Scientology Tries To Block German Documentary 565
eldavojohn writes "The Guardian is reporting on the strained relationship that Scientology is having with the German government and the airing of a pesky documentary on Southwest Broadcasting. Until Nothing Remains, a $2.3 million documentary, is slotted to air on German television at the end of this month. It recounts the true story of Heiner von Rönn and his family's suffering when he tried to leave the Church of Scientology. A Scientology spokesperson called the film false and intolerant and also said they are investigating legal means to stop the film from being aired. More details on the film can be gleaned here."
A point to note (Score:5, Informative)
Germany doesn't know yet what Scientology is, a business, a religion or a cult. This may make up the courts' mind.
From Wikipedia/Church of Scientology [wikipedia.org]:
In Germany, official views of Scientology are particularly skeptical. In Germany it is seen as a totalitarian anti-democratic organization and is under observation by national security organizations due, among other reasons, to suspicion of violating the human rights of its members granted by the German Constitution, including Hubbard's pessimistic views on democracy vis-à-vis psychiatry and other such features. In December 2007, Germany's interior ministers said that they considered the goals of Church of Scientology to be in conflict with the principles of the nation's constitution and would seek to ban the organization. The plans were quickly criticised as ill-advised. The plans to ban Scientology were finally dropped in November 2008, after preliminary investigations failed to unearth evidence of illegal or unconstitutional activity.
The legal status of the Church of Scientology in Germany is still awaiting resolution; some courts have ruled that it is a business, others have affirmed its religious nature. The German government has affirmed that it does not consider the Church of Scientology to be a religious community.
If any fellow Anonymous in Germany feel like telling the German government why they should not consider Scientology a religion, then please be my guest. Be clear, make yourself heard. "Ich bin Anonymous!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or in the words of Kennedy, "Ich bin ein Anonymer."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is that a new kind of doughnut?
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
Germany doesn't know yet what Scientology is, a business, a religion or a cult.
Same thing!! A cult is a business that makes money and gains power from people with a small schizophrenic delusion that partially detaches their inner model from reality. And a church is just a cult that’s officially accepted by the powers that be (e.g. Government). Which happens, as soon as they catch themselves enough politicians.
Organizations like these are by definition immoral, since they exploit people who need help. And control their lives with nasty social engineering. There is no good about it...
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
Cults need not be profitable. Take a look at the history of Charlie Manson and his cult. And no, here are some differences between cults and religions. These include the cult tendency to focus around a single, charismatic leader whose word is absolute law, and their tendency to conceal their genuine inner beliefs in layers that each must be struggled through by new initiates, and each is further divorced from the beliefs taught at the outer layers. This is part of what helps separate the cult inner core from the outer world, and helps bind them together among others who have learned to share those new increasingly bizarre core beliefs.
It's not uncommon: there have been a _lot_ of cults in history. There used to be a pretty good organization for publishing information about cults and helping people get the facts and support from former members, called "Cult Awareness Network", but they got sued to bankruptcy and their assets taken over by Scientology, so now they're a pro-cult organization.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
And no, here are some differences between cults and religions.
True. A religion is a cult that is tax exempt.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If any fellow Anonymous in Germany feel like telling the German government why they should not consider Scientology a religion, then please be my guest. Be clear, make yourself heard. "Ich bin Anonymous!"
Looking at this problem from the other side, if we're against Scientology getting tax breaks and whatnot because they reckon they're a religion why don't we revisit the tax (et al) perks for ALL religions?
Why do religions get tax perks? Why the special status?
OK, so _some_ religions do charitable works. That's fine. The "Charitable Works" parts of religions can have some tax breaks because other charities have tax breaks. But a lot of what "religions" do is far more akin to just being a business and the
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
In Germany it is seen as a totalitarian anti-democratic organization
If only somebody in Germany had the guts to say the same thing about Catholicism, or for that matter Islam.
They did, [wikipedia.org] 500 years ago, and it led to the Reformation.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
In Germany it is seen as a totalitarian anti-democratic organization
If only somebody in Germany had the guts to say the same thing about Catholicism, or for that matter Islam.
