This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Uh oh
Another religious thread.
Or is it?
A religion, based on what some sci-fi author started in the 1950s?
Is that a "proper" religion - or some fad, or cult?
Or as genuine as hinduism, buddhism, christianity, islam, or - to take it to the truly ludicrous - jedi ?
Germany is looking to brand Scientology as "unconstitutional" - it doesn't officially recognise it as a religion, anyway - and then it can challenge it's legal status, and "ban" it.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7133867.stm
A couple of comments in this caught my eye, being as I am a cynical, naughty person...
Firstly:
Critics accuse the organisation of cult-type practices and exploiting followers for financial gain.
Followed by:
But Scientologists reject this and say that they promote a religion based on the understanding of the human spirit.
<cynic>
Understanding the human spirit makes it vulnerable for exploitation.
Which, you could say, is what some religions have always done, throughout the ages...
</cynic>
So, guilty as charged?
And would the same charges stick against any other "religion" currently operating in Germany? And will they apply the same criteria to all of them?
||-)
Another religious thread.
Or is it?
A religion, based on what some sci-fi author started in the 1950s?
Is that a "proper" religion - or some fad, or cult?
Or as genuine as hinduism, buddhism, christianity, islam, or - to take it to the truly ludicrous - jedi ?
Germany is looking to brand Scientology as "unconstitutional" - it doesn't officially recognise it as a religion, anyway - and then it can challenge it's legal status, and "ban" it.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7133867.stm
A couple of comments in this caught my eye, being as I am a cynical, naughty person...
Firstly:
Critics accuse the organisation of cult-type practices and exploiting followers for financial gain.
Followed by:
But Scientologists reject this and say that they promote a religion based on the understanding of the human spirit.
<cynic>
Understanding the human spirit makes it vulnerable for exploitation.
Which, you could say, is what some religions have always done, throughout the ages...
</cynic>
So, guilty as charged?
And would the same charges stick against any other "religion" currently operating in Germany? And will they apply the same criteria to all of them?
||-)
In reply to Dominion:
Try, if you can, to define the word 'cult' in a way which doesn't clearly include the Church of England. I'd never entertain the idea of banning either of them, though I reserve my rights to mock them both mercilessly.
Try, if you can, to define the word 'cult' in a way which doesn't clearly include the Church of England. I'd never entertain the idea of banning either of them, though I reserve my rights to mock them both mercilessly.
In reply to Enoch Root:
Is all religion equally deserving of mockery, or are some more mock-worthy than others?
Is all religion equally deserving of mockery, or are some more mock-worthy than others?
In reply to Enoch Root:
And that is precisely - part of - my point...
I wonder, once they start down this route, whether they then have to judge all religions "available" in Germany in the same way?
> Try, if you can, to define the word 'cult' in a way which doesn't clearly include the Church of England.
And that is precisely - part of - my point...
I wonder, once they start down this route, whether they then have to judge all religions "available" in Germany in the same way?
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Some make far less strenuous attempts to conceal their rank and fanciful stupidity than others but, at heart, they all pretty damn mock-worthy.
Please note that, whatever the village idiots round here sometimes say, mockery is not a subset of intolerance and I defend to the death the right of stupid people to believe in stupid things.
> Is all religion equally deserving of mockery, or are some more mock-worthy than others?
Some make far less strenuous attempts to conceal their rank and fanciful stupidity than others but, at heart, they all pretty damn mock-worthy.
Please note that, whatever the village idiots round here sometimes say, mockery is not a subset of intolerance and I defend to the death the right of stupid people to believe in stupid things.
In reply to Dominion: you said it youself, they dont recognize it as a Religion, so what they do to Scientology have nothing to do with what they should do to Religions.
In reply to Mokkel:
On the other hand, whether they recognize it as a religion, when the organisation behind it does, is also an area of debate.
Maybe a religion should only be judged to be true, if they can provide actual evidence - other than hearsay - of the existence of their god. Right there, in the court assessing it's legal status.
Come one, we're waiting.
We're still waiting.
Ok, defendent didn't turn up, so case found against them.
On the other hand, whether they recognize it as a religion, when the organisation behind it does, is also an area of debate.
Maybe a religion should only be judged to be true, if they can provide actual evidence - other than hearsay - of the existence of their god. Right there, in the court assessing it's legal status.
Come one, we're waiting.
We're still waiting.
Ok, defendent didn't turn up, so case found against them.
In reply to Dominion:
Did you see this a couple of days ago?
