German Official Wants nation wide Scientology Ban

reply to post by Skyfloating


Yeah, but who really knows the manner in which he said it? It's as easy for us to say it was in complete serious, as you can say it was in a joking manner. The # is a scam. That's easy to see for some of us.

I was of the impression that he said it before he made the religion. Like, "Hey, you know what??? I might be on to something....."

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


again, the statement clearly reflects a sense of humor and its ridiculous to keep using it as "proof of his evilness".

Furthermore, the campaign in Germany is orchestrated by a lot of people who are "cult-commissions" appointed by the catholic church (which is desperately struggling to keep its rule in Europe).

All this doesnt mean that Scientology itself is not corrupt and exploitative. But it IS necessary to get some balance into discussions...

...thats something Id like to say not only of this discussion but of many other discussions at ATS. If it were 100% evil, nobody would be joining. Lets keep it at a realistic 50% evil, shall we? And lets also assign 50% evil to the church, shall we?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Everything I feel inclined to comment on is subject matter I think I know enough about to make a solid comment on. Scientology simply isn't a good thing. I could careless if it was some harmless cult, but it doesn't do any good. It's not necessarily evil, but surely, it's not a positive thing and deserves to be investigated, regulated, and hopefully banned.

reply to post by Karlhungis


to single out a single statement by someone to "prove" something is problematic anyway. Gosh, Ive said a lot of crap during my life. But for some, if they say only one single thing wrong, make one single mistake, they are ripped apart by fanatics.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


I think Ive made it clear that I think scientology sucks. Why do I defend it then? Because I think the rule of organized religion sucks even more. They could use some competition from alternatives.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I don't think that's very constructive. That's like replacing # with stinkier #, if you catch my drift...

To clarify my position:

In my early 20s I used to love to research the topic of cults. I would read anything I could on them, against them and by them.

While certain aspects of various cults make me puke, we mustnt forget that they are labelled cults because they do not conform to the strict rule of consensus-reality as created by the big religions and what university and government prescribe to be a valid way of life. And we mustnt forget that people choose to take part in these cults of their own free will. And we mustnt forget that they choose to do so because they are unhappy with what is offered by the established religions and worldviews.

With Scientology you can see a lot of smear-campaigning going on in both directions. Scientology continually publishes lies and so do its critics. Very little balance and objectivity in this area.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I don't understand your absolute objection to people bringing up that he said that. It does prove a point that he may not have been in it for the most spiritual of reasons.

If it was a court case, couldn't it be used pre-meditaton? As in, proof to show his intention?

If George Bush was quoted before going to Iraq as saying "The best way to secure some oil would be to stage a terrorist attack, then use it as justification to invade Iraq.", don't you think that would be brought up over and over again to show what his true intentions were before the war? Just as this Hubbard quote is used to show what his intentions were before starting the religion?

Again, I don't understand your objection to people using this quote. Now I don't think that the quote gives any insite into the religion as it is now, but it sure does give an insite into its beginings in my mind.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


Let me quoute Chomsky (again, without endorsing the rest of what Chomsky says):

If you dont grant freedom of speech to people you hate, you dont grant freedom of speech at all

I dont want to live in a world where everything deviating from the normal is banned.

reply to post by Karlhungis


Oh, I just dont think he`d be stupid enough to publicly reveal his method.

Furthermore, what a person SAYS, doesnt necessarily indicate what his true intentions are. See George Bush.


EDIT: That might just have been his intention, of course. I dont want to be driven to defend him and his cult thaaaat much.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating


Why not move for banning it everywhere because it's based on ulterior motives and false pretenses? I understand you want them to antagonize one another, but I doubt that will bring anything constructive in itself. Scientology will probably do more and more damage to all the people it suckers into believe it than it will take away from the Catholic church.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


now we are back to the following discussion:

If I am suckered into believing windows vista is a necessity for me to buy, is that my fault or mircosofts fault?

[edit on 5-12-2007 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating


Like I said before... he said it before he did it. At the time he wasn't planning on making a religion. He later decided that it actually made sense and went forward.

I don't understand why you find it so hard to believe that someone would make an observation on how they think someone could become wealthy, then later decide that it was a good idea worth persuing.

I can only understand your objection to the statement if it was made after he started the religion, but I again I don't think that was the case.

It is like someone saying, "You know what, this town sure could use a coffee stand. You could make a killing." They would have no actual intent on starting a coffee stand, just simply making an observation. Only later do they realize that they could actually do it and go ahead and make a coffee stand.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Haha.. I don't want to cheapen the conversation like that, although that is funny and I see your point.


As much as we prefer life to be "survival of the fittest," there comes a point where the more intelligent beings need to help the deaf, dumb, and blind. We need to watch out for our fellow human being, and if steering them away something as potentially dangerous as Scientology... I'm willing to circumvent my own belief in Darwinism.

reply to post by Karlhungis


I am not objection as strongly as you might think. Its more of a questioning as in "could that have been his sense of humour?" or "is what we say always reflective of our intentions?"

The reason I bring it up in the first place is because some people think they can use a single statement made by someone, to assasinate the entire character and history of a person.

And this is not only an issue of Hubbard but of many other people out there. Watch Ron Paul make a single mistake in his speech and being forever discredited for it. Or any other personality for that matter.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


Trust me, there is MUCH more literature out there pointing out the evilness of scientology than the other way around. Nothing to worry about there.

But Im afraid some people join scientology anyway because they are "conspiracy-minded" and rebellious. They say: "If this #ty society attacks scientology all the time, it must be something good".

reply to post by Skyfloating


OK. I don't know why, but this was driving me crazy. I don't really care one way or the other about Ron Hubbard. I just couldn't get over the fact that you didn't want to acknowledge the possibility of him saying it before hand and doing it. It just made too much sense to me.

I hear what you are saying and I don't like people using one item to base an entire argument on, like summarizing an entire religion / cult / business based off of a single comment. However, the entire body of work of Scientology doesn't seem to help discredit the statement either... it would appear.


Also, more of a philosophical question... Where do you draw the line? I can understand not banning a religion because of the slippery slope / freedom of religion / freedom of speech arguments. However, they aren't classified as a religion there.

So, where do you draw the line on who shouldn't be allowed religious status? Surely you have to draw the line somewhere right? I think that they are exploiting the benefits gained from being deemed a "religion". Therefore, I don't have a problem with them being banned.

I do find it funny that Germany of all countries is choosing to do it though. You would think that they would be more sensitive than anyone in being perceived as discriminating against a religion.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Oh, I definitely know what you're talking about there. I'm afraid those crafty Masons have done the same thing to me .

I hope that's not the case for most people though. Something about Scientology creeps me out, and if you knew me, that doesn't happen too often if ever.

reply to post by Karlhungis


well, if it wasnt necessarily the german catholic church who is behind most of the germany campaigns against scientology, I would probably be more open-minded about banning them as well. Its important to look at WHO is calling for a ban of something.

To answer your question: I dont know where to draw the line. Thats why we are all having such a lively discussion here. We are not quite sure.