People might start exercising their brains then. But dangerous cults, especially those that step beyond the line, I have no problem seeing stamped out forever.

I can MI4 - Tom Cruise fighting a some Nazis in Germany now...

as i said before, im sure there are criteria all set up for when to give a film crew access to a military base.

in the US these include showing the military in a good light, being generally pro-american, perhaps even being a certain caliber of production company. there are probably even stricter rules on foreign film companies.

there is no real problem with that. crews are denied access to govt property of all sorts all the time. the tv show COPS has been banned from filming the albquerque police force because the mayor decided that it made albquerque look bad.

to have an acceptable criteria be that one of the actors has a weird religious belief IS to punish him for having that belief. his religion has nothing to do with anything but himself and his family. mr cruise is not a danger to anyone. he is not a security risk. he is not a criminal. he is being punished for being a member of a church that germany doesnt like.

Well, German millitary generally doesn't require to be portrayed in a good light, as long as you keep to facts.
And why would a regulation to deny access to people openly affiliated to an anti-constitutional group that's under criminal investigation for violent acts be a more silly regulation than having to portray military positively?
I could argue that asking to be portrated in a positive light infringes on the right to freedom of expression of the film maker...

There is a difference between defending Scientology and defending freedom of religion.

Occeandrive appears to appreciate that difference. You do not.

Again, the fact that he's not allowed to access military facilities has NOTHING to do with what he believes in. It's due to the fact that he belongs to a group that's regarded as dangerous and most likely criminal by the German government.
It doesn't make the slightest difference if that group's religious or political or ideological. It doesn't make a difference if that group's the mafia, the RAF, al-Qaeda, or Aum Shinrikyo. You can shout Discrimination until your voice gives out, if you belong to any group that's under investigation for criminal behaviour, you don't get access to military facilities. End of story.

you should seperate the religion from its adherents.

scientology should be held to the law. those things that they do that break the law should be punished. those that dont should be left alone.

tom cruise is not scientology, he is a scientologist and as such he should not be penalized because you (or germany) doesnt like his religion. if HE breaks the law, he should be held accountable; if he doesnt, he shouldnt be treated as if he did because someone in his relgion may have broken the law.

that is guilt by association eh?

If you associate yourself with a criminal organisation, you can't be held responsible for what they do?
Are you sure you really mean what you're saying there?

Their country, their constitution, their military bases, their right. Big deal.

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.

Idiots. Discriminaiton based on religion is idiotic.

There's a catch here...

They're filming in Germany to benefit from German laws which, and I quote:

On paper, Tomb Raider's budget was $94 million. In fact, the entire movie cost Paramount less than $7 million. How did the studio collect over $87 million before cameras started rolling?

First, they used the German tax-shelter gambit. Loopholes in Germany's tax code are responsible for a good portion of Paramount's profits—an estimated $70 million to $90 million in 2003 alone. Best of all, there's no risk or cost for the studio (other than legal fees).
...
...
For the privilege of fake ownership, the Germans pay the studio about 10 percent more than they'll eventually get back in lease and option payments. For the studio, that extra 10 percent is instant profit. It is truly, as one Paramount executive told me, "money for nothing." In the case of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, Paramount sold the copyright to a group of German investors for $94 million through Tele-München Gruppe, a company headed by German mogul Herbert Kloiber. Paramount then repurchased the film for $83.8 million in lease and option payments. The studio's $10.2 million windfall paid the salaries of star Angelina Jolie ($7.5 million) and the rest of the principal cast.

- Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2117309

Therefore...because Germany is infact financing the movie they have every right to force their jurisdiction, their laws, their rules - to a minute detail - to the movie makers who are in Germany only to profit from their laws.

There's a catch here...

They're filming in Germany to benefit from German laws which, and I quote:

On paper, Tomb Raider's budget was $94 million. In fact, the entire movie cost Paramount less than $7 million. How did the studio collect over $87 million before cameras started rolling?

First, they used the German tax-shelter gambit. Loopholes in Germany's tax code are responsible for a good portion of Paramount's profits—an estimated $70 million to $90 million in 2003 alone. Best of all, there's no risk or cost for the studio (other than legal fees).
...
...
For the privilege of fake ownership, the Germans pay the studio about 10 percent more than they'll eventually get back in lease and option payments. For the studio, that extra 10 percent is instant profit. It is truly, as one Paramount executive told me, "money for nothing." In the case of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, Paramount sold the copyright to a group of German investors for $94 million through Tele-München Gruppe, a company headed by German mogul Herbert Kloiber. Paramount then repurchased the film for $83.8 million in lease and option payments. The studio's $10.2 million windfall paid the salaries of star Angelina Jolie ($7.5 million) and the rest of the principal cast.

- Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2117309

Therefore...because Germany is infact financing the movie they have every right to force their jurisdiction, their laws, their rules - to a minute detail - to the movie makers who are in Germany only to profit from their laws.That loophole was closed a while ago. Thus, it doesn't apply to this particular film.

And you've to admit that filming a Film about Stauffenberg in, well, Germany makes sense regardless of tax deductions, no?

anyway why is Cruise Stauffenberg when he doesnt even remotely look like Graf von Stauffenberg

That loophole was closed a while ago. Thus, it doesn't apply to this particular film.Good for them :-)

And you've to admit that filming a Film about Stauffenberg in, well, Germany makes sense regardless of tax deductions, no?

No, films are usually filmed where it is cheapest and most convenient to film.

Like, say Last Samurai in NZ or how shots of Paris & London were actually shot in Berlin in Around the World in 80 Days (2004 version, both according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filming_location)).

anyway why is Cruise Stauffenberg when he doesnt even remotely look like Graf von Stauffenberg

Well, I guess he'll have to get one eye poked out...

Idiots. Discriminaiton based on religion is idiotic.