The thing is, though, that they aren't. If you're a Catholic, no-one's going to try and make your life a living hell if you want to stop coming to church. People say horrible and untrue thing about Catholics and the Catholic Church all the time, but they don't try and abuse the legal system to stop them, because they recognise the importance of freedom of speech. You can get all of the advantages and privileges of being a member of the Catholic Church for free just by turning up; you don't have to pay to access any of its teachings.
To describe Catholicism as a "totalitarian anti-democratic organisation" and thereby making a direct comparison to Scientology is simply doing your own intelligence and critical thinking skills a disservice.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
Please do provide us with examples of democracy at work within the church. Or do you mean that though internally anti-democratic the church respects the democracies which harbour it so much that it would never try and avoid secular law via non-reporting of crimes, influence elections from the pulpit, lobby elected officials and the press... ?
Regarding freedom of speech (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_versus_blasphemy [wikipedia.org]): "In 2005 Marithé and François Girbaud's parodied Leonardo's religious painting The Last Supper in a publicity poster. The Catholic Church initiated a lawsuit against the Girbauds, sparking concerns regarding freedom of expression and blasphemy.", for example. There are plenty.
As far as it still being a scientology-like racket, it clearly was in the middle ages and afterwards. Recent info is hard to come by, though the Banco Ambrosiano thingy hints at juicy stuff. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banco_Ambrosiano).
The catholic church feels to me like a successful sect, no more, no less, no better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please do provide us with examples of democracy at work within the church.
People are free to leave at will if they disagree.
The only sanctions taken internally for unorthodox views are withdrawal of offical positions (as a recognised theologian for example - as with Hans Kung).
Monasteries/convents elect their abbots/mother superiors, and a number of religious orders (such as the Jesuits) elect their heads. The latter include some of the most powerful roles in the Church (such as the Jesuit "Black Pope").
influence elections from the pulpit, lobby elected officials and the press
That's called 'freedom of speech'. You are entitled to call air your views, s
Re:A point to note (Score:4, Insightful)
As an agnostic (and ex-Catholic) I'm no defender of the church by any means but asking the other poster for examples of "democracy at work within the church" in an attempt to refute that the Church and Scientology are very different in their treatment of people is patently absurd. I might as well as you to provide us of examples of "democracy at work within a corporation" and then contend that a corporation is as dangerous and abusive as Scientology - which, of course, we know is for the most part incorrect. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, what's that? You don't see anything wrong [cnn.com] in the Catholic church?
An institution that used to torture people and burn them at the stake in order to "save" their souls, that used to preach its agenda in Latin (which no one understood) until less than a century ago. It teaches that everything bad that happens to you is YOUR FAULT, for which you should seek confession to accept forgiveness AND is also part of God's "plan" and therefore you should just shut up and accept it. Catholicis
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Dark Ages are calling, they'd like you to rejoin them.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Informative)
To describe Catholicism as a "totalitarian anti-democratic organisation" and thereby making a direct comparison to Scientology is simply doing your own intelligence and critical thinking skills a disservice.
Crap. I was brought up in the theocracy that was the Republic of Ireland, and "totalitarian" and "anti-democratic" are accurate adjectives. It's totalitarian because the Church sought to regulat every part of your life, including your thoughts ('thought crime' is a very familiar term to survivors of Catholicism like myself). It's anti-democratic because religion is, by its very nature, anti-democratic - scripture's scripture, and you have to follow it. The Catholic Church is run by an old man in an Italian city-state with a hierarchy of other old men who give orders and are completely unaccountable to their victims (sorry, 'parishioners'). Catholicism is far, far worse than Scientology, at least in Ireland were it's State-backed and obligatory, and its ordinances reach even unto non-believers (hence all the women who travel to the UK for abortions because the misogynist pricks that run the Church have banned it). At least you've a choice whether or not to be a Scientologist, and if you so choose then more bloody fool you.
If you're a Catholic, no-one's going to try and make your life a living hell if you want to stop coming to church.
