NationStates Jolt Archive

link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/germany.scientology.ap/index.html)

Is it just me, or is Germany steadly moving to another Facist government? Banning something becuse it contradicts with the constution seems a little harsh, isn't the constution suppose to be an outline for the gov't, not the people?

Rolling squid;13271294']link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/germany.scientology.ap/index.html)

Is it just me, or is Germany steadly moving to another Facist government? Banning something becuse it contradicts with the constution seems a little harsh, isn't the constution suppose to be an outline for the gov't, not the people?

Banning organisations that brainwash people, take all their money and harass any critics makes you fascist? (or "facist" as you like to call it)

If so, I'm gonna have to agree with the fascists.

Normally I'd not agree with this sort of thing, but when it's Scientology, I can't say I'll protest too much.

Of course, a Scientologist can believe what they choose to believe, I won't stop them, but given that Scamology has a history of brainwashing...

I would normally say it's a bad thing, but we're talking about Scientology here. That's nothing more than a glorified cult. I've heard that they've told some schizophrenics and others who have mental problems to not take their meds or go to their doctors because of some of the silly Scientology rules about psychiatrists..

Rolling squid;13271294']link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/germany.scientology.ap/index.html)

Is it just me, or is Germany steadly moving to another Facist government? Banning something becuse it contradicts with the constution seems a little harsh, isn't the constution suppose to be an outline for the gov't, not the people?

Dude. Seriously?

Oh, also, just in case: Yes, it's just you. And similarly uninformed people, one would imagine.

Way to go Germany. The techniques used by the so called Church of Scientology are well known and expose this cult as an evil gigantic multinational organization that uses illegal means and exists solely to bring wealth and power to its elite members. It should be banned everywhere.

You can't ban a religion for being zealots who take money from their followers, unless you want to ban them all.

You can't ban a religion for being zealots who take money from their followers, unless you want to ban them all.

Who mentioned religion? We're talking about banning Scientology.

You can't ban a religion for being zealots who take money from their followers, unless you want to ban them all.
:rolleyes:

Wake me up when any of the other religions we have here start brainwashing their members, separating them from their "bad influence" families, driving them into utter financial ruin and dependency, using them as virtual slave labour, spying on and harassing and threatening them when they want to leave "the church" or even so much as dare to voice criticism, do the same thing to outside critics - all while turning the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars they suck from every single member into a globally operating network of shady non-religious, for-profit, "unrelated" companies that try to exert influence on national governments.

Just because something calls itself "religion" doesn't mean it's automatically untouchable.

:rolleyes:

Wake me up when any of the other religions we have here start brainwashing their members, separating them from their "bad influence" families, driving them into utter financial ruin and dependency, using them as virtual slave labour, spying on and harassing and threatening them when they want to leave "the church" or even so much as dare to voice criticism, do the same thing to outside critics - all while turning the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars they suck from every single member into a globally operating network of shady non-religious, for-profit, "unrelated" companies that try to exert influence on national governments.

Just because something calls itself "religion" doesn't mean it's automatically untouchable.

So I should wake you a couple thousand years ago? Ok. They're all cults until they reach a certain size, at which point they become religions.

Rolling squid;13271294']link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/germany.scientology.ap/index.html)

Is it just me, or is Germany steadly moving to another Facist government? Banning something becuse it contradicts with the constution seems a little harsh, isn't the constution suppose to be an outline for the gov't, not the people?
Yes, I can already hear the sound of goosestepping jackboots. :rolleyes:

Banning something because it endangers the safety of the people, the stability of the state, and denies certain rights guaranteed by the German Basic Law while disregarding regulations laid down for registered non-profit/for-profit associations surely leads directly into the abyss.

"The Civil Code of Germany contains different regulations for registered non-profit and for-profit associations regarded as juristic persons ("Vereine", articles 21-79) on the one hand and for not necessarily registered associations by contract ("Gesellschaften", articles 705-740) on the other hand." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association)

Since the "Church" of Scientology is nothing but a cult and not a church, nor a religion, and it is of foreign origin, we have every right to prevent those nutcases from taking over, eh?

Some more information about the process:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,522052,00.html

Some more information about the Basic Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundgesetz

especially "an unequivocal commitment to the inviolability and inalienability of human rights"

So, I'd say it's only you.

So I should wake you a couple thousand years ago? Ok. They're all cults until they reach a certain size, at which point they become religions.
How I hate when people come back with this as their argument.

You just said that all religions are like Scientology.

Newsflash: They. Are. Not.

It doesn't matter one iota to the matter at hand if they were evil a couple thousand years ago, or even a hundred years ago, just like it doesn't matter that thieves were once upon a time punished by having their hand cut off. You'd still not be allowed to do it today.

Gah.

Since the "Church" of Scientology is nothing but a cult and not a church,

Not only that, but in the current process they're even referred to as an "economic enterprise" much more than a cult, an economic enterprise that violates basic human rights. Sorry if we don't think that's so hot.

As far as I can tell the German government views the organization as being more like a pyramid scheme with spiritual trappings, which is a fairly accurate assessment imo. Good luck to them I say.

Not only that, but in the current process they're even referred to as an "economic enterprise" much more than a cult, an economic enterprise that violates basic human rights. Sorry if we don't think that's so hot.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/thumbup.gif

I mean Battlefield Earth...a crime against humanity for sure!

*supports Germany*

Like WYTYG said, Scientology is little but an economic enterprise that violates human rights. To my understanding, it goes against the German constitution. So Germany, having a constitution that outlaws things that would be like Scientology, can ban Scientology if they want to.

Unless Scientology is an actual religion that actually does provide its followers with spiritual guidance and all that fun stuff even without money, then it is just an enterprise which seeks to brainwash, harass, and steal money.

*supports Germany*
*dances* ;)

*dances* ;)

:eek: Tell me, is dancing like that in front of a nearly 16 year old legal in Germany, or not? :eek:

People are so aggressive on this topic: calm down.

Really there's no right answer. While I would agree that Scientology is little more than a glorified cult, I can't really make a judgement because a Scientologist would have just as much right to lash out at me as an Aetheist, or at a Muslim, or Christian. In fact, all religion is pretty wierd when you think about it logically, right?

Religion is generally a search for meaning, some kind of explanation, a source of comfort. We couldn't live with the fact that life as we know it might be meaningless.

That said, a group where you are able to seek spiritual evolution through monetary donations, and that discourages psychiatrists is pretty screwy. Maybe they don't like them because they can validate the fact they're insane, hmm?;)

One the other hand, people should be free to belief in whatever they want to believe. Where I draw the line is when it starts hurting people. I don't think any religion should be able to encourage that.

Penny for your thoughts?

One the other hand, people should be free to belief in whatever they want to believe. Where I draw the line is when it starts hurting people. I don't think any religion should be able to encourage that.
Exactly. And Scientology falls squarely on the wrong side of that line.

Rolling squid;13271294']link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/germany.scientology.ap/index.html)

Is it just me, or is Germany steadly moving to another Facist government? Banning something becuse it contradicts with the constution seems a little harsh, isn't the constution suppose to be an outline for the gov't, not the people?

OMG! Are you callling Germany fascist for keeping an evil and destructive subversive group out?! The fascist thing to do would be to allow the damn cultists to continue their vile ways. When the government protects the people from an evil cult thats notorious for brutally murdering people and ruining their lives thats a good thing.

Ok, too all that say that Scientology is a "cult", it's no more a cult than any other religion was at some point. A cult is simply a group with abnormal views and less than a few million members.
Oh, and show me proof that it brainwashes/steals money/ect. any more than some branches of the catholic church.
And finally, stuff like this is exactly how slippery slope regimes begin. Small, sensible stuff at first, then more and more is taken away as the people watch. It's safest to just never start.

Rolling squid;13271294']link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/germany.scientology.ap/index.html)

Is it just me, or is Germany steadly moving to another Facist government? Banning something becuse it contradicts with the constution seems a little harsh, isn't the constution suppose to be an outline for the gov't, not the people?

Let me sum up my feelings on Scientology like this:

If (other) religion is the opiate of the masses, then Scientology is the meth.

Rolling squid;13271294']link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/germany.scientology.ap/index.html)

Is it just me, or is Germany steadly moving to another Facist government? Banning something becuse it contradicts with the constution seems a little harsh, isn't the constution suppose to be an outline for the gov't, not the people?

I say we should all follow Germany's example, and have every country ban Scientology. We should also ban miming while we're at it.

Rolling squid;13271763']Ok, too all that say that Scientology is a "cult", it's no more a cult than any other religion was at some point. A cult is simply a group with abnormal views and less than a few million members.
Oh, and show me proof that it brainwashes/steals money/ect. any more than some branches of the catholic church.
And finally, stuff like this is exactly how slippery slope regimes begin. Small, sensible stuff at first, then more and more is taken away as the people watch. It's safest to just never start.

Do you even bother reading all the posts saying how Scientology is not just a cult, but one created for purely financial means; one that brainwashes and harrasses members, and gives them harmful advice? The only purpose of Scientology is to scam people out of their money. How is banning a scam signs of facism?

Do you even bother reading all the posts saying how Scientology is not just a cult, but one created for purely financial means; one that brainwashes and harrasses members, and gives them harmful advice? The only purpose of Scientology is to scam people out of their money. How is banning a scam signs of facism?


becasue, it's not exactly necessary is it? Scams and whatnot are already illegal, if it's really a scam, arrest those running the show and chuck 'em in jail.

I am so suing!

Scientology is vicious scam attempting to pose itself as something spiritual.

Kudos to Germany.

A bit late, but alright. They have ruined enough lives already and this is a step in the right direction.

All religions brainwash people though. The only difference is, some (like Christianity) are normalized because people have been indoctrinated from birth and are therefore not "cults" but "religions".

If Scientology is the new Jew, sign me up for the Nazi party.

Either way, Scientology sucks. I'm more a fan of those Felps nutjobs then I am of Scientology, and I can't stand those Felps nutjobs.

All religions brainwash people though. The only difference is, some (like Christianity) are normalized because people have been indoctrinated from birth and are therefore not "cults" but "religions".

Christianity isn't a scam started by a science fiction author to get people's money though. You can be a Christian and never give a penny to any church or organization. Not that I'm fond of that particular religion, of course, but saying that it and Scientology are the same is just a bit silly.

True I've been to a church and gave an amount of 0.00 to the offering once. (Had no money) and one tried to make me.

I don't need to pay X,000+ dollars to be given the right to read the first chapter in New Testament then pay double to read the second chapter and so on.

I also know some some here have quit being Christians, yet they weren't dragged off to some private complex and starved to death because of it.

Scientology does all of the above.

Not to mention flood the internet with puppet lackies, sue everyone who protests them, have lines about what to do with "Enemies" which is just as bad as the "Kill the infidel" except in their case, "Slander, Sue, then Kill the Infidel."


We had a Scientologist Mole here on NSG before, everyone remember that?

:rolleyes:

Wake me up when any of the other religions we have here start brainwashing their members, separating them from their "bad influence" families, driving them into utter financial ruin and dependency, using them as virtual slave labour, spying on and harassing and threatening them when they want to leave "the church" or even so much as dare to voice criticism, do the same thing to outside critics - all while turning the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars they suck from every single member into a globally operating network of shady non-religious, for-profit, "unrelated" companies that try to exert influence on national governments.

Just because something calls itself "religion" doesn't mean it's automatically untouchable.

When they break laws, prosecute them.

If there isn't a law against "brainwashing" ... well, maybe there should be.

============

:eek: Tell me, is dancing like that in front of a nearly 16 year old legal in Germany, or not? :eek:

That's funny! Looking forward to the pastiche mentioned in your Location.

============

Rolling squid;13271898']becasue, it's not exactly necessary is it? Scams and whatnot are already illegal, if it's really a scam, arrest those running the show and chuck 'em in jail.

Let it be noted that there is at least one person in this thread who agrees with you. :)

============

All religions brainwash people though. The only difference is, some (like Christianity) are normalized because people have been indoctrinated from birth and are therefore not "cults" but "religions".

Yes! The "we've been doing it this way for generations" defense of Religion vs Cult. Works for incest and corporal punishment, too. ;)

============

True I've been to a church and gave an amount of 0.00 to the offering once. (Had no money) and one tried to make me.

I don't need to pay X,000+ dollars to be given the right to read the first chapter in New Testament then pay double to read the second chapter and so on.

I also know some some here have quit being Christians, yet they weren't dragged off to some private complex and starved to death because of it.

That's a crime. If it's regular policy by Scientology, it needs rooting out like the crimes of the Mafia are rooted out and prosecuted for what they are: murder and intimidation.

Prosecute their actions under existing laws. Eventually it's not worth it for them any more.

Scientology does all of the above.

Not to mention flood the internet with puppet lackies, sue everyone who protests them, have lines about what to do with "Enemies" which is just as bad as the "Kill the infidel" except in their case, "Slander, Sue, then Kill the Infidel."

Look at it this way: would you rather have an identifiable group that you can warn your friends about (by name, the Scientologists), or would you rather have your government banning successively smaller and less well-defined groups which government asserts are doing the same thing as the first?

I know I'd rather the devil I know, with my government struggling to pierce their 'corporate veil' ... than my government going after shadier and shadier targets and shutting them down for their "culture" before they have actually committed a crime.

We had a Scientologist Mole here on NSG before, everyone remember that?

Sorry, no. Did the mole admit to doing ... er, whatever moles do ?

Sorry, no. Did the mole admit to doing ... er, whatever moles do ?
Chadoslovakia (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=1119415)

No he didn't admit, but as soon as that unfunny truth YTMND came out he showed up here, and as soon as a thread posted it he pops in defending Scientology and saying how we shouldn't judge and we should read the books to understand before judging. He then gives the link to the Scientology Website.
Thread:
Scientology- (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=490061)
A little fast huh?

Pages later he admits that he's a scientologist, (But not a plant aka Mole),
Mole: A spy who operates from within an organization, especially a double agent operating against his or her own government from within its intelligence establishment.

(Pretends to be a normal NSGer while working for Scientology=Mole)

Germany has been overly paranoid of cults (and alleged cults) since the whole Nazi debacle.

I am an advocate of freedom of religion. Everyone should believe and worship as they please. But, if the United States were to support a ban on Scientology, I wouldn't cry.

I am an advocate of freedom of religion. Everyone should believe and worship as they please. But, if the United States were to support a ban on Scientology, I wouldn't cry.

If Scientology got banned, you should cry tears of joy.

OMG! Are you callling Germany fascist for keeping an evil and destructive subversive group out?! The fascist thing to do would be to allow the damn cultists to continue their vile ways. When the government protects the people from an evil cult thats notorious for brutally murdering people and ruining their lives thats a good thing.

Remember the last time Germany tried to remove an evil and destructive subversive group?

Germany is going too far here. While I don't personally believe in scientology and consider it a scam, I don't think we should set the precident in Western Countries of banning organizations for their political, philosophical and spiritual ideas. It's important for an open society to allow people to believe what they want to and behave differently from the norm, even if it is in ways harmful to their own wellbeing. It's not as if other religions don't have a negative impact on society.

I am an advocate of freedom of religion. Everyone should believe and worship as they please. But, if the United States were to support a ban on Scientology, I wouldn't cry.

Agreed, usually I don't care what you believe in. You can believe that God is your cat and is speaking to you. Hell I have friends from the Pagan faith, the Abrahamic Faith, Hindus, Buddhist, etc. I still don't agree with Scientology. If you want to know why, then you need to read about the members they killed, they ripped off, and some of the practices they use to keep members.

Lisa McPherson (http://www.lisamcpherson.org/)

Operation Freakout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout)

Scientology even was able to penetrate the USA government, the IRS in Operation Snow White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White)

The UnFunny Truth about Scientology. (http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/)

Scientology is not a cult, it's not a religion, it's a Pyramid Scheme that kills anyone that tries to get out.

How are they able to get away with this? They have a crack team of lawyers, better than Johnny Cochran.

Remember the last time Germany tried to remove an evil and destructive subversive group?

Germany is going too far here. While I don't personally believe in scientology and consider it a scam, I don't think we should set the precident in Western Countries of banning organizations for their political, philosophical and spiritual ideas. It's important for an open society to allow people to believe what they want to and behave differently from the norm, even if it is in ways harmful to their own wellbeing. It's not as if other religions don't have a negative impact on society.

Scientology is not a religion, it's not a cult, it's a organization that is worse than the Mafia. They kill anyone who tries to get out, and they take in people who are mentally unbalance, take them off of their medication for "herbal supplement". Scientology ruins bank accounts, family, and lives.

Usually I'm not for banning what people believe in, but I'm willing to make an exception for Scientology.

This is all just the disembodied thetans of extraterrestrials clinging to your bodies talking. None of you really believe Scientology is all that bad.

And if you do, its just because you can't control Matter-Energy-Space-Time like an OT-9 can.

Stop being suppressive.

This is all just the disembodied thetans of extraterrestrials clinging to your bodies talking. None of you really believe Scientology is all that bad.

And if you do, its just because you can't control Matter-Energy-Space-Time like an OT-9 can.

Stop being suppressive.

The Power of Christ Compels you, the Power of Christ Compels you, The Power of Christ Compels you! :p

Usually I'm not for banning what people believe in, but I'm willing to make an exception for Scientology.

And Germany is not even doing that. It wants to forbid an organisation that repeatedly breaks the law, and uses religion as an excuse.

Sorry, but that does not work in most civilised countries anymore. Being a believer in the Aztec gods does not allow you to make virgin sacrifices. Believing in Zeus does not allow you to molest little boys, just like he did. Being a Christian or Jew does not allow you to destroy the temples of other religions.

You can still believe in all those things, just not act on them.

This is all just the disembodied thetans of extraterrestrials clinging to your bodies talking. None of you really believe Scientology is all that bad.

And if you do, its just because you can't control Matter-Energy-Space-Time like an OT-9 can.

Stop being suppressive.

Let me be suppressive. I'm suppressing my urge to completely destroy Scientology right now, msotly because such an act would be impossible to complete and once I start, I won't be able to stop.

The way to destroy a criminal organization like Scientology is to destroy it from the inside out. What you need are spies and moles and whatnot to infiltrate Scientology and "cut off the head" (remove the leadership) before the organization becomes too powerful.

Germany appears to be taking another approach: starving it to death. By trying to deny Scientology fresh, "rich" new members, Scientology will eventually use up its ill-gotten funds and die off. Problem is, Scientology is able to get its funds elsewhere. For this approach to work, every place that Scientology thrives in must starve Scientology. Otherwise, it will continue to get enough funds to survive and grow.

We need a group to infiltrate Scientology to retrieve valuable intelligence and possibly a few assasinations if certain leaders grow too dangerous. I've done my research and if Scientology continues to grow, it will have power similar to other nations, particularly the more powerful ones, like the United States or various powerful European governments.

Scientology could become as powerful as the Catholic Church of yesteryear, only without something similar to Protestantism to create a rivalry and keep eachother's power in check.

Religion started as a means of explaining the (at the time) unexplainable, like why the sun rose (like the ancients understood astronomy and physics as well as we do. We have the benefit of all that extra time and all those notes taken) or why the hell we exist at all. It's like proto-science.

Scientology was created in the late-twentieth century and, as far as I can tell, did not grow out of any other religion nor does it appear to be based off of any religion. It's talk of thetans, nuking volcanoes, and dc-10s flying through space is incredibly absurd, even by various religious standards. Unlike most other religions, it DEMANDS (not asks, demands) money. If Christianity was an annoying beggar asking for money from everyone, Scientology is a mugger. It's just too dangerous.

:eek: Tell me, is dancing like that in front of a nearly 16 year old legal in Germany, or not? :eek:
http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/6982/whistling21np.gif

Remember the last time Germany tried to remove an evil and destructive subversive group?

Germany is going too far here. While I don't personally believe in scientology and consider it a scam, I don't think we should set the precident in Western Countries of banning organizations for their political, philosophical and spiritual ideas. It's important for an open society to allow people to believe what they want to and behave differently from the norm, even if it is in ways harmful to their own wellbeing. It's not as if other religions don't have a negative impact on society.

Scientology isn't just another spiritual organization. It robs their members blind,it threatens those who oppose it, and it brainwashes those who are in it. In this case, Scientology is more comparable to the NSDAP then the holocausted Jews.

Germany has enough trouble with troublesome organisations from it's past, I guess it doesn't want any more new ones!

Scientology could become as powerful as the Catholic Church of yesteryear, only without something similar to Protestantism to create a rivalry and keep eachother's power in check.

As I understand it, their current headquarters has a significant Scientologist population. Enough that they form a significant voting bloc in the Clearwater city, and that politicians there are aligning with them.

It's like cancer really.

Down with Scientology!

I'm not bothered. Scientology is retarded.

Rolling squid;13271294'][
Is it just me, or is Germany steadly moving to another Facist government?
Unless you're talking about something other than what you're presenting in the OP; yes, it's just you.
Banning something becuse it contradicts with the constution seems a little harsh, isn't the constution suppose to be an outline for the gov't, not the people?
No, every (modern) country's constitution is for, and about, the people; the governments are there only as 'servants' for the constitution and the people. The constitution serves as a communal contract of how we want to live with each other as a nation, not for politicians on how to live as such.