*sigh* Once again, this has nothing to do with religion, but with belonging to a group under investigation for anti-constitutional criminal activities.
It's not as if they deny him entry into Germany or anything, they're just keeping him off their military bases.

*sigh* Once again, this has nothing to do with religion, but with belonging to a group under investigation for anti-constitutional criminal activities.
It's not as if they deny him entry into Germany or anything, they're just keeping him off their military bases.

This must be a cultural thing.

It seems Europeans are looking at this from the view that Tom Cruise is a member of a (possibly) anti-democratic group. And non-Europeans are seeing this purely as an exercise in squashing freedom of religion (even though none of his rights are being infringed).

On this argument, should the German government investigate the Catholic church, they should deny all catholics entry into their bases.

The German government has a long history of discrimination against NRMs.

On this argument, should the German government investigate the Catholic church, they should deny all catholics entry into their bases.

The German government has a long history of discrimination against NRMs.

It does? How so?
And yes, should the Catholic church come under serious criminal investigation (as a group, not for single members molesting little boys), then being a member of that chruch would result in being regarded as a security risk.
As I said, this has nothing to do with any sort of faith, but with belonging to an organisation with clear anti-constitutional and criminal tendencies.

meh, Germany and Europe are Hitler-burned and like to ban stuff.

meh, Germany and Europe are Hitler-burned and like to ban stuff.

What has been banned in this case?

Well, I guess he'll have to get one eye poked out...

then perhaps the old felliw should auction the right to poke his eye out on ebay i suppose he might get some bids

*sigh* Once again, this has nothing to do with religion, but with belonging to a group under investigation for anti-constitutional criminal activities.

Sounds like thought-crimes to me.

Oceania is at war with Eurasia.
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Sounds like thought-crimes to me.

Thought crime?
Is he being punished? No.
Is he in any way denied any rights? No.
Is he denied the priviledge of using sensitive public property due to concerns about his background and association with a group that's under investigation for serious criminal offenses? Yes.

I honestly fail to see any discrimination here. We're talking about military facilities here. The situation would be excatly the same if he was an ex-RAF member asked for the same priviledges.

The situation would be excatly the same if he was an ex-RAF member asked for the same priviledges.
What? Is that supposed to be some sort of justification?

What? Is that supposed to be some sort of justification?

What would you think is wrong with it?

What would you think is wrong with it?

Just seems like a silly reason to discriminate against someone.

And by the by, it is by definition discrimination. Mr. Cruise is being treated differently than he would be because of his religious beliefs.

Just seems like a silly reason to discriminate against someone.

And by the by, it is by definition discrimination. Mr. Cruise is being treated differently than he would be because of his religious beliefs.

No. He can believe whatever he wants. He's being treated differently for being an open, prominent, active member of a potentially dangerous political group. And he gets the same treatment as all other known members of potentially dangerous political groups.
It would be discriminating to members of the PKK and the RAF to treat him any differently and allow him access to those military facilities.

No. He can believe whatever he wants. He's being treated differently for being an open, prominent, active member of a potentially dangerous political group. And he gets the same treatment as all other known members of potentially dangerous political groups.
There's the trick.
It would be discriminating to members of the PKK and the RAF to treat him any differently and allow him access to those military facilities.
That's kind of sick. I mean Jesus Christ, WWII ended over six decades ago.

scientology wants to control people.
people dont want to be controlled by scientology, not in the world and same in germany.
so its absolutely OK to say "fück off mr cruise" :upyours:

And by the by, it is by definition discrimination. Mr. Cruise is being treated differently than he would be because of his religious beliefs.And? You would also treat someone differently for certain political beliefs. Just because some organization calls itself religious doesn't make it holy. Discrimination is not always bad.

And? You would also treat someone differently for certain political beliefs. Just because some organization calls itself religious doesn't make it holy. Discrimination is not always bad.

I would certainly treat someone different for their beliefs, but everyone should be equal under the law, no matter what they believe.

That's kind of sick. I mean Jesus Christ, WWII ended over six decades ago.

:confused: What's that got to do with anything?

:confused: What's that got to do with anything?

RAF does stand for Royal Air Force, doesn't it?

This must be a cultural thing.

It seems Europeans are looking at this from the view that Tom Cruise is a member of a (possibly) anti-democratic group. And non-Europeans are seeing this purely as an exercise in squashing freedom of religion (even though none of his rights are being infringed).So what's it to non-Europeans? TC is a member of a brainwashing money-making organization. Germany has no obligation to endorse pseudo-religions.

I would certainly treat someone different for their beliefs, but everyone should be equal under the law, no matter what they believe.

He is, under the law. The decision to grant him access to military facilities is not a legal battle, it's simply the German government (being the owner) deciding not to give him that for security reasons.
nobody has the right to access those facilities.

RAF does stand for Royal Air Force, doesn't it?

I think he means the Red Army Faction.

So what's it to non-Europeans? TC is a member of a brainwashing money-making organization. Germany has no obligation to endorse pseudo-religions.

I am European.

I completely agree with the German government on this one.

RAF does stand for Royal Air Force, doesn't it?

RAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Fraction) :rolleyes:

What did you think PKK stood for? Just out of curiosity?

I would certainly treat someone different for their beliefs, but everyone should be equal under the law, no matter what they believe.Everyone is treated equal under the law in this case. No member of other groups with anti-constitutional tendencies would be allowed onto military bases either.

RAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Fraction) :rolleyes:

What did you think PKK stood for? Just out of curiosity?

so it was not the Road Accident Fund :(:p

So what's it to non-Europeans? TC is a member of a brainwashing money-making organization. Germany has no obligation to endorse pseudo-religions.
That's awfully bigoted.
He is, under the law. The decision to grant him access to military facilities is not a legal battle, it's simply the German government (being the owner) deciding not to give him that for security reasons.
nobody has the right to access those facilities.
Right, but he would have been able to use them, had he not been a Scientologist.
RAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Fraction) :rolleyes:
The German government puts Scientology in the same category as the Red Army Faction? They really need to get a grip. Almost as bad as the US government being afraid of Green groups.

