Scientology to be Criminally Charged in Belgium

[manveruppd]

1. Not irrelevant to the debate, but irrelevant to the question in whose 'answer' you included the information about Scientology's workings.

2. Religions neither condone nor condemn; religions are not sentient.

Now as regards your point about bad eggs, does it not follow that the same could be said of Scientology, or are you suggesting that every one of its priests is corrupt/that there are no genuine (albeit misguided) clerics within the religion? In any case, the point is that no religion gives orders; its clerics do, and when those orders lead to wrong-doing, they are complicit in those crimes/atrocities/offences, in the same way we charge the hirers of assassins with murder as well as the assassins themselves.

It's clear from your answer that you haven't read anything about Scientology or the accusations levelled at them, both by police and government authorities in various countries, by independent individuals, and by former members of the religion. If you think the things perpetrated by Scientology are the acts of "bad eggs" rather than part of the official policy of exploitation, violence and intimidation pursued by the religion and sanctioned by its founders writings, then you can't possibly have a place in this debate, unless you enjoy defending people whom you know nothing about. Do you also barge into threads about Mafia clans and claim that the crimes they commited are the results of bad eggs? Why are you so keen on defending a group whom you know nothing about? I'm genuinely puzzled here, and not a little annoyed at having wasted my time arguing with someone who doesn't know the background to this story. Have you seen the videos linked to earlier in the thread? Can you honestly say you regularly see such behaviour by other mainstream religions?

 

[Samione]

It's clear from your answer that you haven't read anything about Scientology or the accusations levelled at them, both by police and government authorities in various countries, by independent individuals, and by former members of the religion. If you think the things perpetrated by Scientology are the acts of "bad eggs" rather than part of the official policy of exploitation, violence and intimidation pursued by the religion and sanctioned by its founders writings, then you can't possibly have a place in this debate, unless you enjoy defending people whom you know nothing about. Do you also barge into threads about Mafia clans and claim that the crimes they commited are the results of bad eggs? Why are you so keen on defending a group whom you know nothing about? I'm genuinely puzzled here, and not a little annoyed at having wasted my time arguing with someone who doesn't know the background to this story. Have you seen the videos linked to earlier in the thread? Can you honestly say you regularly see such behaviour by other mainstream religions?

Have to agree with this tbh, all you have to do is read the wiki entry;

The controversies involving the Church and its critics, some of them ongoing, include:

Scientology's disconnection policy, in which members are encouraged to cut off all contact with friends or family members considered "antagonistic."[95][96]
The death of Scientologist Lisa McPherson while in the care of the Church.
Criminal activities committed on behalf of the Church or directed by Church officials (Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout)
Fair Game policy that encouraged the abuse of critics.
Conflicting claims about L. Ron Hubbard's life, in particular accounts of Hubbard discussing his intent to start a religion for profit, and of his service in the military.[97]
Scientology's harassment and litigious actions against its critics and enemies.[97]
Attempts to legally force search engines such as Google and Yahoo to omit any webpages that are critical of Scientology from their search engines (and in Google's case, AdSense), or at least the first few search pages.[98]

The emboldened ones have been reaffirmed several times by "Tommy" in the (panorama or horizon?) they did about scientology.

 

[Hellsmk2]

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.

Are you completely incapable of doing any research. Five minutes worth of digging will show you that all of what you said in the above has been done in some way or another by Scientology.

All of your posts so far have shown a complete lack of any knowledge at all on the subject. You're coming across like a milkman would had he tried to talk about nuclear chemistry.

 

[Dolph]

How about drugs, under aged sex(mutually consensual), fights to the death(again mutually consensual) etc

Drugs should be legal, provided you have enough money/insurance to cover any health issues they cause. Crimes committed while on drugs or for drugs should have higher sentancing.

Under age sex is a very difficult one, because it all revolves around whether someone can make informed consent. I know adults who fail that test. Judge each case on it's merit.

Fights to the death, if both are of sound mind when organised, I don't actually have a problem with. Organised duelling if you like.

 

[manveruppd]

All of your posts so far have shown a complete lack of any knowledge at all on the subject. You're coming across like a milkman would had he tried to talk about nuclear chemistry.

OT: Funnily enough I know a guy with a PhD in Material Science whose first degree was in chemistry whose job now is ordering dairy products for the Co-op he works in!