That's complete bollox, that is. If you were a Catholic in Eire and you didn't come to Mass, the local priest would be calling at your door wanting to know why you weren't there, and he could and would give you serious grief if you didn't turn up next Sunday. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Pleasingly, the Church in Ireland is having done to it what it's done to all those kids over the decades: being fucked up the arse. The days when you'd have to bow and scrape to your local priest because he had an almost literal power of life and death over you are now over - now he's just a weirdo in a black dress who can't have sex like normal folk (and as a result is seriously fucked-up in the head).
Re:A point to note (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you saying that catholicism should be forbidden because of what happened centuries ago ? Next you'll tell me I should be apologizing to every black person I come across for slavery...
I don't agree with most of the Catholic church views, and it certainly has major flaws, but *nowadays* the leaders of this religion are not motivated by greed and power (if they are, they're doing a very lousy job at it). Scientology obviously is.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
My great-grand father was a pastor, my grand-mother and mother are protestants, but after going to sunday school and such I've become an atheist when I was a teen (for the reason you cite), and no one pressured me into reconsidering it. IMO the problem is the bigotry of the families you speak of, not that particular religion. BTW, there's "going through hell with your parents" and then there's "being harassed constantly and having your private life thoroughly investigated for dirty secrets to try and get you fired, jailed or institutionalized".
Speaking of my great-grand father, he was the kindest, most selfless man I've ever known (hid jews during WW2, helped develop a small pacific island, ...). He most certainly never pressured his parishioners into giving him or his church money.
Anyway, my point was that despite all the crooked priests and bigot followers, mainstream religions are much less greedy and evil than cults like scientology. For example, you can get the bible [biblegateway.com] for free or at a very moderate cost, and without giving out any personal information. Same with the Qur'an [al-quran.info]. Try acquiring scientology "courses" for free or anonymously...
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
> I don't know of many other institutions that attempt to bully a national government, you know?
I take it you're not a member of a union?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm afraid I'm going to "Godwin" myself here, and say it took an international invasion force to clear Nazism out of Germany, and the Cold War to clear Communism out of East Germany. The Germans have become very, very touchy about top-down, authority heavy organizations with thought police, regular interrogations of members with lie detectors, and locking up of dissidents, all of which Scientology does as standard policy. (Look up the Scientology "Guardian Office", the "e-meter", and "Flagg Base" for detail
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
No atheist is stopping religious people from living. Check the history of all major religions and you will find out that religious people quite often did stop atheists from living, and in quite imaginative ways too. I am just giving my opinion, feel free to give yours and stop playing the "hurt feelings" card you big baby.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to defend the history of religious oppression, but atheistic Leninist Russia [wikipedia.org] had quite a habit of stopping religious people living, as does Communist [wikipedia.org] China [wikipedia.org]
The persecution of minorities is a feature of all totalitarian ideologies, religious or otherwise.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
Lenin was a true atheist, Stalin... I don't know. But their motivations were a bit different than just 'stopping the religious from living'.
They did not stop religious Muslims from living, they were going after Jews, but not for religion purposes, they just needed a distraction, and Jews were always a good one.
The main point was to get rid of the Orthodox symbols and rituals because that was the religion of the Tsarist Russia. They needed to get rid of the 'old' and it also was a good way to get rid of the competition.
With Lenin this was not as obvious as with Stalin, he really saw religion as competition to the new religion, the Communist Party with Stalin [bosonogoe.ru] being the leading character [bosonogoe.ru], Christ or something to that order [bosonogoe.ru].
Consider that old churches were turned into vegetable stores and morgues and that Party had very strong symbols of its own, the colors [segodnya.ua], the sermons (ceremonies of the party [rszodergava.ru] meetings on TV, so called 'plenums'), the insignia [bosonogoe.ru], the icons (Mother Russia [visualrian.ru], voloneters [davno.ru]).
This was not a society of atheists, this was something else.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
But the cause is exactly what we are talking about. There are about 18,000 homicides annually in the USA. I'm sure there are some where the murderer happened to be an atheist and the victim was religious or vice versa. But those are not relevant to our discussion because their beliefs had nothing to do with the cause of the murder. Stalin sent thousands to gulags or to firing squads, not because of what they believed about God (after all, surely he killed just as many if not more atheists than religious people) but because he perceived them as a threat to his power. This is quite different from say religious laws in Islamic countries today, and Christian countries in the past, which have, for example, a death penalty for things like blasphemy, apostasy etc because those penalties are proscribed very clearly in the Bible and the Koran and are an integral part of their religion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion is a primitive form of totalitarian/authoritarian government. If you are going to build a totalitarian/authoritarian government of your own, you are going to want to purge the alternatives.
Stalin didn't kill religious people/leaders because he was an atheist, he killed them because they represented an alternative authority and weakened his position of absolute power. It could just as easily gone the other way, with a specific religion in power with purges of the others, as it so often has though ou
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
OP was responding to GP's statement that "No atheist is stopping religious people from living." OP wasn't the one who limited the debate to purges of religion by atheists, GP was. OP was merely responding within the confines of the debate established by the GP, not promoting his agenda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
You could well be right. My point wasn't to suggest that somehow atheism was bound to result in mass murder, it was to say that a simplistic reading of history that condemns religion for the past, can also condemn...well, just about any group, including atheists.
There seems to be little consideration that the religious abuses of the past were more political than anything else. Though they do emphasize why mixing religion and politics is such a terrible idea: politics corrupts religion ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion also corrupts politics. Despite the separation of church and state in the US, we still have a very large number of politicians in America that claim God as their inspiration. It's very hard to argue against a religious belief without coming out and saying something that ends your political career, and I would really love to hear how some of George Bush's speeches would've gone if he couldn't mention God in any of them...
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
Communism and its variant Juche are 100% religions in everything but name. They have their rituals, clergy, scripture. They fight infidels and are highly proselytic. You have portraits of the Prophets everywhere. There are holy sites, and sometimes pilgrimages (like to Lenin's corpse). And I really can't notice a modicum of difference between 1st May processions we used to have in Poland and catholic Corpus Christi ones we have now.
It's quite strange that Juche tends to be quite often named a religion, yet the Soviet and Chinese versions are not.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Interesting)
It is, and it's wrong in both cases, C'est la vie. Humans seem to have a desire to view things in extremes of black and white even though no such dichotomy exists.
No, not necessarily. The original poster seems to want to condemn religious intolerance and injustice by being intolerant himself.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!
Really?
When is the last time you saw an atheist fly a plane into a sky scraper? Or shoot a doctor dead, because some invisible man in the sky didn't like the LEGAL work the doctor was doing? Have any ministers, reverends or priests (even the PEDO ones) been assaulted by bands of roving atheists? Are atheist groups campaigning en masse to deny rights to homosexuals and legislate bigotry?
I seem to recall something in one of those holy books that said "take the log out of your own eye, before you attempt to remove the speck from your brothers eye"
Re:A point to note (Score:4, Insightful)
When is the last time you saw an atheist fly a plane into a sky scraper? Or shoot a doctor dead, because some invisible man in the sky didn't like the LEGAL work the doctor was doing? Have any ministers, reverends or priests (even the PEDO ones) been assaulted by bands of roving atheists? Are atheist groups campaigning en masse to deny rights to homosexuals and legislate bigotry?
It's probably a bit too convenient (and dishonest) to take a "religion" that is widely known to be radical and violent as a prototype for typical religion while ignoring the obvious existence of radical atheists. It's also abundantly clear that there exists people who are not mentally well, both religious and otherwise, and such people are prone to do violent, immoral, and insane things. Ignoring that most people on earth (especially in the U.S.) are religious, a dishonest (or naive) person would extrapolate and conclude that religious people are more prone to violence than atheists, or even that religion causes such violence. You're above such naivety, aren't you?
It's also a clear cheap shot to decree that others are hypocrites when they try and fail to live up to higher standards (or even just different standards) than you yourself willing to accept as providential. But hey, I get it. Playing for the anti-religion crowd is an easy karma boost. To hell with intellectual honesty as long as you get the karma, right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
uh, hitler wasn't an atheist. seriously.
Re:A point to note (Score:4, Informative)
Hitler was a Catholic Christian until at least 1941, though I can understand why you'd rather not claim him as one of yours.