No need to role your eyes. I see RAF, I think Royal Air Force.

What did you think PKK stood for? Just out of curiosity?
I still don't know what that is.

Right, but he would have been able to use them, had he not been a Scientologist.

He might have been. Possibly. Just like Al Gore might have been elected president if he wasn't so concerned about the environment.


The German government puts Scientology in the same category as the Red Army Faction? They really need to get a grip. Almost as bad as the US government being afraid of Green groups.

I'm not the German government, but I would say that right now, Scientology is doing more harm than the RAF is.


No need to role your eyes. I see RAF, I think Royal Air Force.


I still don't know what that is.

Time to expand your horizon, then. PKK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKK)

so it was not the Road Accident Fund :(:p

Everybod knows that RAF is Royal Air Force. PKK summit to do with peanuts?

do the PKK really need two names

do the PKK really need two names

Well, it did always remind me of the People's Front of Judea... dunno why that is :D

He might have been. Possibly.
Don't be coy.
I'm not the German government, but I would say that right now, Scientology is doing more harm than the RAF is.
Sounds like you need to get a grip too. It's no different than any other organized religion. not substantially anyway. People just love to hate what's convenient to hate.
Time to expand your horizon, then. PKK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKK)
Knew about the separatist movement. didn't know the Kurdish name for it though.

Right, but he would have been able to use them, had he not been a Scientologist.

True. But in the same way Dilpazier Aslam would still have his job at the Guardian if he wasn't a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir.*


*Aslam got his job without disclosing he was a member of Hizb, an organisation that is banned throughout the world due to its call for jihad against the west, though it is allowed to operate in Britain. When it was found he was a member, Aslam was fired. Are you going to also suggest that his firing was bases on his religion rather than his links to an organisation?

Everybod knows that RAF is Royal Air Force.
yup and we stole it and add one more A

PKK summit to do with peanuts?

first time i heard PKK i though it was some kind of gun

True. But in the same way Dilpazier Aslam would still have his job at the Guardian if he wasn't a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir.*


*Aslam got his job without disclosing he was a member of Hizb, an organisation that is banned throughout the world due to its call for jihad against the west, though it is allowed to operate in Britain. When it was found he was a member, Aslam was fired. Are you going to also suggest that his firing was bases on his religion rather than his links to an organisation?

His religion is Islam, not Hizb. Cruise's religion is Scientology.

His religion is Islam, not Hizb. Cruise's religion is Scientology.His affiliation is Scientology. And Germans just can't let Xenu-folks onto military bases. Deal with it.

His affiliation is Scientology.

Ok.
It just amazes me how intolerant people are towards this faith (and how tolerant people are of the intolerance) just because it happens to be so different from the popular faiths.
And Germans just can't let Xenu-folks onto military bases. Deal with it.
You're a bigot. Deal with it.

Well, it did always remind me of the People's Front of Judea... dunno why that is :D

every time i hear WWF i can thinking Wrestling :D

His religion is Islam, not Hizb. Cruise's religion is Scientology.

Similarly Tom Cruise isn't being denied permission because of his belief in E-meters and thetans. But because he is a member of an anti-constitutional group

Ok.
It just amazes me how intolerant people are towards this faith (and how tolerant people are of the intolerance) just because it happens to be so different from the popular faiths.And? It's utter crap. Nobody needs to tolerate mental dirt. Why should the Germans? They once tolerated mental dirt and look where it got them.

Similarly Tom Cruise isn't being denied permission because of his belief in E-meters and thetans. But because he is a member of an anti-constitutional group

There's that ridiculous phrase again. Anti-constitutional group.
Oh my God! They have different opinions than the government! Do the Germans handle peaceful communists and anarchists in a similar fashion?

There's that ridiculous phrase again. Anti-constitutional group.it's just the (somewhat failed) translation of "verfassungsfeindlich"

Ok.
It just amazes me how intolerant people are towards this faith (and how tolerant people are of the intolerance) just because it happens to be so different from the popular faiths.

This has nothing to do with his faith. If Tom Cruise was a Freezone Scientologist (i.e. he believed in Xenu but was not affiliated with the Church of Scientology), there would be no problem.

There is a problem because of his affiliation with a group seen as anti-constitutional by the German government.

There's that ridiculous phrase again. Anti-constitutional group.
Oh my God! They have different opinions than the government! Do the Germans handle peaceful communists and anarchists in a similar fashion?Scienology is a brainwashing organization. And that goes directly against the German Basic Law (constitution).

And? It's utter crap. Nobody needs to tolerate mental dirt.
Every religious belief system is mental dirt when you get right down to it. Doesn't mean it isn't worthy of tolerance. People should be free to believe in what they want and not have to worry about being treated differently by their government.
They once tolerated mental dirt and look where it got them.
Actually the Nazis were able to gain power because the government did not try to stop them from violating the expression of other groups through violence or threats of violence until it was too late.

Don't be coy.

Sounds like you need to get a grip too. It's no different than any other organized religion. not substantially anyway. People just love to hate what's convenient to hate.

Knew about the separatist movement. didn't know the Kurdish name for it though.

It's under investigation for being anti-constitutional, criminal and a serious risk to public security.
They're not guilty until proven, of course, but as long as the investigations are going on they will not enjoy certain privileges that they might have otherwise.

There's that ridiculous phrase again. Anti-constitutional group.
Oh my God! They have different opinions than the government! Do the Germans handle peaceful communists and anarchists in a similar fashion?

Possibly. I wouldn't know.

But to be honest, I can reconsile the fact that my political tendencies (Anarchist) will probably bar me from entering a German military facility.

