As you comment, you are more than welcome to state your opinion, good, bad or indifferent. Including your comments on religious freedom, and what is or isn't religious, and how one can tell. In the full tradition of GNB (and TNB), we expect a lively discussion.
However, as I said in the body of the post, for legal reasons, please do NOT call anyone or any organization a cult or try and push the limits here. This is NOT negotiable.
Comments doing so will be deleted without warning.
I have to agree with the Belgian and German arguments. Scientology is a scam, designed to part fools from their money. It's dressed up and candy-coated so it looks all nice and attractive to the weak and vulnerable marks, but its main focus is getting these people to cough up the dough. The sooner it's knocked down, the better.
But, really, aren't pretty much all of the mega churches now just a means of separating the gullible from their money and giving it to the church leaders who then live a hugely ostentatious lifestyle?
We've got the scandal at Oral Roberts U. now as an example and even better a local one that's run in the Sunday paper the past couple of weeks. A local mega wanna be's pastor has been shown to have used $147,000 thus far this year in chartered flights. He spent about 30K sending his daughter somewhere for a honeymoon or party. He spent 15K in sending her to Australia...all flights, unchartered, are all first class. He is supposedly going and speaking at all of these places, but then he keeps the speaking fees, not the church. They also bought expensive gifts for elders in the church. After a couple of weeks of this reportage, a lot of the letters to the editor are defending the church and saying that no one should be poking their noses into someone else's business.
But you know, when they tell their patrons to vote for repubs, they need to be paying freaking taxes. When their lack of paying taxes means the rest of us pay more, then it is my business!!
Here's a link for the first story about this bunch:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/
news...ch.2a4b302.html
There is a difference between what we now call mega churches and scientology. Well, there are probably lots of differences but the biggest for me is that with scientology you have to pay or promise to pay UP FRONT for their teachings.
Churches, mega et.al. beg, cajol, threaten with eternal damnation, etc to get you to pay but they are pretty up front with the teachings part. (You can buy a bible anywhere, heck they're giving 'em away!)
Why is scientology so secretive about what they have to share, since it is everyone's best interest to know?
Yes there are other religions that are secretive, for members eyes only, etc. and that is just as silly and transparent way to get others hooked.
If what you have is so great and selfless and needs to be shared with the whole world, why do I have to pay you to share in it?
Well if I can't call a spade a spade what's the point of commenting??
Apert from of course seeing how close to teh wind I can sail.
I'm glad that the Germans didn't shut down 'Valkyrie'. I've seen the previews and it looks like a film with a powerful message and that message is: Tom Cruise can't act his way out of a paper bag.
I think it's wonderful that he was able to spend a lot of his own money to prove it.
(Dear CoS, that's just my opinion. Please don't sue me for it. Thanks.)
Does the word "cult" have a legal definition that I'm unaware of?
(Note: Totally OK with you not wanting to spend the time/energy to defend yourself from lawsuits from morons. I can call them morons, right?)
Gang --
I love you all dearly, but please, don't push the line here.
Yes. This is a CHILLING EFFECT in action.
I've deleted two comments already.
The first question I asked up there was an honest one, truly.
Steve used to call it the space religion.
Seriously, I'm concerned about Cruise's success in possibly bringing in Will Smith and his wife Jada Pinkett-Smith into the fold.
They've been trying to proselytize Harlemites for some years. I used to see them on 125th Street with their tents and tables while I was there. Most are suspicious of them; there are enough black storefront religions abounding in the area already.
Some notable jazz musicians and even "Chef" himself, Isaac Hayes, are enamored of Scientology. I'm frankly convinced it's a ripoff. But that thing about attacking the attacker is out of line. If someone wants to leave the faith or criticize it, it should be no biggie. Instead, it becomes harassment. Germany and Belgium are within their rights...but under our laws?
The less publicizing of them and of Cruise's antics the better. Ex-wife Nicole was asked point-blank about the kids recently, and yep, they are being raised in Scientology. I know her Catholic self is frankly writhing about it.
MBL -
Cult is considered pejorative.
There are a lot of fine distinctions with what is and what is not a cult.
Scientology has repeatedly and successfully sued people and organizations who have claimed it is a cult.
