Scientology to be Criminally Charged in Belgium

Ah the Religion created by sci-fi author because thats not just taking the ****.

Plus the way they use celebrities to advertise the relgion is a load of crap.
 
this is good as far as i can see, i find it odd that people are struggling to differentiate between different elements of different religions. I flat out do not care what religions have incited or what has been done in the name of religion, it makes up our history and it shaped the world today, but it has been and gone, many years ago.
In the "christian" world today, there are 3 main breeds of christian organisation:
-the faithful, your local vicar who doesnt ask for more money from the parishioners than for some local cause, or some repairs to the church roof, and even then it is far from a requirement, the whole caboodle on the whole is about being nice (it appears to me most of the church of england falls into this category, along with some of the odder strains of christianity, who may even preach overbearingly, but are still just in it for the faith)
-the profiteering, those tv evangelists in america, those none tv evangelists all over the world, actually charging people to essentially go to church, those who offer "proof" or further explanation to support those possibly waining beliefs, at the small cost of half your life savings, or a premium rate number, all going to some bloke who has set up his own church under the pretence of it being christian
-the roman catholics, on the whole they fall into the first category, generally with more stringent belief and fear of breaking the rules, but all gets a bit dubious when you get to the higher levels

now the same breakdown can i'm sure be applied to many religions, if people want to believe something then let them believe it. so long as everyone is clear that belief doesnt absolve you of responsibilty for your actions, and you must still live within the bounds of what is reasonable in modern society (unless you choose to live in the middle of nowhere). however profiteering from the promise of faith or enlightenment (even if that is the enlightenment of how to fleece more people) is simply organised crime

i actually find scientology and its underhand forceful methods a lot less worrying than the aforementioned evangelists who dont need to force the money but are given it by the truckload because of this blind faith
 
lolism said:
Yes it is... They prey on the emotionally weak. Then take all the money they have for their outrageous beliefs.

I'm all for letting people believe what they want, but Scientology is nothing more than a stupid Cult, a Rich stupid cult. They shouldn't have been allowed to get this far.
Click to expand...

Overclockers prey on the mentally weak, taking peoples money for computer upgrades. Someone best shut them down!

I can bend that theory around anything.

Scientology is no more dangerous than any other religion, I honestly can't see why it comes in for such a rough time.
 
gary996 said:
So my new belief/religion involves burning children at a stake as a sacrifice to my one true god..........................yeah right.

All religion is is an excuse to start wars.
How do you know that any of it is real? Lets face it its only documented from years and years ago. It could all be made up by a few, a story, a fable a childs nursery rhyme
Click to expand...

As I stated, it's not like they are mass murderers. So your new 'belief' isn't right. Scientologists don't go around murdering people, coming up with racial attacks or seperating the parents of every 2nd child.
 
NokkonWud said:
Scientology is no more dangerous than any other religion, I honestly can't see why it comes in for such a rough time.
Click to expand...
Other religions, don't brain wash, intimidate, bully, gbh etc etc etc.

Scientology is the same as some off cuts of Islam ie the terrorists. Neitehr should be tollerated.

If scientology want to stop there criminal activities, they I would mind them.
 
If I was a Scientologist I wouldn't keep it secret.
I can give objective views without taking any side. It's a shame others can't.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Am I? what other religion does that then?
Click to expand...
Surely anybody following any religion, following religious leaders that they have never physically met, nor any evidence that they ever existed (i.e. God/Allah) have to be brainwashed in some way, shape or form?

Catholics and their 'raping' of choir boys, the 'Holy War' etc.. Surely those qualify as worse than 1 registered case of 'gbh' in Scientology?
 
NokkonWud said:
Surely anybody following any religion, following religious leaders that they have never physically met, nor any evidence that they ever existed (i.e. God/Allah) have to be brainwashed in some way, shape or form?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: absolutely not, you don't have to be brainwashed, you can be completely sane, logical and with a scientific background.

NokkonWud said:
Catholics and their 'raping' of choir boys, the 'Holy War' etc.. Surely those qualify as worse than 1 registered case of 'gbh' in Scientology?
Click to expand...
No people are raping choir boys, catholic's do not condone, it, it is a very big sin.
Holy war. please you mean government using religion to gain resources and land. And that was in the past, religion is not the same as it once was.
Scientology has a long record of intimidation and brainwashing. It's just hard to get evidance as tehre so secretive. It's one reason why impresonable kids never talk to there parents again.
 
manveruppd said:
Yes, I did, although I can summarise for you:
1. Most Apostolic religions including Islam and Christianity have at times preached violence to further their reach, power and interests. However, anyone who followed them, whether they belonged to a terrorist organisation or was the head of a democratic state, exploited the preaching of religion to justify violence which was perpetrated in order to further his group's interests. Scientology, on the other hand, is constructed from the ground up on the credo (preserved in writing in L. Ron Hubbard's books) that Scientologsts may use any means at their disposal including violence to further their interests or harm those who oppose their faith. They do it on the sly and threaten anyone who can expose them with harassment, violence or worse, instead of going on Al Jazeera and shouting it out, and when they go on camera they wear designer suits rather than robes, but they're still just as inclined to violence as extremist Jihadist groups. What makes them even more dangerous is that they don't need a political or ideological incentive to incite them to violence: according to their credo, anyone who criticises Scientology is fair game.
2. If certain individuals, organisations, or states exploit the appeal of a religion to exploit the faithful by getting them to do further their political or economic interests for them through violence, that does not necessarilly represent the official view of the religion. With Scientology you have a religion which officially endorses and encourages these acts, they're just good at stopping outsiders from hearing about it.
Click to expand...