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot may have been atheists but that wasn't the reason they killed people. They were power mad dictators.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
Logical fallacy.
Just because I have the unmitigated gall to point out that atheists aren't suicide bombers, I am clearly in favour of atheist states like the Khmer Rouge.
Yes, that makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_people
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Please don't speak in behalf of Buddhists because it shows you don't understand the religion.
I assure you that Buddhism is different from anything you know and anger is one of the unwholesome feelings that Buddhists try to unroot from themselves.
The Buddha teached to accept the world and the people as they are and to try to make a change but without involving feelings of lust, anger, jelousy, etc.
So, "live and let live" but if you see unjustisce make your best effort to fight it.
Re:Religious nuts destroyed live-and-let-live (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish people would stop thinking of the "Christian right" as Christians, as they don't follow the teachings of Christ at all and in fact preach the opposite of what Christ taught.
Christ was a rebel who was executed for heresy. Were he alive today rather than 2000 years ago, the "Christian Right" would crucify him again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wiping out religion is only bad if one is religious.
Re:A point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
Well you start by confiscating children of believers, in the name of preventing "brainwashing", move on to imprisoning believers for "anti-revolutionary activities", and then start killing millions. You might also set up state approved alternatives that gradually remove spiritual elements. You also mandate "atheism lessons" for all school children.
It's what the USSR, PRC, and DPRK did.
Thank you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank you! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Profit: http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4092650/The_Profit_-_The_movie_Scientology_doesnt_want_you_to_see..4092650.TPB.torrent
Re:Thank you! (Score:4, Informative)
This is a completely different movie from 20 years ago that scientology got banned in the US.
Germany has the right idea (Score:3, Informative)
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/stat.html
Go Germany. Atleast someone gets the right idea here
Someone tag this story ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Defamatory" (Score:5, Funny)
Why would they need to deny that? It's a documentary, that's the point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they need to deny that? It's a documentary, that's the point.
The point of a properly done documentary is to show the facts so the viewers can come to their own conclusion - some things are obvious enought that they don't need to be pointed to with huge neon signs, nor be spoon feed to the audience.
The simple fact that the CoS is trying to stop a documentary that don't show them in a flattering light is enought to tell most potential viewers that the CoS has something to hide. One can only hope that the CoS try to use some of their common [wikipedia.org] - but illegal - ways to try t
Two words (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck Scientology. I've never seen a larger collection of assholes ever.
Re:Two words (Score:5, Funny)
Thats eleven words.
Re:Two words (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, dear. Try watching "Fox News" for an education in orifices.
'Intolerance' (Score:4, Informative)
What german documentary? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh this one. Geez, never heard about it, never would have, except now they sue so the entire world hears about it.
Streisand Effect anyone?
When we shipped the religious nutters to the colonies, the understanding was that they were supposed to stay there. Not come back!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All Scientologists are annoying.
Barbara Streisand is annoying.
Therefore, Barbara Streisand is a Sceintologist.
Yeah, I know it's bad logic, but this logic is at least as good as a Sceintologist's.
Stupid poor idiots. (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel most sorry for the mislead idiots doing the dirty work for Scientology higher ups. They dont know they are following a Scifi novel, a pretty lame one sadly. Written by an utter bastard that once said, "If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion."
He did...
Can someone explain me this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can someone who knows about legal stuff explain me this?
How come Scientology can shut everyone that tries to talk about them and we don't see any corporation doing that too? I mean, what gives Scientology the right to do it while denying it to everyone else? Or is it that the corps just choose not to use that right? I don't think that would be the case.
Think of all the articles talking sh1t about MS, Apple, you name it. If they had the same rights, they would be able to silence every news article talking bad about them.
welp (Score:3, Informative)
I hope someone gets a digital copy, "fansubs" it, and sends BT links to everyone on the planet.
The Joy of Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing more amusing in life then watching two sides of intolerant try to explain to one another how intolerant each is. Thank you slashdot for another amusing idealogical flame war.
First: Correlation doesn't imply causation.
Any organization: religion or otherwise can be taken as the mean of actions. To try and blame religion for the crusades, torture, etc at the time is statistically irrelivant. Those tactics were used with the same impunity by non-religious organizations at the time. The Dutch trading companies, merchant leagues, feudal lords, etc.
The capacity for evil is universal in humans. The very fact people can throw out secular versus non-secular violence simply states a fact that violence has little to do with and one particular idealogy. People kill in the name of XYZ because it is a source of justification. No different the killing in the name of greed, pride, honor, land, food, etc.
Crusades religious? That is nonsense. The holy roman empire was just that an empire. No different then Rome. When Ole' Rome invaded and took out the Goths was that a Holy War by Zeus or Jupiter? It's a war over land the "backing" is irrelivant. France's revolution was a secular vs religious blood bath. Athiests, Agnostics, Religious, and other idealogical classifications are statistically insignificant regressors when it comes to the analysis of violence.
Islam is statistically no more violent then Christianity or Aethiests. The lead indicators in violence is education and poverty levels. After that comes access to fresh water and crop land.
The crusades was a land grab. No different with the Moorish invasion. The "decorations" of war no different. Any organization\idealogy will attempt to grow it's power and supress dissent. It's human nature. Democrats, Republicans, Masons, Boy Scouts, your local Sigbap, Eve Corp, or WoW guild all have the same basic behaviors. Violence, war, indoctrination, etc are common behaviors.
It's just a statistical echo that religious organizations were successful enough organizations to escalate to that level of control. e.g. It's not the fact they are religions but rather the fact they were successsful control structures (Which mind you most governement models are based from.) President = Pope, Congress of Cardinals = Senate, etc.
So go ahead and butt intolerant heads but I hate to break it to both sides, is because human behavior, not a particular belief structure. God didn't invent the atom bomb, scientists, people, humans did. The only thing I see is a world in which people love to blame "the other side" for the problems rather then realize the reasons for our darkest side is universal. Evil is universal, it's just easier to try and subscribe a demographic to it rather then deal with the real root causes.
Scientology claim to be non-denominational... (Score:3, Funny)
But I've seen their eyes light up at 10's and 20's.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Regardless, Scientology is prohibited in Germany; So I doubt they will have much of a case for the german courts.
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, Scientology is prohibited in Germany; So I doubt they will have much of a case for the german courts.
This is like the Streisand effect - it will only generate publicity. So thank you Scientology for making me aware of this documentary.
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem here is that many public networks shy away from these documentaries BECAUSE of the clout of Scientology. However, ARD is supported by public euros and as such answers to nobody even the government. Many whine about having to pay a TV tax, but I gladly pay my monthly TV tax as it produces documentaries that ask hard hitting questions. Public networks would definitely not support it...
I am a supporter of free markets and capitalism, but at times we need the government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the US, the government used to fund news stations. In that time some of the best journalism this country had ever seen was done. It set the bar for the rest of the world.
Once go government funding stopped and news source had to get their own funding, it became a race for ad dollars. Now we have Fox news.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you pay a tax on something that is an inherent right.
I think honestly you need a tax on government. Let's call it a government tax,
The government must pay this tax to the people because without the people
the government is nothing.
You have an inherent right to watch television? Seriously?
How do you know you do? Did God write it down on a tablet of stone and give it to Moses? If not, where did this 'inherent right' come from?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even the most hardcore supporters of the Second Amendment doesn't think that the government needs to GIVE everyone a weapon so that they can bear arms.
That would be an interesting proposition. If your free weapon came with a rigourous firearm safety training program and range time, it would put guns in the hands of the citizenry rather than just the police or military. I don't know that that's a good thing, but I do know that the government is no longer afraid of the people - the people are afraid of the government, and that's not the way it's supposed to be.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the law of my country (Belgium) and Germany, Scientology is not a religion.
In order for anyone to expose that they are not a religion, you do indeed need dissenters, not die hard fans.
I think you owe the people in Germany an apology for that last comment you made but hey, it's your karma (and I don't mean /. karma).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
Scientology is not banned. They have just been denied the legal status of a church, and they're closely watched for their antidemocratic behavior.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:They are not that dangerous. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the body count for Scientology?. Ok.