A more accurate term might be, "Emerging religion". Scientology's fight has always been to be accepted as a religion, so it is likely they would accept that term.
Personally, I am convinced the true believers in Scientology do believe it is a religion. Do I have an opinion about if at the most senior levels, the top people running Scientology are taking people for a ride? Yes -- I have an opinion about that.
All you need to know about 'Scientology' is that Tom Cruise vouches for it. 'Nuff said.
Jesse, one has to recall that Christianity itself was an emerging religion within Judaism back in the 1st Century. Faiths and the ways to achieve a perceived unity with Immanence must evolve, which means that we'll always see emergent faiths.
Whether or not those emergent faiths are constructed for the spiritual needs of its adherents or the aggrandizement of its leaders requires close observation.
::takes off his tap shoes::
Well seeing that they have been declared "not a religion" by a growign number of EU countires I think we can at least safly say that they are not a world religion and in fact may not be a religion at all.
any one up for a clam bake?
SUCCESSFULLY sued? What'd CoS do, bribe the judges?
So who has physical custody of the Cruise kids? i thought she didn't want them to be raised Scientologists and that was part of the break up.
To get the real flavor of what's going on, go to the Message Board section of http://www.xenu.net or http://forum.exscn.net/. Members are now leaving in droves. Also Google Arnie Lerma, the Scandal of Scientology, alt.religion.scientology and the group's attempt to shut down the Usenet group.
Also, L Ron Hubbard's third wife and her crew broke into Federal Government offices and tried to steal federal documents. "Operation Snow White" is the google for that one. In addition
So who has physical custody of the Cruise kids? i thought she didn't want them to be raised Scientologists and that was part of the break up.
http://www.people.com/people/
art...0160082,00.html
The last time I was in England, they were promoting Scientology in the Tube as a drug treatment program.
This is a bit different than the approach here in the States--early Scientology promotional literature (if you can find the 70s version online do check it out, if only for the awesome fashion) makes it appear as if you'll turn superhuman.
It would be interesting to see their success rates at either endeavor.
IBW: if they get the case heard in clearwater folrida or any where near there they will win. They own that town.
The CoS is clearly manipulative and obsessed with controlling things outside the church organization that it has no business wanting to control; and when you're dealing with a manipulative control-freak, you need to pay attention to what they do, and not to what they say, because the two are often so different from one another. And when you look at what the CoS does, one thing is clear: They just want the money, honey! 
Well, now that you've been paying attention to Mind Fu--, uh, Head, what do you think?
I think L.Ron Won his bet.
The Europeans have been pushing back on the skeezetoligists for years, and with good reason.
Jesse,
I would seriously not sweat the C-word here....it is equally slanderous to accuse someone of criminal activity, which is done left right and center. It's your board, but this is one thing I wouldn't worry about.
More to the point, what can they sue GNB for?
That was Gilly's favorite line: "I'm broke. The RIAA (or whomever) wants to sue me? They can SUCK MY DICK." (BTW, this is the main reason why I was never, EVER associated with ANY of the money aspects of the blog--ever. Just in case someone DID sue).
my opinion on this is that if you as a blogger don't want to take the risk, don't post on the topic
To moderate every commenter on something that involves telling the truth and calling something by what it IS then maybe it is not a good idea to wade into the water. It is silly to delete comments in a thread for something like this. if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. (enough cliche metaphors for you?) anyway, thanks for the informative post on this non-cult-criminal-org.
All religions are cults. When the EU is finished with scientology, I hope they kick out all the other religions.
Religion is just SO last millenium.
Jen, the littlest gator, anyone else --
As far as what they could sue GNB for, well, I'm not Gilly, and I'm not (completely) broke, only mostly. GNB is currently structured as a sole-proprietorship, which means everything comes back to me. I may change this at some point, but not yet.
As for taking risks, what is happening in Germany and Belgium is news. This is the Group NEWS Blog, and we report news. I thought seriously about the risks of posting it up, but I'll be god damned if I'm going to let myself be stopped from posting something because of a reputation of threats. I don't threaten well at ALL, not from ANYONE. Further, I went out of my way to make sure what got reported was the NEWS, not anything else.
People made their comments; that's what people do. But as for people being overly rude, I put a stop to that in advance, then monitored the thread fairly closely.