1. (Concentrating on the first half of what you said, because my question was about the established religions and so what you said about Scientology's workings is redundant in this instance.)

You are placing emphasis on the followers, i.e. those who directly commit the atrocities, being ultimately responsible for their actions and thereby attempting to render that as justification for it just being in the religions' names. However, I see it very differently. Yes, they are indeed followers, and followers follow leaders. (Or perhaps by followers you meant followers of the religion, which would be even more damaging to your argument because that would show the religion itself, rather than its representatives, to be the entity running them...) Who are the leaders? The representatives of the religion, the clerics. I therefore put it to you that although the followers are responsible for their actions in as much as it is they who make the final decision whether or not to thrust the sword/depress the trigger/pull the pin, it is the religion that sowed the seeds of said actions.

2. No, that just won't do! I'm not talking about "individuals, organisations or states"; I'm talking about properly ordained clerics of the religion, and you can't get any more representative of the religion that that, not even Allah himself. (Because Allah is not a member of the religion; the religion is, supposedly, in honour of him.)
 
manveruppd said:
Yes, I did, although I can summarise for you:
1. Most Apostolic religions including Islam and Christianity have at times preached violence to further their reach, power and interests. However, anyone who followed them, whether they belonged to a terrorist organisation or was the head of a democratic state, exploited the preaching of religion to justify violence which was perpetrated in order to further his group's interests. Scientology, on the other hand, is constructed from the ground up on the credo (preserved in writing in L. Ron Hubbard's books) that Scientologsts may use any means at their disposal including violence to further their interests or harm those who oppose their faith. They do it on the sly and threaten anyone who can expose them with harassment, violence or worse, instead of going on Al Jazeera and shouting it out, and when they go on camera they wear designer suits rather than robes, but they're still just as inclined to violence as extremist Jihadist groups. What makes them even more dangerous is that they don't need a political or ideological incentive to incite them to violence: according to their credo, anyone who criticises Scientology is fair game.
2. If certain individuals, organisations, or states exploit the appeal of a religion to exploit the faithful by getting them to do further their political or economic interests for them through violence, that does not necessarilly represent the official view of the religion. With Scientology you have a religion which officially endorses and encourages these acts, they're just good at stopping outsiders from hearing about it.
Click to expand...

1. (Concentrating on the first half of what you said, because my question was solely about the established religions and so what you said about Scientology's workings is redundant in this instance.)

You are placing emphasis on the followers, i.e. those who directly commit the atrocities, being ultimately responsible for their actions and thereby attempting to render that as justification for it just being in the religions' names. However, I see it very differently. Yes, they are indeed followers, and followers follow leaders. (Or perhaps by followers you meant followers of the religion, which would be even more damaging to your argument because that would show the religion itself, rather than its representatives, to be the entity running them...) Who are the leaders? The representatives of the religion, the clerics. I therefore put it to you that although the followers are responsible for their actions in as much as it is they who make the final decision whether or not to thrust the sword/depress the trigger/pull the pin, it is the religion that sowed the seeds of said actions.

2. No, that just won't do! I'm not talking about "individuals, organisations or states"; I'm talking about properly ordained clerics of the religion, and you can't get any more representative of the religion that that, not even Allah himself.


Incidentally, I'm not in here defending Scientology. My point is that Scientology is to the established religions what the village bully is to the likes of Hitler and Stalin.
 
Last edited:
Deadly Ferret said:
2. No, that just won't do! I'm not talking about "individuals, organisations or states"; I'm talking about properly ordained clerics of the religion, and you can't get any more representative of the religion that that, not even Allah himself. (Because Allah is not a member of the religion; the religion is, supposedly, in honour of him.)
Click to expand...

I heard Islam doesn't have a central organisation, so it's hard to say who is an official cleric.

I think the main difference between scientology and other religions (not that I really think scientology is a religion) is that scientology charges for membership. No other religions force you to pay before you can be a member and have access to their religious texts. That alone makes it obvious it's just a moneymaking scam. If they really thought it was the right path then they offer what the hell they offer free of charge.
 
Psyk said:
If they really thought it was the right path then they offer what the hell they offer free of charge.
Click to expand...

You have to pay for everything but I believe you get it all back (and more) when you reach the top level.
Its a bit like a pyramid scheme.

RDM said:
Judging by the number of people that follow their parents religion I would say that a certain amount of conditioning goes in to it.
Click to expand...

Catholics anyone?
 
Last edited:
Once again, we enjoy the posts of atheist fundamentalists trying to push their faith onto everyone else in irrelevant threads by attacking those who don't share their beliefs.

It's rather ironic that the most intolerant people on the forums claim one of the good things of their views is that they'll get rid of intolerant religions...

Oh, and good on the Belgians for the scientology thing. The behaviour of the cult of scientology is really rather unpleasant. The idea that to learn what the religion is all about you have to reach a certain donation threshold is especially abhorent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom