Freedom of Religion

[Rotku]

As Alara has raised the issue twice now, I'd like to hear a bit more on it, as I still don't think there has been a proper reply about why the USA is wrong to accuse Germany of restricting a human right (or what ever it is they've claimed). Also keeps it out of the other non-politicish thread.

From the other two threads...

What is actually "freaking nuts" is the way in which Scientology apparently infiltrated the U.S. government - your state department stating that Germany has fundamental problems with human rights, because we do not accept Scientology as a church and have them monitored by the Verfassungsschutz (constitutional protection agency) is frankly outrageously offensive.

What sucks about the U.S. is that we have this thing in our constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So, technically congress has to leave those "christian" KKK members and scientologists alone. Oddly enough both parts of this clause have been stomped on more times than I can remember so I have no idea why we don't just do some sh*t about it. It's probably because it'll piss off a lot of people and excite violence in an otherwise civil society.

But then it comes to the question of where to draw the line? If stopping scientology is alright, then some guy might get it into his head that preventing islam in the country is also okay. Hey, but why stop there? Why not ban religion out right? Really, the line is completely arbitrary. The same argument for banning one could very easily be used for any others. As soon as you go down that road you're opening such a big can or worms it's scary to think about.

The line is only as arbitrary as saying hurting people is wrong. We made an arbitrary choice somewhere down the line what to consider good and bad, and henceforth there are now criteria against which something can be measured to be good or bad. Just because a "religion" says it is okay to spread pain and suffering and abuse others for personal gain does not mean it is. And there is no slippery slope leading to outlaw "religions" which strive to improve the lives of its worshippers through peaceful and civilised means, if we choose to confront that first religion. Being labelled a religion does not make any behaviour more or less exempt from the law and from what we have arbitrarily chosen to be good and bad.

Saying you cannot define where to draw the line is intellectual surrender.

If a religion has harmful practicies, sure, outlaw those harmful things. But banning the religion itself? THat's a completely different story.

However, unless I am greatfully mistaken, I do not think that scientology actively encourages its members to sacrifice vergins, kill disbelievers or anything like that. How would you say that scientology is harmful and bad? What puts it into the 'bad religion' catagory?

On a slightly different track, here's article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights (also found in the international convention on civil and political rights, if I'm not mistaken)

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Or for something that might be a bit closer to home for you, Alara; the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Here it seems they've decided that not letting people practice a religion is 'wrong'.

You better read up on scientology. I would place it completely into the "bad religion" category. Destroying "bad" cults never stopped the USA before, I don't know why it is now. There is probably some government corruption going on there that prevents the FBI from doing something. My guess is that USA focuses on individual right abuses instead of the entire cult which still allows them to prosper here the same way the Klan and neo-nazi groups do. If only some laws were passed to label those kinda people as terrorist organizations. . .

Quickly skimming through the wikipedia page, the worst I can see is that they have made profits from their members. But hell, if that's a crime you should start banning these branches of Christianity, as well. Maybe you could point me in the direction of something more substantial?

There have been accusations of murder, directly and indirectly, as well as their love of litigation. Still, the key there is "accusations", and while suing everyone in sight makes you a giant a**hole, it's not illegal.

If they do something illegal and it can be proven in court, they can be punished for that crime. Otherwise they have to be left alone, no matter how crazy or distasteful they are.

*shrugs* I dunno, the church of scientology has a great way of making critics of their cult STFU so I don't find it one bit suprising you can't find anything on Wikipedia. You should be aware that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an agenda. A year or so back, the scientology page used to be a little more damning of them until they complained (threatened lawsuits) and had it reworked until it showed them in a more favorable light. As far as the profit they make from members, I can't really comment but I believe most christian churches use the money from collection to pay for utilities of that church and the amount given optional. As far as I know of, no christians had to foreclose on their home and claim bankruptcy because of the amount they donate.
Christians correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Try theOperation Clambake website. Google it, its forums are filled with tales of woe.

Thanks for the link. Interesting read. Honestly though, I would place them in the catagory with many other religions around the place. You just need to look at all these evanglican TV prechers who you see living in these massive houses, driving expensive cars and... well, certainly not following the idea that you cannot worship both gold and god.

The worst thing about them seems to be their attempts to block any criticism about them - trying to restrict free speech. But then really, it's not like every church under the sun hasn't tried that one before - not to mention governments or big coperations (now I'm sounding like some insane leftwing conspiracy theorist). Google China? Hollywood Blacklisting? Heh, if you want to go back even further, how about the catholic Inquisitions? The list is really endless.

Is it right? Hell no. But should one ban a church just because they do it? No.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

And from the second thread:

Scientology is dangerous and has infiltrated the branches of the U.S. government to an alarming level.

I pray that the government of this country will continue its course on them, despite pressure from the U.S. to accept them as a fully emancipated religion on par with Protestantism, Judaism or Catholicism.