As for TLG's remark about "calling it what it is", with all respect to a long-time regular and a dear friend, no, it isn't "what it is." It may be what you consider to be a well grounded assessment, or a well-considered opinion, for which you're willing to stand up and argue, but it isn't "what it is."
What it is, is are facts. Rocks are hard, is a fact. Tokyo is a city in Japan, is a fact. George W. Bush is the President of the United States is a fact. George W. Bush is the worst President the United States has ever had, is an assessment. Could be grounded, could be un-grounded. It is open to interpretation, depending where you are on the issue, and raises strong feelings.
In precisely the same calling ANY religion a cult, is an assessment. It can NEVER be a fact, ever, because we can never provide a universal observer who will always agree that such and such religion is indeed a religion and not a cult or is a cult and not a religion. Someone, somewhere, will always have a different opinion. We may have an extraordinarily well-grounded assessment that such and such a religion is a cult, e.g.: Jim Jones, but assessment is still always just assessment, and never assertion (fact.)
Collapsing assessment with assertion, is a mistake, as it confuses any issue, saying one's opinion is the truth. It never is, ever. It is always, always, only assessment. Possibly well-grounded. Which is worth respecting, in a deep, profound way. But it ain't fact, that which can be asserted.
I respect everyone's individual right to hold whatever assessments they have about Scientology or any belief structure. But in this one case, I had to put a limit on some people's assessments, as I'll explain.
I wanted to report this story because I think it's an important story with implications for religious freedom. I am personally not convinced the Europeans are in the right. (Surprise.)
At the same time, I needed to not leave GNB (this community, part of Steve's legacy) and me personally, open to the legal risk of ANYONE naming them a cult, something which from a legal point of view I am very clear they are not. Scientology has successfully sued people who have called them a cult. True. The Cult Awareness Network (CAN) which used to name Scientology as a cult, now fronts for Scientology, after they took it over following a lawsuit.
But at the same time, I wanted people to be able to express their opinion (I didn't want to lock down comments.) I know y'all mostly have respect for me and my wishes (mostly -- heh), so I made a simple request -- don't call these folks a cult, and don't push the limits on this post.
For the most part, this has been done, and I'm appreciative of everyone.
I hope this comment makes clear the background conversation behind my intent.
Thanks again to everyone,
Thanks BlkSista...
Hmmm...that sounds a mess.
New report saying Will is NOT a Scientologist.
So maybe u don't have anything to worry about for now
Two biographies of Jack Parsons, who founded the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for Nasa (not really but received wisdom) address the naissance of L Ron Hubbard's religion and its early inspiration by Aleister Crowley and Thelema before WWII. Sex and Rockets was the paperback one and I can't remember the other, but they show up together on Amazon. Upshot was the Parsons lost a wife, two friends and a bunch of money by trusting LRH
Anybody who wants to see the most effective propaganda against Scientology only needs to watch Battlefield:Earth. Interesting that the first amendment doesn't seem to apply to some groups and organizations within this country. Just for that alone I hope that the Belgians and Germans prosecute them under something akin to the RICO statute.
And for everyone else I refer you to South Park's wonderful parody of Scientology.
Jesse Wendel: religious fredom is all well and good, but it stops when active damage is being done to peoples lives. it stops when civil rights are being abused...(yes this throws the assemblies of god in teh same boat as teh scientlogists...im good with that.)
And, of course, fuck the fucking Yankees!!!!
(hat tip, Gilly)
Wengler,
But that would require actually WATCHING "Battlefield Earth," and all of the horror that that movie is.
I mean, I was only able to watch small snippets of it after I had my wisdom teeth out and was a huddled, bleeding mass on my futon, with ice packs on each side of my face and watching the clock to see when I could take my next dose of Vicodan. Otherwise, I think I would have needed one of those Clockwork-Orange thingies where they straitjacket you to a chair and force your eyes open.
Europe has gone through so much religious turmoil in the last two thousand years, that most countries there have very specific laws curtailing the behavior of religious institutions. This is what CoS naïvely didn't take into account. They went full speed ahead without taking any reconaissance of the landscape, and now find themselves in trouble in several countries. I know that Germany has very specific laws as to what a religion can and cannot do. So the bottom line in a country like Germany is that you can believe anything you want, but the minute you engage in BEHAVIOR, like conversion or collecting tithes, then you run up against laws that have been developed to make sure that a Holocaust-like situation never happens again. Couple that with the fact that only some 11% percent of Germans actually attend a church, and you get an atmosphere uniquely indifferent to the rights of CoS.
