French prosecutor recommends "Dissolution" of Scientology in France

God Bless the French! Finally, a government with some balls-willing to crush this murderous cult! I was happy to read that the French Government is willing to expose this nonsnse, and prevent innocent people from being harmed by $cientology. If only the spineless US Government would emulate this , and get rid of this horrible delusion.
Vive la France!

Got a link?

France also includes the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hare Krishna, and TM on an official list of dangerous belief systems. Frankly, I’m not eager to have my government, or any government, get the “balls” to tell me what I am and am not permitted to believe. Or which religions will be officially favored.

To be blunt, I find it to be a violation of human rights and beneath the dignity of the French Republic.

The French have some rather odd ideas when it comes to religious freedom. A few years ago they decided that Muslim students in French public schools couldn’t wear headscarves. Because the schools are secular, you see. So little Muslim Cosette would be brutally oppressing the atheist Marius if she were allowed to cover her head.

But seriously, fuck Scientology. Fuck 'em with a rusty chainsaw.

That wasn’t the justification for the headscarf prohibition (which covered all conspicuous religious apparel/accoutrements, although conventional (i.e., Christian) religious jewelery was not barred). It was a worry that immigrant communities might be coercing other immigrants into adopting religious practices that they might otherwise avoid.

That is, the worry that motivated the law, at least officially, was that young Muslim women might be pressured into wearing the headscarf by their communities. I think France could alleviate this worry by better integrating North African and other Muslim immigrants into French society rather than by a heavy-handed law that has some unattractive instances of favoring more traditional practices, as well as the considerable disadvantage of impeding the free exercise of religion.

Irrational hatred for outgroup religions is not made more attractive just because the prejudice is currently fashionable. :frowning: :mad:

Hatred for Scientology is not at all irrational.

Well, that explains your cogent justification for the opprobrium. Some people might say that if all you can marshal in support of your argument that such-and-so is not irrational behavior is your diktat that it is “not at all irrational,” then you have gone a long way towards showing that it is, to the contrary, quite irrational.

Scientology isn’t really any stupider than more mainstream religions, but the Church of Scientology is a thuggish, disgusting extortion racket. So I think France should prosecute the leadership for real crimes and deny the church any sort of legal status as a religion without banning it. Other religions take in more money, they’re just better at covering it up with nice activites.

I see France has also banned Satanism, which is extremely silly of them.

I’m not at all a seasoned veteran of debates, so I have no qualms with my last post.

Someone with far more skill and eloquence will be along shortly to hopefully extinguish your ignorance.

I can’t provide an evidence-based, reasoned account of the truthfulness of my position, but my unwavering adherence to it is nevertheless rational!


Did you know there are free dictionaries on the internet now? You might want to lookup “rational.”

I’d bet you’re more capable of finding evidence that Scientology is not a good religion what-so-ever than I am.

My lack of ability to find citations for my above claim doesn’t mean it’s not rational.

I’ve read plenty about the cult from links others provided, I did not save them nor know how to get back to them. Still doesn’t’ mean my position is irrational.

For some reason, I don’t expect you to understand that. Probably has something to do with your posting history.

Another reason why I don’t care to justify my position to you. I recognize your name as one to avoid if I did want a well-throught out and reasonable debate.

Is that really the issue here? There’s very little good about Scientology, but there is even less good about a government banning religions.

Awww…it’s not nice when the Internet challenges our preconceptions and makes us think before telling other people what they’re allowed to believe. :frowning:


To be precise, we don’t know if your position is rational, because you haven’t provided a rationale for it. If you are opposed to Scientology because they have a history of using strongarm legal tactics to silence criticism, blackmail and extortion to suppress internal dissent, and may have been directly responsible for the deaths of several of their followers, then your position is rational.

On the other hand, if you oppose Scientology because you are Xenu, and you want them to stop spreading lies about you, then that’s a pretty irrational reason to be opposed to Scientology.

The thing is, since you haven’t give a reason for your opinion, we don’t have any way to judge your opinion. Which is why it’s usually a good idea to explain your reasoning for taking a position, because otherwise it’s just empty data, and doesn’t really tell us anything useful.

Banning a religion=bad
I just don’t know how to feel.

Well said. There are a lot of belief systems out there I don’t agree with, but as long as I have the right to believe in whatever I want and worship however I please (as long as it doesn’t break any laws, naturally), everyone should also have that right.

I think Scientology is a big money-making con job, but, hey, if that’s what people want to spend their money on, it’s not up to me to change their minds. I have very little sympathy for people who fall prey to scammers, whether it be in the name of deposed Nigerian government ministers or in the name of “religion.”

Remember in '87 when Oral Roberts said God would call him home if he didn’t raise $8 million? I wonder how many [del]nutballs[/del] faithful actually paid up.

My hatred for Scientology and its adherents is entirely rational, thankyouverymuch. They can all die tomorrow for all I care. They are a dangerous cult, and need to be suppressed with extreme prejudice. I’ll take my chances with what that will do for “religious freedom.”

I recall the bumper sticker “Send Oral To Heaven In '87:smiley:

I would be worried about this on the grounds of religious liberty if I had any reason to believe that Scientology was a religion. Since I’m highly dubious about that, I’m a lot less affronted.

I see what you did there.

I agree that there has been some abuse of process by Scientology officials. If we held all religion to that standard, some bigger brands would be in trouble as well. We know that the Roman Catholics knew of the sex abuse problem for many years without taking much action; a course which invariably harmed many people. No one, however, even at the height of anti-clerical (perhaps not anti-Catholic) sentiment, suggested banning Catholicism. Nor should they have. And, FTR, I consider both belief systems to be superstition.

As to the the suppression of internal dissent, one man’s purge is another man’s ideological purity. Laws against extortion and undue influence can be applied here against the perpetrators–and not their religion.

Your “causing deaths” charge seems a little unscrupulous. I believe you are referring to cases where Scientologists died because of an insistence on adhering to Scientology doctrine regarding medical treatment. Here, too, there are analogues in religions that are not candidates for banning (or at least not as often and not with as much fervor, see the remark about “they can all die tomorrow” – this uttered immediately after a bare assertion that the declarant was being “rational”!!). How to handle the case of religions that are at variance with modern medical science and even lead to adverse outcomes is a difficult one. Our value of autonomy suggests that we should allow people to choose these beliefs over medical science, despite their being scientifically erroneous.

Nevertheless, to suggest that these adherents died in circumstances suggesting foul play is a misrepresentation.