The difference though is I am not a member of any group that any government will see as dangerous.

it's just the (somewhat failed) translation of "verfassungsfeindlich"

Language was never my forte. Do you have a better translation? :)

Scienology is a brainwashing organization. And that goes directly against the German Basic Law (constitution).

Every religion brainwashes. Most worse than Scientology The vast majority of Scientologts join as adults, while most every other religion starts screwing with your head as soon as you're old enough to talk.

There's that ridiculous phrase again. Anti-constitutional group.
Oh my God! They have different opinions than the government! Do the Germans handle peaceful communists and anarchists in a similar fashion?Yes, actually. Missed the police presence, razorwire & co during the G8 summit, I take it?

...People should be free to believe in what they want ....No.

Ok.
It just amazes me how intolerant people are towards this faith (and how tolerant people are of the intolerance) just because it happens to be so different from the popular faiths.

Ummm maybe coz it aint a faiht, its a con. Have you ever had any dealings with scientolgy or scientolgists?

Yes, actually. Missed the police presence, razorwire & co during the G8 summit, I take it?

No, but I assumed the groups assembled were known for violence. If not, the German government just lost a whole lot of points with me.

Ok.
It just amazes me how intolerant people are towards this faith (and how tolerant people are of the intolerance) just because it happens to be so different from the popular faiths.

You're a bigot. Deal with it.

*sigh*
And once again, people couldn't care less about what Tom Cruise believes or not.
The reason he's not granted access is that he is a prominent member of a political group that's currently under criminal investigation.
It would be the same if he was a member of the DVU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVU), to give another example.

No.
That's a basic human right. The most basic. I mean, if you don't believe it is, there's no convincing you, but my God. That's horrible.
Ummm maybe coz it aint a faiht, its a con. Have you ever had any dealings with scientolgy or scientolgists?
No, but I do happen to think that most religions are in whole or part cons.
*sigh*
And once again, people couldn't care less about what Tom Cruise believes or not.
The reason he's not granted access is that he is a prominent member of a political group that's currently under criminal investigation.
It would be the same if he was a member of the DVU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVU), to give another example.
The group would not be under investigation if they were not so unpopular. For consistency's sake, every religion that accepts tithes should be "under investigation."

There's that ridiculous phrase again. Anti-constitutional group.
Oh my God! They have different opinions than the government! Do the Germans handle peaceful communists and anarchists in a similar fashion?

No. Neither communsim nor anarchism are anti-constitutional.
The German constitution isn't a political item the way the US constitution is, it simply states the government's responsibility to protect all human and civil rights listed, as well as the general structure of the states and the federation.

No, but I assumed the groups assembled were known for violence. If not, the German government just lost a whole lot of points with me.They were. Like Scientology, they were/ are considered a security risk.

And given the things Scientology has been involved in - I.e. Operation Snow White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White#External_links) -, I think we can safely say that Scientology is a security risk, even without considering various human rights abuses, scams, 'Haunting' of ex-members, the likes.

Every religious belief system is mental dirt when you get right down to it. Doesn't mean it isn't worthy of tolerance. People should be free to believe in what they want and not have to worry about being treated differently by their government.

Actually the Nazis were able to gain power because the government did not try to stop them from violating the expression of other groups through violence or threats of violence until it was too late.

Tolorence is being able to dislike something and yet still allow others to make their own minds up on it. It does not include, not speaking out against it.
And some things should just not be tolorated anyway. This includes, lowdown cheating cults that rob people of their money by makeing promises of betterment.

The group would not be under investigation if they were not so unpopular. For consistency's sake, every religion that accepts tithes should be "under investigation."

As stated several times in this thread now, they're under investigation for inhuman and totalitarian practices...
Hell, I'm not typing it all again. If you want to inform yourself, try here (http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html)

They were. Like Scientology, they were/ are considered a security risk.
Sucks
And given the things Scientology has been involved in - I.e. Operation Snow White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White#External_links) -, I think we can safely say that Scientology is a security risk, even without considering various human rights abuses, scams, 'Haunting' of ex-members, the likes.
That was a long time ago.
No. Neither communsim nor anarchism are anti-constitutional.
The German constitution isn't a political item the way the US constitution is, it simply states the government's responsibility to protect all human and civil rights listed, as well as the general structure of the states and the federation.
And they view Scientology as a threat to that?
Allow me to reiterate, get a grip.

As stated several times in this thread now, they're under investigation for inhuman and totalitarian practices...
Hell, I'm not typing it all again. If you want to inform yourself, try here (http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html)

That description of Scientology could well describe any number of religions, from the totalitarian structure to the brainwashing to the money grubbing.
It's just easy to persecute Scientology because it seems weird. People love to have an excuse to persecute.

Sucks

That was a long time ago.

And they view Scientology as a threat to that?
Allow me to reiterate, get a grip.

The German constitution grants human rights.
Scientology violate human rights.

Hence: a threat.

No, but I do happen to think that most religions are in whole or part cons.

So then you are deffending an organisation that you know little or nothing about? Try it out some time, go find your local scietology shop, walk in and say that you are interested in one of their personality tests.

Try it see what happens, notice the language and the tatics they use, note how much infomation they are willing to part with for nothing, and then note how much they promise and at what monetary cost. talk to them about how little money you have on you at the time, and watch how quickly their interst in you vanishes.

Then come back here and tell us all how it went, and what your thoughts on them are.

That was a long time ago.Unless you've evidence on hand that Scientology has changed its practices and goals since then - by and large, governments, ex-members and the likes seem to be convinced they haven't -, I fear this is an insufficient retort.

So then you are deffending an organisation that you know little or nothing about? Try it out some time, go find your local scietology shop, walk in and say that you are interested in one of their personality tests.

Try it see what happens, notice the language and the tatics they use, note how much infomation they are willing to part with for nothing, and then note how much they promise and at what monetary cost. talk to them about how little money you have on you at the time, and watch how quickly their interst in you vanishes.