Rolling squid;13271898']becasue, it's not exactly necessary is it? Scams and whatnot are already illegal, if it's really a scam, arrest those running the show and chuck 'em in jail.

If an individual commits a crime, what you do is you punish the individual. So if certain members of Scientology did something illegal as individuals, they'd face the repercussions without the institution they belong to being touched.

However, int his case, the illegal actions are carried out by the very institution itself. It is the institution's policies and their general code of behaving that runs contrary to our constitution, and therefore it'll have to be the whole institution and not individual members who'll need to be reprimanded.

Imagine your school's policy is to hit every student who gives a wrong answer in class over the head several times. Do you only chuck every teacher who complies with it if and when they do, or do you target the school and its policy itself?

Imagine your school's policy is to hit every student who gives a wrong answer in class over the head several times. Do you only chuck every teacher who complies with it if and when they do, or do you target the school and its policy itself?

No, you "target" the school by launching an investigation, throw those who came up with the policy and enforced it in jail, then identify what teachers supported the act and give them the same treatment, and those who complied to avoid begin fired simply give a slap on the wrist. Banning the school is unnecessary, with a large scandal like that it will more than likely wither and die without the need of new, oppressive laws.

I AM NO FAN OF SCIENTOLOGY. However:

I would normally say it's a bad thing, but we're talking about Scientology here. That's nothing more than a glorified cult. I've heard that they've told some schizophrenics and others who have mental problems to not take their meds or go to their doctors because of some of the silly Scientology rules about psychiatrists..

Yes, and some Christian sects forbid sick people, even children, from going to the doctor for easily curable ailments in favor of praying for the afflicted. Some of those children die. WHen reported or discovered, those parents, and sometimes even the preachers involved, are prosecuted for child neglect. Those sects of Christianity, however, are not banned.

You can't ban a religion for being zealots who take money from their followers, unless you want to ban them all.

Ba-zing. Why else does the Catholic Church have so many gold-plated artifacts and opulent cathedrals? If you taxed the Catholic Church alone on just their land holdings, you'd come much closer to having a balanced budget. The answer isn't regulation or banning, it's TAXATION. For too long, churches have wielded undue influence in political matters without paying the price of admission. Tax churches, don't ban them. I'm pretty sure Scientology could pay for a large portion of the Iraq War.

How I hate when people come back with this as their argument.

You just said that all religions are like Scientology.

Newsflash: They. Are. Not.

It doesn't matter one iota to the matter at hand if they were evil a couple thousand years ago, or even a hundred years ago, just like it doesn't matter that thieves were once upon a time punished by having their hand cut off. You'd still not be allowed to do it today.

It doesn't matter? Really? So when The Roman Empire tried to ban early Christianity, according to you, they were doing the right thing. Fine. What you're saying, then, is that scamming religions who take money from the faithful in order to fill their temples with gold, jewels and art are okay, so long as they have a significant passage of years in their history.

Where's that line? Should Mormonism be banned, or is 150-200 years long enough?

:eek: Tell me, is dancing like that in front of a nearly 16 year old legal in Germany, or not? :eek:

Uh...it's Germany. Of course it is.

Rolling squid;13271898']becasue, it's not exactly necessary is it? Scams and whatnot are already illegal, if it's really a scam, arrest those running the show and chuck 'em in jail.

THE VOICE OF REASON. Again, I think Scientology is a load of horseshit, but that doesn't mean it needs banning. If they do something illegal, prosecute them. The fines levied would even get some of that ill-gotten cash back, at least indirectly, to the public. Thing is, the minute you start telling people they can't have their own delusions, you're willingly treading on the slippery slope.

Christianity isn't a scam started by a science fiction author to get people's money though. You can be a Christian and never give a penny to any church or organization. Not that I'm fond of that particular religion, of course, but saying that it and Scientology are the same is just a bit silly.

Why? It was founded by ordinary men looking to establish control through a set of rules. They used reliable people and touchstone religious and spiritual concepts from other, older beliefs and wove them together into the Bible. It's a remarkable book and it had remarkable presentation and promotion. But had you been around in the earliest days of Christianity, you'd have seen the various factions fighting it out over who's Word was The Word. Some books of the tome were even left out (the Apocrypha) -- suggesting that the Word of God needed to be edited by man. I'm not saying that's a scam, but back then it could certainly have been seen that way.

And no, you needn't give to most Christian churches to be saved, but you did back then (most especially in the most corrupt centuries of Catholicism). Your defense of not comparing Christianity and Scientology is merely the passage of under 2000 years. Now imagine that Christianity was just starting at the time L. Ron Hubbard wrote Dianetics.

Look at the pre-history of ANY religion, and you'll likely see at least a few things that would make you think there might be a scam working.

Scientology is not a religion, it's not a cult, it's a organization that is worse than the Mafia. They kill anyone who tries to get out, and they take in people who are mentally unbalance, take them off of their medication for "herbal supplement". Scientology ruins bank accounts, family, and lives.

Usually I'm not for banning what people believe in, but I'm willing to make an exception for Scientology.

Tell me, does Scientology break into their houses and steal the bank account information? What? No? You mean people willingly give those people that information? Well then that's their own lookout, isn't it?

NOW -- when Scientology breaks the law, the institution needs to be prosecuted for it. But banning something just because we don't agree with their philosophy is just not a good idea to get rolling...it tends to keep rolling.

Also, look at what happens to things we ban. They acquire the cachet of being "dangerous" or "naughty" -- in short, a ban arouses curiosity (it's why the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was irresistible...if you're into that story). You don't get rid of things by hiding them any more than sweeping dirt under the rug eliminates the dirt. You let these heinous and hilariously insane spiritual onanists continue to embarrass themselves in public so that everyone can see how incredibly silly they are. Why else would Trey Parker and Matt Stone have lampooned Scientology by doing only this: they have their South Park characters say exactly -- EXACTLY -- what the doctrine of Scientology entails and then all they do is place a caption beneath the character doing that exposition. That caption reads: "THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE."

Problem solved, and it's funny in the bargain.

Banning something is a cop-out, in my opinion, and shows a lack of willingness and imagination with regard to prosecution. I know that German police aren't known for their imaginations, but come on, what's easier to enforce? An outright ban or the laws already on the books?

Rolling squid;13272633']No, you "target" the school by launching an investigation, throw those who came up with the policy and enforced it in jail, then identify what teachers supported the act and give them the same treatment, and those who complied to avoid begin fired simply give a slap on the wrist. Banning the school is unnecessary, with a large scandal like that it will more than likely wither and die without the need of new, oppressive laws.

EXACTLY.

Rolling squid;13271763']Ok, too all that say that Scientology is a "cult", it's no more a cult than any other religion was at some point. A cult is simply a group with abnormal views and less than a few million members.
Oh, and show me proof that it brainwashes/steals money/ect. any more than some branches of the catholic church.
And finally, stuff like this is exactly how slippery slope regimes begin. Small, sensible stuff at first, then more and more is taken away as the people watch. It's safest to just never start.
Remember the last time Germany tried to remove an evil and destructive subversive group?

Germany is going too far here. While I don't personally believe in scientology and consider it a scam, I don't think we should set the precident in Western Countries of banning organizations for their political, philosophical and spiritual ideas. It's important for an open society to allow people to believe what they want to and behave differently from the norm, even if it is in ways harmful to their own wellbeing. It's not as if other religions don't have a negative impact on society.
Read this: http://www.xenu.net/

Can't believe I forgot to post that last night. Belongs on the first page of every thread about Scientology. Maybe then we wouldn't get all those posts saying "This is a freedom of religion issue! And all religions are equally bad anyway!".

Look at it this way: would you rather have an identifiable group that you can warn your friends about (by name, the Scientologists), or would you rather have your government banning successively smaller and less well-defined groups which government asserts are doing the same thing as the first?

I know I'd rather the devil I know, with my government struggling to pierce their 'corporate veil' ... than my government going after shadier and shadier targets and shutting them down for their "culture" before they have actually committed a crime.
Again - wake me up when our government starts "banning successively smaller and less well-defined groups which government asserts are doing the same thing as the first" "before they have actually committed a crime".
This is no slippery slope. Sorry.

Germany has been overly paranoid of cults (and alleged cults) since the whole Nazi debacle.
We, uh, have? That's funny. Cults such as...?

And Germany is not even doing that. It wants to forbid an organisation that repeatedly breaks the law, and uses religion as an excuse.

Sorry, but that does not work in most civilised countries anymore. Being a believer in the Aztec gods does not allow you to make virgin sacrifices. Believing in Zeus does not allow you to molest little boys, just like he did. Being a Christian or Jew does not allow you to destroy the temples of other religions.

You can still believe in all those things, just not act on them.
Exactly.

That's a crime. If it's regular policy by Scientology, it needs rooting out like the crimes of the Mafia are rooted out and prosecuted for what they are: murder and intimidation.

Prosecute their actions under existing laws. Eventually it's not worth it for them any more.
Rolling squid;13272633']No, you "target" the school by launching an investigation, throw those who came up with the policy and enforced it in jail, then identify what teachers supported the act and give them the same treatment, and those who complied to avoid begin fired simply give a slap on the wrist. Banning the school is unnecessary, with a large scandal like that it will more than likely wither and die without the need of new, oppressive laws.
When the organisation that runs the school has thousands similar schools all over the globe, working on the exact same principle, and is not at all willing to change their modus operandi- really? You don't close the school and forbid it from operating in your district? You just hope that it goes away and in the meantime you let them have candy giveaways to lure in your kids?

Apart from that, this Scientology is a giant secretive conglomerate working with intimidation tactics very much like the mafia indeed. Good luck to you in even trying to prosecute anything.
So, to stick with your mafia example: if you had the choice between letting the mafia in, then living with their crimes while mostly fruitlessly trying to successfully prosecute even one of them or keeping them out to begin with, banning them once and for all from your country - which one would you do? Don't even try to tell me it's the former.

NOW -- when Scientology breaks the law, the institution needs to be prosecuted for it. But banning something just because we don't agree with their philosophy is just not a good idea to get rolling...it tends to keep rolling.

But the German government is not planning on banning the philosophy - it is planning to ban the organisation that operates in ways that conflict with German law.

If they wish to convey the teachings of "El Ron" in a different way they would still be free to do so.

Scientology isn't just another spiritual organization. It robs their members blind,it threatens those who oppose it, and it brainwashes those who are in it. In this case, Scientology is more comparable to the NSDAP then the holocausted Jews.

Indeed. And while most other religions were founded to make sense of the world or were based off other religions, Scientology was created to make money, not provide spiritual guidance. Scientology is nothing but a criminal economic organization that brainwashes and harasses people.

And don't say "oh, other religions are jsut as bad." While there is some harassment and possible brainwashing going on, that's a minority in most religions-- even Christianity.

I think that the answer would be to punish the church for the crimes it commits rather than banning the church itself. It's a better precedent. No one is banning the Catholic church for hiding or coddling child molesters or even suggesting it. But by all means punishing that activity. If Scientology does things that are illegal then they should be held accountable for that, when you ban an organization that isn't inherently illegal like a religion it does set an abusable precedent.

Frankly, I'd love to see churches called on their illegal actions, and this includes protecting pedophile priests.

EDIT: And the fastest way to look like an idiot is to not read the thread before posting...so you don't realize your 'brilliant' insight has already been made and is actually being discussed thoroughly...fuck...moving along...

But the German government is not planning on banning the philosophy - it is planning to ban the organisation that operates in ways that conflict with German law.

If they wish to convey the teachings of "El Ron" in a different way they would still be free to do so.

Right.:rolleyes: That's like banning the catholic church and saying that they can still convey the word of jesus.

Again - wake me up when our government starts "banning successively smaller and less well-defined groups which government asserts are doing the same thing as the first" "before they have actually committed a crime".
This is no slippery slope. Sorry

therein lies the rub, by this point it's already too late, the only way to stop the slipery slope is to never start, otherwise someone at some point is going to use it.

Not only that, but in the current process they're even referred to as an "economic enterprise" much more than a cult, an economic enterprise that violates basic human rights. Sorry if we don't think that's so hot.

Ever been to the Vatican gift shop? I have. You mean violating basic human rights like child rape and assault on a massive organizational scale? So far you have described the Catholic church in the same way as Scientology.

Yes, and some Christian sects forbid sick people, even children, from going to the doctor for easily curable ailments in favor of praying for the afflicted. Some of those children die. WHen reported or discovered, those parents, and sometimes even the preachers involved, are prosecuted for child neglect. Those sects of Christianity, however, are not banned.
Not sure any of those operate here on any noticeable level.

Ba-zing. Why else does the Catholic Church have so many gold-plated artifacts and opulent cathedrals? If you taxed the Catholic Church alone on just their land holdings, you'd come much closer to having a balanced budget. The answer isn't regulation or banning, it's TAXATION. For too long, churches have wielded undue influence in political matters without paying the price of admission. Tax churches, don't ban them. I'm pretty sure Scientology could pay for a large portion of the Iraq War.
How is that "Ba-Zing"? It's plain wrong.

And Scientology is already doesn't have the tax-exempt status of a church or even the special status of a charitable organisation here (the reason why they have been suing the german government repeatedly for the last few decades).
So how does that help again?

It doesn't matter? Really? So when The Roman Empire tried to ban early Christianity, according to you, they were doing the right thing. Fine. What you're saying, then, is that scamming religions who take money from the faithful in order to fill their temples with gold, jewels and art are okay, so long as they have a significant passage of years in their history.

Where's that line? Should Mormonism be banned, or is 150-200 years long enough?
:rolleyes: Yes. That is clearly what I said. And really, with an argument like that I'd be careful of twisting someone's words - because in that case, what you and others here have said, is essentially that because someone already committed a crime before the guy who commits the same crime today he should not be punished for it.
Really?

Tell me, does Scientology break into their houses and steal the bank account information? What? No? You mean people willingly give those people that information? Well then that's their own lookout, isn't it?
Yeah, except that it's a cult who brainwashed them into that willingness. And no, I'm pretty sure we don't have laws against brainwashing. Sorry about that. But then, you're even less likely to have them because surely they would go against freedom of something or other, right?
So either you stand by watching or you try to shut them down in at least your own country.

Also, look at what happens to things we ban. They acquire the cachet of being "dangerous" or "naughty" -- in short, a ban arouses curiosity (it's why the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was irresistible...if you're into that story). You don't get rid of things by hiding them any more than sweeping dirt under the rug eliminates the dirt. You let these heinous and hilariously insane spiritual onanists continue to embarrass themselves in public so that everyone can see how incredibly silly they are. Why else would Trey Parker and Matt Stone have lampooned Scientology by doing only this: they have their South Park characters say exactly -- EXACTLY -- what the doctrine of Scientology entails and then all they do is place a caption beneath the character doing that exposition. That caption reads: "THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE."

Problem solved, and it's funny in the bargain.
I know what you mean, but seriously "Problem solved"? In which world?

Banning something is a cop-out, in my opinion, and shows a lack of willingness and imagination with regard to prosecution. I know that German police aren't known for their imaginations, but come on, what's easier to enforce? An outright ban or the laws already on the books?
Scientology has been spookily good in escaping prosecution, delaying cases, slipping out of things, intimidating witnesses, prosecutors, judges, the press. Endlessly much better than Enron & Co.. Also, some of their activities would likely not be prosecutable, like the brainwashing members into writing over their life savings, after all, it's "voluntary".
So if I have the choice of spending millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers money on something that will at best throw up a minor inconvenience for the organization or just shutting down their local operation, I know what I'd take.

when you ban an organization that isn't inherently illegal like a religion it does set an abusable precedent.
Except the whole point here is that Scientology is a criminal enterprise (lacking the right words here, basically an internation financial/economic congolmerate based on criminal workings) that just wears the camouflage of "religion"and hurts people in the process.

?
Scientology has been spookily good in escaping prosecution, delaying cases, slipping out of things, intimidating witnesses, prosecutors, judges, the press. Endlessly much better than Enron & Co.. Also, some of their activities would likely not be prosecutable, like the brainwashing members into writing over their life savings, after all, it's "voluntary".
So if I have the choice of spending millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers money on something that will at best throw up a minor inconvenience for the organization or just shutting down their local operation, I know what I'd take.


"At some point, we all must chose between what is right and what is easy"
Guess which one you just picked.

Do you even bother reading all the posts saying how Scientology is not just a cult, but one created for purely financial means;

As opposed to the Catholic church who has so much money that they own thier own Country?

one that brainwashes and harrasses members, and gives them harmful advice? The only purpose of Scientology is to scam people out of their money.

Brainwashing is bad? You mean like how when the Catholic church tells its gay members that they are sinning and an abomination to God and will go to hell if they dont change thier ways? You mean that kind of harmful advice?

Ever been to the Vatican gift shop? I have. You mean violating basic human rights like child rape and assault on a massive organizational scale? So far you have described the Catholic church in the same way as Scientology.
Does the Catholic Church exist only to extract money from their members and make more money on international markets?

And as for the child abuse: the "organizational scale" here is no doubt given when looking at the US (maybe it's just as bad anywhere else, who knows) BUT in the sense that the organization here covered up the crimes of their individual functionaries, NOT in the sense that committing those crimes is a prerequisite of being allowed to become a functionary in the first place.

So, no.




Also, gotta run now. But I'm sure my bloodpressure will stay high... :P

Rolling squid;13272713']"At some point, we all must chose between what is right and what is easy"
Guess which one you just picked.

Yes. Exactly. But then, I'm a fascist, so what do you expect?

Rolling squid;13272633']No, you "target" the school by launching an investigation, throw those who came up with the policy and enforced it in jail, then identify what teachers supported the act and give them the same treatment, and those who complied to avoid begin fired simply give a slap on the wrist. Banning the school is unnecessary, with a large scandal like that it will more than likely wither and die without the need of new, oppressive laws.

I find it interesting how you choose to respond only to my made-up-on-the-spot and therefore inherently flaw-prone analogy than to what was really the point, i.e. the argumentative refutation of your argument.

And even so, we're still on the same page. As you said, your target the school. You make sure that all and any policies and practices that dictate and relate to harmful behavior are eradicated, which of course doesn't mean you wipe out 'the school' or even 'schools per se'.


But what does that mean, in regard to the Scientology example? Of course a 'Scientology' without any of the traits that run counter to our Constitution would be allowed to go on. Of course, if we could make sure that any and all Scientology policies that go against human rights and dignity are ceased (and all those affiliated with their creation and enforcement duly punished), they could go on existing as a 'church'. But our ruling holds that those policies are among the central tenets of Scientologist thinking, ideology and practice, so that such an approach isn't feasible.

Yes. Exactly. But then, I'm a fascist, so what do you expect?

Shutting down their local organization won't work, they'll just pop back up under a different name, where if you take the time to throw 'em in jail, they can't.

Rolling squid;13272697']Right.:rolleyes: That's like banning the catholic church and saying that they can still convey the word of jesus.

And what would be wrong with that if the Catholic Church started every prayer with the molestation of a small boy ?

The teachings of Scientology are not being banned. Just the way the organisation is teaching them.

Then again Christianity in Germany didn't cause much embarrassment like the activities of certain German political party -slash- cult of personality in the earlier 20th century.

They're a bit paranoid of cults.

But what does that mean, in regard to the Scientology example? Of course a 'Scientology' without any of the traits that run counter to our Constitution would be allowed to go on. Of course, if we could make sure that any and all Scientology policies that go against human rights and dignity are ceased (and all those affiliated with their creation and enforcement duly punished), they could go on existing as a 'church'. But our ruling holds that those policies are among the central tenets of Scientologist thinking, ideology and practice, so that such an approach isn't feasible.

But what's to say the principles of scientology won't change after you lock up those in charge? I still say that banning the organization is a flawed method that leaves no room to find out who is really at fault, and no chance for change or repentance.

And what would be wrong with that if the Catholic Church started every prayer with the molestation of a small boy ?


Scientology dosen't even begin to come close to this. So far, the worst I've seen is a group that charges absurd membership fees and acts a bit like a clique if you try and leave.

Rolling squid;13272737']Shutting down their local organization won't work, they'll just pop back up under a different name, where if you take the time to throw 'em in jail, they can't.

... and then they'd just fill their ranks with new people who do the same thing.

This is not only about what is the more effective approach, but also about what is breaking our law and what isn't.

We are having a similar discussion concerning a possible ban on a political party associated with Neo-Nazism: Do we ban the party because of legal reasons, or would it be more effective to allow them and their members to stay in the open, thus allowing us to be better able to identify and watch neonazis?

Really when you boil it down the difference between Scientology and Christianity is, Scientology fucks you in the wallet and the Christian Church fucks you in the ass and then more politely asks you for a donation after its had its way with you.

Then again Christianity in Germany didn't cause much embarrassment like the activities of certain German political party -slash- cult of personality in the earlier 20th century.

They're a bit paranoid of cults.As I've asked you in reply to the first time you've stated this: What are you talking about?

Rolling squid;13272748']But what's to say the principles of scientology won't change after you lock up those in charge? I still say that banning the organization is a flawed method that leaves no room to find out who is really at fault, and no chance for change or repentance.
Dude, you're missing the point. Their organization works that way. It's what they do. There are no "black sheep" in Scientology, like there were in the Enron scandal.

