It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

German historian Compares Tom Cruise to Nazi Propaganda Minister

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bakednutz
PLEASE read about the founder of scientology, very interesting.

en.wikipedia.org...

Im sure after reading about the founder of scientology you will find he is a very nice fellow with great intentions.





There was never any attempt or intent on my part by the writing of these policies (or any others for that fact), to authorize illegal or harassment type acts against anyone. As soon as it became apparent to me that the concept of 'Fair Game' as described above was being misinterpreted by the uninformed, to mean the granting of a license to Scientologists for acts in violation of the law and/or other standards of decency, these policies were canceled."


It looks like he ended that "fair game" thing because his officials were "molesting" people, so to speak.



In 1977, Scientology offices on both coasts of the United States were raided by FBI agents seeking evidence of Operation Snow White, a church-run espionage network. Hubbard's wife Mary Sue and a dozen other senior Scientology officials were convicted in 1979 of conspiracy against the United States federal government,


I think that's pretty cool. Everybody on ATS thinks the IRS is the Fed's bulldog to collect taxes that only pay interest on reserve notes, so whats wrong if the church doesn't have to pay taxes? Good for them if they don't want to be slaves to the Fed, and actually pull of monitoring the IRS for a while.



In 1978, as part of a case against three French Scientologists, Hubbard was convicted of "making fraudulent promises" and given a four year prison sentence and a 35,000₣ fine by a French court.[


Making fraudulent promises? What is that supposed to even mean?



The judgment of the High court of London (Family Division) quotes the single judge, Latey, that Scientology is "dangerous, immoral, sinister and corrupt"


So is every other religion you don't believe in.

Hey, I'm all for the 500,000 people who want to practice scientology as their religion, and become a thetan so they can meat Xenu and join the Galactic federation. If they want to donate a large amount of money while doing it, great.

I'm also for the 2.1 billion who think they are going to heaven for believing some guy died for our sins, who could walk on water and was the son of the creator of the entire universe.

I'm also for the 1 or so billion who think they are going to get 45 virgins, receive unlimited sexual pleasure, and become in perfect harmony with Allah.

All of it is the figment of someones imagination. People have the right to be ridiculous, if they chose too.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by benign.psychosis
 


First of all are you a scientologist?

Second, what else could possibly be meant by the following except for EXACTLY what was said?

"Fair Game" was introduced by Hubbard as a policy against people or groups that "actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts." He defined it as: ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.


I dont see any other interpretation for this except for exactly what it is. The statement he made later when people found out about this,

There was never any attempt or intent on my part by the writing of these policies (or any others for that fact), to authorize illegal or harassment type acts against anyone. As soon as it became apparent to me that the concept of 'Fair Game' as described above was being misinterpreted by the uninformed, to mean the granting of a license to Scientologists for acts in violation of the law and/or other standards of decency, these policies were canceled."

The guy knew exactly what he was authorizing but once people found out about it, it became a public relations nightmare. If you are going to dispute this you better have a very Good explanation or dont bother writing a reply to it.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
Ad hominem AGAIN?


No, just an accurate observation. If the shoe fits, wear it.



What does the great book of L Ron tell you to do when that fails and no one wants to purchase any snake oil?

I don't know, I've never read it. It looks like you haven't either, so why are you so quick to judge?



Watch another video by a sawn-off bisexual hollywood actor?


Your dry humor amazes me.



Any evidence to support the genuineness of Scientology? Its status as a religion in general terms? Its charitable works? How about a body of art and literature inspired by it? Oh that's right, it's all copyright and trademarked so no one within this supposed religion is allowed to actually add to its alleged religious corpus.


You're stuck on religion in the "classic" sense. Times change buddy. Welcome to the age of for-profit-religion and copyrighted bibles. Show me a definition of religion where it says it can't be for profit and copyrighted. Your point is moot.

I'd be willing to bet that a few of those half million members have created art and literature inspired by scientology, what do you think? In fact, last year in Seattle there was a Scientology art show. Your point is moot.

As far as the charity, I just did a quick search and found that they give alot of anti-drug lectures at schools, have helped hand out food during various natural disasters. It looks like they combine their charity and missionary work all into one, which is what other religions do as well.

Even so, charity is not a requirement for a religion. Buddhists Monks in Asian countries beg for their alms every morning, they don't give charity - they receive it. There is not much charity performed by half the religions of the world, so the point is moot.

You have presented no real arguments. Everything you have presented is easily blown over because you can't make your own points, and are merely relying on what Judges say, your own rhetoric, and otherwise nonsensical retorts. You are moot.