 

[Tefal]

Murder isn't banned; murder is illegal.

Banning just means its illegal to do/own/produce/sell etc no?

 

[Deadly Ferret]

Why are you so keen on defending a group whom you know nothing about?

I refer you to my earlier statement, you know the one you attributed some daft law to.

I am not defending Scientology. I am pointing out that their crimes are as nothing compared to the crimes of the established religions, and I don't need to be very informed about Scientology's crimes to be able to confidently state that. The very fact that I know little about them proves that they are nowhere near as serious as the millions of torturings and murders perpetrated by the other religions, because if they had done anything anywhere near as bad it would have been all over the front pages of the papers and dominated television news coverage. The fact that they're hardly ever mentioned in telly news is sufficient evidence that they're small fry.

PS: Saying that they're small fry and that their crimes aren't as bad doesn't mean I'm defending them. I do not deny any of the accusations made against them, and I have nothing to say on their behalf.

PPS: Get het up if you must, but please don't let it ruin what has so far been a fun exchange. I hope we can continue to debate some more.

 

[Hellsmk2]

1. Not irrelevant to the debate, but irrelevant to the question in whose 'answer' you included the information about Scientology's workings.

2. Religions neither condone nor condemn; religions are not sentient.

Now as regards your point about bad eggs, does it not follow that the same could be said of Scientology, or are you suggesting that every one of its priests is corrupt/that there are no genuine (albeit misguided) clerics within the religion? In any case, the point is that no religion gives orders; its clerics do, and when those orders lead to wrong-doing, they are complicit in those crimes/atrocities/offences, in the same way we charge the hirers of assassins with murder as well as the assassins themselves.

Name one other religion with a secret service. Name one with a secret service so powerful it rivaled the CIA in size during its heyday - Just before all the top levels were sentenced to jail for stealing government documents, fraud and bugging government agencies.

There aren't any other religions with that track record.

Have you watched any of the documentaries freely available online? I've linked some in this thread on page 1 which have obviously not been watched. There are a whole wealth of documentaries available from extremely reputable sources such as the BBC and equivilent networks in the US.

Scientology is not comparable to other religions because it is not a religion in the first place.

UK - Not recognised as an official religion.
Germany - Classified as a cult. Government information issued regularly to warn of this.
Greece - Expelled the organisation from the entire country due to fraudulant activities.
Belgium - Thread explains that one.

The opening of a massive Scientology centre in London is very worrying. Hopefully the majority of Brits have the sense to prevent the further spread.

 

[Tefal]

I refer you to my earlier statement, you know the one you attributed some daft law to.

I am not defending Scientology. I am pointing out that their crimes are as nothing compared to the crimes of the established religions, and I don't need to be very informed about Scientology's crimes to be able to confidently state that. The very fact that I know little about them proves that they are nowhere near as serious as the millions of torturings and murders perpetrated by the other religions, because if they had done anything anywhere near as bad it would have been all over the front pages of the papers and dominated television news coverage. The fact that they're hardly ever mentioned in telly news is sufficient evidence that they're small fry.

PS: Saying that they're small fry and that their crimes aren't as bad doesn't mean I'm defending them. I do not deny any of the accusations made against them, and I have nothing to say on their behalf.

PPS: Get het up if you must, but please don't let it ruin what has so far been a fun exchange. I hope we can continue to debate some more.

Your right many religion in the past committed atrocities and crimes,

Now for a time we have the chance to prevent one, yet you would rather us do nothing just because "well the others where allowed to"?

 

[Tefal]

Name one other religion with a secret service.

Catholicism?

Inquasioners(sp?) seemed pretty much like that.

 

[Deadly Ferret]

no?

Indeed. (No.)

Name one other religion with a secret service.

Name one with a secret service so powerful it rivaled the CIA in size during its heyday?

Two similar but different questions, but I need only give one answer to them both: Roman Catholic Church.

In response to the rest of your post, I politely point out that I'm not debating Scientology's guilt or innocence. I'm in here saying that the established religions are very much worse. (I feel like a broken record.)

Now for a time we have the chance to prevent one, yet you would rather us do nothing just because "well the others where allowed to"?

I am utterly confused by that. How the hell did you arrive at that conclusion please? The only point I have been making the whole time is that the established religions are much worse than Scientology. I have made no statement on what should happen to Scientology.

 

[Tefal]

Indeed. (No.)