Then come back here and tell us all how it went, and what your thoughts on them are.

Meh. Takes money to start a new western-style religion. When Christianity was starting out they demanded all of one's possessions. Islam and Judaism got by on pillaging, and the only reason Zoroastrianism didn't need cash was because they started out as a state religion.

That description of Scientology could well describe any number of religions, from the totalitarian structure to the brainwashing to the money grubbing.
It's just easy to persecute Scientology because it seems weird. People love to have an excuse to persecute.

Any "religious" group who behaves that way will find itself under federal investigation in Germany.
Btw, Scientology is not the only sect that enjoys this particular kind of attention right now.

Meh. Takes money to start a new western-style religion. When Christianity was starting out they demanded all of one's possessions. Islam and Judaism got by on pillaging, and the only reason Zoroastrianism didn't need cash was because they started out as a state religion.

All of which has nowt do with the fact that scientolgy are robbing cultist bastards, and should be called so at every oppertunity.

They are a very successful pyramid scheme selling hot air by brainwashing.
The German Government sees them for what they are.

RAF does stand for Royal Air Force, doesn't it?

"RAF" also stands for "Rote Armee Fraktion".
wikipedia link: Red Army Faction (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction)

I'm done playing Devil's Advocate. Someone smarter and less tired than me is needed to defend Scientology.

For the record though, people should be able to believe whatever they want, just not, like, break the law.

For the record though, people should be able to believe whatever they want, just not, like, break the law.You mean, like, that thing Scientology is accused of doing, which is in turn why it's actually being investigated?

I'm done playing Devil's Advocate. Someone smarter and less tired than me is needed to defend Scientology.

For the record though, people should be able to believe whatever they want, just not, like, break the law.

Indeed, and people do actulay belive what they want. As is evidanced by me beliveing that scientolgy is one big cultist money grabbing con. Also people should be able to say what they want, don't you think?

I'm done playing Devil's Advocate. Someone smarter and less tired than me is needed to defend Scientology.

For the record though, people should be able to believe whatever they want, just not, like, break the law.

Sure, no arguments there at all.
But if people openly proclaim membership of a group that's regarded as potentially dangerous, they must live with the consequences (note that there are no legal consquences in the case of Scientology or indeed any religious group. Just hightened warriness from official side.)

I'm done playing Devil's Advocate. Someone smarter and less tired than me is needed to defend Scientology.

For the record though, people should be able to believe whatever they want, just not, like, break the law.

They are allowed to believe what they want. They can even do without breaking the law. They just aren't allowed on military facilities if they are affiliated with the Church of Scientology whilst it is under investigation.

As I said before there are group (called "freezone") who believe in the same thing but are not affiliated with the Church.

The belief isn't the problem. The Church is.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

Wether or not the Church should be under investigation is another arguement entirely. But the German military is just being fair. Should they waive the policy for Tom Cruise just because he is an international celebrity?

Indeed, and people do actulay belive what they want. As is evidanced by me beliveing that scientolgy is one big cultist money grabbing con. Also people should be able to say what they want, don't you think?


Oh, more than anything. In fact, I say the same thing about Scientology all the time.

The belief isn't the problem. The Church is.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

Because without the CoS, they would be all labeled as fucking crackpots and relegated to the Inquirer and still not let on military bases.

ISomeone smart ... is needed to defend Scientology.


Logic circuits failing.

Someone smarter and less tired than me is needed to defend Scientology.


Quick!!! Get the Thetans VIII in.

Because without the CoS, they would be all labeled as fucking crackpots and relegated to the Inquirer and still not let on military bases.

Really? For what reason?

If they aren't affiliated with a group under investigation, why wouldn't they be allowed to film on military bases?

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.


mmh... Verfassungfeindliche Organisation... wasn't also the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) declared as such?
I wonder why scientologists are even allowed to walk free in german territory - they should be jailed as enemies of the Constitution (that's what verfassungfeindlich means, iirc).
I do hope that the EU will adopt some ruling against Scientology - if they're enemies of a single member state, they should be considered enemies of the whole EU.

mmh... Verfassungfeindliche Organisation... wasn't also the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) declared as such?
I wonder why scientologists are even allowed to walk free in german territory - they should be jailed as enemies of the Constitution (that's what verfassungfeindlich means, iirc).
I do hope that the EU will adopt some ruling against Scientology - if they're enemies of a single member state, they should be considered enemies of the whole EU.

Cause they're still under investigation ;)
They're not outlawed yet, but as I understand it they're halfway there.

I'm done playing Devil's Advocate. Someone smarter and less tired than me is needed to defend Scientology.

For the record though, people should be able to believe whatever they want, just not, like, break the law.Well, if it is known what some folks believe, precautions can be taken to keep those people and their organization(s) from breaking the law.

The question is whether you believe in freedom of religion. You don't get to pick and choose which religions people are free to believe in. Freedom of thought is our most basic human right.

You've pulled out this "Everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot!" bullshit before. It's stupid, and convinces no one. You've brought it up on political correctness threads, threads about hate crime, threads about abortion, and now a thread about Scientology.

It's silly and childish. Your arguing style appears to consist of sticking your fingers in your ears and shrieking "BIGOT! BIGOT! BIGOT!" at the top of your lungs. It's tiresome to watch someone who won't even consider the views of others.

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

I'd say the American military would lose all its manpower, but, honestly, I'm pretty sure there's more liberals and moderates in the military than there are crazy, pro-war fundies...

I'd say the American military would lose all its manpower, but, honestly, I'm pretty sure there's more liberals and moderates in the military than there are crazy, pro-war fundies...

Because I'd say the majority of crazy, pro-war fundies can't figure out how to lie their way through the psychological exam.

Because I'd say the majority of crazy, pro-war fundies can't figure out how to lie their way through the psychological exam.