Scientology dosen't even begin to come close to this. So far, the worst I've seen is a group that charges absurd membership fees and acts a bit like a clique if you try and leave.See, that's exactly why I posted this link a couple pages ago: www.xenu.net (http://www.xenu.net/)
So that you can read up on what you're defending before, well, defending it.


I'm *really* off now.

Not sure any of those operate here on any noticeable level.

It is something you have to look for, but once sought.... Travel to the Southeast and Appalachia. It isn't like they have a huge advertising budget, but they're out there. Go ahead and Google "faith healing" or "prayer instead of medicine" in quotes and look at the number of links.

How is that "Ba-Zing"? It's plain wrong.

And Scientology is already doesn't have the tax-exempt status of a church or even the special status of a charitable organisation here (the reason why they have been suing the german government repeatedly for the last few decades).

So how does that help again?

I didn't know that. Point conceded.

I stand by the taxation of any church telling its parishioners how to vote.

:rolleyes: Yes. That is clearly what I said. And really, with an argument like that I'd be careful of twisting someone's words - because in that case, what you and others here have said, is essentially that because someone already committed a crime before the guy who commits the same crime today he should not be punished for it.
Really?

Uh...syntax error? I think you twisted my words to say that because someone didn't get punished in the past means that nobody should be punished in the present for the same crime. Fine. How about you deal with what I said, not how what I said might be interpreted? I asked you where the line is to be drawn if passage of time is all that stands between one moneymaking scam and another. You didn't answer and instead chose to claim I twisted words that weren't even yours. Weak sauce.

Yeah, except that it's a cult who brainwashed them into that willingness. And no, I'm pretty sure we don't have laws against brainwashing. Sorry about that. But then, you're even less likely to have them because surely they would go against freedom of something or other, right?

So either you stand by watching or you try to shut them down in at least your own country.

One must allow oneself to be brainwashed. There are no laws against it for a reason -- we are responsible for our own actions, and that includes being stupid enough to grant power of attorney to a bunch of scamming manipulators. If the cult breaks the law, prosecute them. End of story. And really, why the antagonistic sarcasm?

I know what you mean, but seriously "Problem solved"? In which world?

Our world. Sunlight disinfects. By banning Scientology, you force it underground where prosecution becomes much more time-consuming and difficult. If you don't ban them, they continue to try and sell their ridiculous twaddle in public where it can be openly ridiculed (remember how Tom Cruise was pasted for deriding psychology and Matt Lauer in that Today interview?), and subject to casual skepticism.

Scientology has been spookily good in escaping prosecution, delaying cases, slipping out of things, intimidating witnesses, prosecutors, judges, the press. Endlessly much better than Enron & Co.. Also, some of their activities would likely not be prosecutable, like the brainwashing members into writing over their life savings, after all, it's "voluntary".

Yes it is. This is where education comes in. If you banned every organization that suckered people into handing over their money legally, you'd have no economy. At least not as we know it, because there goes insurance, automobile dealerships, political campaigns, the circus (if you believe P.T. Barnum), show business, the stock market...and so on. People need to be responsible for their own actions at some point, don't they? There's a reason quotes like "a fool and his money are soon parted" exist.

I don't like or condone shady spiritual nonsense being sold to the spiritually vulnerable any more than you do, but I have managed to make it through 37 years without getting scammed by Scientology. What makes me different from those who have been scammed, and what kind of law will address that difference? And who will write it? And what will "need" to be banned next, once that law is on the books?

So if I have the choice of spending millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers money on something that will at best throw up a minor inconvenience for the organization or just shutting down their local operation, I know what I'd take.

You appear to be saying that security (from oneself, in this case) trumps freedom. That might be over-broad, but that's what I'm reading. If that's the case, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me.

Rolling squid;13272748']But what's to say the principles of scientology won't change after you lock up those in charge? I still say that banning the organization is a flawed method that leaves no room to find out who is really at fault, and no chance for change or repentance.
You appear to be a victim of a naive world view.

Scientology didn't start their business in our country only yesterday, and it's not only been exactly yesterday since they've been criticized and legally challenged, and so far there has been not the slightest change for the better or any trace of repenting, unless you count several ways of trying to continue their practices but evade legal repercussions by shady tricks.

Scientology dosen't even begin to come close to this. So far, the worst I've seen is a group that charges absurd membership fees and acts a bit like a clique if you try and leave.

Please do not let your lack of having 'seen' the negative sides of Scientology come in the way of your argumentation. Having substandard amounts of information is not something we usually use in order t substantiate our PoVs, at least not openly so, on this board, and I don't see that you ought to start any new traditions in this respect.

You may want to start by looking at the various sources to this effect having been provided in this very thread, i..e by WYTYG and Wilgrove, but please feel free to do your own research, too.

Except the whole point here is that Scientology is a criminal enterprise (lacking the right words here, basically an internation financial/economic congolmerate based on criminal workings) that just wears the camouflage of "religion"and hurts people in the process.

You keep using the word "criminal", and I don't doubt it for a second. However, if they're breaking laws so boldly and so often, what does that say about the ability for the government to prosecute them? I'd be more worried about that than I would about banning those breaking said laws.

One more time -- I do NOT like cults who rip people off. I wouldn't trust a Scientology to speak my weight, let alone speak to anyone's spiritual state. But if the state can't prosecute them, the fault lies with the state. Banning something drives it underground, where prosecution is even more difficult because it involves infiltration for evidence.

Rolling squid;13272748']Scientology dosen't even begin to come close to this.

And German lawmakers seem to disagree.

You keep using the word "criminal", and I don't doubt it for a second. However, if they're breaking laws so boldly and so often, what does that say about the ability for the government to prosecute them? I'd be more worried about that than I would about banning those breaking said laws.

One more time -- I do NOT like cults who rip people off. I wouldn't trust a Scientology to speak my weight, let alone speak to anyone's spiritual state. But if the state can't prosecute them, the fault lies with the state. Banning something drives it underground, where prosecution is even more difficult because it involves infiltration for evidence.

From what you say, you appear to be under the impression that the German legal system does not persecute the individuals who are found to break the law already. It does. The only change right now is that we say that in addition to that legal persecution of individual lawbreakers, we intend to ban the institution that fosters such lawbreaking, too.

If you find that a certain institution promotes illegality, or even has it as (part of) its explicit program, you will have to go against it legally.

And German lawmakers seem to disagree.

Thats not saying much. Germans arnt real big on personal expressions of freedom. Try waving a swastika around in Germany and see how long till your in jail.

Rolling squid;13272633']No, you "target" the school by launching an investigation, throw those who came up with the policy and enforced it in jail, then identify what teachers supported the act and give them the same treatment, and those who complied to avoid begin fired simply give a slap on the wrist. Banning the school is unnecessary, with a large scandal like that it will more than likely wither and die without the need of new, oppressive laws.

Translated: Rip it up to shreds and rebuild it in accordance to your views.

I suppose that could work, if you took Scientology, did some lobotomy on all its higher level staff/adherents and utterly rewrote everything about it.


Tell me, does Scientology break into their houses and steal the bank account information?

Only when you say bad things about them or expose their scam. Then they do everything in their power to ruin you, which includes framing you for various felonies.

This is official Scientologist procedure, straight down from its founder. How then, do you propose to separate official Scientologist procedure from Scientology as is?

As I've asked you in reply to the first time you've stated this: What are you talking about?


Dude, you're missing the point. Their organization works that way. It's what they do. There are no "black sheep" in Scientology, like there were in the Enron scandal.

See, that's exactly why I posted this link a couple pages ago: www.xenu.net (http://www.xenu.net/)
So that you can read up on what you're defending before, well, defending it.


I'm *really* off now.

Sorry, I haven't read your reply; here's what I'm talking about :

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/irving/ger.html

Given the role of these movements in undermining democracy during the 1920's and early 1930's it is no wonder postwar German Governments have been very wary of new religions. The Nazi era is all too real to most Germans who have to come to terms with horrific crimes. Following the end of the Second World War, many of the old proto-Nazi religions disappeared, only to slowly reemerge in the 1950's. Today a number of individual authors and spiritual groups promote Nazi type new religions in Germany. Most of these are associated with fascism and holocaust revisionism. The movements themselves, many of their leaders, and particular individuals who lead them, have direct links to the Nazi, and pre-Nazi era. Therefore, associating these particular groups with the Nazis is not propaganda. It is simply stating the facts. Further, upon examination the ideologies promoted by them are essentially the same as those they promoted prior to World War II. Karla Poewe has written an article on proto-Nazi religions then and now which is due to be published in April 1999, therefore I will not say more about them here.

And German lawmakers seem to disagree.

And this is probably where one ought to interfere a bit, making something clear that appears to have been lost a bit in the heat of the discussion:

Germany has not yet banned Scientology. This matter has not even yet reached any court whatsoever. In fact, there has not even been any proposal written for any court to do so. The only thing that has happened so far is that our states' Home Secretaries have voiced the opinion that such ought to happen, and they have made a proposal for the relevant legal instances to start gathering material in order to determine whether such a ban would be conceivable.

It s very well imaginable that in a few weeks, it'll be found that there is not enough material to warrant any further legal action against Scientology. Please, everyone, hold your "OMG fascism, undue persecution, etc." until there actually is any decision whatsoever about any legal action whatsoever.

Thats not saying much. Germans arnt real big on personal expressions of freedom. Try waving a swastika around in Germany and see how long till your in jail.

And painting with a broad brush like this isn't helpful, either. Yes, it is forbidden in Germany to publicly display Nazi insignia except for educational purposes, to negate the factuality of the Holocaust, and to engage in hate speech intended to incense the public into harmful actions.

I personally do not agree wit those provisions, but that is besides the point. The point is that like many other Western countries, including the US, we have legal provisions against hate speech - how does that make this country "not big on personal expression on freedom", especially in an international comparison?

Rolling squid;13272713']"At some point, we all must chose between what is right and what is easy"
Guess which one you just picked.

Simple question. Would you ban ALF? What about say, the Army of God? The Abu-Sayaf? Ansar al Islam? The Phineas Priesthood? Al Qaeda? Yes or no? It is after all, just another ideologically run group. They may do a few things more violently than Scientology, what with their bombings and murders but that's hardly a good distinction isn't it? After all, it's not like Scientology avoids killing their own to prevent escapees.

Where is that line hmm? Is it because they're a tiny bit more respectable looking? Or is it because they prefer to conduct quiet killings as opposed to noisy ones?

Rolling squid;13271294']link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/germany.scientology.ap/index.html)

Is it just me, or is Germany steadly moving to another Facist government? Banning something becuse it contradicts with the constution seems a little harsh, isn't the constution suppose to be an outline for the gov't, not the people?

Quick! Hide the jews!

And painting with a broad brush like this isn't helpful, either. Yes, it is forbidden in Germany to publicly display Nazi insignia except for educational purposes, to negate the factuality of the Holocaust, and to engage in hate speech intended to incense the public into harmful actions.

I personally do not agree wit those provisions, but that is besides the point. The point is that like many other Western countries, including the US, we have legal provisions against hate speech - how does that make this country , especially in an international comparison?

It makes it "not big on personal expression on freedom" for the very reason i just stated. As you have pointed out, We have anti hate speech laws in the US too. That doesnt preclude people from expressing themselves with a Swastica if they so desire. And this from a country that was a VICTIM of Germany and should be theoretically even more sensetive to the subject. Hence im not holding up the German government as a good example of support for free speech and freedom of religious values

As opposed to the Catholic church who has so much money that they own thier own Country??

The Catholic Church got their own country through the Lateran Accords, not their tremendous wallet. Mussolini gave them their little country in exchange for the pope's vote of confidence.

Brainwashing is bad? You mean like how when the Catholic church tells its gay members that they are sinning and an abomination to God and will go to hell if they dont change thier ways? You mean that kind of harmful advice?

The Catholic Church was not founded on these principles; despite all the garbage they spew out, they do actually believe in their religion. They don't force you to donate (guess they have enough money anyways), unlike Scientology, which is just a pyramid-scheme which not only harasses ex-members, but tries to get them killed or put away.

I would not support a ban on Scientology because of all the publicity it would get (my goodness, do you people never learn from past mistakes?), but apart from that, the idea is fine.

Thats not saying much. Germans arnt real big on personal expressions of freedom. Try waving a swastika around in Germany and see how long till your in jail.

*Shrugs*. Nazism a la Hitler has proven itself to be bad for society and humanity in the past. When some neonazis finally come forward with some new reasoning and insight that shows it does not have to be that way instead of just repeating the hollow and disproven rhetorics and lies - then I will climb the barricades to allow them to speak.

But until then I see no point whatsoever in allowing them spread falsehoods and hate. Their opinion has already been shown to have no merit. The freedom of expression was used, the expression was evaluated and deemed bad. Time to move on.

You appear to be a victim of a naive world view.

Scientology didn't start their business in our country only yesterday, and it's not only been exactly yesterday since they've been criticized and legally challenged, and so far there has been not the slightest change for the better or any trace of repenting, unless you count several ways of trying to continue their practices but evade legal repercussions by shady tricks.


If by naive world view you mean giving second chances, then yes, I am.
And the reason they haven't changed their ways yet is because the same people are still in charge. Get new manigment and things just might change.


Please do not let your lack of having 'seen' the negative sides of Scientology come in the way of your argumentation. Having substandard amounts of information is not something we usually use in order t substantiate our PoVs, at least not openly so, on this board, and I don't see that you ought to start any new traditions in this respect.

You may want to start by looking at the various sources to this effect having been provided in this very thread, i..e by WYTYG and Wilgrove, but please feel free to do your own research, too.

By "seen" I mean stuff I've read, been told, ect. And so far, the worst I can come up is this:

The SP; great, no one in a group you admit to hating will talk to you.

wasting large ammouts of money; 300,000 to 500,000 bucks that people willingly spend.

Thought control; All relgions do this in one way or another.


Where is that line hmm? Is it because they're a tiny bit more respectable looking? Or is it because they prefer to conduct quiet killings as opposed to noisy ones?

When EXACLTY did the CoS kill anyone? And I don't mean some guy in the church going off and killing someone of his own free will, I mean a leader of the CoS telling another member or hiring a hitman.

*Shrugs*. Nazism a la Hitler has proven itself to be bad for society and humanity in the past. When some neonazis finally come forward with some new reasoning and insight that shows it does not have to be that way instead of just repeating the hollow and disproven rhetorics and lies - then I will climb the barricades to allow them to speak.

But until then I see no point whatsoever in allowing them spread falsehoods and hate. Their opinion has already been shown to have no merit. The freedom of expression was used, the expression was evaluated and deemed bad. Time to move on.

I see, so have it be said that all religions must go thru the vigerous logical evaluations of The Alma Mater and his friends. If he and his supporters then feel after investigating your flavor of belief that it has validity then it will be permitted. That is all.

I see, so have it be said that all religions must go thru the vigerous logical evaluations of The Alma Mater and his friends. If he and his supporters then feel after investigating your flavor of belief that it has validity then it will be permitted. That is all.

Well.. I *am* the supreme world leader. Did you not get the memo ?
But seriously - what possible use can there be in repeating ideas that have been shown to have no merit ? If you change them - sure. No matter how controversial; new is new. But the same thing ?

Well.. I *am* the supreme world leader. Did you not get the memo ?
But seriously - what possible use can there be in repeating ideas that have been shown to have no merit ? If you change them - sure. No matter how controversial; new is new. But the same thing ?


if they have no merit, then why do people still follow them?

By "seen" I mean stuff I've read, been told, ect. And so far, the worst I can come up is this:




When EXACLTY did the CoS kill anyone? And I don't mean some guy in the church going off and killing someone of his own free will, I mean a leader of the CoS telling another member or hiring a hitman.

How about the head of the Church authorizing the infiltration of the IRS and then using protected stolen IRS tax information to blackmail innocent victims? It was known as the largest infiltration of a government agency in the history of the US. THATS brass balls.

How about the head of the Church authorizing the infiltration of the IRS and then using protected stolen IRS tax information to blackmail innocent victims? It was known as the largest infiltration of a government agency in the history of the US. THATS brass balls.

They didn't get away with it, did they? Quite a few people went to jail IIRC.

It makes it "not big on personal expression on freedom" for the very reason i just stated. As you have pointed out, We have anti hate speech laws in the US too. That doesnt preclude people from expressing themselves with a Swastica if they so desire. And this from a country that was a VICTIM of Germany and should be theoretically even more sensetive to the subject.

You are trying to make the point that banning the public display of one symbol makes the difference between "big on personal expression on freedom" and the contrary? Aha.

I refer you to the FCC, the proposed flag burning amendment that has been endorsed by all states' legislature, and the federal ban on 'obscene pornography' in the US for further information on US censorship.

Hence im not holding up the German government as a good example of support for free speech and freedom of religious values

Please run it by me again how you infer from "German ban on publicly displaying the swastika" to "forfeit of freedom of religious values by the German government".

Rolling squid;13272847']If by naive world view you mean giving second chances, then yes, I am.
We're not talking second, but [random number pulled from my sweet little posterior] 1.479th chances.
And the reason they haven't changed their ways yet is because the same people are still in charge. Get new manigment and things just might change.


Management. And I don't believe that in the 40 years of Scientology having been established in Germany, there has been no personnel rotation.

By "seen" I mean stuff I've read, been told, ect. And so far, the worst I can come up is this:

The SP; great, no one in a group you admit to hating will talk to you.

wasting large ammouts of money; 300,000 to 500,000 bucks that people willingly spend.

Thought control; All relgions do this in one way or another.

I believe I suggested perusing the sources given in this thread before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-NKwyDsq8U

Management. And I don't believe that in the 40 years of Scientology having been established in Germany, there has been no personnel rotation

Sorry about the typo, but good point.

.
I believe I suggested perusing the sources given in this thread before.

I did. thats what I found.

You are trying to make the point that banning the public display of one symbol makes the difference between "big on personal expression on freedom" and the contrary? Aha.

I refer you to the FCC, the proposed flag burning amendment that has been endorsed by all states' legislature, and the federal ban on 'obscene pornography' in the US for further information on US censorship.


Nice try but the best you can do is a PROPOSED law? The US Supreme Court struck down most federal obsenity laws because it was determined that local communities are best equipt to define obscene and not the Federal government with the balance of most Federal obsenity laws struck down on First amendment issues.. The powers of the FCC to censor the airwaves is not an absolute one and as we speak its ability to do just that is being challenged in the US courts as arbitrary and ill defined. So yes we constantly attempt to refine and protect our rights to expression.

Everything I know about Scientology tells me it's just a money-making scheme cooked up by it's prophet/profit, and where people actually do "believe" it, it resembles not a religion (i.e, with spiritual ideas) but expensive, pseudo-scientific, self-help type "improvement" courses with a quasi-mystical bent.

Still, it's hard to reconcile my belief that it's not deserving of any protection based on its status as a religion, with my belief that Islam does deserve such protection. There are many huge differences between the two, of course, but in the end it comes down to me drawing a line and declaring one thing a valid religion and another thing a dangerous cult.

For me though the main difference worthy here is that Islam is a lot older, has a rich and genuine spiritual history, and is widely practiced and believed by a huge chunk of the world's population. That's something worth protecting, whereas if I just tomorrow declare that I'm a new God and my house is a temple and please can I get a tax write off now, I don't think that's equivalent at all.

But I do know how dangerous this position is, since the Islamophobes could be said to be simply drawing that same line in a different place. And I hate them. ;)

Germany... can ban Scientology if they want to.Yes.

Germany can ban Scientology if they want to.

one word: Sovereignty.




Do I support the ban? Of course Not. Not anymore than I would support faith censorship... The censorship of any Religion/cult/faith/whatever is still speech/faith censorship.

Rolling squid;13272847']
When EXACLTY did the CoS kill anyone? And I don't mean some guy in the church going off and killing someone of his own free will, I mean a leader of the CoS telling another member or hiring a hitman.

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

See Lisa McPherson. Not the only one, just the most publicized one.

Also, see the Fair Game policy, instituted by none other than the CoS founder, Hubbard.

Lastly, make sure to add the names of the one's you're quoting next time. Hard to spot a reply if in a rush.

Rolling squid;13272910']Sorry about the typo, but good point.
No need to be 'sorry', I had just hoped to help you out there because I thought it an immensely important word to spell correctly.

Oh, and thanks for keeping up the non-aggressive interpersonal debating style.

I did. thats what I found.

I see. Things I find most important among the allegations are (and mind that I feel that we are always talking about organized, policy-endorsed crime and not singular, individual-related crimes):

- abuse of information and illegal methods of acquiring information

- psychological torture of both members and perceived 'enemies'

- illegal, involuntary confinement of people

- libel, organized lying and cover-up, and organized attacking and silencing of unwanted information and its carriers

- irresponsible and in many cases (German law) illegal taking advantage of the informativeness or gullibility of people, both psychologically and physically.

Lest someone jump in saying "but all major organizations / churches do that" :

It is both the extent and, more importantly, the inherentness in the 'church''s core policies that set this case apart.

Nice try but the best you can do is a PROPOSED law?
Please try not to disregard neither my emphasis that all states have actively appealed for such a federal law, nor the other instances I've given.