Fight the beginnings

Scientology is dangerous and has infiltrated the branches of the U.S. government to an alarming level.

ahahaha what. Please share what you're smoking.

Read the reports on religious freedom in Germany on www.state.gov and tell me your Department of State is not infiltrated by Scientology.

I couldn't find any statements of the sort before my give-a-sh*t tank ran dry, but I'm assuming it was a "bad Germany" remark after Scientology was banned over there. Which is fine; religious freedom means all religions, even the especially creepy and stupid ones.

It's for everyone's protection. Our government is entirely Christian (Jews are about as far afield as we'll venture, though there is one Muslim and one atheist), but let's have a wild thought experiment and say it was being run by atheists. If banning Scientology is okay, then banning Christianity should be too--by our perspective, there's very little difference. By yours there's a ton, of course. That's why you protect everyone equally, so no one's perspective matters.

So, no, Scientology hasn't "infiltrated" anything. If there are more non-Christians/Jews in the State Department than what I can count on my fingers, I would be honestly shocked. I'm guessing the percentage is a little higher than the rest of the government since those aren't elected positions, but not much

It's not as simple. If you said that, then you would have to protect radical Islam als well and could never ban a preacher inciting hate. Well, I'm not sure whether you can over there.

But in Germany, we run the concept of the "wehrhafte Demokratie" (well-fortified democracy), after the debacle that the Weimarer Republik brought us - the Weimarer Republik was more democratic, per se, than the Bundesrepublik is.

The point is that nothing that is criminal, inflicting pain and threatens the values of our constitution can be protected by claiming to be a religion. You're saying that if a religion says it's okay to commit human sacrifice, then it should still be protected because it's a religion. We say, something that is harmful should be outlawed no matter what it claims to be.

Of course, a lot of cases for the dangers of various belief systems can be made, and our judges apparently debate the issue very carefully, as Scientology is not yet outright banned. That crap like "technology of Ron L. Hubbard" is not recognised as a copyright is not a matter of our disrespect for human rights, but rather of common sense.

They are, however, dangerous. I talked to the head of the Hamburg embassy, who used to be speaker for the Hamburg senate, and he said he had to hire bodyguards because he got "anonymous" threats when the Hamburg government started to consider its options against Scientology.

So, seriously, tolerance has to stop where it tolerates intolerance. Your state deparment is out of line, it should start sticking up for the human rights of the gitmo detainees first maybe.

It's not as simple. If you said that, then you would have to protect radical Islam als well and could never ban a preacher inciting hate.

Precisely correct. Unless they commit a crime, such as...

You're saying that if a religion says it's okay to commit human sacrifice, then it should still be protected because it's a religion.

... murder. Then you prosecute the crime. You outlaw certain actions, not thoughts. If Scientologists are murdering people, you get them for murder. Being creepy and weird and thinking we're alien clams is their business.

Now, I don't personally give a f*sk. I wouldn't support it but I'm not going to lie awake at night thinking about poor Scientologists being persecuted. But, that doesn't make it right.

[Rotku]

And why the fuck did you have to go and change your name? I had to go through and change all the "Alara"s to "Veilan"s

But yes, so what is it about Scientology that puts it apart from other religions? Why ban that one and not Catholicism, or extreme Islam (to pick two out of a hat).

[hollyfant]

Any organisation that has as one of its core goals committing crimes, can be banned. Calling it a religious organisation doesn't cause an exemption to that.

Now, whether scientology (or indeed any other cult/sect/church/coven) falls in that category is another matter.

[HATEFACE]

How damaging a sect, cult or religion is depends entirely on how often the members touch base with reality. Call it a crazy vs. moderate ratio. Christianity is a larger religion and has more moderates involved in the faith, even holding semi-secular ideology the same being true for Islam, judeaism, hindu. I suppose you could try an experiment. Go to some church and start filming people. See if you get similiar treatment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPol_m8wm8Y

[Mulu]

"As far as I know of, no christians had to foreclose on their home and claim bankruptcy because of the amount they donate. "

I remember stories from the 80's concerning Falwell followers having to do so.

"If you said that, then you would have to protect radical Islam als well and could never ban a preacher inciting hate. Well, I'm not sure whether you can over there."

For it to qualify as a hate crime it would have to be directed to a suspect class. For it to qualify as inciting to riot it would have to be calling for immediate violent action. For it to qualify as treason it would have to be advocating the violent overthrow of the US government.

Do realize that extremist Christians are far scarier than any Scientologist. Haven't you seen Jesus Camp yet? Should all of Christianity be banned because of their hateful and sociopathic ways? (Well, I'd be okay with that).

[Grand Fromage]

For it to qualify as treason it would have to be advocating the violent overthrow of the US government.

No, you'd have to actually do something to qualify as treason. You can advocate the overthrow of the government or walk down the street with your "Death to America" sign all you want and it's perfectly legal. Bringing a rifle to a presidental speech is where you'd be crossing the line. This is all assuming a society where we actually follow constitutional law, anyway.