Scientology is a religion - like it or not.


[edit on 22-1-2008 by benign.psychosis]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by benign.psychosis
 




As far as the charity, I just did a quick search and found that they give alot of anti-drug lectures at schools.....

That is funny, considering that hubbard was a Huge drug user.


I'd be willing to bet that a few of those half million members have created art and literature inspired by scientology, what do you think?

Well I think your a betting man. And that your bet is in no way proof of the original question.



You're stuck on religion in the "classic" sense. Times change buddy. Welcome to the age of for-profit-religion and copyrighted bibles. Show me a definition of religion where it says it can't be for profit and copyrighted. Your point is moot.


You tell me one legitimate church that is out there for profit. Not a cult, a mainstream church and evidence of such. Copyrighted bibles are not distributed by the a church or a religion so they are not making money off those. There is no definition of where it says religion cant be for profit and copyright but scientology fits more into the definition of cult rather than religion.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bakednutz
reply to post by benign.psychosis
 


First of all are you a scientologist?


Nope.



Second, what else could possibly be meant by the following except for EXACTLY what was said?

"Fair Game" was introduced by Hubbard as a policy against people or groups that "actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts." He defined it as: ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.



The guy knew exactly what he was authorizing but once people found out about it, it became a public relations nightmare. If you are going to dispute this you better have a very Good explanation or dont bother writing a reply to it.


That is pure conjecture, unless you are a psychic or have some evidence to show that he knew exactly what he was doing. You also have to understand that a religious doctrine, or whatever that is supposed to be, is going to have it's own idiomatic definitions, just like a legal document does. You have to find out what those words mean by going to the official scientology glossary.

He said that it was misinterpreted by those who are uninformed - a statement that you do not believe because you are bias. I'm not biased toward the religion, so I'll do a little footwork for you.

The official scientology definition of "Supressive Person"



a person who possesses a distinct set of characteristics and mental attitudes that cause him to suppress other people in his vicinity. This is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous. Also called antisocial personality.


...And antisocial personalities are beings "who possess characteristics and mental attitudes that cause them to violently oppose any betterment activity or group"

Okay, all that is kind of out there, but who cares. What do you suppose "violently oppose" means? Well, Violent means:

1. using physical force: using physical force to injure somebody or

2. emotionally intense: showing emotional intensity or strong feeling

3. showing destructive force: showing extreme, destructive, or

4. intense: very intense or severe

5. caused by force: caused by force rather than natural causes

I think it falls along the line of some type of phsyical attack, or a threat of harm - both illegal under the law. I mean, if someone is attacking you our you feel threatend you have a right to fight back, take their property (weapon) to protect yourself. If they are supressing scientology, they may be knocking down booths or whatnot, damaging property, which is illegal under the law.

I think this may have been what he meant, but it was causing bad PR when media spin made it look like the religion that opposes BigPharm was a violent force, when in reality everybody and thieir mother are on the scientologists-are-crazy bandwagon, so it goes unquestioned. Why wouldn't a group of 500,000 or so who actively espouse that BigPharm is wrong and not needed not be given negative media spin?

And it may have been either way; however, he stated later that people misrepresented what he actually meant.



SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.


Assuming that a SP is doing something "Supressive" or "Violent" then you have the right under law to do all of that. I really don't think that means stealing someones car or stealing their house.
Do you have any evidence to show that it does?

They do compare SP's to Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan, so I don't think they are talking about your run of the mill people.

Interestingly enough, in Hubbard's view, "Suppresive Groups" were "those which seek to destroy Scn or which specialize in injuring or killing persons or damaging their cases or which advocate suppression of mankind."

So, I think the term "suppresive" is very idiomatic of Scientology.

Even so, "Fair Game" against "SP's" hasn't existed officially for 40 years. If we compare this "Fair Game" to nearly every early religion, we find that they also had a similar policy of wreaking havoc against the non-believers, or those that would "suppress" them



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Originally posted by bakednutz
reply to post by benign.psychosis
 




That is funny, considering that hubbard was a Huge drug user.


That's really a moot point. Drugs can cause problems, and he knew it. You don't have to be a saint to tell someone that you know something is wrong.



Well I think your a betting man. And that your bet is in no way proof of the original question.


I did provide a link to a "Scientologist" art display, did I not? What are you expecting? Huge Marble Statues, or Golden L. Ron Hubbards?




You tell me one legitimate church that is out there for profit. Not a cult, a mainstream church and evidence of such. Copyrighted bibles are not distributed by the a church or a religion so they are not making money off those. There is no definition of where it says religion cant be for profit and copyright but scientology fits more into the definition of cult rather than religion.