I am utterly confused by that. How the hell did you arrive at that conclusion please? The only point I have been making the whole time is that the established religions are much worse than Scientology. I have made no statement on what should happen to Scientology.

care to explain the difference then?


Sorry it just seems then that every post of yours is entirely irrelevant if your commenting on something entirely separate without covering the topic at hand (Scientology and the charges against it)

 

[Hellsmk2]

Catholicism?

Inquasioners(sp?) seemed pretty much like that.

The Inquisitionors were hardly a secret. You're also referring to events that happened hundreds of years ago that bear no relation to Scientology's current actions, power or capabilities.

The Roman Catholic Church also has no intelligence agency even comparable to the Scientologist outfit.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Synagogue Selling Lifetime Seats for $1.8 Million

Florida: The Temple Emanu-El, a synagogue in Miami Beach, has advertised seats 1 and 2 of Row 1, Section DD on eBay for $1.8 million. Rabbi Kliel Rose said that the auction was designed to get the attention of Jews disconnected from their faith.

The seats will have the auction winner's name engraved in them and they can be passed down to children in a will. The winner will also get custom yarmulkes and prayer shawls along with free parking.

"It's a gift that goes from one generation to another. It has very little to do with the money. Hypothetically, if the money comes, it would be great, but the idea was really just to be edgy," said Rose.

 

[Deadly Ferret]

care to explain the difference then?


Sorry it just seems then that every post of yours is entirely irrelevant if your commenting on something entirely separate without covering the topic at hand (Scientology and the charges against it)

1. A ban is purely an order against something. That order usually carries statutory force, and so on the surface may appear no different to a crime in so much as both are effectively legislated against. However, it is implicit in the label 'crime' that the act is not only illegal but also morally wrong.

2. Oh well I don't wish to be a burden. I shall just clarify my position and begone then.

I don't give a fig about whether Scientology is guilty or innocent, nor about what might happen to them. Assuming they are guilty, I say that nonetheless they don't have a millionth of the blood and suffering on their hands that the likes of christianity and islam do.

The Roman Catholic Church also has no intelligence agency even comparable to the Scientologist outfit.

How do you know? By definition, your statement is comical. It's a secret service. If you've underestimated it, it's because they're good at what they do...better than the Scientology lot obviously, because their leadership wasn't convicted/their operation effectively shut down as I seem to remember you saying the Scientology lot were/was.

 

[Glaucus]

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

That's not conditioning. Everyone pretty much always follows in there parents footsteps.

 

[Hellsmk2]

1. A ban is purely an order against something. That order usually carries statutory force, and so on the surface may appear no different to a crime in so much as both are effectively legislated against. However, it is implicit in the label 'crime' that the act is not only illegal but also morally wrong.

2. Oh well I don't wish to be a burden. I shall just clarify my position and begone then.

I don't give a fig about whether Scientology is guilty or innocent, nor about what might happen to them. Assuming they are guilty, I say that nonetheless they don't have a millionth of the blood and suffering on their hands that the likes of christianity and islam do.




How do you know? By definition, your statement is comical. It's a secret service. If you've underestimated it, it's because they're good at what they do...better than the Scientology lot obviously, because their leadership wasn't convicted/their operation effectively shut down as I seem to remember you saying the Scientology lot were/was.

I did realise as I typed it that that would be the response

The Scientologist agency was not effectively shut down. It was renamed and reorganised and operating in pretty much the same way it used to. Some aspects are very visible and others not so.

The lower level OSA agents are quite vocal online in many online discussions in larger forums (They're very easy to spot as they're quite disconnected from reality). They're very active on sites like YouTube - read through the comments sections on Scientology related films. These guys are easy to lambast and laugh at. Thankfully, that's what happens. It the operatives and activities that aren't as clearly visible that are more worrying. Rank amateurs they are not.

 

[manveruppd]

I refer you to my earlier statement, you know the one you attributed some daft law to.

I am not defending Scientology. I am pointing out that their crimes are as nothing compared to the crimes of the established religions, and I don't need to be very informed about Scientology's crimes to be able to confidently state that. The very fact that I know little about them proves that they are nowhere near as serious as the millions of torturings and murders perpetrated by the other religions, because if they had done anything anywhere near as bad it would have been all over the front pages of the papers and dominated television news coverage. The fact that they're hardly ever mentioned in telly news is sufficient evidence that they're small fry.

