No it isn’t, you’re wrong. Just because that’s what you think of automatically doesn’t mean he’s using the term incorrectly.
They are.
What adherents are being punished? Can you give an example of any Scientologist being tried or hassled just for being a Scientologist?
And it’s not a religion.
The problem here is that you have demonstrated that these criminal actions were prosecuted as such. Why does anyone need to go further and persecute the religion?
Also, do you have any evidence that religious persecution that did not involve killing its adherents was ever effective anywhere in slowing its spread?
Wait. Kimmy Gibler is a guy?
This thread is about the “dissolution” of Scientology in France.
You’re right, you’re not a true religion until you’ve been banned by the government. 
It worked so well against the Mormons after all.
Good point. Heard of, then.
Hey, you never know. Maybe my account has been hacked. :eek:
Actually religion defining social status has been a time-honored institution. From the Hindu caste system to secret Mithraic cults in the Roman military. We live in a capitalist society so why wouldn’t a newer iteration of that impulse be carried out in a capitalist manner?
You are biased in a very Abrahamic way, saying that the teachings must be free in order to be legitimate. Why does the use of money matter one way or the other when defining a religion? Who says a religion cannot charge money? The US Tax code certainly, but does the Federal Government have the final word on what is and isn’t a religion?
I thought you were concurring, not mocking, but let’s move on.
I haven’t been closely following what’s happening in France, but is that the case? Are they going to arrest people just for professing a belief in Scientology? Or are they attempting to restrict the organizations ability to act in the country? Are they outlawing the sale of Dianetics? What, exactly, does this “ban” consist of?
My dislike of Scientology aside, I, too, am troubled by the idea of a government banning a religion. On the other hand, there are such things as criminal organizations. It does not beggar belief to think that a criminal organization might take on the trappings of a religion to protect themselves from government interference. I don’t think it’s healthy for a society to allow its religious protections to be abused in that fashion. If the French government can demonstrate, in a court of law, that the Church of Scientology as an institution has been guilty of racketeering, extortion, and what have you, using exactly the same standards of evidence as would apply to any other allegedly criminal organization, then I have no objection to the church being treated like those other criminal organization.
The “blood libel” was a completely false accusation made against medieval Jews. It wasn’t an “exaggeration”, it didn’t get some of the details wrong, it wasn’t that medieval Christians overinflated the number of children murdered by Jews, or that the Jews were killing Christians, sure, but not quite so lurid a way or for quite so lurid a purpose as the Christians claimed. The medieval blood libel was 100% utter bullshit, completely false, and had no factual basis whatsoever.
On Wikipedia, someone cites some (no doubt propagandistic, ridiculous and indefensible) claims about Maoist China as a modern example of “blood libel”. Except that the Maoists in China really did mass murder hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, and callously allowed millions more to die before changing their murderously inept policies.
Whatever a bunch of people on Wikipedia may think, casually tossing around such a loaded term as “blood libel” in this way, blurring distinctions between complete falsehoods about an group of people essentially powerless to defend themselves against violent attacks condoned or even organized by the powerful; and (yes, quite stupid) exaggerations told against a totalitarian dicator who was in fact a mass murderer, is not defensible.
And at one point the article apparently had a section on the Rape of Nanking–I’m sure some people, well-intentioned or not, have exaggerated the horrors of that particular well-documented atrocity that actually did occur, but it was nonetheless insane to have ever lumped such in with vicious falsehoods about medieval Jews kidnapping Christian children and draining them of their blood. By that logic, one could have a section on “Blood libels against the Nazis”!–Since the tales of Nazis making soap from their victims were not, in fact, true.
If Scientology is a religion, then I am at a loss to imagine what groups wouldn’t qualify as a religion, if they so desired. Biker gangs. Archery clubs. Professional organizations. Honorary societies. Glee clubs. All one has to do is claim religious status and Bob’s yer uncle.
Well, Avon is almost a religion to some…
If Scientology isn’t a religion, then what is?
Fair point. I don’t really understand it. I’ll wait until people here can interpret it for me better.
He pasted a definition. The blood libel was used against Jews yes, but it has a broader usage as Kimmy_Gibbler cited that refers to accusations of human sacrifice.
Agreed. I think the Maoist Chinese really did murder people. So it’s inapplicable in that sense.
Did the Scientologists actually murder people to further their religion or not? If not, then it’s a blood libel to accuse them of such.
Ok, so there are problems with the wikipedia article. Your problem here consists of extrapolating a greater meaning to the term than just as it refers to Jews and Christians in the middle-ages. He is using it in a broader sense and you want to keep it narrow.
Hardly the same as ‘Godwin’. Since you are picking at such fine nits, you should know that Godwin actually refers to comparisons to Hitler and has nothing to do with Jews or Christians in the Middle-Ages. It is not a Godwin unless Hitler or Nazis are mentioned.
I’m afraid the logic of that syllogism escapes me. Nothing, as far as I know, is a religion contingent upon Scientology not being one.
This is a load of bullshit. Gibbler is blithely denying that Scientologists have ever done any real harm, despite lots and lots of evidence proving that people have died because of the CoS’s policies.
If you really think that, you’re even more of a fool.
Lots of other shit has happened since then.
You asserted that if Scientology isn’t a religion, any group can bill itself as a religion. Well, what’s wrong with that? Who are you to judge the depth of anyone’s faith?
Yes. Oh, don’t sound so shocked! These are enlightened times.
I just like the show, OK?
You go France! Next they’ll ban that other goofy cult; you know, the one that believes an old man lives in the sky and killed his only son in a bizarro ritual of blood sacrifice? Then there’s the one with the elephant-headed god and the blue people, and the fat Asian guy with all of the morality stories, and…
Frankly, I don’t think government has any business sticking it’s nose in religion; either the promotion of or the censoring of. People have the right to believe whatever crazy crock of shit appeals to them, as long as the death toll is kept to a minimum. I’m in favor of that religion with the rum, cigars and smoking hot island girls dancing nude around a bonfire to loud Samba music. What would France say to that?