Now, what is the body count for christianity, islam, and judaism?. Aha ...
Obviously we should be fighting both, then.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We should be fighting all of them, but not individually.
We shouldn't focus on how stupid or harmful any given religion is. We have to focus on how Religion in itself i stupid and dangerous. When we attack scientology, christians point and laugh, while scientologists ignore it. When we attack christianity, Muslims laugh and christians ignore us.
We have to focus on getting rid of religion in general, past, present and future ones.
Re:They are not that dangerous. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is only because Scientology was invented relatively recently. The level of critical thinking on new things is significantly better now than it was in the past (although it may not seem like it...). We also have much better record keeping practises, so it's easy to identify where Scientology came from, how it started, etc. That's why Scientology is having such a rough time of it. It's a heck of a lot harder to start a religion now than it was centuries ago. As a result, it has to be more aggressive as well, although that's (finally) starting to backfire on them.
If It had been started a couple thousand years ago like all the other major religions when ignorance was the norm, then we would all be praying about Xenu.
You'll notice that all major religions were created a long time ago, when superstition was rampant and science as we know it didn't exist. It's very difficult to eliminate something that's been so firmly entwined in cultural memory. Combine that with the human tendency to resist change, especially regarding beliefs taught to you since childhood (when, incidentally, you are genetically programmed to suck up any and all knowledge fed to you, hook line and sinker), you can see how something so nonsensical can somehow manage to keep going for so long.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see you've gotten an Insightful mod already, but you're nuts.
"Any organization" could mean all sorts of things. I'll get to that in a minute.
"Education" is in the eye of the beholder. The proper method for soliciting, enjoying, and reimbursing a prostitute could be classified as education. I'm certainly not as informed as I would need to be, as for example I'm not at all clear how much that service would fetch. So your statement could be applied to say that no organization should stand between me and
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Funny)
This is like the Streisand effect ...
We're talking about Germany. I'd suggest "Hasselhoff Effect" instead.
Streisand Effect, Who Benefits? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
Scientology is not prohibited in Germany. However, it failed to gain the status of a church and is considered a cult. Also it is being watched closely because it is considered "hostile to the constitution", IIRC.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For God's sake, no, Scientology is NOT prohibited in Germany. They are not acknowledged as as a religious group, so they do not enjoy financial benefits. They are however closely watched for violations of the constitution.
"Denied church status" != "Prohibited" (Score:5, Informative)
Scientology is allowed to operate and exist in Germany, but it is considered a for-profit organisation. That means it doesn't even enjoy charity status, much less the much-coveted tax exemption.
So yes, they could attempt to get a temporary restraining order, but I doubt that this will go well for them. It's too close to the broadcast date, and the editors and producers have most likely done their homework.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You only have one language in Australia? Here in the US we have Ebonics, Redneck, Tex-Mex, Corporate-speak, Geek, and a host of other languages.
Geek: Look, you just delete all the temp files and defrag the hard drive. Get more RAM and windows will run faster.
Ebonics: "Dat Sound geek to me."
Redneck: What da fuck y'all talkin' about? What's dis "winders" shit?
Nyoo Yawk: Windas is a dwag. A dyamn dwag!"
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
Let's take a look at the Grundgesetz...
Grundgesetz, Artikel 5: [dejure.org]
(1) Everybody has the right to express and distribute his opinion in word, writing or picture, and also to inform himself from any public source. The freedom of press and the freedom of reporting through broadcasting and movies is assured. No censorship takes place.
(2) These rights are limited only by the general laws for protection of the youth and protection of the personal honor.
(3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. The freedom of teaching does not release from the faith to the constitution.
(IANAL, but it beats Babelfish)
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought Germany still had anti hate speech laws (not that they're relevant for this issue).
Re:Rights? (Score:4, Informative)
... which are covered by Art 5(2): "These rights shall find their limits in [...] the right to personal honour."
And they are covered in Art 1(1): "The dignity of Man is untouchable. To respect it and to protect it is the obligation of all governmental power."
