They are accused of common crimes, not of false religion.
If anyone can find credible reports that they are being indicted for religious reasons then we can discuss the matter but for me it is clear they are being indicted for common criminal acts like fraud, extortion, etc.
This is what I would like a cite for.
Perhaps the point was too subtle. It doesn’t matter what religion I am. And it didn’t matter whether I was gay or straight. I am motivated by my values of autonomy and equality, not some pet chauvinism.
Your skepticism is miscalibrated.
The majority can suffer a great many individual strange beliefs and associated practices. The Republic has even voted some strange individuals into positions of high office. We get it.
The question in this case is whether institutions, afforded different rights and privileges than people, possess a sufficiently significant threat to proximate individuals. Reasonable people can evaluate the level of this threat differently while agreeing on substantially all of the facts, that there has been far, far more than “some abuse of process by Scientology officials”.
This one utterance, more than anything else in this thread, is self-serving handwaving. Trivializing or mischaracterizing the actual harm caused by the institution of Scientology in order to sustain your high-minded principles is both intentionally obtuse and intellectually feeble. You aren’t actually helping anyone by ignoring the facts as understood.
I understand your spirited defense of Scientology against ill-conceived and inadequately examined accusations because they look and feel just like the charges thrown at misunderstood minorities throughout history. But just because Scientologists are in fact small and usually misunderstood does not mean that they don’t also suck.
Once, on the Straight Dope, I asked you if you were a Scientologist just because I was curious. I’m not making any judgments - I’ve just never seen a non-Scientologist defending Scientology.
Indeed. To flog my post up above, eleven key church leaders including Hubbard’s own wife were convicted of or plead guilty to crimes in federal court in the single largest private infiltration of the US government ever.
This is a rather more uncommon flavor of criminal act.
Your opponent clearly had no idea how a debate works.
What kind of stupid are you? I just gave a bunch of cites. And it is the OP who is making an extraordinary claim and is required to prove it. It is not my burden to prove the contrary. I have seen NO evidence that anyone is being persecuted for religious beliefs. None. And I know it would not fly in Europe so please present the evidence.
I’ve only asked for evidence of “the actual harm caused by the institution of Scientology.” All I get is accusations about other people being intentionally obtuse and intellectually feeble.
Tell me, in your experience when people start throwing out “intentionally obtuse and intellectually feeble,” is that typically an indication that they’re winning? Because in my experience, that is typically a pissy surrender.
I just posted a bunch of cites showing they are accused of fraud, coercion, kidnapping and other common crimes. Anyone trying to make this a religious issue is clearly trying to muddy the waters.
I say this without sarcasm: I know it is not easy being the single defender and having to respond to a dozen people hurling crap at you. So I really don’t expect you to reply to my posts as a matter of courtesy since I was kind of latecomer. But please look above and consider, for example, Operation Snow White or some of sailor’s examples.
I also throw out “intentionally obtuse” and such not because I am either winning or losing, but because I feel that vituperation is merited by the position taken by my internet conversation partner. There is no judge, there are no speaker points, there is no winning. The little bit’s the Talmud; the rest is commentary.
Scientology is not a religion, and the organization does not get in trouble for its beliefs but for the actual criminal activity and racketeering. The rank and file members are not being perscuted by other governments, they’re being protected by them.
Scientology is not a religion, or a church or even really a “cult.” It’s basically a business that sells “teachings” to members (name another religion that charges you money to find out what the doctrine is). Scientology poses as a church, but it’s really just a marketing racket with a nasty temper. They are known to exert a great deal of coersion and control over their membership, and to use a wide variety of ethically questionable to outright criminal tactics against critics.
I understand the impulse to defend religious freedom, but there is no belief system being attacked here. The actual beliefs of Scientology are irrelevant to why some countries are trying to shut it down. If all they were doing was going around preaching freely about Xenu, nobody would care. It’s their systematic tactics of extortion, coersion, intimidation and harrassment that are the problem.
Nine of them on a single count of obstruction, always the prosecutor’s fallback. Did they even do prison time, like that other obstructionist menace, Martha Stewart?
Also, at the risk of alarming Godwin’s defenders, isn’t it striking that a religion that has about 25,000 members is accused of having over 5,000 confederates infiltrating governments around the world? Does this have any similarity to the old canards about Jews occupying the loci of power?
Oh, of course it doesn’t, we’re nothing like those primitive anti-Semitic troglodytes of yore. Or the people who drove the Mormons out of Illinois and Missouri. Or the people who prosecuted Jehovah’s Witnesses for violating child labor laws when they took their kids on the neighborhood canvassings. No, this is different.
[nitpick]Even if you have pleaded guilty, you still have to be found guilty by the court before you can be punished. So it’s not strictly necessary to distinguish between those who are “convicted” and those who “pleaded guilty,” unless some of those people who pleaded guilty were eventually found not guilty by the court. And if that’s the case, it would seem a little misleading to include them in this kind of summary.[/nitpick]
I do apologize for my stupidity. I am sorry that I can find no credible links for Catholic priests diddling little kids. I guess I made that up. Oops, silly me.
And the only thing they got Al Capone on in 1931 was tax evasion. Think he never killed anyone?
The purpose of Operation Snow White was obstruction, so it should come as little surprise that its perpetrators were convicted of it.
This news articlefrom the Toronto Globe and Mail has some more interesting details, including direct quotes from seized documents.
No, actually, it has no similarity at all. Stealing documents from the IRS is rather a far cry from controlling the international monetary system. Ordinary people can make these kinds of distinctions. They can also distinguish between criminal organizations and, say, Jews. People who lead with their ideology apparently cannot. Ironically, this was usually to the Jews’ peril. It’s a shame they could not have benefitted from more principled defenders.
Evidence, please. Demonstrate that typical rank-and-file members have visited upon them by CoS leadership concrete and unambiguous injuries of a magnitude and at a frequency large enough to justify the government to, ahem, “protect” them from themselves. Recall, the presumption is, in the matter of belief, to leave people to their own devices. The standard for overriding that is exceptionally high.
Is this like Beetlejuice where, if you say it three times in a row, it magically becomes true?
[/quote]
It’s basically a business that sells “teachings” to members (name another religion that charges you money to find out what the doctrine is). Scientology poses as a church, but it’s really just a marketing racket with a nasty temper. They are known to exert a great deal of coersion and control over their membership, and to use a wide variety of ethically questionable to outright criminal tactics against critics.
[quote]
Oh, tithing, tickets for High Holy Days services, etc. etc. Moreover, the standard for religious freedom is not “kind of looks like Christianity structurally, but with a different cast of characters.” If Scientology wants to charge for doctrine, that does not make it any less a religion. It makes it different from religions you are better acquainted with, and perhaps have a bias as being the exemplar according to which religions are supposed to look like.
So, go after the perpetrators. But don’t draw up official lists of dangerous religions.
Oh, I don’t know. Are you suggesting Martha is a murderer too? She’s another obstructionist after all. Right? Anyone convicted of one crime must be guilty of any other crimes we can imagine. Just look at Al Capone.
Because, while I hear Martha is a super-bitch, I don’t think she killed anyone. (Well, she did try to run over a gardener once.)
They are going after the perpetrators. They aren’t going after rank and file members. It shpouldn’t be called a “dangerous religion,” but only because it isn’t a religion.
At risk of playing devil’s advocate- how would you define a religion?