Scientology is a legitimate church in many countries. I don't know why you guys are so stuck up on the word "cult" because it has become synonymous with religion as science has advanced and more people realize that our current religions are just as mythological as Ancient Egyptian's religion, or Ancient Greece.

Encarta defines cult as:

1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader

2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false

3. idolization of somebody or something: an extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity (often used before a noun)

Many people regard religion as a whole to be misguided, false - have you even heard of an anthiest?
- Cathlocism is directed by an authoritarian leader is it not? Christianity is directed by an invisible non-corporeal leader, or perhaps just the book itself.

You're use of the term "cult" is purely subjective of your beliefs toward one particular religion. I find them all to be cults in the above sense, however those who practice them regard them as religion, and they have to right to practice it.


[edit on 22-1-2008 by benign.psychosis]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
It also doesn't change the fact that catholic priests have been known to molest children. That is pretty evil and vile if you ask me.

Why don't you start a petition for Germany to ban Catholicism too? Do you think you've heard the last case of Child molestation by a priest?


I´m afraid you are mixing a few things up here. Of course a child molesting priest is unacceptable. But he does not do it on behalf of his church - or do you know a catholic scripture that advocates or requires catholics to molest children?

And that is the big difference between the "accepted" religions (which also include numerous spin-offs, obscure faiths and sects) and the problematic Scientology. The difference is that Scientology has set guidelines and beliefs that go against the civil order. But the immediate big problem of Scientology is that they ARE primarily a business scheme in the german perception, but of course try and get the status of a church to reap the tax- and other benefits.

Scientology in Germany takes this perception and tries to spin it around, calling it religious intolerance. It is not. Social standards are not universal, are different from society to society, and under the german perception Scientology is just a business dealing in alternate pseudopsychatry with some funny ideas.


How about Islam? Their religion promotes a Holy war against the Infidels and is the basis for some "terrorist" attacks.

Why not the Jewish religion too? It claims that they are the "Master Race" in no uncertain terms.

Most religions have a mythology that can not be proven, their own set of morals and guidelines, and they create a system so that people fall in line with themt. Scientology is no different in that regard...


All religions have a certain degree of freedom in their beliefs. There are also quite drastic passages in the bible... as well as very benevolent ones in all the old scriptures. An enlightened society can tolerate these under the assumption that any sane minded person would not take these passages literally, but rather as moral allegories. And as always, most of the passages in old texts as the Quran, the Bible or the Talmud can be interpreted quite broadly.

The Scientology scriptures, and that may the real problem in regard to their "modernity", are undeniably those of a planned exploitation group. There are decades of orginal quotes of their superior leaders, including Mr. Hubbard, that point exactly at this. Germans just don´t believe that a business can qualify as a church.

Noone in Germany, or in the DOZENS of other countries where they ran into problems, has ever been stopped from believing into the whole Thetan and Audition business. Everyone is still free to believe into anything they like, and be it the mighty Spaghetti monster in the sky, and when they are discriminated against, they will be protected by the same laws that apply to any other believer of a certain faith. The ORGANIZATION Scientology and its spokespersons are just crying and kicking on the floor because their "Scientology Church" does not get the lawful status of a church according to german law and perception.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by Lonestar24



I´m afraid you are mixing a few things up here. Of course a child molesting priest is unacceptable. But he does not do it on behalf of his church - or do you know a catholic scripture that advocates or requires catholics to molest children?


Have you ever read the official scientology bible, or whatever it is? If so, how did you obtain it? Or are you perhaps just getting your "facts" from the media spin and hate sites?



The difference is that Scientology has set guidelines and beliefs that go against the civil order. But the immediate big problem of Scientology is that they ARE primarily a business scheme in the german perception, but of course try and get the status of a church to reap the tax- and other benefits.



The Catholic church used to have the perception that anyone who questioned it was wrong, and so they were burned at the stake. Perception is not always right... as for taxes, I don't see that as an arguing point against Scientology. Many people on ATS protest taxes and cheer on individuals such as the Browns. In the end, the german government has the right to do what it sees fit according to its own laws, but the question of freedom of religion still stands.



Scientology in Germany takes this perception and tries to spin it around, calling it religious intolerance. It is not. Social standards are not universal, are different from society to society, and under the german perception Scientology is just a business dealing in alternate pseudopsychatry with some funny ideas.


It is curious that the worlds third largest pharmaseutical economy would have that perception, especially when an organized group of people boycott it, and spread the message of it's "evils." It is also curous that it is being associated with the Nazis.