I was thinking either that, or because a high school diploma or GED is required...

Sounds like thought-crimes to me.

Do you object to members of the mafia being held under investigation, or barred from military installations because their group is under investigation?

Do you object to a self professed and prominent Al Qaeda member being denied access to military bases even though they technically haven't been caught doing personally anything yet?

And lastly, for the thick skulled, it's a military base, nobody has a right to go there. You either have clearance, or you don't.

Oh my God! They have different opinions than the government! Do the Germans handle peaceful communists and anarchists in a similar fashion?

Get a grip. Scientologists are as peaceful as the ALF. Worse actually. At least the ALF hasn't been caught actually killing or endorsing killing anyone.

Actually the Nazis were able to gain power because the government did not try to stop them from violating the expression of other groups through violence or threats of violence until it was too late.

And this is different from Scientologists terror/defamation ops against its detractors how?

Get a grip. Scientologists are as peaceful as the ALF. Worse actually. At least the ALF hasn't been caught actually killing or endorsing killing anyone.

ALF? PETA pays convicted terrorists to make speeches. They kill two-thirds of the animals they "save". PETA's just as fucking evil as the ALF. Moreso, because at least the ALF is honest about it's intentions.

They kill two-thirds of the animals they "save".

In their defense, PETA generally believes it is better for those animals to die free than to live on in the circumstances dictated by us morally superior humans.
Possibly they have a point.

Do you object to members of the mafia being held under investigation, or barred from military installations because their group is under investigation?

Do you object to a self professed and prominent Al Qaeda member being denied access to military bases even though they technically haven't been caught doing personally anything yet?

And lastly, for the thick skulled, it's a military base, nobody has a right to go there. You either have clearance, or you don't.

QFT

In their defense, PETA generally believes it is better for those animals to die free than to live on in the circumstances dictated by us morally superior humans.
Possibly they have a point.

No, they don't. For one thing, they put the animals to sleep and toss their corpses in a freezer. That's hardly what I call "dying free". Also, they support freeing all animals. Animals which would probably kill each other and people. They resort to scare tactics, vandalize people's homes and property, and are fucking hypocrites. Hypocrites how? Well, besides killing the animals, their VP happens to be diabetic. This means she takes insulin. A product derived from animal research. While at the same time encouraging people to torch animal research centers. Members of PETA have threatened to kill a prominent rock star's (Whose name escapes me...Big hunting guy...Maybe someone could help me out a bit.) children on their way to school because he hunts and eats meat.

Allow me to quote their president "Total Animal Liberation"-No animal research, no meat, no hunting, no milk, not even pets.

They have had or still do have two convicted terrorists on their payroll.

Anyway, we're kind of offtopic. If you want to keep debating, start a thread on it.

their VP happens to be diabetic. This means she takes insulin.

Not necessarily. My mom's been diabetic for the past 5 or so years, and she's never had to take insulin. As long as food intake is well-managed, a diabetic can go without insulin.

No, they don't. For one thing, they put the animals to sleep and toss their corpses in a freezer. That's hardly what I call "dying free". Also, they support freeing all animals. Animals which would probably kill each other and people. They resort to scare tactics, vandalize people's homes and property, and are fucking hypocrites. Hypocrites how? Well, besides killing the animals, their VP happens to be diabetic. This means she takes insulin. A product derived from animal research. While at the same time encouraging people to torch animal research centers. Members of PETA have threatened to kill a prominent rock star's (Whose name escapes me...Big hunting guy...Maybe someone could help me out a bit.) children on their way to school because he hunts and eats meat.

Allow me to quote their president "Total Animal Liberation"-No animal research, no meat, no hunting, no milk, not even pets.

They have had or still do have two convicted terrorists on their payroll.

Anyway, we're kind of offtopic. If you want to keep debating, start a thread on it.

Jeez.... I mean, I do support animal rights groups here, but that is simply ridiculous.
Is it just me (and I don't intend any flaming, I'm genuinely wondering), or do USAmericans have a tendency to take things to extremes? :confused:

Not necessarily. My mom's been diabetic for the past 5 or so years, and she's never had to take insulin. As long as food intake is well-managed, a diabetic can go without insulin.

Type 2 diabetic i'm guessing. Otherwise known as Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes

If the VP is Type 1 though there is a point to be made

Jeez.... I mean, I do support animal rights groups here, but that is simply ridiculous.
Is it just me (and I don't intend any flaming, I'm genuinely wondering), or do USAmericans have a tendency to take things to extremes? :confused:

What is a USAmerican?

If the VP is Type 1 though there is a point to be made

She is. She's defended her taking insulin before, which is probably a sign she takes insulin.

What is a USAmerican?

An citizen of the USA.
Only shorter to type.

Type 2 diabetic i'm guessing. Otherwise known as Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes

Yep. Adult-onset non-insulin dependent diabetes. Type II.

Cause they're still under investigation ;)
They're not outlawed yet, but as I understand it they're halfway there.

Ah-ha...

I'll be waiting for Mission Impossible IV: Tom Cruise tries to stroll through the Tiergarten!

Yep. Adult-onset non-insulin dependent diabetes. Type II.

Nope. She's Type I.

Jeez.... I mean, I do support animal rights groups here, but that is simply ridiculous.
Is it just me (and I don't intend any flaming, I'm genuinely wondering), or do USAmericans have a tendency to take things to extremes? :confused:

That, Cabra, is the most ridiculously absurd understatement I've ever heard.

Nope. She's Type I.

His mum is what was meant

Scientology radical islam i'm sick of all these cults, ban them
sig heil, for once I'm with the krauts

That, Cabra, is the most ridiculously absurd understatement I've ever heard.

Which of the two? :p ;)

A citizen of the USA.
Only shorter to type.

We're "Americans", actually... Saying USAmerican is like saying UKoBaIrish... or maybe UKoIaBritish...

His mum is what was meant

Ah.

