France convicts Scientology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Have you done this? Have any of you done this?
I dated and lived with a scientologist for 5 years. i think i can speak with some authority on the subject.
Scientologists don't consider what they do a religion. It's a "shore story"..a lie told to outsiders. Scientology considers what they do a technology. An applied philosophy. A practical practice that will eventually grant them powers. It's "Tech".

L. Ron Hubbard himself said Scientology wasn't a religion in his book Creation of Human Ability (which is considered "Source" and therefore infallible). Scientology was originally an applied philosophy that converted to a religion in one day via a policy bulletin put forth. Policy Bulletins are also considered "Source" (straight from Hubbard) and therefore infallible;

Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter
(HCOPL) 29 Oct. 1962, "Religion"

"Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization
basis throughout the world.
This will not upset in any way the
usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for
accountants and solicitors."
In the man's own words, it was merely a tax matter. A way to use Freedom of Religion as a shield against governement, and later, as a sword against critics.

This is what the Scientologists I have personally known have felt and believed.[/QUOTE]

Tin, et al., I am well aware of all this stuff. I've seen all the videos and websites.

As I said above, I do not support Scientology or their methods. They are a cult. This I understand.

If you tell me that I don't have anything to worry about regarding my religion being in the crosshairs next, then I'll back down from this argument.
 
I could give a shit what you worry about, or if you back down, personally. It has nothing to do with you or your personal beliefs.

The government already has the ability to label organizations as 'criminal organizations". They've had it since RICO statutes came into being. It has nothing to do with your church at all, you big drama queen.
 
K

Kitty Sinatra

You have nothing to worry about regarding your religion in the crosshairs next.

Remember when priests were caught diddling little boys? There were no calls by the authorities to take down the church. The major religions are not treated like Scientology.
 
S

Soliloquy

Tin, et al., I am well aware of all this stuff. I've seen all the videos and websites.

As I said above, I do not support Scientology or their methods. They are a cult. This I understand.

If you tell me that I don't have anything to worry about regarding my religion being in the crosshairs next, then I'll back down from this argument.
I do have to admit, I get apprehensive when I see people using the movement against Scientology as a stepping-stone for attacking religion as a whole. There may very well be a legitimate concern there.

But as for the current case, we have a single, unified organization willfully using its resources to break the law. I have no problem with prosecuting said organization.
 
I could give a shit what you worry about, or if you back down, personally. It has nothing to do with you or your personal beliefs.

The government already has the ability to label organizations as 'criminal organizations". They've had it since RICO statutes came into being. It has nothing to do with your church at all, you big drama queen.
This. and Gruebeard's.
 
Everytime I got ready to post, Tinwhistler hit my point. I also know an ex-scientologist's spouse, the "real" details are alot more frightening than any Youtube videos.

Don't worry Drawn_Inward, whatever happens to Scientology will be dealt with as they distance it FROM a religion and more to a business practice. So they won't be persecuting a religion, just a business.
 
S

Soliloquy

I do love that Scientology gives us all an excuse to wear Guy Fawkes masks, though.

It'd be a shame to see that go away.
 
I

Iaculus

Then TAX GOD.

You know He's up for it...
You just broke my brain.[/QUOTE]

Then my work here is done. :toocool:

Incidentally, I also advocate a nuclear deterrent just in case the fundies are right and the bastard's going to descend to earth and bring about the End Times. I swear, the next person, spirit, or celestial being to try Rapturing this household is going to get a grenade to the face.
 
K

Kitty Sinatra

damn. I used up all my tags already. Flying Spaghetti Monster needs to be added so that CoS is in the company it deserves.
 
I am a Christian. I fear actions against the religion will lead to a future attack on my religion. Again, I say, if the individuals of the religion are committing crimes, convict them, not the religion.
Their actions were performed in the name of the church. As the church's representative they open up their organization to their mistakes.

If I were to work for a company that installs home security systems, and installed the system incorrectly causing a family to be robbed that family wouldn't press charges against me personally. They'd go after the company I represent.

If the Church of Scientology knowingly accepts the money received from donations made by victims of fraud, the organization is just as responsible.
 
It goes beyond that. Many of CoS shenanigans are a direct result of hubbard policy, not just some wayward member's hijinks.

That puts the blame square at the feet of the organization.
 
It goes beyond that. Many of CoS shenanigans are a direct result of hubbard policy, not just some wayward member's hijinks.

That puts the blame square at the feet of the organization.
Maybe a slight tweak to me metaphor then...

If I were to work for a company that installs home security systems, and installed the system, using instructions known by my employer to be faulty, causing a family to be robbed that family wouldn't press charges against me personally. They'd go after the company I represent.
 
I

Iaculus

But last month the French courts were alerted to a little-noticed legal change voted in by parliament in May -- the month the trial opened -- which bars judges from dissolving an organisation convicted of fraud.
Ye gods, why? Was there some kind of ugly precedent they were trying to get rid of or something?
 