The US Supreme Court struck down most federal obsenity laws because it was determined that local communities are best equipt to define obscene and not the Federal government.

I'm not sure what you refer to with your first sentence, but the US Supreme Court very clearly rules that 'obscenity' is not protected under the 1st Amendment, and has even devised a test, the 'Miller Test', to determine such obscenity.

What is correct, however, is that this is not a precise instrument and that actual, de facto classification and persecution of potentially obscene things vary locally, but that does not change the fact that the liberty of personal expression is clearly limited federally to 'non-obscene' things.


Another example I've just found are the so-called 'Son of Sam' laws, that prohibit felons, their offspring and sometimes their other relatives to make profit from publishing their memoirs, and/or the sale of so-called 'murderabilia', artefacts relating prominently to a felon and/or their (famous) crimes.

Especially the first one does limit one's freedom of expression, no?

Look, I'm not terribly interested in a pissing contest of "whose country sucks most in terms of restricting free speech"; I've just wanted to object of your marking Germany as especially restricting by showing you that other, 'free' countries employ similar methods for select forms of expressions, which vary from country to country according to their specific sensibilities.

Yes.

Germany can ban Scientology if they want to.

No. German jurisdiction is bound to certain rules of Fair Process, among those rules of under which circumstances a ban on an organization may be attempted, and under which circumstances it may be successful.

Currently, there is no decision yet on whether there is enough material to even start a legal procedure attempting a ban against Scientology, let alone enough to actually warrant a 'positive' outcome of such a process.

Please refer to the rather recent, failed attempt to ban the NPD, a neonazi party, because of violations of Fair Process rules, even though 'Germany' can probably be argued to 'want to' ban them.

Rolling squid;13272883']They didn't get away with it, did they? Quite a few people went to jail IIRC.

Oddly enough though, the organisation didn't change

Rolling squid;13272713']"At some point, we all must chose between what is right and what is easy"
Guess which one you just picked.

Easy is doing nothing.

Guessing at all the work that has to be done before actually banning anything doesn't sound easy at all... :confused:

Guessing at all the work that has to be done before actually banning anything doesn't sound easy at all... :confused:

Yea, piling up all those books is alot of hard work, then you have to find a match, and then once the fire is burning, you need to find new things to ban to throw in the fire to keep it going. Its alot of hard work indeed. Banning is bad mkay?

Do I support the ban? Of course Not. Not anymore than I would support faith censorship... The censorship of any Religion/cult/faith/whatever is still speech/faith censorship.

Not if the respective Religion/cult/faith/whateves violates the principles of the constitution. A state cannot allow an organization to turn its citizens into puppets.

Now if only we could ban Scientology over here in the U.K.
As it stands now, we don't recognise it as an official religion because it charges membership fees.
Having said that, I would whole-heartedly support the destruction of all organised religions/cults/belief systems, so, I dunno maybe my view may just be a teensy-weensy bit biased eh?

Yea, piling up all those books is alot of hard work, then you have to find a match, and then once the fire is burning, you need to find new things to ban to throw in the fire to keep it going. Its alot of hard work indeed. Banning is bad mkay?

*opens local chapter of Ku-Klux-Klan in your neighborhood*

*founds local chapter of child pornography lovers next to some kindergarten*

*recites "banning is bad, mkay" all day*


Apart from that quip - no, banning an organization is not at all easy around here, and that's a good thing. In order for an organization to be banned, lots of legal steps have to be taken, and there are barriers and burdens of proof that the organization is indeed actively combating the Constitution and/or human rights to be taken in the process. The easy thing would, indeed, be to let them be.

But this is not a question of what is easier, but what is right. And neither the easy way nor the hard way are inherently right, in no case.

Not if the respective Religion/cult/faith/whateves violates the principles of the constitution.
That's correct.
A state cannot allow an organization to turn its citizens into puppets.

That isn't, if I understand your usage of the word 'puppet' correctly. The beef here isn't what Scientology allegedly makes its member think, or how they make them act, but the methods it uses to achieve that.

You are perfectly within your rights if you choose to be/found/run an organization whose aim it is to make people apathetic and/or think/vote/act a certain way; only you may not do so with the previously mentioned methods Scientology is notorious for using.

Yea, piling up all those books is alot of hard work, then you have to find a match, and then once the fire is burning, you need to find new things to ban to throw in the fire to keep it going. Its alot of hard work indeed. Banning is bad mkay?


I'll swap you this apple for one of your oranges.

'kay?

Now if only we could ban Scientology over here in the U.K.
As it stands now, we don't recognise it as an official religion because it charges membership fees.


Doesn't your run-of-the-mill Christian church, too? I know our two main Christian denominations charge monthly "church membership fee", which is even legally referred to as a tax and deducted from your pay as such if you are officially registered as a church member. Wiki has an article on that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchensteuer).

Okay, so I now know from the Wiki church tax article that the UK doesn't have that, but I thought that membership fees (not necessarily in the form of a government-controlled tax) were somewhat universal.. how do UK churches finance themselves?

I'll swap you this apple for one of your oranges.

'kay?

May I have a pear, please?

(In German, we say "That's like comparing apples to pears", rather than oranges, and I'm more partial to pears anyhow)

May I have a pear, please?

(In German, we say "That's like comparing apples to pears", rather than oranges, and I'm more partial to pears anyhow)

Really?

That does makes a certain amount of sense though.

*hand SoWiBi a pear*

*opens local chapter of Ku-Klux-Klan in your neighborhood*

You will find my logic to be consistent. The KKK could do cartwheels down Main street for all i care. As long as they have a legal permit to be doing so well then knock yourselves out folks.

*founds local chapter of child pornography lovers next to some kindergarten*

Child pornographers can go anywhere they please and think whatever the hell they want, with sugar plumbs of dancing preeteens in thier heads. If they keep thier hands to themselves and break no laws then as far as im concerned knock yourselves out folks.

*recites "banning is bad, mkay" all day*

Banning is still bad mkay?

Doesn't your run-of-the-mill Christian church, too? I know our two main Christian denominations charge monthly "church membership fee", which is even legally referred to as a tax and deducted from your pay as such if you are officially registered as a church member. Wiki has an article on that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchensteuer).

Okay, so I now know from the Wiki church tax article that the UK doesn't have that, but I thought that membership fees (not necessarily in the form of a government-controlled tax) were somewhat universal.. how do UK churches finance themselves?

Nope, against the law for a religion to charge membership fees.

Really?

That does makes a certain amount of sense though.

*hand SoWiBi a pear*

Thank you so much.

As to idioms making (no) sense; what's the deal with being "as different as chalk and cheese"?

You will find my logic to be consistent.
Same here.
The KKK could do cartwheels down Main street for all i care. As long as they have a legal permit to be doing so well then knock yourselves out folks.

Child pornographers can go anywhere they please and think whatever the hell they want, with sugar plumbs of dancing preeteens in thier heads. If they keep thier hands to themselves and break no laws then as far as im concerned knock yourselves out folks. [/QUOTE]
Same here.

Scientologists can do cartwheels down Main Street as much as they want to, and if doing cartwheels down Main Street (without endangering traffic) were their main policy, I'd object to their organization being banned.

Scientologists can also go wherever they please, and think about psychologically torturing people as much as they want to, for all I'm concerned. What they are not free to do is to psychologically torture people in real life, much less run an organization that has this in their policies.

Banning is still bad mkay?
Banning of thoughts, ideas, and speech? Yes.

Banning of certain actions and organizations performing/promoting those actions? Sometimes necessary.

I'm all for religious freedom, but near as I can tell Scientology seems more like a really successful scam and I'm all in favor of any scam being made illegal.

That's correct.


That isn't, if I understand your usage of the word 'puppet' correctly. The beef here isn't what Scientology allegedly makes its member think, or how they make them act, but the methods it uses to achieve that.

You are perfectly within your rights if you choose to be/found/run an organization whose aim it is to make people apathetic and/or think/vote/act a certain way; only you may not do so with the previously mentioned methods Scientology is notorious for using.An organization is right to remote control their followers minds and actions?

I know nothing about the CoS except what is reported and I take those reports with the same amount of salt I take when they report on Christian Churches or any other religion.

So, I shall concentrate only on the article and not the Status of the CoS as a religion.

BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- Germany's top security officials said Friday they consider the goals of the Church of Scientology to be in conflict with the principles of the nation's constitution and will seek to ban the organization.

Not violating the nation's constitution, but conflicting with the principals of the nation's contitution. So it sounds like the CoS isn't breaking the consititution itself.

...which has been under observation for a decade on allegations that it "threatens the peaceful democratic order" of the country. so at least Germany is doing/has done an investigation. I wonder what it found?

Ten years of OPC surveillance has uncovered absolutely no wrongdoing which could justify a ban, as conceded by Federal Minister of Interior Wolfgang Schauble in his interview with German Radio. There is no evidence of wrongdoing to uncover. looks like they found nothing...

as for Germany's right to ban the CoS? well, let them (Germany) make their case. what 'principals' is the CoS in conflict with? is there really no evidence of wrongdoing in Germany itself?

oh and I like this part...
Earlier this year, the German government initially refused to allow the producers of a movie starring Scientology member Tom Cruise as the most famous anti-Hitler plotter to film at the site where the hero was executed, although it did not expressly state Scientology as its reason. It later allowed the production to go ahead.

So if Scientology wasn't expressed as a reason, why mention this?

Scientologists can do cartwheels down Main Street as much as they want to, and if doing cartwheels down Main Street (without endangering traffic) were their main policy, I'd object to their organization being banned.

Thats not at all what im saying. What is the fundemental difference between KKK going down the street yelling " Down with niggers" and having people trying to get observers to sign up for thier organization and Scientologists Cartwheeling down the street yelling" Down with body Thetans" and having people with E-meters following behind trying to get you to join thier cause. Its the EXACT same bullshit and neithers nonsence should be drawn as distinct. And both should of course be allowed.

Scientologists can also go wherever they please, and think about psychologically torturing people as much as they want to, for all I'm concerned. What they are not free to do is to psychologically torture people in real life, much less run an organization that has this in their policies.

Tell that to Gays and Lesbians in Catholisicm too, you know the religion that tells you homosexuality is an abomination to God and you will burn in eternal hell and damnation for defiling Gods sacred union between a man and a woman. Wow, thats pretty psychologically damaging isnt it? Do we ban The Catholic Church next using those very same principals that you want used against Scientology?


Banning of thoughts, ideas, and speech? Yes.

Banning of certain actions and organizations performing/promoting those actions? Sometimes necessary.

Interesting that thoughts ideas and speech shouldnt be banned, but get 3 people together with the same thoughts ideas and speech and NOW its time to whip out the banhammer?

An organization is right to remote control their followers minds and actions?

a) I'm 21 and I've done several pretty thorough searches on my own and other people's bodies, and I have yet to find any sort of button, receivers or similar that allow for remote control.

b) Seriously, unless we're talking illegal abuse of medication and/or certain severe forms of psychological abuse, you cannot remote control people. You can indoctrinate them, sure, but as long as you do not actively restrict those people's acces to the rest of the world in the process, you are within legal limits, sure - and I believe that is a good thing.

Whether, of course, such indoctrination is 'right' in a moral sense is a whole different thing.

Thats not at all what im saying. What is the fundemental difference between KKK going down the street yelling " Down with niggers" and having people trying to get observers to sign up for thier organization and Scientologists Cartwheeling down the street yelling" Down with body Thetans" and having people with E-meters following behind trying to get you to join thier cause. Its the EXACT same bullshit and neithers nonsence should be drawn as distinct. And both should of course be allowed.

No, that is not the same.
In your example, I'd be fine with the Scientologists. Promoting some sort of silliness that doesn't violate our constitution or the human rights is fine with me.
Your example's KKK members, however, advocate the unconstitutional and inhumane treatment of one group of people, and that is neither OK nor legal.

As I said before, I'm fine with Scientologist ideology being allowed as far as their beliefs in whatnot go; I'm only not fine with their methods of treating members and 'enemies' in the process.

Tell that to Gays and Lesbians in Catholisicm too..Do we ban this church next using those principals?
Principle != principal.

Speaking as a homosexual woman.. I do not see the Catholic church using psychological torture against their homosexual embers, especially not to the extent that Scientology uses it (just in case you insist on stressing the definition of psych. torture).
I do, however, believe that because of their refusal to treat men and woman or hetero- and homosexual people equally when it comes to reaching other than laymen's positions, they ought to not qualify for any governmental fiscal support.

EDIT following your edit: I feel there's a difference between telling me my feelings/thoughts are abomination, and the active, systematic psychological abuse as practiced by Scientology, and I'm very sorry if you do not see that difference.

Interesting that thoughts ideas and speech shouldnt be banned, but get 3 people together with the same thoughts ideas and speech and NOW its time to whip out the banhammer?

First of all, yes I believe that there is a difference between "rights (and responsibilities) of organizations" and "rights (and responsibilities) of individuals".

Secondly, that is not at all what I said, and you seem to repeatedly miss that point.

I do NOT support the ban of Scientology because of their ideology. I do NOT support the ban of Scientology because of what they say or think.

I DO support the ban of Scientology because of their actions, and because I think those actions are not the crimes of individuals, but reflections of the organization's policies.

Not violating the nation's constitution, but conflicting with the principals of the nation's contitution. So it sounds like the CoS isn't breaking the consititution itself.
I know this might sound funny, but within our legal system, actively advocating going against the principles of our constitution constitutes a crime, so while it might not "break the constitution" itself (which is somewhat hard to do because our constitution is more of a set of guidelines; we have different texts for actual law), it might break German law.

so at least Germany is doing/has done an investigation. I wonder what it found?
I'm sorry that the official documents of our Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution regarding this are not available in English, and I have not yet found the time to peruse them thoroughly enough to give an account here and now.

looks like they found nothing...

This is not true. As stated above, I'm sorry I can't do a whole lot for you right now, but I can link you to the Federal Office's website (http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/index_en.html) and, more concretely, to their section on Scientology (http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/en_fields_of_work/scientology/) where they say
The "Scientology Organisation" (SO) is still being monitored by the offices for the protection of the constitution. Concrete evidence of activities directed against the free democratic basic order continues to be available. This is why the legal requirement for the organisation to be monitored by the offices for the protection of the constitution is met. Therefore, the relevant decision made in 1997 by the Permanent Conference of the State Ministers of the Interior and the State Senates remains valid.(bold mine)
In the German version of that site, you'll find the relevant documents to support that claim ready for download.
So if Scientology wasn't expressed as a reason, why mention this?
I remember this differently. I seem to recall that the movie was to be filmed on governmentally important sites, and that the reasoning went that someone who belongs to an organization being monitored because they are suspected to work against the constitution may not enter such sensitive sites.

I'll try and dig that out.

ETA: A quick search gave me this Reuter's article (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL253889920070625?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true) from June 2007 that supports what I just said. Please note that there appear to be many conflicting articles out there; I just hope that Reuters is respectable a source enough to warrant that the main information is correct.

There has also been a thread on NSG (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=531099)about it when it happened (how terribly self-referential.. ;P)

It is something you have to look for, but once sought.... Travel to the Southeast and Appalachia. It isn't like they have a huge advertising budget, but they're out there. Go ahead and Google "faith healing" or "prayer instead of medicine" in quotes and look at the number of links.
You mentioned those sects in saying "Those sects of Christianity, however, are not banned.". Which is why I pointed out that the German government can't ban something that doesn't exist here or, if it does, has not come to light so far. So your comparison between Scientology and these sects does not work for the matter at hand.

Uh...syntax error? I think you twisted my words to say that because someone didn't get punished in the past means that nobody should be punished in the present for the same crime. Fine. How about you deal with what I said, not how what I said might be interpreted? I asked you where the line is to be drawn if passage of time is all that stands between one moneymaking scam and another. You didn't answer and instead chose to claim I twisted words that weren't even yours. Weak sauce.
Excuse me? Let's recap:

I said to Khadgar (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13271381#post13271381): How I hate when people come back with this as their argument.

You just said that all religions are like Scientology.

Newsflash: They. Are. Not.

It doesn't matter one iota to the matter at hand if they were evil a couple thousand years ago, or even a hundred years ago, just like it doesn't matter that thieves were once upon a time punished by having their hand cut off. You'd still not be allowed to do it today.

Gah.
You replied to that: (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13272640&postcount=55) It doesn't matter? Really? So when The Roman Empire tried to ban early Christianity, according to you, they were doing the right thing. Fine. What you're saying, then, is that scamming religions who take money from the faithful in order to fill their temples with gold, jewels and art are okay, so long as they have a significant passage of years in their history.

Where's that line? Should Mormonism be banned, or is 150-200 years long enough?

To which I replied: (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13272707&postcount=63) :rolleyes: Yes. That is clearly what I said. And really, with an argument like that I'd be careful of twisting someone's words - because in that case, what you and others here have said, is essentially that because someone already committed a crime before the guy who commits the same crime today he should not be punished for it.
Really?
I.e. I pointed out that I can choose to interpret your words just as twisted as you did mine.

But since it seems you weren't twisting my words just for fun but maybe for actually not understanding them (which, honestly, I don't believe), let me try again:

This is not about how the passage of time turns a scam into a religion, nor about determining at which point that happens. That is entirely beside the point.
The point is that, no matter what horrible things e.g. Christian religion has done, it's not doing them right now. As I've said before, as long as you don't have a time machine, a prosecution of crimes committed a century or twelve ago is not going to happen.
So unless you want to argue that because other religions have been evil and have gotten off scotfree Scientology also has a right to be evil and get off scotfree, or unless you say Scientology can only be prosecuted for their current crimes if we also prosecute institutions like the Christian churches for their past crimes, then whatever other religions have done in their past is not relevant for this discussion.

One must allow oneself to be brainwashed. There are no laws against it for a reason -- we are responsible for our own actions, and that includes being stupid enough to grant power of attorney to a bunch of scamming manipulators. If the cult breaks the law, prosecute them. End of story. And really, why the antagonistic sarcasm?

[...]

Yes it is. This is where education comes in. If you banned every organization that suckered people into handing over their money legally, you'd have no economy. At least not as we know it, because there goes insurance, automobile dealerships, political campaigns, the circus (if you believe P.T. Barnum), show business, the stock market...and so on. People need to be responsible for their own actions at some point, don't they? There's a reason quotes like "a fool and his money are soon parted" exist.
And yet we prosecute fraud like pyramid schemes and the like, even though the people handing over their money there are *not* doing so after being brainwashed by an organization claiming to help them in a difficult situation and hence are much more to blame for "being a fool".

You appear to be saying that security (from oneself, in this case) trumps freedom. That might be over-broad, but that's what I'm reading. If that's the case, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me.
I wouldn't put it as "security vs. freedom" but it definitely comes down to a fundamentally different view of how far freedom of religion/speech/expression should go and how much they apply here.

Sorry, I haven't read your reply; here's what I'm talking about :

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/irving/ger.html
Huh. I don't think I have ever heard of those "proto-Nazi religions" being active today. And if they are you can be assured that they'd be on the authorities' radar not because of their religious views, whatever those are, but because of their political views.
Either way, I can honestly say that I really don't think that Germany is in any way more leery of cults than other countries. Seriously. The only cult that has made big headlines here in the last 20 years is Scientology.
And sorry for snarking at you. <<


Anyway, I better not post here anymore. It's driving me too crazy. As these threads usually do. SoWiBi is being all calm and reasonable, listen to her instead. *nod*

No, that is not the same.
In your example, I'd be fine with the Scientologists. Promoting some sort of silliness that doesn't violate our constitution or the human rights is fine with me.
Your example's KKK members, however, advocate the unconstitutional and inhumane treatment of one group of people, and that is neither OK nor legal.

Untrue as the Supreme Court and the lower courts have consistently ruled that they do indeed have the right of assembly and the right to showcase thier views. Which is all Scientology is doing as well. Scientology as a religion in whole has not violated the Constitution nor any human rights. So on what grounds are you justifying a banning of them?

As I said before, I'm fine with Scientologist ideology being allowed as far as their beliefs in whatnot go; I'm only not fine with their methods of treating members and 'enemies' in the process.

And what exact methods do you object to that violates the above forementioned Constitution or human rights? Fighting dirty isnt against the Constitution. Throwing an army of harassing lawyers at someone unfortunatly isnt a violation of human rights either.

Principle != principal.

Sorry i dont take spelling lessons from people who i have underwear older than.


I do, however, believe that because of their refusal to treat men and woman or hetero- and homosexual people equally when it comes to reaching other than laymen's positions, they ought to not qualify for any governmental fiscal support.

So why not follow your logic path to its conclusion and support Scientology in the exact same way you support the Catholic Church? Allow it but insure they not qualify for government fiscal support? Are you argueing the Catholic church has been less psycologically damaging then some other organizations (gays lesbians and alter boys exempted) and therefore deserves to be treated any differently?

EDIT following your edit: I feel there's a difference between telling me my feelings/thoughts are abomination, and the active, systematic psychological abuse as practiced by Scientology, and I'm very sorry if you do not see that difference.