And how ignorant and desperate do you have to be to call Americans "USAmericans"? It's like spelling it "Womyn". It's just pointless.

Scientology radical islam i'm sick of all these cults, ban them
sig heil, for once I'm with the krauts

And i'm sure they would like to stay the hell away from you :rolleyes:

We're "Americans", actually... Saying USAmerican is like saying UKoBaIrish... or maybe UKoIaBritish...

I think you mean Northern Irish there... or do you mean Irish citizens?

We're "Americans", actually... Saying USAmerican is like saying UKoBaIrish... or maybe UKoIaBritish...

Or UKIaIaCthuluFhtagn

We're "Americans", actually... Saying USAmerican is like saying UKoBaIrish... or maybe UKoIaBritish...

More like if you started calling only the members of the EU Europeans and everyone else on the continent by their individual nations

We're "Americans", actually... Saying USAmerican is like saying UKoBaIrish... or maybe UKoIaBritish...

American is a much less specific term. You may think "American" refers exclusively to people of the US, but it refers to anyone from *gasp* the Americas.

I think you mean Northern Irish there... or do you mean Irish citizens?

I hope someone says Irish. Seems like we could start a NSG Troubles out of less :p

I hope someone says Irish. Seems like we could start a NSG Troubles out of less :p

*lol That particular topic has been done to death not too long ago, but if those guys feel they want to revive it, maybe it would merit a new thread ;)

And how ignorant and desperate do you have to be to call Americans "USAmericans"? It's like spelling it "Womyn". It's just pointless.

Really?

AFAIK the Germans do it on a fairly regular basis.

Really?

AFAIK the Germans do it on a fairly regular basis.

When trying to be specific and clear. Colloquially, it's "Amis". ;)

Really?

AFAIK the Germans do it on a fairly regular basis. (US-Amerikaner (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-Amerikaner)) ;)

So the Germans are idiots. Who cares?

I can call all the Germans "Nazi Bastards" if I feel like it. It doesn't make it less ignorant and stupid.

When trying to be specific and clear. Colloquially, it's "Amis". ;)

Well I live and learn :)

Ah.

And how ignorant and desperate do you have to be to call Americans "USAmericans"? It's like spelling it "Womyn". It's just pointless.

It's really more of a question of how egocentric you have to be to refer to the people of your nation by the name of your continent. It's like Indians referring to themselves as South Asians, or members of the EU referring to themselves as Europeans and calling everyone else by their individual nations.

I think you mean Northern Irish there... or do you mean Irish citizens?
Neither?

I'm saying that residents of America are called Americans, like residents of Britain are called British. America is the name of a country that is on a continent called North America, much like Australia is the name of a country on a continent called Australia.

I find it annoying that we generally call the British by their real name, but a number of people on this forum insist on messing up the name of Americans because of a detail that doesn't actually exist.

Or UKIaIaCthuluFhtagn
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! Ia! Ia!

More like if calling only the members of the EU Europeans and everyone else by their individual nations

Er?

So the Germans are idiots. Who cares?

I can call all the Germans "Nazi Bastards" if I feel like it. It doesn't make it less ignorant and stupid.

Ah what a way to totally handicap those arguing on your side

So the Germans are idiots. Who cares?

I can call all the Germans "Nazi Bastards" if I feel like it. It doesn't make it less ignorant and stupid.

Except that Nazi Bastard is an inaccurate term for present-day Germans. The last time I checked, the US was in the Americas :eek:

So the Germans are idiots. Who cares?

I can call all the Germans "Nazi Bastards" if I feel like it. It doesn't make it less ignorant and stupid.

Sure you can. It's called an insult. It would only be accurate for a small fraction of the population, though.
Whereas USAmerican would be accurate for all citizens of the USA. It's called accurate naming.

Ah-ha...

I'll be waiting for Mission Impossible IV: Tom Cruise tries to stroll through the Tiergarten!

Tom Cruise vs. the KSK and GSG9
It has to be on top of a train
Through the black forest
And Tom Cruise must be jumping on a couch

http://www.military-info.de/Sonstiges/ksk.jpg

Neither?

I'm saying that residents of America are called Americans, like residents of Britain are called British. America is the name of a country that is on a continent called North America, much like Australia is the name of a country on a continent called Australia.

I find it annoying that we generally call the British by their real name, but a number of people on this forum insist on messing up the name of Americans because of a detail that doesn't actually exist.



Well, it's common terminology here. Nobody is forcing you to call the Germans Deutsche, so please extend the same courtesy to them when they're calling you USAmericans to avoid confusion.

Neither?

I'm saying that residents of America are called Americans, like residents of Britain are called British. America is the name of a country that is on a continent called North America, much like Australia is the name of a country on a continent called Australia.

Actually, if you hadn't heard this, the full name is "The United States of America." America is a blanket term for North and South America, a pair of continents named after the explorer Amerigo Vespucci (sp?). So, while yes, residents of North and South America are Americans, people of the United States of America are more specifically USians, or US-Americans.

Unless of course somehow the USA has become the only nation in the Americas, which, last I checked, it hadn't.

American is a much less specific term. You may think "American" refers exclusively to people of the US, but it refers to anyone from *gasp* the Americas.

Sorry, language changes, and "American" has come to mean someone from the United States of America.

Let's see what we can find...

http://m-w.org/dictionary/American


3 : a citizen of the United States

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/american


1. of or pertaining to the United States of America or its inhabitants: an American citizen.
4. a citizen of the United States of America.

American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Of or relating to the United States of America or its people, language, or culture.
1. A native or inhabitant of America.
2. A citizen of the United States.
3. American English.


Wordnet:

of or relating to the United States of America or its people or language or culture; "American citizens"; "American English"; "the American dream"
a native or inhabitant of the United States

Actually, if you hadn't heard this, the full name is "The United States of America." America is a blanket term for North and South America, a pair of continents named after the explorer Amerigo Vespucci (sp?). So, while yes, residents of North and South America are Americans, people of the United States of America are more specifically USians, or US-Americans.