K

Kitty Sinatra

France doesn't use precedent law, so that wouldn't be the reason
 
I

Iaculus

France doesn't use precedent law, so that wouldn't be the reason
Ah, so just rampant corruption, then.

Seriously, that law has nothing to do with freedom of religion - it sounds about as smart as those senators who voted pro-rape a while back.
 
K

Kitty Sinatra

a woman working for an american company in Iraq was raped by her coworkers. She is unable to sue the company because she waived that right in her employment contract.

Senator Franken, after learning about this, drafted legislation to make it so that next time this happens, the employee can sue. Several senators voted against the bill and have thus been labeled pro-rape.
 
Though I do agree that the label of pro-rape is akin to calling pro-choicers pro-abortionists, I DO find it funny that many of those senators are the ones who wanted to impeach Clinton.

So, BJ in the oval office bad.... rape good?
 
Though I do agree that the label of pro-rape is akin to calling pro-choicers pro-abortionists, I DO find it funny that many of those senators are the ones who wanted to impeach Clinton.

So, BJ in the oval office bad.... rape good?
It's about traditional family values, and as we all know, traditional family values state that the woman should know her place: silent, pregnant, and in the kitchen! :rolleyes:
 
K

Kitty Sinatra

I totally agree that the "pro-rape" label is silly.

But I also don't get their objection to that bill at all, and I think i might be good to point out they are monumental morons. Though I know it's possible that maybe someone actually had a good reason to vote against the bill, I haven't heard anything at all sane.
 
I totally agree that the "pro-rape" label is silly.

But I also don't get their objection to that bill at all, and I think i might be good to point out they are monumental morons. Though I know it's possible that maybe someone actually had a good reason to vote against the bill, I haven't heard anything at all sane.
The same reason as always, they don't want to cross their constituents, who just happen to own these companies. It opens them to potential lawsuits, which is bad for profits.

As we all know, profits > human life and dignity. Well, at least according to conservatives.
 
I

Iaculus

I totally agree that the "pro-rape" label is silly.

But I also don't get their objection to that bill at all, and I think i might be good to point out they are monumental morons. Though I know it's possible that maybe someone actually had a good reason to vote against the bill, I haven't heard anything at all sane.
you could say the bill moved them INTO A BIGGER HOUSE
- Krusty the clown[/QUOTE]

Dude - you said the loud part quiet and the quiet part loud.
 

Dave

Staff member
I totally agree that the "pro-rape" label is silly.

But I also don't get their objection to that bill at all, and I think i might be good to point out they are monumental morons. Though I know it's possible that maybe someone actually had a good reason to vote against the bill, I haven't heard anything at all sane.
you could say the bill moved them INTO A BIGGER HOUSE
- Krusty the clown[/quote]

Dude - you said the loud part quiet and the quiet part loud.[/QUOTE]

Remind me to say this in Krusty's voice for the next podcast.
 
I totally agree that the "pro-rape" label is silly.

But I also don't get their objection to that bill at all, and I think i might be good to point out they are monumental morons. Though I know it's possible that maybe someone actually had a good reason to vote against the bill, I haven't heard anything at all sane.
you could say the bill moved them INTO A BIGGER HOUSE
- Krusty the clown[/quote]

Dude - you said the loud part quiet and the quiet part loud.[/QUOTE]

Remind me to say this in Krusty's voice for the next podcast.[/QUOTE]

Can you do Krusty's voice?
 

Dave

Staff member
I totally agree that the "pro-rape" label is silly.

But I also don't get their objection to that bill at all, and I think i might be good to point out they are monumental morons. Though I know it's possible that maybe someone actually had a good reason to vote against the bill, I haven't heard anything at all sane.
you could say the bill moved them INTO A BIGGER HOUSE
- Krusty the clown[/quote]

Dude - you said the loud part quiet and the quiet part loud.[/quote]

Remind me to say this in Krusty's voice for the next podcast.[/quote]

Can you do Krusty's voice?[/QUOTE]

Spot on, baby! One of my best voices.
 
W

WolfOfOdin

Ha ha! Yay!

Regarding Inward's opinions,

I agree that religion in and of itself shouldn't be attacked. Worship Glorfax the ant-eater who shat out the universe after binge drinking, as long as your religion doesn't promote the active harming, decieving or destruction of a person or persons as a major tennant, I have no problem with it.

That's why I have such a problem with Scientology and why I get irked when it shrieks "Religious persecution" when ANYONE says anything bad about it. The SeaOrg folk are more or less slaves to their higher-ups, the religion actively encourages severing all ties with anyone who disagrees with you and has a core practice of character and financial assassination towards its nay-sayers. For god's sakes, they tried to implicate a critical writer in a bomb threat, going as far as to steal her letterhead and plant it. That crosses the line from religious wack-job condeming gay people to cartoonish supervillany
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top