Psycological abuse is psycological abuse, paint it as Catholic friendly as you can but it is what it is. Its no less systemic in Scientology then it is there. The entire concept of Catholic guilt is that your a wrong sinning looser and only an invisible God can save you from yourself. Scientologists dont say its you that is the looser they say its invisible bugs clinging to you that make you a looser. Frankly its ALL psycological bullshit designed to break you down and sign up for thier brand of belief. One deserves not an iota more protection from one or the other.



I DO support the ban of Scientology because of their actions, and because I think those actions are not the crimes of individuals, but reflections of the organization's policies.

A valid point if it could be somehow shown that thier policies are fundementally different from any other religion. They arnt and there is no more of a basis to ban them then there is to ban anyone else.

I know this might sound funny, but within our legal system, actively advocating going against the principles of our constitution constitutes a crime, so while it might not "break the constitution" itself (which is somewhat hard to do because our constitution is more of a set of guidelines; we have different texts for actual law), it might break German law. and the sticking point is MIGHT. Won't banning something because it MIGHT break the law border on Thought Police?

I'm sorry that the official documents of our Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution regarding this are not available in English, and I have not yet found the time to peruse them thoroughly enough to give an account here and now. NBD... Not arguing for or against the German government since it's their country.

This is not true. As stated above, I'm sorry I can't do a whole lot for you right now, but I can link you to the Federal Office's website (http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/index_en.html) and, more concretely, to their section on Scientology (http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/en_fields_of_work/scientology/) where they say
(bold mine)
In the German version of that site, you'll find the relevant documents to support that claim ready for download. thanks, as I said, I quoted, it was from the response letter by the CoS.

I would like to see the concrete evidence... but I also understand that such things need to be kept secure until legal action is brought to bear.

*wonders which site translation program is the most accurate...* :)

I remember this differently. I seem to recall that the movie was to be filmed on governmentally important sites, and that the reasoning went that someone who belongs to an organization being monitored because they are suspected to work against the constitution may not enter such sensitive sites.

I'll try and dig that out. no rush... After all, it's only Tom Cruise... :p

EDIT: ah, no wonder I missed it. after all, it's only Tom Cruise... :D

Banning Scientology is not the right move to make. First of all, yes most people (myself included) disagree with Scientology and find it stupid. But freedom of religion means nothing unless it includes ALL religions, cult or not. I view this like I view freedom of speech, I may find racist ideology abhorant and evil, but my soultion would be to argue against it with truth, not banning that speech. The only reason for banning a cult or religion is because it has broken the law and even then fines and jailing of the leadership/those involved ought to be done first. Just like with banning books, banning cults only increases interest in them. If Western nations take their freedoms seriously, then religions and ideologies should not be banned simply because a majority of people dislike them.

Banning organisations that brainwash people, take all their money and harass any critics makes you fascist? (or "facist" as you like to call it)

If so, I'm gonna have to agree with the fascists.

Agreed.

Untrue as the Supreme Court and the lower courts have consistently ruled that they do indeed have the right of assembly and the right to showcase thier views. Which is all Scientology is doing as well. Scientology as a religion in whole has not violated the Constitution nor any human rights. So on what grounds are you justifying a banning of them?

Please NB that we're talking Germany and its laws here (when discussing Scientology in this thread), and that is what I've been referring to.
In Germany, no person (actual or legal) has the right to publicly call for the anti-constitutional treatment of (any group of) people.

And what exact methods do you object to that violates the above forementioned Constitution or human rights?

That, and current law. Just like I told rolling squid, I'd prefer it if people just read the whole thread and the sources linked to therein, but allow me to link you to one particular post of mine (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13272972&postcount=104) where a answered a similar question already.

Everyone please bow to Levee en masse who was great enough to find and share THIS LINK (http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/en_publications/annual_reports/vsbericht2005_engl/vsbericht_2005_engl.pdf), which gives you much of the official information on why the German officials ponder trying to ban Scientology in Germany.

Sorry i dont take spelling lessons from people who i have underwear older than.
If I felt the need to respond in kind, I'd have to say that I don't take a condescending tone from someone who spells worse than a kid who took English lessons for a time equal to the age of my youngest underwear, but I won't. Instead, I'll just say that I - unwarrantedly, apparently - assumed that everyone was thankful for advice on how to improve one's skills, especially such vital ones as spelling key words in one's own language.

So why not follow your logic path to its conclusion and support Scientology in the exact same way you support the Catholic Church? Allow it but insure they not qualify for government fiscal support?
Because I believe that the Catholic church "only" violates our Constitution by one of their ideological tenets, while I believe that Scientology actively works against not only our Constitution, but also criminal law in many, and much more aggressive, ways.
Are you argueing the Catholic church has been less psycologically damaging then some other organizations (gays lesbians and alter boys exempted) and therefore deserves to be treated any differently?
I am absolutely arguing that the Catholic church is less psychologically damaging [to their victims, such as LGBT people] as part of their policies than Scientology, yes.

Psycological abuse is psycological abuse, paint it as Catholic friendly as you can but it is what it is. Its no less systemic in Scientology then it is there. The entire concept of Catholic guilt is that your a wrong sinning looser and only an invisible God can save you from yourself. Scientologists dont say its you that is the looser they say its invisible bugs clinging to you that make you a looser. Frankly its ALL psycological bullshit designed to break you down and sign up for thier brand of belief. One deserves not an iota more protection from one or the other.
Yes, psych. abuse is psych. abuse, just as all crime is crime, but with both matters, there is something called 'degree', and I'd rather that didn't get neglected.

A valid point if it could be somehow shown that thier policies are fundementally different from any other religion. They arnt and there is no more of a basis to ban them then there is to ban anyone else.
Well, we appear to differ on this point. I, and many others in this thread supporting the ban, think that their policies are inherently more criminal than other religions' (NB that Scientology is not recognized as a religion in most countries, including Germany).

and the sticking point is MIGHT. Won't banning something because it MIGHT break the law border on Thought Police?
Absolutely. That's sorta why Scientology is far from being banned at the moment, yes, there isn't even any legal process going on in that direction; all that is being done at the moment is public thought about whether one should try to bring this to court or not.

I would like to see the concrete evidence... but I also understand that such things need to be kept secure until legal action is brought to bear.
One of the pages WYTYG linked to had a nice compilation of the official criminal record of Scientology in the US, and the Wiki page on Scientology Controversy has some more material, but of course that does not answer the German question. If the thread is still alive by the time I've read the material from the Fed Office, I'll tell you :]

Thank you so much.

As to idioms making (no) sense; what's the deal with being "as different as chalk and cheese"?

I was told (and I realise that this has the ring of the folk etymology), cheese makers at one point tried to increase their profits by adding chalk to cheese. Chalk, not tasting very nice, was immediately noticable by its presence.

I think there is some written evidence from the 17th century saying that only a fool couldn't discern the difference between chalk and cheese in relation to the above practise.

As I say I cannot say this is true, but I am rather skeptical.


I would like to see the concrete evidence... but I also understand that such things need to be kept secure until legal action is brought to bear.

*wonders which site translation program is the most accurate...* :)


In addition to what SoWiBi put.

I did a little searching on the Federal Office's site and found this (http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/en_publications/annual_reports/vsbericht2005_engl/vsbericht_2005_engl.pdf) report (in english).

Admittedly it was published in 2006, but it is interesting.

This bit in particular:

The Cologne Administrative Court found that BfV observation
operations targeting the SKD and SKB with both open and covert
intelligence means were legal. The court said there was hard
intelligence that the plaintiffs were working to undermine the free
democratic order. According to the court, there existed a great number
of sources, some of which were not available to the public, from which
it could be derived that intentions were aimed at abrogating or
restricting fundamental basic and human rights, such as human
dignity, the right to free development of personality, and the right to
equality. In addition, the court said that Scientology aspired to a
society without general and fair elections. Therefore, the court ruled
that observation of the plaintiffs by the BfV was necessary and
appropriate and hence reasonable overall.

It talks about Scientology from page 289 onwards.

EDIT: I suppose that this bit also give the office cause for concern:

In one of his other publications, Hubbard described the new
Scientologist civilisation he envisaged as a legal order under which
the existence of the individual is subject to the SO's arbitrary discretion. Correspondingly, basic rights can be enjoyed only by those
people who, after selection under the auditing procedure, are
considered “honest” in the SO's view:

“If we now exert strong influence on others to become honest by
subjecting themselves to an auditing procedure concerning their
overts and withholds, ...”
(Hubbard: “Scientology can have a group win”, translated from the
German; quoted from the arguments for the appeal filed by SO dated
10 May 2005, p. 134)

“In order to obtain help, you must be honest with your auditor. …This
is the path to mental health and true freedom...
“A person's right to survival is directly linked to his honesty…”
(See Einführung in die Ethik der Scientology (Hubbard, Introduction to
the Ethics of Scientology), Copenhagen 1998, p.36 et seq., p. 46)

“Freedom is for honest people. “There is personal freedom only for
those who have the ability to be free.”
(Persönliche Werte und Integrität - Gegründet auf die Werke von
L. Ron Hubbard (Personal values and integrity – Based on the
writings of L. Ron Hubbard), Copenhagen 1991, p. 208)


Sorry i dont take spelling lessons from people who i have underwear older than.

Looking at your post, I helpfully suggest you change this practise.

Or change your underwear more often and lower the bar.

I was told (and I realise that this has the ring of the folk etymology), cheese makers at one point tried to increase their profits by adding chalk to cheese. Chalk, not tasting very nice, was immediately noticable by its presence.
Awesome stuff. Thank you!

I did a little searching on the Federal Office's site and found this (http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/en_publications/annual_reports/vsbericht2005_engl/vsbericht_2005_engl.pdf) report (in english).

Admittedly it was published in 2006, but it is interesting.

Great, thanks! I only looked as far as that main page.

The Cologne Administrative Court found that BfV observation
operations targeting the SKD and SKB with both open and covert
intelligence means were legal. The court said there was hard
intelligence that the plaintiffs were working to undermine the free
democratic order. According to the court, there existed a great number
of sources, some of which were not available to the public, from which
it could be derived that intentions were aimed at abrogating or
restricting fundamental basic and human rights, such as human
dignity, the right to free development of personality, and the right to
equality. In addition, the court said that Scientology aspired to a
society without general and fair elections. Therefore, the court ruled
that observation of the plaintiffs by the BfV was necessary and
appropriate and hence reasonable overall.

I think the part I took the liberty to bold is what'll help most. With good lawyers, you might be able to slip out of the more fuzzy human rights thing, but this is rather tangible.

Awesome stuff. Thank you!

Who'd have known that my rather sad and geeky hobby of researching idioms and etymology would ever come in useful! :)

There is another story, more outlandish imo, about the counties Dorset and Devon. Famous for chalk and cheese respectively and it being hard to distinguish them. But it was all very wooly.

Great, thanks! I only looked as far as that main page.

</snip>

I think the part I took the liberty to bold is what'll help most. With good lawyers, you might be able to slip out of the more fuzzy human rights thing, but this is rather tangible.

True.


It is things like this which made me change from thinking Scientology was a harmless scam of the guillible rich/celebrities to seeing it as quite a sinister force.

TBH, I don't blame the Federal government one bit for at least investigating the organisation.

It is weird seeing sources in the report followed by "(translated from the German)" for things I'm sure were translated into German first.

EDIT: Not as weird as reading about the "Antideutsche" further down though. But I suppose many coutries have them (eg "The South will rise again" types in the US) *shrug*

Who'd have known that my rather sad and geeky hobby of researching idioms and etymology would ever come in useful! :)
Geeky, you say? Never! Last Christmas, I gave my father a self-compiled collection of contrasting English/German idioms like the one we started out with, you know, where there's basically the same picture behind it, but with little details altered, like pears instead of oranges and the like. Or, say, it raining cats and dogs (of unspecified size) with you, while for us Germans, it's only raining little dogs.

There is another story, more outlandish imo, about the counties Dorset and Devon. Famous for chalk and cheese respectively and it being hard to distinguish them. But it was all very wooly.

That's hilarious too.


It is things like this which made me change from thinking Scientology was a harmless scam of the gullible rich/celebrities to seeing it as quite a sinister force.

Yeah, I was fortunate enough to have read appropriate literature before, but just right now, I've talked to someone whose uncle has been seriously damaged by the organization, and it gives you the chills, really.

TBH, I don't blame the Federal government one bit for at least investigating the organisation.

As far as I know, it's quite thorough and reliable with keeping an eye on things , also in the most unusual places you wouldn't immediately suspect.

The court said there was hard
intelligence that the plaintiffs were working to undermine the free
democratic order. According to the court, there existed a great number
of sources, some of which were not available to the public, from which
it could be derived that intentions were aimed at abrogating or
restricting fundamental basic and human rights, such as human
dignity, the right to free development of personality, and the right to
equality. . Therefore, the court ruled
that observation of the plaintiffs by the BfV was necessary and
appropriate and hence reasonable overall.[/indent]


This strikes me as a load of nonsence. Abrogating or restricting basic and human rights? Does anyone see a gun held to Tom Cruises or John Travoltas head or otherwise restricting thier basic and human rights? The right to a free development of personality? Are you kidding me? This is a charge of a crime? If Scientology is able to give Tom Cruise any personality whatsoever i will be first in line to sign up for Scientology myself. The right to equality? I think Scientology bamboozles all equally. No more or less so then any other similar flavor of beliefs. Oh and the bolded part "In addition, the court said that Scientology aspired to a society without general and fair elections" GASP! Say it isnt so! An organization that doesnt care about voting and fair elections? Clearly an automatic reason to ban! The HORROR! Is there an 11th commandment in the bible that says "Thou shallst have fair and general elections" that i missed that draws similar scrutiny away from Catholisicm? Since when is it a prerequisite to be a member in an organization to have to believe in elections or anything else for that matter?

This strikes me as a load of nonsence. Abrogating or restricting basic and human rights? Does anyone see a gun held to Tom Cruises or John Travoltas head or otherwise restricting thier basic and human rights? The right to a free development of personality? Are you kidding me? This is a charge of a crime? If Scientology is able to give Tom Cruise any personality whatsoever i will be first in line to sign up for Scientology myself. The right to equality? I think Scientology bamboozles all equally. No more or less so then any other similar flavor of beliefs. Oh and the bolded part "In addition, the court said that Scientology aspired to a society without general and fair elections" GASP! Say it isnt so! An organization that doesnt care about voting and fair elections? Clearly an automatic reason to ban! The HORROR! Is there an 11th commandment in the bible that says "Thou shallst have fair and general elections" that i missed that draws similar scrutiny away from Catholisicm? Since when is it a prerequisite to be a member in an organization to have to believe in elections or anything else for that matter?

Whoa. Maybe reading the link Levee en Masse put up would be a good idea? o_O

Whoa. Maybe reading the link Levee en Masse put up would be a good idea? o_O

You mean all 400 pages? Gee sorry.

You mean all 400 pages? Gee sorry.

Pssh, it's only 10 pages. Well, 9 full pages and a 10th page with few posts on it.

What is the fundemental difference between KKK going down the street yelling " Down with niggers" and having people trying to get observers to sign up for thier organization and Scientologists Cartwheeling down the street yelling" Down with body Thetans" and having people with E-meters following behind trying to get you to join thier cause. Its the EXACT same bullshit and neithers nonsence should be drawn as distinct. And both should of course be allowed.


What is the fundamental difference between the Army of God's killing of doctors, bombing clinics and Scientology's official practice of ruining and/or killing its detractors and attempting to subvert governments through infiltration?

Would you argue that the Army of God should be taken off the list of banned organizations as well?

What about Ansar al-Islam? Al-Qaeda?

What's the fundamental difference between the two? When it comes right down to the basics, what's the difference?

And lastly, incitement to riot is considered a crime in most countries. Would you argue that incitement to commit crimes is not a crime then? That if a firebrand led a mob to your house and torched it to the ground, along with you, said firebrand would be blameless?

Answer that if you can.

Throwing an army of harassing lawyers at someone unfortunatly isnt a violation of human rights either.


And neither is framing you for attempted assassination of heads of state, bomb threats, and other assorted crimes which you've never done, but will be arrested for, another signature Scientologist tactic.

Time to steal your stuff and frame you for a couple of bank robberies then eh?

What is the fundamental difference between the Army of God's killing of doctors, bombing clinics and Scientology's official practice of ruining and/or killing its detractors and attempting to subvert governments through infiltration?

Would you argue that the Army of God should be taken off the list of banned organizations as well?

What about Ansar al-Islam? Al-Qaeda?

What's the fundamental difference between the two? When it comes right down to the basics, what's the difference?

I dont believe any group should be banned. I believe that people can be law abiding and be a member of virtually any group. The second you do something against the law, then you are a criminal and deserve the punishment law allows. If you decide to join a neighboorhood "Lets Build a Dirty Bomb "club, by all means please feel free to do so. As long as you make no effort to actually build a bomb but you get your jolllies about talking about it, again go nuts for all i care. You break the law then thats where i have a problem and the people who break it need to go to jail. I dont think Al-Queda should be banned. But if your in Al Queda and your running around making bombs or supporting lawlessness then expect assasination or arrest.

And lastly, incitement to riot is considered a crime in most countries. Would you argue that incitement to commit crimes is not a crime then? That if a firebrand led a mob to your house and torched it to the ground, along with you, said firebrand would be blameless?

Answer that if you can.

I would never argue any such thing. Incitement to riot is a crime and can and should be punished. As long as this is distinct from simply having an unpopular opinion i see nothing that would make you think i hold anyone blameless for anything they do.

Banning organisations that brainwash people, take all their money and harass any critics makes you fascist?

yes it does.

Uh...it's Germany. Of course it is.
*dances some more*
Yes. Exactly. But then, I'm a fascist, so what do you expect?
Heil Dir! :p
Thats not saying much. Germans arnt real big on personal expressions of freedom. Try waving a swastika around in Germany and see how long till your in jail.
You'd rather find yourself in a hospital with your teeth kicked in, and I'd be more than happy to serve the term for that.
No need to be 'sorry', I had just hoped to help you out there because I thought it an immensely important word to spell correctly.

Oh, and thanks for keeping up the non-aggressive interpersonal debating style.


I see. Things I find most important among the allegations are (and mind that I feel that we are always talking about organized, policy-endorsed crime and not singular, individual-related crimes):

- abuse of information and illegal methods of acquiring information

- psychological torture of both members and perceived 'enemies'

- illegal, involuntary confinement of people

- libel, organized lying and cover-up, and organized attacking and silencing of unwanted information and its carriers

- irresponsible and in many cases (German law) illegal taking advantage of the informativeness or gullibility of people, both psychologically and physically.

Lest someone jump in saying "but all major organizations / churches do that" :

It is both the extent and, more importantly, the inherentness in the 'church''s core policies that set this case apart.


Please try not to disregard neither my emphasis that all states have actively appealed for such a federal law, nor the other instances I've given.



I'm not sure what you refer to with your first sentence, but the US Supreme Court very clearly rules that 'obscenity' is not protected under the 1st Amendment, and has even devised a test, the 'Miller Test', to determine such obscenity.

What is correct, however, is that this is not a precise instrument and that actual, de facto classification and persecution of potentially obscene things vary locally, but that does not change the fact that the liberty of personal expression is clearly limited federally to 'non-obscene' things.


Another example I've just found are the so-called 'Son of Sam' laws, that prohibit felons, their offspring and sometimes their other relatives to make profit from publishing their memoirs, and/or the sale of so-called 'murderabilia', artefacts relating prominently to a felon and/or their (famous) crimes.

Especially the first one does limit one's freedom of expression, no?

Look, I'm not terribly interested in a pissing contest of "whose country sucks most in terms of restricting free speech"; I've just wanted to object of your marking Germany as especially restricting by showing you that other, 'free' countries employ similar methods for select forms of expressions, which vary from country to country according to their specific sensibilities.
W00t!
a) I'm 21 and I've done several pretty thorough searches on my own and other people's bodies, and I have yet to find any sort of button, receivers or similar that allow for remote control.
Beweise, Beweise!

yes it does.
How so?

You'd rather find yourself in a hospital with your teeth kicked in, and I'd be more than happy to serve the term for that.


Who ever would have thought, a German threatening physical violence when confronted by ideas that make them uncomfortable. You couldnt write the stereotype any better if you tried. :rolleyes:

Who ever would have thought, a German threatening physical violence when confronted by ideas that make them uncomfortable. You couldnt write the stereotype any better if you tried. :rolleyes:
I know. :D More than happy to oblige. :rolleyes:

How so?

Fascism is banning opposing viewpoints or criticisms.

So then, you see that banning Scientology, as well as other cults, rituals, major religions, etc. is forcible suppression of an opposing viewpoint and is fascism.

I dont believe any group should be banned. I believe that people can be law abiding and be a member of virtually any group. The second you do something against the law, then you are a criminal and deserve the punishment law allows. If you decide to join a neighboorhood "Lets Build a Dirty Bomb "club, by all means please feel free to do so. As long as you make no effort to actually build a bomb but you get your jolllies about talking about it, again go nuts for all i care. You break the law then thats where i have a problem and the people who break it need to go to jail. I dont think Al-Queda should be banned. But if your in Al Queda and your running around making bombs or supporting lawlessness then expect assasination or arrest.