'Hindu gods get summons from court'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7132124.stm
> (In reply to Mokkel)
>
> Maybe a religion should only be judged to be true, if they can provide actual evidence - other than hearsay - of the existence of their god. Right there, in the court assessing it's legal status.
>
>
> Maybe a religion should only be judged to be true, if they can provide actual evidence - other than hearsay - of the existence of their god. Right there, in the court assessing it's legal status.
>
Did you see this a couple of days ago?
'Hindu gods get summons from court'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7132124.stm
In reply to Dominion:
Just to fly a kite here.....what do you think of the notion that astrologers, homeopaths (?) and other quacks should be prosecuted, at least under the Sale of Good Act, possibly even for plain old fraud.
> Maybe a religion should only be judged to be true, if they can provide actual evidence - other than hearsay - of the existence of their god.
Just to fly a kite here.....what do you think of the notion that astrologers, homeopaths (?) and other quacks should be prosecuted, at least under the Sale of Good Act, possibly even for plain old fraud.
In reply to Dominion:
Scientologists have been in court before, Operation Snow White where even Mrs Hubbard was convicted (caught with her hands in the cupboard?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
And in September this year the Belgians tried to prosecute them for fraud,
http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1527&id=1413222007&bad=93...
L Ron himself was convicted in absentia in France.
Scientologists have been in court before, Operation Snow White where even Mrs Hubbard was convicted (caught with her hands in the cupboard?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
And in September this year the Belgians tried to prosecute them for fraud,
http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1527&id=1413222007&bad=93...
L Ron himself was convicted in absentia in France.
In reply to Dominion: hilarious obviously but it truly mystifies me how anybody can regard christianity as any different - just a few years older - complete abnegation of the intellect that is the core of our humanity - really frightening, cowardly and sad
In reply to Enoch Root:
Agree about not banning them but we should mock them and take the piss to the limit. If their so called "faith" is so strong they should be able to ignore it, shouldn't they?
They can't though, can they?
Agree about not banning them but we should mock them and take the piss to the limit. If their so called "faith" is so strong they should be able to ignore it, shouldn't they?
They can't though, can they?
In reply to Dominion:
Scientology is a patent fraud, yes.
In a book written by Hubbard's son ol' L Ron
is exposed as having started Scientology on a bet he made while a member of the OTO (Ordo Templi Orientis; a sexual magick order A Crowley was a member of) that he could make a million bucks with a bogus religion he would create himself.
Really shows characters like Cruise up for the buffoon's they truly are. I used to live with a Scientologist. A peculiar and sometimes unpleasant fellow.
But that's all irrelevant. If people want to worship choccy raised donuts they should have the right to.
Unless of course the organization is up to no good somewhere; questionable ties, financial investments, culpability in crimes etc.
Scientology is a patent fraud, yes.
In a book written by Hubbard's son ol' L Ron
is exposed as having started Scientology on a bet he made while a member of the OTO (Ordo Templi Orientis; a sexual magick order A Crowley was a member of) that he could make a million bucks with a bogus religion he would create himself.
Really shows characters like Cruise up for the buffoon's they truly are. I used to live with a Scientologist. A peculiar and sometimes unpleasant fellow.
But that's all irrelevant. If people want to worship choccy raised donuts they should have the right to.
Unless of course the organization is up to no good somewhere; questionable ties, financial investments, culpability in crimes etc.
In reply to Mystery Toad:
Like, for example the Catholic church or Opus Dei?.
> (In reply to Dominion)
> Unless of course the organization is up to no good somewhere; questionable ties, financial investments, culpability in crimes etc.
Like, for example the Catholic church or Opus Dei?.
In reply to Dominion: mebbe. But I find it quite funny when the Church of Scientology comes over all moral high horse about freedom of speech - arent they the folks who are renowned for trying to sue the ass of anybody who bad mouths them?
snuck snuck, what goes around comes around if you ask me
snuck snuck, what goes around comes around if you ask me
In reply to Enoch Root:
Agreed, though I'd also defend the right of intelligent people to believe in stupid things.
> Please note that, whatever the village idiots round here sometimes say, mockery is not
> a subset of intolerance and I defend to the death the right of stupid people to believe in stupid things.
> a subset of intolerance and I defend to the death the right of stupid people to believe in stupid things.
Agreed, though I'd also defend the right of intelligent people to believe in stupid things.
In reply to Dominion:
They're all as barking mad as each other, I guess what separates this one is that it's just a pyramid scheme disguised as religion for tax purposes?