Do you see something wrong with alternative medicine? By the way, the status-quo considers most subjects on this site as funny ideas, but does that make those ideas wrong?



All religions have a certain degree of freedom in their beliefs. There are also quite drastic passages in the bible... as well as very benevolent ones in all the old scriptures. An enlightened society can tolerate these under the assumption that any sane minded person would not take these passages literally, but rather as moral allegories. And as always, most of the passages in old texts as the Quran, the Bible or the Talmud can be interpreted quite broadly.


Does a broad interpretation a religion make?



Noone in Germany, or in the DOZENS of other countries where they ran into problems, has ever been stopped from believing into the whole Thetan and Audition business. Everyone is still free to believe into anything they like, and be it the mighty Spaghetti monster in the sky, and when they are discriminated against, they will be protected by the same laws that apply to any other believer of a certain faith. The ORGANIZATION Scientology and its spokespersons are just crying and kicking on the floor because their "Scientology Church" does not get the lawful status of a church according to german law and perception.


I recall that the majority of states used to have problems with black people, does that make black people wrong?

It's not as much as "crying and kicking" as it is that Germany is looking into procedures for a possible ban of the organized religion altogether.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
...Have you ever read the official scientology bible, or whatever it is? If so, how did you obtain it? Or are you perhaps just getting your "facts" from the media spin and hate sites?


No I have not read their "Bible", the problematic doctrines mostly would not appear in it anyway. But there is an abundance of information sources neither operated by the naughty media or "hate sites". I´m not pretending to be an expert but the general consensus in the german scientific community, which is at best neutral towards the issue of Scientology, shows that I´m not grabbing my "facts" deliberately (actually I´m only depicting the German side of things, way to shoot the messenger). What I also don´t do is making invalid comparisons to child molesting priests to score a cheap goal.



The Catholic church used to have the perception that anyone who questioned it was wrong, and so they were burned at the stake. Perception is not always right...


No doubt there. They HAD that perception. Not any longer. And if it still had any of its fundamental characteristics that it lost or "adjusted" during the past 300 years, they´d be the first on the hit list themselves. Its the year 2008 not 1508, so again that comparison is illogical.


...as for taxes, I don't see that as an arguing point against Scientology. [...] In the end, the german government has the right to do what it sees fit according to its own laws, but the question of freedom of religion still stands.


I didn´t argue against their desire to achieve the legal status of "Church" and thusly save taxes and receive other legal benefits. Everyone wants to circumvent taxes whenever possible. I argued against their tactic to lament their failure to achieve that status as "intolerance against religion" of the government - a tactic you parroted right there. As I wrote later on, everyone is free to BELIEVE in Scientology. The freedom of faith is absolute in Germany, but it is a PERSONAL right. Scientologists are also free to try and spread their faith. That does not mean the german state is automatically obliged to accept every organized religion as a church, that is something entirely different.



It is curious that the worlds third largest pharmaseutical economy would have that perception, especially when an organized group of people boycott it, and spread the message of it's "evils." It is also curous that it is being associated with the Nazis.


I think I can safely say that not one single Pharma company gets headaches from the insignificant numbers of Scientologists - and that means worldwide. The comparison with Goebbels (not the Nazis) is unwise - but it was a single person that said that. I hear Pres. Bush and his government getting compared with Nazism every other week. So should I start hailing Mr. Bush, maybe pin a Swastika on every US flag? Or should I just neglect these ramblings of individual people with their individual opinions?



Does a broad interpretation a religion make?


Does a randomly picked question improve a discussion?



I recall that the majority of states used to have problems with black people, does that make black people wrong?


No, because these segregations were AGAINST standing law. Whats your point?


It's not as much as "crying and kicking" as it is that Germany is looking into procedures for a possible ban of the organized religion altogether.


Yes, but not because they were a threat to other religions, because germans wouldn´t like Xenu or because Germans wouldn´t like Tom Cruise or Travolta (they do). Should Scientology get banned then because they show characteristics that are forbidden by law for ANY kind of organization, like mindwashing techniques or their financial practices - NOT because of their desire to get recognized as a church or the faith they represent.

I will say it once more: The problem is not the religion, the problem is not the faith, the problem is not the faithful - the one and single problem is the ORGANIZATION that conflicts with german civil and criminal law, as well as society standards in several instances.

[edit on 23/1/2008 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I think everyone needs to see this video mocking Tom Curise's video that recently came out. Very Funny.

www.funnyordie.com...




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join