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a citizen of Europe, I'm going to have to point out passionately how full of neutering all such "Constitutions" are.
For example, in Germany I cannot freely:
- State that only 1,000,000 Jews died in the Holocaust: utter bullshit, but if the above clause has any effect, I must be allowed to do this, lest the principle leading to the exception is used to restrict me from legitimate review and criticism of policy based on established scholarship;
- Parade with swastikas: fairly stupid, but if the above clause has any effect, I must be allowed to do this, lest I am restricted from parodying a government going where it's gone before ("we're not like Nazis - we ban the swastika!").
Also, such exceptions inevitably ride the slippery slope to encompass the restriction of far more freedoms [wsws.org]. I'm sure the CoS will explain why their detractors are "like Nazis" oppressing religious freedom, their speech thus outlawed - enjoy that hurdle.
Re:Rights? (Score:4, Funny)
I saw Nirvana, Mudhoney and Alice in Chains back in '93.
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not stretchable at all. A legal entity cannot have personal honour. This is limited to natural persons.
A major difference to the US , which seems to be on the verge of granting corporations citizenship.
Re:Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Person <> organisation. Very, very, very important.
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are, but there are also laws to protect people (and organizations) from libel and untrue reporting.
In short: if you don't claim something is a fact but only your opinion, you're pretty much free to say anything. If you claim sonething is a fact, and the subject of the fact doesn't like it, court might ask you to proove that you double-checked your "facts" first.
This news is nothing special. You're almost expected to go that route if you hear about bad news are to be published (and you employ a lawyer...) but considering the standard of journalism in public tv, scientology hasn't much of a chance to pull that documentary off the air.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on the country, in some countries, how the truth is presented and for what reason it's presented count too.
Re:Rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not libel when it's true.
Orthogonal concepts. Its libel if it makes the plaintiff look bad, which is fairly irrelevant to truth or falsehood.
Some legal systems (by no means all) allow truth as a defense, pretty much "just because". But there's no logical connection, and certainly there are legal systems that do not allow truth as a defense, again pretty much "just because".
Then there are other defenses, some of which seem to apply to CoS such as being "incapable of further defamation", "Fair comment on a matter of public interest", "Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true", "No actual injury".
All the defenses against libel vaguely revolve around either increasing tax revenues (by collecting income tax from the journalist/muckraking establishment, which would otherwise be destroyed) or around not wasting the courts time on what amounts to BS, aka attempting to eliminate "SLAPP lawsuits" etc. None of the reasoning for libel defenses is particularly concerned with the moral superiority of "truth".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Truth [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why did you put "speech" in quotes? Is this a silent movie?
Re:Where can I find a copy? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't for now, but maybe XenuTV [xenutv.com] will be able to help when a digital copy is released.
Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is Scientology doesn't work the way other religions work, with respect to fanaticism. With Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, or most traditional religions), you get a fair amount of fanatical individuals. You get the people that shoot doctors providing abortions and you get the suicide bombers.
As far as I've seen, the fanatics in Scientology are all high up in the organization and are smart enough to at least try and be circumspect about what they do. They're better organized than individuals or small groups. They're slicker and know how to sell their product.
That's the real problem here. Other religions may inspire some fanatics, but Scientology is run by fanatics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the real problem here. Other religions may inspire some fanatics, but Scientology is run by fanatics.
Funny, I would've characterized it as an organization run by savvy business people who don't want the Church's revenue stream interrupted, and realize that stirring up fanaticism among the middle ranks, who then keep the lower ranked folks in line, is the best way to protect their profit margin.
Re:I've never met an evil Scientologist (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time there is any Internet forum discussion critical of Scientology this same meme pops up. It's not true. Elevating Scientology to the same status as established religions with thousands of years of history is an attempt BY SCIENTOLOGY to legitimize itself. Just look at how a discussion about Scientology and a "docudrama" about it spawned this sub-thread plus discussions of Atheism vs. Theism, Christianity's historical abuses of believers and non-believers, political power struggles of one dogma vs another, the current state of Islam, etc.
Any other org is fair game so long as negative attention is diverted from Scientology.
Keep your eye on the ball, folks.