So let me get this straight. There would be absolutely nothing wrong about an organization who's objectives solely consist of "kill as many people as possible"? If it's entire purpose is to direct as many of its members as possible into creating the biggest slaughter possible, there would be nothing wrong with it?

Are we going to end up with a "just giving orders, I didn't actually pull the trigger" excuse to validate the purpose of these groups for non-banning?


I would never argue any such thing.


By separating the objectives and directives of Scientology from the ones who follow them, you actually are.


Incitement to riot is a crime and can and should be punished.


So is directing underlings to commit fraud, theft and harassment. It is part of their core directives, but you don't seem to think Scientology as a whole should be punished for doing so.

If so, then incitement to riot is not a crime, and cannot be punished if the inciter belongs to a "make people riot" organization.


As long as this is distinct from simply having an unpopular opinion i see nothing that would make you think i hold anyone blameless for anything they do.

Scientology does not ONLY have an unpopular opinion. Part of its tenets distinctly encourage and direct its members to commit criminal acts. This is a fact that you seem to dance around quite often.

Why?

Fascism is banning opposing viewpoints or criticisms.That's not what defines fascism. Banning a dangerous organization is definitely not fascism.
Your sentence should go "Banning opposing viewpoints or criticisms happens under fascist regimes."

.

Huh. I don't think I have ever heard of those "proto-Nazi religions" being active today. And if they are you can be assured that they'd be on the authorities' radar not because of their religious views, whatever those are, but because of their political views.
Either way, I can honestly say that I really don't think that Germany is in any way more leery of cults than other countries. Seriously. The only cult that has made big headlines here in the last 20 years is Scientology.
And sorry for snarking at you. <<


Anyway, I better not post here anymore. It's driving me too crazy. As these threads usually do. SoWiBi is being all calm and reasonable, listen to her instead. *nod*

Ah but those "proto-Nazi" thingies crystalizes on the cult of personality of Hitler.

And no worries on snarking, it's an online forum anyways.

Fascism is banning opposing viewpoints or criticisms.

Actually, that's REASON.

This strikes me as a load of nonsence. Abrogating or restricting basic and human rights? Does anyone see a gun held to Tom Cruises or John Travoltas head or otherwise restricting thier basic and human rights? The right to a free development of personality? Are you kidding me? This is a charge of a crime? If Scientology is able to give Tom Cruise any personality whatsoever i will be first in line to sign up for Scientology myself. The right to equality? I think Scientology bamboozles all equally. No more or less so then any other similar flavor of beliefs.
It's early morning for me and I have a lot to get done today, so please excuse a less than thorough answer - one that doesn't go inot detail actually answering all your individual points. I'll just abbreviate it by saying that yes, there are those human rights, and yes, you can violate them, and yes, those are charges of a crime. Oh and, yes, Scientology does violate them, and if you had read the link (it even says from what page onward, so don't weasel out with your "but it's 400 pages!"), you'd have been explained just how.

Oh and the bolded part "In addition, the court said that Scientology aspired to a society without general and fair elections" GASP! Say it isnt so! An organization that doesnt care about voting and fair elections? Clearly an automatic reason to ban! The HORROR! Is there an 11th commandment in the bible that says "Thou shallst have fair and general elections" that i missed that draws similar scrutiny away from Catholisicm? Since when is it a prerequisite to be a member in an organization to have to believe in elections or anything else for that matter?

I guess you won't take lessons in close reading from me, either, but do allow me to point out that you appear to have missed the slight, but crucial difference between "doesn't state general and fair elections as a goal in their program" and "states the abolition of general and fair elections in their program". You know, "aspire to" is a verb of active seeking, not of passive failing to mention the opposite.
And yes, having actively seeking, or "aspiring to" the end of general and fair election as a part of your program makes an organization illegal (around here).


Beweise, Beweise!

*Does a thorough search on your drunken, helpless body, films it and makes very sure to post the YT link on NSG*

Happy?

Thats not saying much. Germans arnt real big on personal expressions of freedom. Try waving a swastika around in Germany and see how long till your in jail.Well, it is the right of the German people to have swastika-waving people arrested. What the swastika symbolizes is unconstitutional in Germany. That demonstrates that Germany has grown up in the past 60 years, while other countries very obviously have not.

There are just two ways for this mind fucking pseudo-religion.
One is educating the general public.
The other is to just throw them out of the country.

The first way is almost impossible because of the Scientology lawyer army.
And even the small amount of information that seeks out to the man on the street seems to not be enough.

The people have been educated by television and all other ways of capitalist advertisement to act accessible on the methods Scientology uses.

This leads to the second way.
Of course it may look strange or even for the children here "fascist" to ban them but this is not a religion.
If they are religion then McDonalds and MTV are a religion too.

This organization has grown out of our system like his child. The aims are pure capitalistic achieved by mind fuck.
This is what you have when you turn on your TV. This is what you do at work.
If this is a religion then only the religion of avarice.

Geeky, you say? Never! Last Christmas, I gave my father a self-compiled collection of contrasting English/German idioms like the one we started out with, you know, where there's basically the same picture behind it, but with little details altered, like pears instead of oranges and the like. Or, say, it raining cats and dogs (of unspecified size) with you, while for us Germans, it's only raining little dogs.

Cool :cool:

That sounds brilliant!


That's hilarious too.

Re-reading that, I realise I left out a critical "not,"

"and it not being hard to distinguish them


Yeah, I was fortunate enough to have read appropriate literature before, but just right now, I've talked to someone whose uncle has been seriously damaged by the organization, and it gives you the chills, really.

Other then looking into their regional HQ when I was young, because of the SF books in the window. I never really thought about them again until I was bored at work a few years ago and looked it up on wiki.

As far as I know, it's quite thorough and reliable with keeping an eye on things , also in the most unusual places you wouldn't immediately suspect.

It certainly seems that way. I am actually enjoying reading other parts of the report too (I never thought I'd say that about a governmental report :eek:)

This strikes me as a load of nonsence. Abrogating or restricting basic and human rights? Does anyone see a gun held to Tom Cruises or John Travoltas head or otherwise restricting thier basic and human rights? The right to a free development of personality? Are you kidding me? This is a charge of a crime? If Scientology is able to give Tom Cruise any personality whatsoever i will be first in line to sign up for Scientology myself. The right to equality? I think Scientology bamboozles all equally. No more or less so then any other similar flavor of beliefs. Oh and the bolded part "In addition, the court said that Scientology aspired to a society without general and fair elections" GASP! Say it isnt so! An organization that doesnt care about voting and fair elections? Clearly an automatic reason to ban! The HORROR! Is there an 11th commandment in the bible that says "Thou shallst have fair and general elections" that i missed that draws similar scrutiny away from Catholisicm? Since when is it a prerequisite to be a member in an organization to have to believe in elections or anything else for that matter?

Your sophistry and evasion aside, try reading the source first.

Contrary to what you claim further on. It is only around 300 pages long and the salient bit about Scientology is only from page 289 to page 300. I sure it is not too onerous to ask people to read 12 pages from a report.

Did you even click on the link?

Fascism is banning opposing viewpoints or criticisms.

So then, you see that banning Scientology, as well as other cults, rituals, major religions, etc. is forcible suppression of an opposing viewpoint and is fascism.

No.

1) Fascism is not banning opposing viewpoints or critcisms. Fascist regimes do do this, but it is not unique to them.
You may as well claim "Fascism is about have a strong head of state; Therefore country X is fascist because it has a strong head of state."

2) The German Government does not see is as a religion, at all. It sees it as a dangerous commercial operation with aim that run contrary to the ideals of democracy in general and the German Constitution in particular.

3) They are not banning the religion. I'm sure it is possible to be 'freezone' in Germany. I have read nothing to suggest that they are being suppressed. By the government anyway, apparently the CoS is a bit more hostile to them.

4) This is not a debate of freedom of speech/expression/religion. It is about investigating an organisation that is suspected of activley working to undermine the German state and constition.

It certainly seems that way. I am actually enjoying reading other parts of the report too (I never thought I'd say that about a governmental report :eek:)
Hmm...

"Hello, my name is Levee, and my hobbies are idiom etymology and reading government reports from Germany. If you want to join my in some naughty geeky fun, TM me at xxxx-yyyyyyy"

;P

Yeah, I think the Office very nicely destroys the OMG bias!!!!11!!1 that many people seem to direct against their governments and their respective control organs. If you actually look into the work of ours, you'll find that "left", "right", "religious" of all flavours and many, many other wackos from all walks of life are being equally monitored if there's evidence they might work against our Constitution in whatever way, and they don't get intimidated by neither reputation nor size of the organization in question, either.

Hmm...

"Hello, my name is Levee, and my hobbies are idiom etymology and reading government reports from Germany. If you want to join my in some naughty geeky fun, TM me at xxxx-yyyyyyy"

;P

Someone has uncovered my dirty shame. I thought I had covered all the bases :(

Yeah, I think the Office very nicely destroys the OMG bias!!!!11!!1 that many people seem to direct against their governments and their respective control organs. If you actually look into the work of ours, you'll find that "left", "right", "religious" of all flavours and many, many other wackos from all walks of life are being equally monitored if there's evidence they might work against our Constitution in whatever way, and they don't get intimidated by neither reputation nor size of the organization in question, either.

It certainly makes interesting reading (for me anyway...). I also find it interesting how open they are being. I wonder if there are any other countries which operation like this.

It certainly makes interesting reading (for me anyway...). I also find it interesting how open they are being. I wonder if there are any other countries which operation like this.

If you follow the Wiki link for the Verfassungsschutz entry, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungsschutz) you'll find a compilation of other countries' Domestic Intelligence Agencies. I haven't got the time to peruse all those, but maybe you'll find something of interest for you there.

EDIT: Scratch the first link; here's the page you'll want to be looking at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies) - though I must admit I'm confused by the sheer mass of it all, even within only one country.

So let me get this straight. There would be absolutely nothing wrong about an organization who's objectives solely consist of "kill as many people as possible"? If it's entire purpose is to direct as many of its members as possible into creating the biggest slaughter possible, there would be nothing wrong with it


By separating the objectives and directives of Scientology from the ones who follow them, you actually are.



So is directing underlings to commit fraud, theft and harassment. It is part of their core directives, but you don't seem to think Scientology as a whole should be punished for doing so.

If so, then incitement to riot is not a crime, and cannot be punished if the inciter belongs to a "make people riot" organization.



Scientology does not ONLY have an unpopular opinion. Part of its tenets distinctly encourage and direct its members to commit criminal acts. This is a fact that you seem to dance around quite often.

Why?

Look, the majority of Scientologists arnt running around threatening people or commiting ANY crime. I repeat ANY crime. Most of them show up get thier stupid Theta training, pay thier money and happily go home satisfied customers or worshippers or whatever you want to call them. Millions are aparently pleased with the services they get from Scientology and once again COMMIT NO crimes. Why should these people be punished for thier belief system? If certain higher leaders want to commit crimes, identify the crimes and arrest the people that have committed them. Your trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Im dancing around nothing. Find people who commit real crimes and arrest them. If you cant find enough evidence then leave them alone. If you do find evidence then PUT THE GUILTY people in jail. Its incredibly simple. No banning is required. If the whole church is hopelessly corrupt then eventually the organization will wither and die from all the guilty people being thrown in jail for doing something illegal.

And neither is framing you for attempted assassination of heads of state, bomb threats, and other assorted crimes which you've never done, but will be arrested for, another signature Scientologist tactic.

I hear these ascusations against scientologists a lot. I've also heard that Pagans practice human sacrifice and Jews drink the blood of gentile children. Do you have any verifiable sources that show the CoS engaging in these practices?

Find people who commit real crimes and arrest them. If you cant find enough evidence then leave them alone. If you do find evidence then PUT THE GUILTY people in jail. Its incredibly simple. No banning is required.This public service message has been approved by ##

I don't understand ignorant people who can't see the difference between methods, goals and idiology. Germany is considering (!) to ban scientology because of their methods and the (profit oriented) goals of their elite. If you choose to give your money to a whacko community or believe in extraterrestial life or whatever people (or the german government) might question your sanity but wouldn't take any action to prevent you from doing so.

I Germany is considering (!) to ban scientology because of their methods and the (profit oriented) goals of their elite.

Hehe. If we banned organizations in the US because of profit oriented goals of the elite we would have an economy the size of Zimbabwes ;)

Look, the majority of Scientologists arnt running around threatening people or commiting ANY crime. I repeat ANY crime. Most of them show up get thier stupid Theta training, pay thier money and happily go home satisfied customers or worshippers or whatever you want to call them. Millions are aparently pleased with the services they get from Scientology and once again COMMIT NO crimes. Why should these people be punished for thier belief system?

The services provided to the followers are irrelevant.

It is a shame if they are negatively effected it the CoS is banned, but sorry. Tough-titties. A seriously anti-democratic or anti-constitutional organisation that works towards goals that are against the German constitution should not be allowed to continue purely by dint of a small amount of people benefiting from it.

Why should it be otherwise?

Many terrorist organisations get involved in charity work, should they be allowed to do as they please because of the small amount good that they do?

If certain higher leaders want to commit crimes, identify the crimes and arrest the people that have committed them.

Read some of the documentation before you post things like this.

An investigation that could potentially ban the CoS from operating in Germany in unrelated to crimes that discrete people within the organisation might do. The investigation is there to determine whether or not the organisation, as an entity in and of itself, has goals that could be successfully argued as being anti-constitutional.

Your trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Im dancing around nothing.

Other then, you know, the reason for the investigation...

If the whole church is hopelessly corrupt then eventually the organization will wither and die from all the guilty people being thrown in jail for doing something illegal.

That is rather naive don't you think?

Or has the mafia been successfully rooted out every country whilst I wasn't looking?

The scary thing is, I actually agree with some of their basic beliefs, i.e., that man is primarily good but his experiences have led him to evil, and that we often commit evil by only taking into account our perspective and view and failing to ask others what they think.

Not that other stuff, although I can see how it could be twisted to interpret that way. No, I dont agree with most of the shit they belive in (physcologists y psychiatrists are bad, etc., etc.

I don't understand ignorant people who can't see the difference between methods, goals and idiology. Germany is considering (!) to ban scientology because of their methods and the (profit oriented) goals of their elite.

I've already posted a report from the German government (in English!) that explains explicitly why they are being investigated.

http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/en_publications/annual_reports/vsbericht2005_engl/vsbericht_2005_engl.pdf

The salient part is between pages 289 to 300

The scary thing is, I actually agree with some of their basic beliefs, i.e., that man is primarily good but his experiences have led him to evil, and that we often commit evil by only taking into account our perspective and view and failing to ask others what they think.

An invoice will be winging its way to whilst I type ;)

The scary thing is, I actually agree with some of their basic beliefs... Dude, you are so Fudk-ed-up :p
























actually, in-my-book© you have freedom of faith.. so, carry on, and Merry Christmas :)

actually, in-my-book© you have freedom of faith.. so, carry on, and Merry Christmas :)Undoubtedly, however if you masquerade a criminal organisation under the pretense that it is a faith, this doesn't apply.

The services provided to the followers are irrelevant.

It is a shame if they are negatively effected it the CoS is banned, but sorry. Tough-titties. A seriously anti-democratic or anti-constitutional organisation that works towards goals that are against the German constitution should not be allowed to continue purely by dint of a small amount of people benefiting from it.

Why should it be otherwise?

My only conclusion is that the German Constitution is fucked up then. In the US a private group cant be Unconstitutional by definition. The US Constitution only tells the State what it can or cant do, not private organizations. My second conclusion is, what kind of democracy makes rules that says you arnt allowed to discuss anything other then the notion of democracy without risk of banning and jail? Are all communist groups banned in germany and jailed too because they work against democracy?

Many terrorist organisations get involved in charity work, should they be allowed to do as they please because of the small amount good that they do?[

Terrorists should be jailed and killed when they commit or assist in committing terror. And for no other reason. If Grandma Aheeb signs an Al Queda membership card and does nothing but bake cookies for the grandchildren then i give her a pass.


An investigation that could potentially ban the CoS from operating in Germany in unrelated to crimes that discrete people within the organisation might do. The investigation is there to determine whether or not the organisation, as an entity in and of itself, has goals that could be successfully argued as being anti-constitutional.

I cant speak to this because again the notion of a private organization being Unconstitutional makes no sence to me as an American.





Or has the mafia been successfully rooted out every country whilst I wasn't looking?

We could easily "root" out the Mafia if we wanted to. We have an Army, a National Guard, NSA, CIA Swat teams etc. We dont because people have RIGHTS. The EXACT same rights Mafia leaders have so should members of Scientology. No more, no less.

I cant speak to this because again the notion of a private organization being Unconstitutional makes no sence to me as an American.


Scientology has tried - for years - to infiltrate German gouvernment organizations, starting at local administrations and trying to get a foothold in higher offices or administrative branches. The goal of Scientology is to place SC controlled officials in place, making decisions in favour of SC. SC used threats or black-mailing in the past to achieve such goals.

SC is a direct threat to the German nation, community and people.

That's why SC has to be removed, it's leaders jailed (and preferably executed) and the organisation disbanded.

My only conclusion is that the German Constitution is fucked up then. Nope. It's a real law that is binding for every citizen, group, organization, and the state. And it's not fucked up like the one they have in the US, where every ideological dirt can be spread limitlessly.

Scientology has tried - for years - to infiltrate German gouvernment organizations, starting at local administrations and trying to get a foothold in higher offices or administrative branches. The goal of Scientology is to place SC controlled officials in place, making decisions in favour of SC. SC used threats or black-mailing in the past to achieve such goals.

SC is a direct threat to the German nation, community and people.

That's why SC has to be removed, it's leaders jailed (and preferably executed) and the organisation disbanded.Yep.
And it's the Germans' good right to despise Scientology and all its affiliates and members/subjects.

... and since death penalty has been officially abolished, I just recommend we jail them for high treason 'til the end of time. ;)

Scientology has tried - for years - to infiltrate German gouvernment organizations, starting at local administrations and trying to get a foothold in higher offices or administrative branches. The goal of Scientology is to place SC controlled officials in place, making decisions in favour of SC. SC used threats or black-mailing in the past to achieve such goals.

SC is a direct threat to the German nation, community and people.

That's why SC has to be removed, it's leaders jailed (and preferably executed) and the organisation disbanded.

How is that different from say Pro Choicers trying to get people who support abortion and getting people who feel the same way they do, to elect them to local administrations and trying to get a foothold in higher offices or administrative branches? Should those leaders be removed and executed as well? Or is it you just dont like one brand of belief and want it removed because YOU dont like it. Trying to get political representation for your belief is not only NOT illegal but its in fact THE way your supposed to do things.

My only conclusion is that the German Constitution is fucked up then. In the US a private group cant be Unconstitutional by definition. The US Constitution only tells the State what it can or cant do, not private organizations. My second conclusion is, what kind of democracy makes rules that says you arnt allowed to discuss anything other then the notion of democracy without risk of banning and jail? Are all communist groups banned in germany and jailed too because they work against democracy?

Das ist nicht Amerika.

Again, I reposted the report, you'll find a wealth of information about various left-wing groups too.

Also there is a difference between discussing the notion of democracy and such and actively working to undermine it. There is also the part about what the CoS wants to replace democracy with. I understand many Germans are uneasy about Scientology's expressed desire to only give those deemed "fit" and "moral" rights.

I do not think that the Germans can be blamed for enjoying democracy and wanting to protect it.


Terrorists should be jailed and killed when they commit or assist in committing terror. And for no other reason. If Grandma Aheeb signs an Al Queda membership card and does nothing but bake cookies for the grandchildren then i give her a pass.

I feel we have reached and impasse.

Largely because you are evading the point. Sometimes the people engaged in the terrorism are the same people as those that cooking for the bake sale (as it were).


I cant speak to this because again the notion of a private organization being Unconstitutional makes no sence to me as an American.

That is neither here nor there. Surely you can understand what "anti-constitutional" (i.e. what I said) means and how it differs from "unconstitutional" (i.e. what you seem to think I said)

And the implied superiority is no help either.


We could easily "root" out the Mafia if we wanted to. We have an Army, a National Guard, Swat teams etc. We dont because people have RIGHTS. The EXACT same rights Mafia leaders have so should members of Scientology. No more, no less.

That wasn't my point.

I was simply saying it is naive to think that if you jail enough people then an organisation will wither and die.

My only conclusion is that the German Constitution is fucked up then. In the US a private group cant be Unconstitutional by definition. The US Constitution only tells the State what it can or cant do, not private organizations. Meh.
My second conclusion is, what kind of democracy makes rules that says you arnt allowed to discuss anything other then the notion of democracy without risk of banning and jail? Are all communist groups banned in germany and jailed too because they work against democracy?None. The German constitution merely bans those that promote the dismantlement of the democratic order, not those that merely want to discuss it. As for communist groups, yeah, the KPD comes to mind.
Terrorists should be jailed and killed when they commit or assist in committing terror. And for no other reason. If Grandma Aheeb signs an Al Queda membership card and does nothing but bake cookies for the grandchildren then i give her a pass.Joining terrorist or other criminal organizations should be illegal for obvious reasons. It is illegal in Germany.
I cant speak to this because again the notion of a private organization being Unconstitutional makes no sence to me as an American.You mean private organizations such as the Klan? Maybe you merely lack the imaginiation?