Unless of course somehow the USA has become the only nation in the Americas, which, last I checked, it hadn't.

I think the argument is that the full name of Britain is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" though

Sorry, language changes, and "American" has come to mean someone from the United States of America.


Exactly. So there is nothing wrong with using USAmerican

Exactly. So there is nothing wrong with using USAmerican

I approve this post.

Exactly. So there is nothing wrong with using USAmerican

Except, of course, that Americans prefer to be referred to as "Americans".

Unless of course, empty, idiotic political points are more important to you than an ounce of courtesy. In which case, carry on. I'll be sure to find an equivalent word for people from the UK.

Exactly. So there is nothing wrong with using USAmerican

Agreed, google it, just for fun. You'll be amazed how common the word actually is.

Except, of course, that Americans prefer to be referred to as "Americans".

Unless of course, empty, idiotic political points are more important to you than an ounce of courtesy. In which case, carry on. I'll be sure to find an equivalent word for people from the UK.

Well, I prefer to be referred to as Deutsche, not as German, Allemande, Tedesca...
And yet I don't get offended when English speakers or French speakers or Italian speakers refer to me in that way.

Grow up.

Sorry, language changes, and "American" has come to mean someone from the United States of America.

People from other countries in the Americas happen to disagree. You stealing the word does not negate their rights.

I find it annoying that we generally call the British by their real name,

You do?

Then why are we frequently refered to as "English?" ;)


(btw, just being tongue-in-cheek, this is not something that bothers me greatley)

Except, of course, that Americans prefer to be referred to as "Americans".

Unless of course, empty, idiotic political points are more important to you than an ounce of courtesy. In which case, carry on. I'll be sure to find an equivalent word for people from the UK.

I generally only have a problem when inaccuracies creep in to the words people use to describe my nationality. Fine if they want to call me British, fine if they want to call me Irish, fine if they want to call me United Kingdomish, etc

However when Britain is used as a synonym for England it is inaccurate and annoying. Its kind of like using American as a synonym for the US when others are included under that definition

Australia is the name of a country on a continent called Australia.

yes and no some are still going on if we on a continent or a bloody big island

However when Britain is used as a synonym for England it is inaccurate and annoying. Its kind of like using American as a synonym for the US when others are included under that definition

So how are things in Britain?

So how are things in Britain?

They're fine thanks :)

Edit : And you are also making things more inaccurate to (attempt) annoyance. Cabra was making things even more specific than they are

Sorry, language changes, and "American" has come to mean someone from the United States of America.

Let's see what we can find...

http://m-w.org/dictionary/American

Main Entry: 1Amer·i·can
Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&n, -'m&r-, -'me-r&-
Function: noun
1 : an American Indian of North America or South America
2 : a native or inhabitant of North America or South America

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/american

adjective
2. of or pertaining to North or South America; of the Western Hemisphere: the American continents.
3. of or pertaining to the aboriginal Indians of North and South America, usually excluding the Eskimos, regarded as being of Asian ancestry and marked generally by reddish to brownish skin, black hair, dark eyes, and prominent cheekbones.

noun

5. a native or inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere.
6. an Indian of North or South America.

8. a steam locomotive having a four-wheeled front truck, four driving wheels, and no rear truck.



American Heritage Dictionary:

Wordnet:

fixed :)

Well, it's common terminology here. Nobody is forcing you to call the Germans Deutsche, so please extend the same courtesy to them when they're calling you USAmericans to avoid confusion.
Why would there be confusion? It's quite simple, really.

Residents of North America are North Americans.

Citizens of Canada are Canadian.
Citizens of Mexico are Mexican.
Citizens of Cuba are Cuban.
Citizens of Honduras are Honduran.
Citizens of Nicaragua are Nicaraguan.
Citizens of El Salvador are Salvadoran.
Citizens of America are American.

And, for our control group:
Citizens of Britain and Ireland are British and Irish, respectively.

Whereas
Citizens of the United States of Mexico aren't USMexicans.
Citizens of the Republic of Cuba aren't RoCubans.
Citizens of the Republic of Honduras aren't RoHondurans
Citizens of the Republic of Nicaragua aren't RoNicaraguans
Citizens of the Republic of El Salvador aren't RoESalvadorans.
Citizens of the United States of America aren't USAmericans.
Citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland aren't UKoGBaNIrish.

And if Germans wanted me to start referring to them in their own language, I would. So far, however, we haven't moved this discussion beyond the scope of the English language.

Actually, if you hadn't heard this, the full name is "The United States of America." America is a blanket term for North and South America, a pair of continents named after the explorer Amerigo Vespucci (sp?). So, while yes, residents of North and South America are Americans, people of the United States of America are more specifically USians, or US-Americans.
The full name is United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland.

Therefore, by your logic, people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are more specifically UKians or UK-Europeans.

Thank you for clearing that up.
Unless of course somehow the USA has become the only nation in the Americas, which, last I checked, it hadn't.

True, but it is the only nation in the Americas that is named "America".

E
Unless of course, empty, idiotic political points are more important to you than an ounce of courtesy. In which case, carry on. I'll be sure to find an equivalent word for people from the UK.

Been done. To the mass meh-ing o UKians IIRC

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=492623

People from other countries in the Americas happen to disagree. You stealing the word does not negate their rights.
What people? Ones being indignant for the sake of it?

I think the argument is that the full name of Britain is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" though

Oh, I thought it was just "United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland".

Huh. *goes to correct things*

Therefore, by your logic, people of the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland are more specifically UKians or UK-Europeans.


You took the original name and made it more accurate therefore I see no problem

You took the original name and made it more accurate therefore I see no problem

Exactly. Is it so hard to see that?