They're all as barking mad as each other, I guess what separates this one is that it's just a pyramid scheme disguised as religion for tax purposes?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
"With or without (religion), you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
Steven Weinberg
"With or without (religion), you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
Steven Weinberg
In reply to Enoch Root:
So do I.
The difference between us is that I don't defend an imagined "right" to harrass and intimidate people who have never done anything to deserve such treatment.
> I defend to the death the right of stupid people to believe in stupid things.
So do I.
The difference between us is that I don't defend an imagined "right" to harrass and intimidate people who have never done anything to deserve such treatment.
In reply to Enoch Root:
A very good example was shown on the last episode of "The Tudors", where Thomas More had six people burned over a minor theological dispute.
> "With or without (religion), you'd have good people doing good things and evil people
> doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
> doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
A very good example was shown on the last episode of "The Tudors", where Thomas More had six people burned over a minor theological dispute.
In reply to niggle:
Do you defend a right to censor free speech and legitimate criticism merely by labelling it "harassment and intimidation"?
> The difference between us is that I don't defend an imagined "right" to harrass and
> intimidate people who have never done anything to deserve such treatment.
> intimidate people who have never done anything to deserve such treatment.
Do you defend a right to censor free speech and legitimate criticism merely by labelling it "harassment and intimidation"?
In reply to Dominion: what exactly do scientologists beleive? what is scientology? I have looked it up on wiki but it didnt really say
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Verbally abusing people and calling them names when they've done nothing to deserve it is not "free speech", it's bullying.
And yes, I defend a right to live without being bullied and harrassed.
> Do you defend a right to censor free speech and legitimate criticism merely by labelling it "harassment and intimidation"?
Verbally abusing people and calling them names when they've done nothing to deserve it is not "free speech", it's bullying.
And yes, I defend a right to live without being bullied and harrassed.
In reply to niggle:
And what about criticising and perhaps ridiculing ideas they may subscribe to, for example political or theological ideas? Is that "bullying"?
Translation: "I reserve the right to outlaw any speech I dislike or that criticises me by labelling it "bullying" and "harassment"." How very Islamic of you.
> Verbally abusing people and calling them names when they've done nothing to deserve it is
> not "free speech", it's bullying.
> not "free speech", it's bullying.
And what about criticising and perhaps ridiculing ideas they may subscribe to, for example political or theological ideas? Is that "bullying"?
> And yes, I defend a right to live without being bullied and harrassed.
Translation: "I reserve the right to outlaw any speech I dislike or that criticises me by labelling it "bullying" and "harassment"." How very Islamic of you.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Discuss the ideas and there's no problem.
Attack the person and there's a problem.
People are allowed to think whatever they like and they're allowed to do it without being bullied for it.
> And what about criticising and perhaps ridiculing ideas they may subscribe to, for example political or theological ideas? Is that "bullying"?
Discuss the ideas and there's no problem.
Attack the person and there's a problem.
People are allowed to think whatever they like and they're allowed to do it without being bullied for it.
In reply to LewisDale:
It was rumoured to be:
Make Money
Make more Money
Make even more money
And they were labelled $cientology
> what exactly do scientologists beleive? what is scientology? I have looked it up on wiki but it didnt really say
It was rumoured to be:
Make Money
Make more Money
Make even more money
And they were labelled $cientology
In reply to Coel Hellier:
That particular post of Niggle's did deserve critique, but that's not critique, that's just offensive and you once again take your place among the most reactionary posters at UKC.
Cheers
> (In reply to niggle)
> How very Islamic of you.
> How very Islamic of you.
That particular post of Niggle's did deserve critique, but that's not critique, that's just offensive and you once again take your place among the most reactionary posters at UKC.
Cheers
In reply to Dominion:
Hiya Dom. whatcha doin startin this crazy thread? tsk tsk. lol
Yes obviously it's about profits for the organization. It not just rumour. See my first post to this thread.
> (In reply to LewisDale)
>
> It was rumoured to be:
>
> Make Money
> Make more Money
> Make even more money
>
> And they were labelled $cientology
>
> It was rumoured to be:
>
> Make Money
> Make more Money
> Make even more money
>
> And they were labelled $cientology
Hiya Dom. whatcha doin startin this crazy thread? tsk tsk. lol
Yes obviously it's about profits for the organization. It not just rumour. See my first post to this thread.
In reply to niggle:
Wow!, actually niggle, we are very close to agreement here.
So, for example, the Danish "Mohammed" cartoons, since they did not attack any (currently living) person, but only attacked some ideas, are "no problem".