PS: Saying that they're small fry and that their crimes aren't as bad doesn't mean I'm defending them. I do not deny any of the accusations made against them, and I have nothing to say on their behalf.

PPS: Get het up if you must, but please don't let it ruin what has so far been a fun exchange. I hope we can continue to debate some more.

Dude, I don't argue for the fun of it (ok, maybe sometimes) and I really AM upset about this, because these people rile me up like few other things do, and they are ONLY able to do commit the crimes they do because of people's ignorance of their activities andtheir coming up with excuses for them like you are doing.
The mere fact that you talk about their never being on the news truly leaves me flabbergasted! Where were you when Sweeney was followed around by Scientologist thugs with cameras for over a week even when he and his crew went to the toilet, just for daring to walk up to Tommy Davis and ask him an uncomfortable question, until after much baiting he eventually cracked and completely lost it on camera (the Church of Scientology's camera, which follows Tommy Davis around whenever there's outsiders close by), something which ended up on youtube (edited to make it look even worse) only minutes later? There was a massive thread on here as well, did you not hear what happened? These people are secretive, are masters at manipulating people, their leader looks, walks and talks like the consumnate marketting executive, they won't talk to the press except on their own terms and they know how to manipulate any conversation with a journalist, and if anyone somehow either does manage to uncover any evidence against them or goes public with something embarassing they hound him, harass him and bully him into dropping off the face of the earth and staying as far away from Scientologists as possible for the rest of his life!

You're insisting that a crime perpetrated in the name of Christianity or Islam and officially condemned by it and a crime perpetrated by Scientologists ON THE EXPLICIT ORDERS OF THEIR SUPERIORS AND SANCTIONED BY THEIR FOUNDER'S WRITINGS are the same thing! You have not offered ONE reason for this insane and unreasonable stance!

You've also shown complete ignorance of the crimes we're talking about. I bet you haven't even bothered to look at the videos from further up the thread or look up anything on the internet. If you're just playing devil's advocate for fun here then I'm sorry but I don't want to play with you anymore.

 

[KPeh]

1. A ban is purely an order against something. That order usually carries statutory force, and so on the surface may appear no different to a crime in so much as both are effectively legislated against. However, it is implicit in the label 'crime' that the act is not only illegal but also morally wrong.

I appreciate you're debating here, but even your definition of a ban in the context of law makes the impression you are arguing for argument's sake and without much real understanding. Your statement about a ban being an order is a discredited simplification (look up Austin/Command theory of law if you wish), but my main problem with your post is your claim that all crimes are morally wrong. This is a very 13th century viewpoint.

In some countries abortion is a crime, in others it is not. Is it morally right in those countries and morally wrong in another? How about theft - is it morally wrong to steal a sandwich to prevent a starving child from dying? Certainly it is a crime, but most would agree it is not morally wrong. How are you defining morals? As part of some overarching theological-moral system? Or looking 'within' oneself'. One person's morals differ from the next. On issues like abortion you can't even argue that the majority believe it to be morally wrong where the majority may be only 60% of the population. Morals may be used in formulating laws, but one definately cannot say all crimes are morally wrong.

Murder isn't banned; murder is illegal
Of course murder is banned. Certainly you can go into more detail with orders/command theory; but look at it from a practical viewpoint (or indeed positivist) - murder is banned in the usual sense of the word. You're clutching straws.


(PS has anyone noticed if you hold Ctrl-I (etc) down it automatically creates the italics brackets for you?)

 

[Deadly Ferret]

KPeh, two simple points to address your post.

1. Essentially, it boils down to the significant difference between crimes and offences. Crimes are those breakings of the law that are morally wrong. Offences are those breakings of the law which hold no moral implications. The defiance of statutory bans are offences, for example, whereas the likes of rape and murder are crimes.

Crime is a word often misused. To take your example of the stolen sandwich, many people would inaccurately describe that situation as a crime rather than an offence. But fortunately, the distinction between the two does still seem to be recognised by many. For example, we say motoring offences rather than motoring crimes.

2. That was merely a mental lapse. I meant to say murder is a crime.


Oh one more thing. Not quite 13th century; the etymology of the word relates to 14th century France. Old-fashioned perhaps, but accurate: I'm going by what the person who coined the word decided, not what you'd like to be the case.