Sorry, Jesse, but I still don't understand how you can be held legally liable for a visitor's opinion in a comment thread.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that Scientology is an emerging crackpot religion, which feeds upon the metastasizing mega-stoopid in our society. It's always been run as a criminal enterprise.
I'm not too comfortable with the State banning a religion, either, no matter how whacky its tenets. But there has to be some level at which an organization is held accountable for the damage it does its adherents. IMO, suing it out of existence would be the best way to handle this.
I think Germany got it right with Scientology. I am an American that lived in Germany for 9 years. What the article doesn't say is that the German government, and most Germans in general, fear that Scientology will get enough members that will follow them blindly, just like another system that happened 70 years ago in Germany. Scientology reels people in, takes their money, gets them to devote themselves blindly to Scientology's practices.
I think the CofS paid around $50 million for that nice new property in Berlin, and let's not forget the large churches in Hamburg and Munich. The article said 6000 estimated members in Germany. The money has to be coming from the USA. No country would like that kind of foreign influence.
Scientology is not a religion!
The principle of this sect ist simple:
"MAKE MONEY.
MAKE MORE MONEY.
MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY."
You lie when you say that my country does not regard The church of S being a cult. Because it is on the watch list of cults in Belgium!
You can't ask us to not say it's not a cult as in my country it clearly is considered being not only a criminal organisation but also a cult. We just don't bring cults to trial. We just keep an eye on them and act when they start going criminal like the cult of scientology does.
So before removing this post you should be aware that belgians can sue you as well!
Don't tell lies about my country or we will sue you as well.
I post this message from a country where the church of scientology is regarded as a cult and not a religion.
The German issue is not about banning CoS as a religion. It isn't one anyway here. It is an organization believed to use practices and to pursue goals that are illegal under german constitution. Every country has a different constitution so it doesn't matter a chickenshit to Germany what judges or the government in the US have been saying about CoS or the German treatment of the organization.
I do not understand Jesse's obsession with the term cult here. I've heard him say far worse things (about entities with no more innocence than the Scientologists' organization, notwithstanding). The perjorative value of the term cult isn't anywhere near the perjorative value of the term criminal.
In fact, it is the opposite. Scientology would be better off if it were considered a cult, as a cult is actually a religion, just a small and/or disfavored one. Scientology's founder made it absolutely clear that he intended to create a scam, so it may not even rise to that level.
Christianity began as a cult of Judaism; I learned that in Bible study and was in no way offended. Romans gave it no respect because it wasn't old and, to be a religion sans cult status in those days you had to be ancient. Without understanding the nature of the term cult (and its subsequent evolution), Christians cannot understand the persecution from which their sect was founded. They cannot understand the factors that set their faith apart from its neighbors and those awful, excessive victim complexes which did a damn fine job of swallowing the faith whole in coming centuries. If Scientology reached cult-status, its pedegree would actually be strengthened. More than anything else, Scientology must, to win its PR battles, show that persecution leveled against it is due to a relgious regection, not due to the revulsion society has towards criminals.
This attempt to chill a use of a term is reminiscent of fundies and sex. Sure, glibly accuse someone of murder, but never declare that someone is an adulterer.
Scientologists have been embroiled in embezzlement, theft, and murder investigations. I suppose that's safe to say, though it makes no fucking sense why it should be granted better protection that the term cult.
I still don't understand how you can be held legally liable for a visitor's opinion in a comment thread.
If we didn't exercise editorial control over what comes up on our board, then indeed, we wouldn't be liable.
But as we do exercise limited control -- we don't actually see every comment, and we certainly don't edit them all, nor do we agree/disagree with any/all comments in any regard... none the less, simply that we do exercise ANY editorial control, leaves us open to being held liable. The Safe Harbor provisions no longer hold true for us.
As the word "cult" has very specific meanings, and as Scientology has a rich history of suing successfully people who call them that, I choose for us not to get involved.
I posted the original article because it was news. The rest is just what follows.
Commenting by HaloScan