We could easily "root" out the Mafia if we wanted to. We have an Army, a National Guard, NSA, CIA Swat teams etc. We dont because people have RIGHTS. The EXACT same rights Mafia leaders have so should members of Scientology. No more, no less.Actually, you have a lot less rights concerning how much the police gets to listen in on you in the US than in Germany. Much of the surveillance done in the US is considered illegal in Germany, so it won't be happening to Scientology.

How is that different from say Pro Choicers trying to get people who support abortion and getting people who feel the same way they do, to elect them to local administrations and trying to get a foothold in higher offices or administrative branches? Should those leaders be removed and executed as well? Or is it you just dont like one brand of belief and want it removed because YOU dont like it. Trying to get political representation for your belief is not only NOT illegal but its in fact THE way your supposed to do things.

The last time I looked the pro-choice movement wasn't an entryist movement.

That is neither here nor there. Surely you can understand what "anti-constitutional" (i.e. what I said) means and how it differs from "unconstitutional" (i.e. what you seem to think I said)I'd actually translate "verfassungswidrig" as "unconstitutional"...

Hehe. If we banned organizations in the US because of profit oriented goals of the elite we would have an economy the size of Zimbabwes ;)

The difference being that Scientology doesn't present itself as a profit organization (which is a perfectly fine thing to be), but as a church without financial interests, and the fact that these claims are bunk invalidates them in a way.

My only conclusion is that the German Constitution is fucked up then. In the US a private group cant be Unconstitutional by definition. The US Constitution only tells the State what it can or cant do, not private organizations.
The US Constitution does not tell private persons and organizations what they can and can't do? That's news to me.

My second conclusion is, what kind of democracy makes rules that says you arnt allowed to discuss anything other then the notion of democracy without risk of banning and jail? Are all communist groups banned in germany and jailed too because they work against democracy?

There is a difference between discussing something and actively seeking it. You are perfectly allowed to discuss (the merits of) communism in Germany, what you aren't allowed to do is actively and publicly advocate a system of communism that abolishes democratic principles.
And yes, the 70s have seen the banning of a communist party on that basis.


Terrorists should be jailed and killed when they commit or assist in committing terror. And for no other reason. If Grandma Aheeb signs an Al Queda membership card and does nothing but bake cookies for the grandchildren then i give her a pass.

A member of an organization that has terrorist acts written in its principles is supposed to be allowed to be a member of that organization in your book?

We could easily "root" out the Mafia if we wanted to. We have an Army, a National Guard, NSA, CIA Swat teams etc. We dont because people have RIGHTS. The EXACT same rights Mafia leaders have so should members of Scientology. No more, no less.

That's cute. You really think the existence of the mafia is due to some sort of tolerance and exercise of rights granted to them and not the fact that they manage to escape all tries to eradicate them, for several reasons? I see.

I'd actually translate "verfassungswidrig" as "unconstitutional"...

True, but I think it has different connotations in English.

I'm well aware of linguistic problems in translations and the fact I'm not at all qualified to make to call. But anti-constitutional seemed more fitting to me.

Probably because I more used to hearing it in a political sense. I'm more used to hearing "unconstitutional" in a SCOTUS sense.

Edit: It also seems to be the way the Federeal Office translates it so maybe that is why I used it *shrug*

How is that different from say Pro Choicers trying to get people who support abortion and getting people who feel the same way they do, to elect them to local administrations and trying to get a foothold in higher offices or administrative branches? Should those leaders be removed and executed as well? Or is it you just dont like one brand of belief and want it removed because YOU dont like it. Trying to get political representation for your belief is not only NOT illegal but its in fact THE way your supposed to do things.Scientology is not a belief. It is a business.

The US Constitution does not tell private persons and organizations what they can and can't do? That's news to me.

Off the top of my head I can't think of everything.

It has been a while since I have had to study the US Constitution (oh happy days...), but IIRC it stay exclusively in the realm of government.

This is though by the by. Just because the US Constitution is like this doesn't mean all others have to follow suit. Nor do it give US citizens a right to compare every other country to its constitution as though it was a paragon.

A member of an organization that has terrorist acts written in its principles is supposed to be allowed to be a member of that organization in your book?

Apparently anything else would be abridging the individuals right to free association. I have to say a world run by Intestinal Fluids would an interesting, if scary, place to live.

Scientology is not a belief. It is a business.

Especially since we are discussing it in a German context.

The last time I looked the pro-choice movement wasn't an entryist movement.

Does that really change my point?

Scientology is not a belief. It is a business.

And that changes my point how? Big Oil promotes people into office that will vote how they want them to. Should big oil executives be arrested and executed as well?

You can't ban a religion for being zealots who take money from their followers, unless you want to ban them all.

And the problem would be?

And that changes my point how? Big Oil promotes people into office that will vote how they want them to. Should big oil executives be arrested and executed as well?There's no death penalty in Germany.

Does that really change my point?

Obviously not.

But dispite what you seem to think. All things are not equal. There is a difference between a movement that has a very narrow platform which pushes for abortion and women's rights and an international organisation that has as one of its stated aims creating a new world order where those and only those deemed "honest" by the organisation are entitled to basic human rights.

Not only does the pro choice movement not have any desire to restrict rights based on a arbitrary procedure. It also doesn't have a central intelligence service with absolute rule, indoctrinate its follewers (and make them pay through the nose for the priveledge), use aggressive language to make its followers obey or plan to make the government unaccountable to the people and only to a narrow cabal within a notoriously secretive organisation.

And that changes my point how? Big Oil promotes people into office that will vote how they want them to. Should big oil executives be arrested and executed as well?

Big oil is not a single entity that commands total respect and obedience in its 'customers'

Big oil is not a single entity that commands total respect and obedience in its 'customers'It's also not claiming to be a religion.

And that changes my point how? Big Oil promotes people into office that will vote how they want them to. Should big oil executives be arrested and executed as well?Depends what they plan to do with humans once they gain power. Germany already had a regime that discarded the individual's rights for a "greater good" that turned out to be rather not so good.

Big oil is not a single entity that commands total respect and obedience in its 'customers'

LOL yea right, no oil for 1 month and the Earth as we know it would grind to a halt. I have to pay a significant % of my annual income to be able to see and not freeze to death. Who are you kidding.

There's no death penalty in Germany.Which in some cases is unfortunate.

Which in some cases is unfortunate.Nah.

LOL yea right, no oil for 1 month and the Earth as we know it would grind to a halt. I have to pay a significant % of my annual income to be able to see and not freeze to death. Who are you kidding.

So Big Oil inc. does exist?

And it's holding the earth to ransom...

Someone should be told.

Facetiousness aside. That is a rather unlikely scenerio (if only because such an act you eat into its profits). And it really has no resemblence to Scientology.

Obviously not.

But dispite what you seem to think. All things are not equal. There is a difference between a movement that has a very narrow platform which pushes for abortion and women's rights and an international organisation that has as one of its stated aims creating a new world order where those and only those deemed "honest" by the organisation are entitled to basic human rights.

Not only does the pro choice movement not have any desire to restrict rights based on a arbitrary procedure. It also doesn't have a central intelligence service with absolute rule, indoctrinate its follewers (and make them pay through the nose for the priveledge), use aggressive language to make its followers obey or plan to make the government unaccountable to the people and only to a narrow cabal within a notoriously secretive organisation.

This is where your missing the whole beauty of Democracy and openness. Let these people do whatever they want. If they are that crazy, noone will vote for them or listen to them. If they stay within the law, let them try to run for whatever political position they want, let them say what they want, let them have whatever platform they want and then...heres the kicker DONT VOTE FOR THEM. Problem solved. If they try to go outside of the law , arrest them and throw them in jail. I again dont see the need to ban anything.

Nah.Doch.

This is where your missing the whole beauty of Democracy and openness. Let these people do whatever they want. If they are that crazy, noone will vote for them or listen to them. If they stay within the law, let them try to run for whatever political position they want, let them say what they want, let them have whatever platform they want and then...heres the kicker DONT VOTE FOR THEM. Problem solved. If they try to go outside of the law , arrest them and throw them in jail. I again dont see the need to ban anything.clerks/officials are not voted for.

LOL yea right, no oil for 1 month and the Earth as we know it would grind to a halt. I have to pay a significant % of my annual income to be able to see and not freeze to death. Who are you kidding.If you'd pull out the beam from your eye you'd have sight and heating.

*Does a thorough search on your drunken, helpless body, films it and makes very sure to post the YT link on NSG*

Happy?
Very much so. :p
My only conclusion is that the German Constitution is fucked up then.
That's one fucked up conclusion, then.
In the US a private group cant be Unconstitutional by definition.
Over here, it can be.
The US Constitution only tells the State what it can or cant do, not private organizations.
And our Basic Law gives everyone the same rights and obligations - unless, of course, you're working against that very law and trying to abolish it or make those rights available for special people deemed worthy only.
My second conclusion is, what kind of democracy makes rules that says you arnt allowed to discuss anything other then the notion of democracy without risk of banning and jail? Are all communist groups banned in Germany and jailed too because they work against democracy?
The kind of democracy that makes sure you can't abolish democracy by disregarding its basic principles and the foundation it's based on. What's so bad about that?
And communist groups that try to abolish the current order are unconstitutional, yes, when they try to work outside the established system.

Over here, if you want to play your game, you simply have to abide to the rules given out for this here playground. Simple as that.

I cant speak to this because again the notion of a private organization being Unconstitutional makes no sense to me as an American.
That's because you guys seem to be playing by a different set of rules.

But I'm pretty sure that your private organizations also have to abide by the laws of your States, no?

This is where your missing the whole beauty of Democracy and openness. Let these people do whatever they want. If they are that crazy, noone will vote for them or listen to them. If they stay within the law, let them try to run for whatever political position they want, let them say what they want, let them have whatever platform they want and then...heres the kicker DONT VOTE FOR THEM. Problem solved. If they try to go outside of the law , arrest them and throw them in jail. I again dont see the need to ban anything.

For fear of Godwinning the thread (if the OP hand't already done so). That didn't work for the Weimar Republic. And it didn't work in other places.

Crazy people can win elections, people do vote for them, they can enact crazy policies, restrict rights to the "honest" and such.

You are right. Democracy is beautiful. But it is also fragile.

Also, you keep bringing this back to the individuals. But that is not the point. The investigation involves the organisation as a corporate entity. The corporation might be banned. Not the practise, not the belief, not the ability to charge outlandish fees for things that have little merit.

This is where your missing the whole beauty of Democracy and openness. Let these people do whatever they want. Yeah, but they want to dismantle Democracy.
If they are that crazy, noone will vote for them or listen to them. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

And that doesn't even address the possibility that they won't even bother with going through the electoral process to dismantle democracy.
If they stay within the law, let them try to run for whatever political position they want, let them say what they want, let them have whatever platform they want and then...heres the kicker DONT VOTE FOR THEM. Problem solved. If they try to go outside of the law , arrest them and throw them in jail. I again dont see the need to ban anything.They're apparently not staying within the law. Hence the banning.

Which in some cases is unfortunate.

Absolutely and definitely not, and I don't think your way of arguing/comment dropping as observed in this thread is helping neither your cause nor your person.

Absolutely and definitely not, and I don't think your way of arguing/comment dropping as observed in this thread is helping neither your cause nor your person.Because I disagree with you? I don't give a shit.
People who commit certain crimes should be punished. That includes leaders in organizations that pursue the destruction of the individual.

And Scientology is utter dirt and must be removed. Period.

Absolutely and definitely not, and I don't think your way of arguing/comment dropping as observed in this thread is helping neither your cause nor your person.You wasted a lot of valuable words there...

You wasted a lot of valuable words there...

Dunno, I recently discovered how to spell 'definitely' correctly and I try to use it wherever I can these days. ;P

Oh, and watch me waste even more... :

Because I disagree with you? I don't give a shit.
It looks to me like we disagree on not much more than on whether execution is a viable punishment, and on what is appropriate word choice in an online argument.

In short: No, you missed the point. Ironically enough because you chose to take the personal angle than the actual content angle, which is the very thing I was criticizing.
People who commit certain crimes should be punished. That includes leaders in organizations that pursue the destruction of the individual.

Oh, very much so. I've sorta spent several hours in this thread trying to argue, among other things, just that. I even go as far as saying that 'organizations per se' whose main goals include one or more crimes ought to be 'punished', i.e. banned. Which, again, is sorta my main point.

And Scientology is utter dirt and must be removed. Period.

See, it's only things like calling something "utter dirt" and saying "period" with that undebatable air of finality and superiority that I feel have no place in a grown-ups' discussion.

I can argue that I believe Scientologist ideology to be utterly silly (and people can believe silly things until they are blue in the face for all I care), and I can argue that the "Church" of Scientology's methods are criminal and that it therefore should feel legal repercussions (and therewith give my argument partners precise and factual ground to argue with/against), but making normative, emotionally charged blanket statements are not only not appropriate, but also detrimental to your cause.

But I guess you, uh, don't give a shit.

Dunno, I recently discovered how to spell 'definitely' correctly and I try to use it wherever I can these days. ;P"Definitely NOT!!!!" would have sufficed...

Oh, and watch me waste even more... : Um Himmels Willen! :eek:

It looks to me like we disagree on not much more than on whether execution is a viable punishment, and on what is appropriate word choice in an online argument.

In short: No, you missed the point. Ironically enough because you chose to take the personal angle than the actual content angle, which is the very thing I was criticizing.


Oh, very much so. I've sorta spent several hours in this thread trying to argue, among other things, just that. I even go as far as saying that 'organizations per se' whose main goals include one or more crimes ought to be 'punished', i.e. banned. Which, again, is sorta my main point.



See, it's only things like calling something "utter dirt" and saying "period" with that undebatable air of finality and superiority that I feel have no place in a grown-ups' discussion.

I can argue that I believe Scientologist ideology to be utterly silly (and people can believe silly things until they are blue in the face for all I care), and I can argue that the "Church" of Scientology's methods are criminal and that it therefore should feel legal repercussions (and therewith give my argument partners precise and factual ground to argue with/against), but making normative, emotionally charged blanket statements are not only not appropriate, but also detrimental to your cause.

But I guess you, uh, don't give a shit.Exactly.
And I don't think that people should be free to think silly things once they start to spread the silliness. I will slap everyone in the face who tries to sell me stories of the biblical god or baby jesus or Xenu or Moroni as truth.

clerks/officials are not voted for.

Even easier then, if an employee steals information, be it for Scientology or for any other group or organization they can be easily fired and arrested. Again, whats the problem?

Even easier then, if an employee steals information, be it for Scientology or for any other group or organization they can be easily fired and arrested. Again, whats the problem?

It's easier said than done. They have an army of lawyers. Good lawyers. And they're secretive. It's not very easy. You're going to have to catch them and then hope your case survives their armies of lawyers.

"Definitely NOT!!!!" would have sufficed...
Definitely not. I don't use capitals only except when it really can't be helped, and I oppose multiple exclamation marks except in sarcastic use. *nod*

Um Himmels Willen! :eek:

Hat doch gefunzt; was willste... ;P

Exactly.
And I don't think that people should be free to think silly things once they start to spread the silliness. I will slap everyone in the face who tries to sell me stories of the biblical god or baby jesus or Xenu or Moroni as truth.

Well, we differ on this rather important point. I feel that everyone has the right to free thought and speech, and I'll exercise my own right to those when someone approaches me with their flavor of silliness, but I don't think I have the right to restrict their freedom of expression, let alone their right to bodily integrity.

It's easier said than done. They have an army of lawyers. Good lawyers. And they're secretive. It's not very easy. You're going to have to catch them and then hope your case survives their armies of lawyers.

Fine, but we dont ban an organization because they are too hard to catch and have good legal representation. Thats crazier then Scientology itself.

Well, we differ on this rather important point. I feel that everyone has the right to free thought and speech, and I'll exercise my own right to those when someone approaches me with their flavor of silliness, but I don't think I have the right to restrict their freedom of expression, let alone their right to bodily integrity.

While I agree that freedom of thought is important, why should freedom of speech not be somewhat restricted ? Say with the following rules:

1. If you claim something is fact, you will have to be able to back that claim up. No such restictions apply if you clearly state you are expressing an opinion, idea or belief.
2. If you plan to repeat things that have been shown to be bad/wrong/whatever in the past, you will have to add something new. An explanation of why the earlier judgement was incorrect or why it is ok now (times and societies change after all) qualifies as something new. And of course rule 1 also applies ;)

While I agree that freedom of thought is important, why should freedom of speech not be somewhat restricted ? Say with the following rules:

1. If you claim something is fact, you will have to be able to back that claim up. No such restictions apply if you clearly state you are expressing an opinion, idea or belief.
2. If you plan to repeat things that have been shown to be bad/wrong/whatever in the past, you will have to add something new. An explanation of why the earlier judgement was incorrect or why it is ok now (times and societies change after all) qualifies as something new. And of course rule 1 also applies ;)

I think these rules are fantastic rules for debate among reasonable adults - however, a certain portion of our population isn't of age (physically and/or mentally), and an even greater portion isn't reasonable. I concede every person the right to be a silly, unreasonable, immature git - while, well, granting myself the right to avoid and terminate contact with such individuals whenever feasible.

Wow, this is ridiculous. I won't call it fascist, but banning a religion?

If Scientologists did something illegal, how prosecuting them? But probably, since the evidence won't stick, or it was gathered in an illegal way, the government decides to ban it.

If, the evidence won't stand in a court, the government has no right to ban it, and apparently the German courts have upheld their right to practice in Germany.

Governments can't even bad a mafia or a gang. If the government views Scientology as a criminal organization, they should treat it like they would any criminal organization. I don't know how it's done in Germany, but in the US, unless there is evidence that can be upheld in court, the government can't do anything about it. And even if there is evidence against a gang, you can't outright ban it. You prosecute the individual members of the gang.

Anyway, Germany has a problem of banning too many opposing viewpoints in my opinion. A constitution should only be a limit on the government, not the people. People have more rights than the government. Personally, I think that banning a Communist party, as someone said Germany did in the past is completely against people's civil rights. I'm Jewish and I think that making holocaust denial illegal is also against one's freedom of speech.

Hat doch gefunzt; was willste... Inwiefern hat das gefunzt, bitte?

Well, we differ on this rather important point. I feel that everyone has the right to free thought and speech, and I'll exercise my own right to those when someone approaches me with their flavor of silliness, but I don't think I have the right to restrict their freedom of expression, let alone their right to bodily integrity.I see such religious silliness as a direct assault on my mental integrity, so I am only acting in self defense.

Wow, this is ridiculous. I won't call it fascist, but banning a religion?

If Scientologists did something illegal, how prosecuting them? But probably, since the evidence won't stick, or it was gathered in an illegal way, the government decides to ban it.

If, the evidence won't stand in a court, the government has no right to ban it, and apparently the German courts have upheld their right to practice in Germany.

Governments can't even bad a mafia or a gang. If the government views Scientology as a criminal organization, they should treat it like they would any criminal organization. I don't know how it's done in Germany, but in the US, unless there is evidence that can be upheld in court, the government can't do anything about it. And even if there is evidence against a gang, you can't outright ban it. You prosecute the individual members of the gang.

Anyway, Germany has a problem of banning too many opposing viewpoints in my opinion. A constitution should only be a limit on the government, not the people. People have more rights than the government. Personally, I think that banning a Communist party, as someone said Germany did in the past is completely against people's civil rights. I'm Jewish and I think that making holocaust denial illegal is also against one's freedom of speech.

Oh, just read some of the stuff linked too instead of just giving your own knee jerk reaction.

It's just easier that way.

Wow, this is ridiculous. I won't call it fascist, but banning a religion?


Scientology is not a religion.

I don't think that Germany has a problem with Scientology as a relegion. It can't ban a relegion. They want to change probably that--From a number of sources, some of them not available to the public, it has been determined that (the organization) seeks to limit or rescind basic and human rights, such as the right to develop one's personality and the right to be treated equally

Probably like what the US did with ending polygamy in Mormonism.

Inwiefern hat das gefunzt, bitte?

Insofern, als dass Du mir eine zivilisierte Antwort gegönnt und tatsächlich auf den sachlichen Teil des Argumentes eingegangen bist.

I see such religious silliness as a direct assault on my mental integrity, so I am only acting in self defense.

a) You might want to work at your mental strength

b) "Self-defense" implies a (counter)-attack, so it ought to apply to the "counter-assault on their mental integrity" (which is always a fun thing to do), and not to preemptive banning of such, uh, attacks on your mental integrity.

Oh, just read some of the stuff linked too instead of just giving your own knee jerk reaction.

It's just easier that way.

No, I'm good.

Scientology is not a religion.

Whether or not it is a religion is completely irrelevant. A gang or the mafia is not a religion either, and yet we don't ban either one of those.

A constitution should be a limit on the government, not the people. The people have more rights than the government.

A gang or the mafia is not a religion either, and yet we don't ban either one of those.


Yes we do, we just fail at it.


A constitution should be a limit on the government, not the people. The people have more rights than the government.

True, but in theory banning Scientology would be giving freedom of thought/conscience and whatever to many of the brainwashed people.