[Mulu]

Do you really want to argue the law with me? US Citizens have been prosecuted for treasonous speech and propaganda in the past, and indeed even in the war on terror. SCOTUS offers no 1st amendment protection for speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the US government. All you have to do to make a treason charge for speech is to define that speech as an overt act against the US.

Gillars provides an example of what an overt act can consist of in a treason prosecution. The indictment against Gillars (“Axis Sally,” to her Nazi employers) alleged, in part:

. . . [t]hat on a day between January 1, 1944 and June 6, 1944, the exact date to the Grand Jurors being unknown, said defendant, at Berlin, Germany, did speak into a microphone in a recording studio of the German Radio Broadcasting Company, and thereby did participate in a phonographic recording and cause to be phonographically recorded a radio drama entitled “Vision of Invasion,” said defendant then and there well knowing that said recorded radio drama was to be subsequently broadcast by the German Radio Broadcasting Company to the United States and to its citizens and soldiers at home and abroad as an element of German propaganda and an instrument of psychological warfare.
(Emphasis added.)

Now, "Death to America" wouldn't cross the threshold, but Al Qaida propaganda might. If you want to get technical about it, actual elements required to be satisfied are:

Speech becomes treason when it transcends mere words, ceasing to be communication alone, and satisfies the four requisites demanded by the Supreme Court: (1) an overt act, (2) testified to by two witnesses, (3) manifesting an intent to betray the United States (which can be inferred from the overt act itself), and (4) providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Anyway, that's off topic. The underlying premise here is that until a religious leader crosses a line of criminality there can be no criminal prosecution, and even then the prosecution would be of the individuals who broke the law, not of the church or system of belief itself. The FBI may have raided the Koresh compound, but they didn't do so because it was a cult. They did so because of criminal conduct. After all, they were technically Seventh Day Adventists.

[HATEFACE]

"As far as I know of, no christians had to foreclose on their home and claim bankruptcy because of the amount they donate. "

I remember stories from the 80's concerning Falwell followers having to do so.

Do realize that extremist Christians are far scarier than any Scientologist. Haven't you seen Jesus Camp yet? Should all of Christianity be banned because of their hateful and sociopathic ways? (Well, I'd be okay with that).

Falwell and Jesus Camp ahh. Yes, they are a scary bunch of rednecks with mullets fer sure. You might as well compare islam with radical islamic facists. Do you see a difference between Jesus camp and islamic jihad? Should all of islam be banned? Nah. (Would you be okay with that?)
I would like to see a few links regarding Falwell, ugh. You brought up general butt naked so Falwell should be perfectly fine. Did I show you moderate scientologists or just the extremists? I don't know, frankly, I don't want too know. I imagine if scientology has enough followers to rival christianity they would be far scarier. What with their fervered willingness to get rid of psychologists, medical drugs, need for censorship an' all. As for the treason thing, why don't you take the time and read the constitution, fundamentalist moonbat Mulu.

Can Reid be accused of treason for saying we lost?

[Grand Fromage]

Do you have an example outside of wartime? The government always comes down harder on people during war, even if it's illegal. Broadcasting pro-Nazi sentiments during WW2 is one thing; saying the government is corrupt and should be overthrown now is another. My understanding is that, other than that incident with the Alien and Sedition Act, you can say whatever you want about the government without breaking any laws.

[Mulu]

Treason is defined by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, non-law educated Helios.

[Mulu]

Do you have an example outside of wartime?

When are we not at war anymore? Bush has finally satisfied the 1984 vision of perpetual war by defining terrorists as enemy combatants instead of mere criminals.

The reason prosecutions are limited to wartime is because of the final prong, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You have to have an enemy to be giving aid and comfort to, which only exists during war, but with the new neverending war on terror that's a very easy prong to satisfy these days, especially for say a fundamentalist Muslim.

FWIW, despite my distaste of the Vietnam conflict, I agree with conservatives that Jane Fonda crossed the treason threshold as Hanoi Jane.

[HATEFACE]

Treason is defined by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, non-law educated Helios.

Oh great, "interpretation." We should just get a robot to run the supreme court.

FWIW, despite my distaste of the Vietnam conflict, I agree with conservatives that Jane Fonda crossed the treason threshold as Hanoi Jane.

This is going in my sig.

[Grand Fromage]

Do you have an example outside of wartime?

When are we not at war anymore? Bush has finally satisfied the 1984 vision of perpetual war by defining terrorists as enemy combatants instead of mere criminals.

Yes, but you didn't answer the question. There's 224 pre-Bush years of history for you to find an example in, other than other wars and Alien and Sedition era. I was never talking about wartime, so I want to know if my understanding was correct or not by looking at non-wartime precedent.

[Rusty]

John Brown, who was hanged for it, although that was treason against the state of Virginia.

Also, the United States is not at war.

[Lusipher]

Also, the United States is not at war.

Yes, Rusty, we are.