I'm glad you agree that, for example, Muslims encountering the Danish cartoons does not constitute "bullying", and that only abuse directly personally at them, not at ideas they might hold, is "bullying".
> Discuss the ideas and there's no problem. Attack the person and there's a problem.
Wow!, actually niggle, we are very close to agreement here.
So, for example, the Danish "Mohammed" cartoons, since they did not attack any (currently living) person, but only attacked some ideas, are "no problem".
> People are allowed to think whatever they like and they're allowed to do it without being bullied for it.
I'm glad you agree that, for example, Muslims encountering the Danish cartoons does not constitute "bullying", and that only abuse directly personally at them, not at ideas they might hold, is "bullying".
In reply to Mystery Toad:
Oh come on, the attitude of claiming "offense" and "hurt" when ones religious ideas are critiqued or ridiculed, and asking for censorship on that account, IS an attitude prevalent in Islam.
> but that's not critique, that's just offensive
Oh come on, the attitude of claiming "offense" and "hurt" when ones religious ideas are critiqued or ridiculed, and asking for censorship on that account, IS an attitude prevalent in Islam.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You've already shown on this thread that you're not able to tell the difference between reasonable discussion of ideas and abuse.
You've already shown on this thread that you're not able to tell the difference between reasonable discussion of ideas and abuse.
In reply to niggle:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> [...]
>
> Verbally abusing people and calling them names when they've done nothing to deserve it is not "free speech", it's bullying.
>
The question is niggle, can you live by this. I for one suspect not.>
> [...]
>
> Verbally abusing people and calling them names when they've done nothing to deserve it is not "free speech", it's bullying.
>
In reply to The New NickB:
I try to Nick.
> The question is niggle, can you live by this. I for one suspect not.
I try to Nick.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Who's L Ron Hoover?
Is that the salesman that comes to the door hawking his wares? Vacuum cleaners or bogus religious organizations. No diff.
Unless we're talking about the one TRUE Church!
http://www.subgenius.com/
> (In reply to Mystery Toad)
>
> How come you've not mentioned L Ron Hoover yet?
>
> How come you've not mentioned L Ron Hoover yet?
Who's L Ron Hoover?
Is that the salesman that comes to the door hawking his wares? Vacuum cleaners or bogus religious organizations. No diff.
Unless we're talking about the one TRUE Church!
http://www.subgenius.com/
In reply to niggle:
Still don't get this.
If my friend says he believes Liverpool will win the Premiership can I mock him?
If my friend says he believes Liverpool will win the Premiership and has bet £10 can I mock him, now he has an interest in the result?
If my friend says he believes Liverpool will win the Premiership and has sold his wife and kids into white slavery to raise funds for a bigger bet can I mock him, with the outcome now more serious?
If my friend says he believes Liverpool will win the Premiership and he believes God wants Liverpool to win it can I mock him?
If my friend says he believes Liverpool will win the Premiership and he believes God told him that Liverpool WILL win it can I mock him, now that he is attaching a revelatory experience to his belief?
Or am I bullying him unless I treat every belief very seriously?
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> People are allowed to think whatever they like and they're allowed to do it without being bullied for it.
>
> People are allowed to think whatever they like and they're allowed to do it without being bullied for it.
Still don't get this.
If my friend says he believes Liverpool will win the Premiership can I mock him?
If my friend says he believes Liverpool will win the Premiership and has bet £10 can I mock him, now he has an interest in the result?
If my friend says he believes Liverpool will win the Premiership and has sold his wife and kids into white slavery to raise funds for a bigger bet can I mock him, with the outcome now more serious?
If my friend says he believes Liverpool will win the Premiership and he believes God wants Liverpool to win it can I mock him?
If my friend says he believes Liverpool will win the Premiership and he believes God told him that Liverpool WILL win it can I mock him, now that he is attaching a revelatory experience to his belief?
Or am I bullying him unless I treat every belief very seriously?
In reply to niggle:
That, from a poster who has raised ad-hom-as-a-debating-tactic into an art form!
And, no, I haven't shown that I can't tell the difference; I can quite readily.
> You've already shown on this thread that you're not able to tell the difference between
> reasonable discussion of ideas and abuse.
> reasonable discussion of ideas and abuse.
That, from a poster who has raised ad-hom-as-a-debating-tactic into an art form!
And, no, I haven't shown that I can't tell the difference; I can quite readily.
In reply to Mystery Toad:
http://books.google.com/books?id=lwa6e9F62c8C&pg=RA1-PA155&lpg=RA1-...
> (In reply to brothersoulshine)
> [...]