Scientology is not a religion.

Who apointed you religion czar?

From Mirriam Webster online:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective


What parts of Scientology are incompatible with the definition of religion? If you want to argue that they're a bunch of fucked up looneys go ahead, I'm as Xenu-phobic as the next guy. They ARE however a religion. No country has the right to ban a religion (specific action that the religious might want to take such as stoning adulterers or human sacrifice is another story). Besides I remember what happened LAST time Germany got pissed off at a specfic religion.

Whether or not it is a religion is completely irrelevant. A gang or the mafia is not a religion either, and yet we don't ban either one of those.
Yes we do, we just fail at it.


Actualy to my knowledge we ban neither, it's that whole freedom of asociation issue. We do however ban the illegal activities these groups are fond of undertaking.

Whether or not it is a religion is completely irrelevant. A gang or the mafia is not a religion either, and yet we don't ban either one of those.
It's not irrelevant when CoS claims to be a religion/church but legally they don't have that status over here.
A constitution should be a limit on the government, not the people.
Our German Basic Law is binding for everyone within its influence - people and government.
It is different from your Constitution.
The people have more rights than the government.
They have even more personal rights in Germany than they do in other places like, e.g., the US.
No country has the right to ban a religion (specific action that the religious might want to take such as stoning adulterers or human sacrifice is another story).
We do, however, have the right to decide whether a cash-making organization like CoS should be regarded as a church, thus achieving tax-exemption status and the like.
They might be considered a (loony) religion but they do not have the status of a church over here. They are a registered association and thus, not the laws for religion but those for associations apply and CoS has to follow those guidelines which they don't always do, eh?
Besides I remember what happened LAST time Germany got pissed off at a specific religion.
That makes you quite old, doesn't it?

We do, however, have the right to decide whether a cash-making organization like CoS should be regarded as a church, thus achieving tax-exemption status and the like.
They might be considered a (loony) religion but they do not have the status of a church over here. They are a registered association and thus, not the laws for religion but those for associations apply and CoS has to follow those guidelines which they don't always do, eh?


Sophistry doesn't justify religious discrimination. You also didn't answer my question. What part of the definition of religion do they fail to fit?

Sophistry doesn't justify religious discrimination. You also didn't answer my question. What part of the definition of religion do they fail to fit?

The part where they are a religion.

Down with Scientology!

And let the End justify the Means!

I say it is unconditionally wrong for a government to outlaw an organization.

Prosecute the members when they commit crimes.

Do not attempt to outlaw private association.

It's harder this way, yes. We find it hard to discern what is "conspiracy to commit a crime."

But the alternative is a pathetic, vengeful system of law which is continually being updated to outlaw "hate speech" or "conspiracy." Which is updated as a matter of course. Which can be updated to outlaw my Aunt Sylvia walking her poodle, without anyone even noticing.

Better the devil you know.

Sophistry doesn't justify religious discrimination. You also didn't answer my question. What part of the definition of religion do they fail to fit?

What strange bedfellows this issue generates.

If I were to suggest that Scientology should be banned on the basis of "unfair business practice" we'd have a few more strange allies, I suspect.

I don't give a rats arse if Scientology is a religion. I'm against banning private association. Whether it be unions of vocationally-related workers, political parties of headkicking skinheads, or fundraising organizations for vicious and cowardly terrorist murderers. I oppose banning any organization, in any robust and ongoing democratic society.

I'd take a different position if I were campaigning for the Tamil Liberation Front and the US was funding the death squads who killed my siblings. But we're talking about Germany, a robust and ongoing democratic society.

They shouldn't do this. Destroy the temple, build a temple in each believer's heart. It's counterproductive, as well as being stupid, populist, and wrong.

If you do find evidence then PUT THE GUILTY people in jail. Its incredibly simple. No banning is required. If the whole church is hopelessly corrupt then eventually the organization will wither and die from all the guilty people being thrown in jail for doing something illegal.

Your argument against banning on the basis of collapse by corruption fails against real world examples of hideously corrupt churches/organizations being known for their corruption and still chugging merrily along.

I'm not for punishing people who haven't committed any crimes. I'm for breaking up the organization and grinding it into dust. And if people persist in following it still, tough luck for them.

I hear these ascusations against scientologists a lot. I've also heard that Pagans practice human sacrifice and Jews drink the blood of gentile children. Do you have any verifiable sources that show the CoS engaging in these practices?

Nice try at a straw man.

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

Look up the links mentioned in the article. Not the article on wiki itself, but the links. BBC and a few other respected news sources cover this.

I'm not for punishing people who haven't committed any crimes. I'm for breaking up the organization and grinding it into dust. And if people persist in following it still, tough luck for them.

I'm for holding people responsible for their actions.

"Geez, I just liked the colours on their pamphlet, so I sent them some money" ... may be a CRIME.

Yes, you can commit a crime by ignorance. That's called "ignorance of the law" and is no defense.

Don't protect people from the consequences of their actions. Don't punish people for what they might do. PUNISH PEOPLE WHEN THEY COMMIT A CRIME. Punish individuals, for proven crimes.

Don't ban an organization on the basis of what it promotes, or protects within itself. If it does that formally, prosecute the leaders for conspiracy or commissioning crime. Otherwise, punish the crimes as they are committed.

Punish people for committing crime. Any step beyond that, is a step toward fascism.

Banning an organization (church, company, NGO, puppet company of foreign government, terrorist group) is, I repeat, DUMB and counterproductive. AND a step towards Fascism.

The western world can't afford many more steps that way. We might need to take a real step, let's not waste one on protecting STUPID people from being BRAINWASHED by CULTS.

If any of you cowards who want your halfwit in-laws protected from dreadly Scientology really care so much, why not go blow up some of their assets or murder some of their talent, instead of trying to conscript the herd of cowards called "popular opinion" to your stupid witch-burning?

Not that I'm calling Scientologists "witches." Witches are cool.
'n, yeah. I should be posting as Nobel Hobos, because I'm drunk.

Your argument against banning on the basis of collapse by corruption fails against real world examples of hideously corrupt churches/organizations being known for their corruption and still chugging merrily along.

I'm not for punishing people who haven't committed any crimes. I'm for breaking up the organization and grinding it into dust. And if people persist in following it still, tough luck for them.



Nice try at a straw man.

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

Look up the links mentioned in the article. Not the article on wiki itself, but the links. BBC and a few other respected news sources cover this.

I just can't understand how, after courts in Germany continuously uphold the CoS's right to practice, the government can ban it. The courts did not say it should be recognized as religion as far as I understand, but they did say it could practice.

So, since you can't break up an organization in a legal way, that is with real evidence gathered in legal ways, that will stand in court, you simply bypass the courts? What's the point of the courts then? If there is an individual who is "undermining democracy", can the government jail him too without a trial?

People accuse Scientology of lots of things, and ya sure, maybe there are whole articles about them. But apparently, the accusations don't stick in court. As far as I know, Scientology as a whole has not been found guilty of something so serious warranting a ban in any country.

Rolling squid;13271294']link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/germany.scientology.ap/index.html)

Is it just me, or is Germany steadly moving to another Facist government? Banning something becuse it contradicts with the constution seems a little harsh, isn't the constution suppose to be an outline for the gov't, not the people?

I think you mean "fascist," and no, banning Scientology does not seem to be a move towards the Second Third Reich. Still, it is silly. Scientology is, at best, new religion and is, at worse, a scam in the same league as the products advertised on late-night infomercials. Neither seems that large a threat.

If any of you cowards who want your halfwit in-laws protected from dreadly Scientology really care so much, why not go blow up some of their assets or murder some of their talent, instead of trying to conscript the herd of cowards called "popular opinion" to your stupid witch-burning?


So let me get this straight. No banning of the organization, but you're fine with extra judicial killings of their members?

And I think you're seriously misunderstanding my post. I don't have anything against the halfwits who do get sucked into it individually. But I do have something against the organization as a whole which promotes criminal acts as a way of silencing dissent.

I suppose we could follow your way, oh, by throwing the leadership into jail and working down the ladder until Scientology has nobody outside of bars or they rewrite themselves at the core level. That works too I suppose.

I just can't understand how, after courts in Germany continuously uphold the CoS's right to practice, the government can ban it. The courts did not say it should be recognized as religion as far as I understand, but they did say it could practice.


Right to practice doesn't include right to undermine the German constitution though. If Scientology kept to itself, the German government wouldn't care. But Scientology, and the likes of their Operation Snow White, isn't keeping to itself. That's actively interfering with the government in ways, which if done by foreign nationals, typically got them shot as spies.

Why should Scientology be treated any different?


People accuse Scientology of lots of things, and ya sure, maybe there are whole articles about them. But apparently, the accusations don't stick in court. As far as I know, Scientology as a whole has not been found guilty of something so serious warranting a ban in any country.

Oh, they do stick in court. People went to jail over it. But you'll note that Scientology employs an extensive PR and legal team to cover up anything like that, along with their typical "every critic is part of a conspiracy" claims.

And as for serious, how about subversive elements in order to undermine the government? Infiltration, espionage, and information theft inside government branches? Operation Snow White mean anything to you? That stuck. And stuck good. But apparently, private organizations get to do what would get employees of other governments shot.

Right to practice doesn't include right to undermine the German constitution though. If Scientology kept to itself, the German government wouldn't care. But Scientology, and the likes of their Operation Snow White, isn't keeping to itself. That's actively interfering with the government in ways, which if done by foreign nationals, typically got them shot as spies.

Why should Scientology be treated any different?



Oh, they do stick in court. People went to jail over it. But you'll note that Scientology employs an extensive PR and legal team to cover up anything like that, along with their typical "every critic is part of a conspiracy" claims.

And as for serious, how about subversive elements in order to undermine the government? Infiltration, espionage, and information theft inside government branches? Operation Snow White mean anything to you? That stuck. And stuck good. But apparently, private organizations get to do what would get employees of other governments shot.

Whatever you call what they do, the court said they can continue as an organization to exist. And you're right, individual Scientologists have committed crimes, and have been jailed. So if they continue to do so, then they should be jailed. But the courts did not find that the organization as a whole is responsible for this, but rather individuals. So, you are still bypassing the court.

I think that the executive branch bypassing the courts is one of the more terrible offenses possible. Without courts, a democratic society cannot exist.

I speak for BunnySaurus Bugsii. He'll probably object, tomorrow when we are sober.

So let me get this straight. No banning of the organization, but you're fine with extra judicial killings of their members?

Well, thanks for reading to the end of my post. Tasty, wasn't it?

No, I'm not fine with people destroying assets they don't own, or murdering people. I don't advocate 'taking the law into your own hands' ... only it seems that I just did that, huh?

It was hyperbole. I was really just trying to highlight that crime doesn't exist without a victim. Those people of weak persuasion who give over all their assets to Scientology deserve some defense, but I'm damn sure the defense is not to ban the group called "the Church of Scientology."

I think we should look at some way of defining what is, and what is not, an ethical way of extracting "donations" from a person.

And I think you're seriously misunderstanding my post. I don't have anything against the halfwits who do get sucked into it individually. But I do have something against the organization as a whole which promotes criminal acts as a way of silencing dissent.

I read you. "Promoting criminal acts" is a grey area of law, surely? I explicitly reject recent laws defining "hate speech." I am extremely dubious about laws of "conspiracy to commit a crime." The one thing which keeps law within reason is physical evidence, and without a crime there is none.

My feeling is that punishment must always be post facto. No crime, no punishment. (On the other hand, I believe courts should be able to enforce counselling or rehabilitation for "worrying behavior", sub-criminal acts which strongly suggest future lawbreaking. Explicitly for the 'sub-offender's own good, not as punishment.)

I suppose we could follow your way, oh, by throwing the leadership into jail and working down the ladder until Scientology has nobody outside of bars or they rewrite themselves at the core level. That works too I suppose.

I'm in favour of trying the leadership for commissioning crime. But given the nature of cults (or companies for that matter) it's very unlikely they would serve any jail time.

What I suggest is something harsher. Find the person who locks the door on members who are illegally detained. Find the individual who manages the account of a member who is being drained of their assets. Prosecute those people as though they had individually conceived and carried out those Crimes.

Disregard the "brainwashing." Yes, I see individuals brainwash others, I think it is deplorable. But except in extreme cases ("mental cruelty" or "intimidation") it's hard to see how a law can prevent it, or punish it.

So my approach is to take away the protective umbrella of "church law" and go after the individuals who commit a crime. Our law is at a disadvantage, I know: such heirarchies can offer up 'fall-guys', they contain people who will lie to their own disadvantage to protect the collective. It's hard going, but if such prosecution is done with effort and expense, it will break the spell of "brainwashing." "Do this thing for the Church" vs. "You broke the law, you go to jail."

And no, that won't work 100%. "Do the crime, do the time" doesn't work 100% either. Some people still do the crime regardless, they do the crime no matter how high the penalty ... but it's the best we can manage without using the power of the State to actively oppress people.

But the alternative is worse. We cannot ban a group of people, we cannot ban people from forming an association under a particular name, for the reason that some of them are likely to commit a crime. That is ... well, it's fascism.

I think that the executive branch bypassing the courts is one of the more terrible offenses possible. Without courts, a democratic society cannot exist.

Hear, hear.

The "quiet word" of the executive to the courts holds tremendous sway, though, and it's hard to see how it could be otherwise. Senior judges value the independent legal system (as Kings value their Kingdom) ... and legislators can destroy its credibility at any time by passing bad law which the courts are obliged to enforce.

What I'm getting at, is that sometimes the legislature does blatantly unjust things, but it does it on it's own account. Writing stupid, confusing laws and expecting the judiciary to come up with the result the legislature wants damages the credibility of the judiciary, particularly if they are bullied by the legislature in the process.

If the government means to ban Scientology for populist reasons, it should do it by decree. If they mean to ban it for the benefit of the nation or the people, they should pass laws which forbid what Scientology does. A law against "brainwashing" would be damn tricky though ... they'd be employing more judges.

So, since you can't break up an organization in a legal way, that is with real evidence gathered in legal ways, that will stand in court, you simply bypass the courts? What's the point of the courts then? If there is an individual who is "undermining democracy", can the government jail him too without a trial?


What are you talking about?

Evidence is being gathered and and investigation has been going on for ten years. They have even said and much, translated and put it online for the world to see. The Federal Office is being completely above board in this instance.

Sophistry doesn't justify religious discrimination. You also didn't answer my question. What part of the definition of religion do they fail to fit?

I'm sure the German government has it own parameters that aren't based on an online, english language dictionary.

If the government means to ban Scientology for populist reasons, it should do it by decree. If they mean to ban it for the benefit of the nation or the people, they should pass laws which forbid what Scientology does. A law against "brainwashing" would be damn tricky though ... they'd be employing more judges.

It's not banning Scientology, or the belief system. It is not abridging freedom of belief at all. They just have concerns about the way the organisation as a corporate entity operates, both within Germany and internationally.

Banning organisations that brainwash people, take all their money and harass any critics makes you fascist? (or "facist" as you like to call it)

If so, I'm gonna have to agree with the fascists.

I am with you on that. People called those who fought the Battle of Cable Street hypocrites for refusing to allow Mosely's Fascists to march through London. But the Fascists would have silenced all alternatives if they'd got their way. It had to be stopped, for the sake of everything else there is or could be.

I just can't understand how, after courts in Germany continuously uphold the CoS's right to practice, the government can ban it. The courts did not say it should be recognized as religion as far as I understand, but they did say it could practice.


They have? In which instances?

The courts have also upheld the right of the Federal Office to investigate and monitor the CoS in Germany. But I suppose that is by the by.

today's america is trying to push everyplace toward a fashist government. one it's own pseudo-conservatives can pull the puppet strings of.

as for banning scientology, or anything else, if there's anything to be learned from history, one thing is how martyrdom of anything, even something as otherwise silly and trivial as so called scientology, almost invariably fans the flames of it.

if no religeon had ever been persicuted, i somehow doubt any of them would be arround in the sense of fanatical dominance as we know them now.

=^^=
.../\...

today's america is trying to push everyplace toward a fashist government. =^^=
.../\...

President Mugatu?

Would the coup be codenamed "Project: Runway"?

Tim Gunn, rallying the troops in Washington, with the immortal battle cry "Make it work!"

The troops advanced, took off their jackets, put their hands on their hips, and turned briskly, their hips angular and purposeful!

Whatever you call what they do, the court said they can continue as an organization to exist. And you're right, individual Scientologists have committed crimes, and have been jailed. So if they continue to do so, then they should be jailed. But the courts did not find that the organization as a whole is responsible for this, but rather individuals. So, you are still bypassing the court.


Before we go any further, can you provide a link to this ruling by a German court? I want to see more information on that first.

Before we go any further, can you provide a link to this ruling by a German court? I want to see more information on that first.

The closest thing I can think of is a court in Saarland saying that the Scientologist there shouldn't be investigated.

But that was because there was no significant SO presence in Saarland to justify such an investigation.


I'm finding it interesting that the Federal Office is being completely above board, open and following the law to the letter. But still people are arguing that it is acting in an underhand matter.

I speak for BunnySaurus Bugsii. He'll probably object, tomorrow when we are sober.


No schizophrenia please.


Well, thanks for reading to the end of my post. Tasty, wasn't it?


Too crunchy.


It was hyperbole. I was really just trying to highlight that crime doesn't exist without a victim. Those people of weak persuasion who give over all their assets to Scientology deserve some defense, but I'm damn sure the defense is not to ban the group called "the Church of Scientology."

I think we should look at some way of defining what is, and what is not, an ethical way of extracting "donations" from a person.

If Scientology was just another Nigerian money scam, I wouldn't give two hoots. But Scientology viciously attacks its detractors using illicit means including framing them for crimes.

In fact, let's go one step to the left then. Rather than ban them, put them in the same classification as the mafia. A criminal group with a clean looking front end.


I read you. "Promoting criminal acts" is a grey area of law, surely? I explicitly reject recent laws defining "hate speech." I am extremely dubious about laws of "conspiracy to commit a crime." The one thing which keeps law within reason is physical evidence, and without a crime there is none.

My feeling is that punishment must always be post facto. No crime, no punishment. (On the other hand, I believe courts should be able to enforce counselling or rehabilitation for "worrying behavior", sub-criminal acts which strongly suggest future lawbreaking. Explicitly for the 'sub-offender's own good, not as punishment.)


"Here's a bat and a hundred bucks Jimmy. Go cave in that guy's skull"

Crime or not? Perhaps I should have said ordering and orchestrating criminal acts.

Also, to my knowledge, despite ordering his followers to commit federal crimes, crimes which were found out, Ron Hubbard, his wife, and other members of the top echelon who orchestrated the event, never spent a day in jail.

Why?


I'm in favour of trying the leadership for commissioning crime. But given the nature of cults (or companies for that matter) it's very unlikely they would serve any jail time.

What I suggest is something harsher. Find the person who locks the door on members who are illegally detained. Find the individual who manages the account of a member who is being drained of their assets. Prosecute those people as though they had individually conceived and carried out those Crimes.


The methods you outline would only affect low and medium level followers, not the ones running the show. This would only be a delaying effect while they recruit replacements and start up fresh lawsuits.

Harsher would be seizure of their assets, placing the leadership under house arrest with full communications blackout and starving the organization to fiscal death.


So my approach is to take away the protective umbrella of "church law" and go after the individuals who commit a crime. Our law is at a disadvantage, I know: such heirarchies can offer up 'fall-guys', they contain people who will lie to their own disadvantage to protect the collective. It's hard going, but if such prosecution is done with effort and expense, it will break the spell of "brainwashing." "Do this thing for the Church" vs. "You broke the law, you go to jail."

Exceedingly difficult to do with an organization that would be willing to make martyrs of their pawns for propaganda purposes. In fact, numerous public arrests would probably serve them better as rallying causes.

I would much rather propose a two step approach. Once you have enough evidence of the criminal nature of the organization, seize all their assets and place their leaders under house arrest with communications blackout. Confiscate all material related to Scientology located within their premises to prevent spread of indoctrination material. Delay the proceedings while ensuring their PR and legal arm is starved of funds. Drain them dry of money, and their voice dwindles.

Once only a fraction of their support remains, then you can begin the actual trial. All that would remain at the time are the hardcore members who will more likely than not do something stupid, which allows you to round them up as well.

If anyone objects to the house arrest, declare it a necessary measure to ensure the suspects do not leave the country. Use past cases of Scientologists skipping out of Germany to avoid their court hearings as an example.


But the alternative is worse. We cannot ban a group of people, we cannot ban people from forming an association under a particular name, for the reason that some of them are likely to commit a crime. That is ... well, it's fascism.

Then strangle the association to death using the methods outlined above. It's legal, and avoids the use of banning.

But the alternative is worse. We cannot ban a group of people, we cannot ban people from forming an association under a particular name, for the reason that some of them are likely to commit a crime. That is ... well, it's fascism.

The organisation is not being banned because members might commit a crime. But because the organisation's raison d'être is incompatible with German law and society.

These are two completely different things. Though I suppose it helps the Scientology cause to conflate the two to make the German government to unduly totalitarian.

I don't think that Germany has a problem with Scientology as a relegion.Germany does not consider Scientology a real religion, neither do the Germans.