>
> Who's L Ron Hoover?
> [...]
>
> Who's L Ron Hoover?
http://books.google.com/books?id=lwa6e9F62c8C&pg=RA1-PA155&lpg=RA1-...
In reply to winhill:
You're being rather unfair to poor niggle in expecting him to actually defend a position coherently.
> Still don't get this.
You're being rather unfair to poor niggle in expecting him to actually defend a position coherently.
In reply to niggle:
No-one in the history of humankind has explained this to me satisfactorily but seeing as you keep raising it why not have a go?
If you are going to repeat this ad nauseum then you should be able to defend it off rote. There should be no need to discuss it or time to think of an appropriate answer.
If you are unable to do this, it appears that you are just repeating an unfounded prescriptive that is aimed at controlling what people say. Strangely enough it is mainly on religious topics too, where freedom of speech has been attacked for centuries!
No-one in the history of humankind has explained this to me satisfactorily but seeing as you keep raising it why not have a go?
If you are going to repeat this ad nauseum then you should be able to defend it off rote. There should be no need to discuss it or time to think of an appropriate answer.
If you are unable to do this, it appears that you are just repeating an unfounded prescriptive that is aimed at controlling what people say. Strangely enough it is mainly on religious topics too, where freedom of speech has been attacked for centuries!
In reply to Dominion:
Anyone actually know what scientologists do believe?
Any scientologists on UKC?
Any of you out there think a european liberal country should legally be allowed to ban a set of beliefs? If so under what circumstances?
Anyone actually know what scientologists do believe?
Any scientologists on UKC?
Any of you out there think a european liberal country should legally be allowed to ban a set of beliefs? If so under what circumstances?
In reply to niggle:
Can I be the second personal on this thread to say that you are failing.
> (In reply to The New NickB)
>
> [...]
>
> I try to Nick.
>
> [...]
>
> I try to Nick.
Can I be the second personal on this thread to say that you are failing.
In reply to chris wyatt:
As I understand it, it is not the beliefs that lead to calls for a ban, it is instead their cult behaviour and the way they indoctrinate converts.
Having said that, I personally am not in favour of a ban.
> Any of you out there think a european liberal country should legally be allowed to ban a set of beliefs?
As I understand it, it is not the beliefs that lead to calls for a ban, it is instead their cult behaviour and the way they indoctrinate converts.
Having said that, I personally am not in favour of a ban.
In reply to Dominion: actually - while i'd be happy for them to be investigated along trading standards, unfair contract terms or fraud lines or similar or have their charitable status questioned i'm a bit concerned about them being investigated by "security services"
In reply to LewisDale:
see:
http://www.xenu.net/
> (In reply to Dominion) what exactly do scientologists beleive? what is scientology? I have looked it up on wiki but it didnt really say
see:
http://www.xenu.net/
In reply to Rob Naylor: and people actually treat it as a serious religion?
absolutely barmy
absolutely barmy
In reply to chris wyatt:
They're not really to fussed about the set of beliefs, I think. Scientology has been monitored for anti-constitutional activity for donkey years, because they're worried about how Scientologists are trying to undermine/infiltrate the state and economy, in the same way as they've been monitoring communist, rightwing and whatever groups. Scientology being a cult is the thing they probably are bothered about the least.
However I think that a ban should not go ahead, unless they're also trying to ban other religious groups, especially Christian groups, as they're infiltrating the state in the same way. (The German conservative party even having "Christian" in its name).
I don't think the ban would be okay'd if challenged in the constitutional court, anyway
> (In reply to Dominion)
>
> Anyone actually know what scientologists do believe?
> Any scientologists on UKC?
> Any of you out there think a european liberal country should legally be allowed to ban a set of beliefs? If so under what circumstances?
>
> Anyone actually know what scientologists do believe?
> Any scientologists on UKC?
> Any of you out there think a european liberal country should legally be allowed to ban a set of beliefs? If so under what circumstances?
They're not really to fussed about the set of beliefs, I think. Scientology has been monitored for anti-constitutional activity for donkey years, because they're worried about how Scientologists are trying to undermine/infiltrate the state and economy, in the same way as they've been monitoring communist, rightwing and whatever groups. Scientology being a cult is the thing they probably are bothered about the least.
However I think that a ban should not go ahead, unless they're also trying to ban other religious groups, especially Christian groups, as they're infiltrating the state in the same way. (The German conservative party even having "Christian" in its name).
I don't think the ban would be okay'd if challenged in the constitutional court, anyway
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...