Well Done Belgium - Goodbye Scientology

LivelineDipso

Another reason to love this much under rated nation:

The Belgian government won't charge Scientology for being a cult — authorities are focusing on prosecuting it as a criminal organization. Which is a new twist, as most of the group's many court battles over the years have focused on establishing its legitimacy as a religion.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/12/belgium-scientology-charges/60398/

Iwasfrozen

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Another reason to love this much under rated nation:



http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/12/belgium-scientology-charges/60398/

What ever you think about Scientology or it's dubious practices people should be allowed to worship what they want.

Pottler

Read this earlier. Well done Belgium, if they keep this up, they might even get around to prosecuting some of their paedo rings. Also, I LOLed at the "worship" bit. Surely you mean "buy"?

beaner88

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What ever you think about Scientology or it's dubious practices people should be allowed to worship what they want.

You'd have no problem with people sacrificing local kids to their satanic lord once it was a religious event?

Crimes are crimes.

My name is URL

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What ever you think about Scientology or it's dubious practices people should be allowed to worship what they want.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. The CoS is a criminal organisation and should be treated as such. It's been shown plenty of times in the past. They're responsible for the biggest breach of US security in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

People can worship what they want, but that shouldn't give free reign to those involved to do what they like.

ITS_A_BADGER

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What ever you think about Scientology or it's dubious practices people should be allowed to worship what they want.

I argree with you about letting people worship what ever religion they want. But if you read up more about scientology you might change your mind about allowing people to pratice it

Benny_Cake

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What ever you think about Scientology or it's dubious practices people should be allowed to worship what they want.

It appears that the Belgians are simply going after the business operations of Scientology so that the organisation won't be able to operate there (which makes a lot more sense than trying to introduce anti-cult laws).I'm sure that individual Scientologists will be able to practise whatever they like.

MagicMarker

As soon as we do the same to Catholicism then we're laughing.

Biggins

(Reposting something I said elsewhere)

The cult will also now have to make up their mind – are they going to continue to say their are a ‘religion’ or are they going to say their are a group that supposedly is of a medical nature? Certainly they need first to make their own minds up before defending any cases they will have to answer to in a court!

In the annals of history – they are the first ‘religion’ that has an official army, a armed navy, a supposedly medical practise, hundreds of full-time investigators, a UFO landing pad, a city (Clearwater, USA) that is owned mostly by them filled with tower-blocks of many lawyers, financial investment staff/groups, open/hidden companies and subsidiaries under further masked names!

mikemac1

Only took eight posts for someone to drag in Catholicism

Fr_Dougal

Biggins wrote: »

(Reposting something I said elsewhere)

The cult will also now have to make up their mind – are they going to continue to say their are a ‘religion’ or are they going to say their are a group that supposedly is of a medical nature? Certainly they need first to make their own minds up before defending any cases they will have to answer to in a court!

In the annals of history – they are the first ‘religion’ that has an official army, a armed navy, a supposedly medical practise, hundreds of full-time investigators, a UFO landing pad, a city (Clearwater, USA) that is owned mostly by them filled with tower-blocks of many lawyers, financial investment staff/groups, open/hidden companies and subsidiaries under further masked names!

Either way, if someone libels/defames/whatever them here on boards, they could, if they choose, bring Boards.ie Ltd to court over it under the Defamation Act of 2009 if Boards allows users to defame the organisation.

ColeTrain

Jack Reacher will be deployed into Belgium now.

Biggins

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Either way, if someone libels/defames/whatever them here on boards, they could, if they choose, bring Boards.ie Ltd to court over it under the Defamation Act of 2009 if Boards allows users to defame the organisation.

Let me be the first to say then that they have been shown to be (and its on historic record) involved in:

Crook activity - USA
Kidnapping - Italy
Possible murder - USA, Europe.
Fraud (with and without their once founder) - USA, France.
Government infiltrating - USA, France, Germany.
Illegal business activities - Russia
Operating under false pretences - Greece
Theft - France.
Tax evasion and establishing an illegal organization - Spain.
Court tampering - France
Liable - Canada
Broke anti-racketeering laws - USA
Involuntary homicide - France
Criminal association - Italy
Spying - USA, Greece
Assault, extortion, kidnapping, defamation, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, and racketeering - USA


Just to begin with...

Further details of their MANY illegal actives are found here: http://factnet.org/node/1415/

Let them sue me - "...and the truth shall set me free!"

"Since 1986 authorities in France, Spain and Italy have raided more than 50 Scientology centers. Pending charges against more than 100 of its overseas church members include fraud, extortion, capital flight, coercion, illegally practicing medicine and taking advantage of mentally incapacitated people."
- Time Magazine, May 6, 1991

Source: http://www.scientology-lies.com/press/time/thriving-cult-greed-power.html

xper

Biggins wrote: »

In the annals of history – they are the first ‘religion’ that has an official army, a armed navy, a supposedly medical practise, hundreds of full-time investigators, a UFO landing pad, a city (Clearwater, USA) that is owned mostly by them filled with tower-blocks of many lawyers, financial investment staff/groups, open/hidden companies and subsidiaries under further masked names!

The Vatican has had all of those! Still has most of them.

Well, okay, maybe not the UFO landing pad but I am sure St. Peter's Square would suffice with a few adjustments!

Pottler

Biggins wrote: »

Let me be the first to say then that they have been shown to be (and its on historic record) involved in:

Crook activity - USA
Kidnapping - Italy
Possible murder - USA, Europe.
Fraud (with and without their once founder) - USA, France.
Government infiltrating - USA, France, Germany.
Illegal business activities - Russia
Operating under false pretences - Greece
Theft - France.
Tax evasion and establishing an illegal organization - Spain.
Court tampering - France
Liable - Canada
Broke anti-racketeering laws - USA
Involuntary homicide - France
Criminal association - Italy
Spying - USA, Greece
Assault, extortion, kidnapping, defamation, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, and racketeering - USA


Just to begin with...

Further details of their MANY illegal actives are found here: http://factnet.org/node/1415/

Let them sue me - "...and the truth shall set me free!"

That's all great but surely there must be some negatives to Scientology Biggins?

Biggins

Pottler wrote: »

That's all great but surely there must be some negatives Biggins?

No free Jelly Babies!

books4sale

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What ever you think about Scientology or it's dubious practices people should be allowed to worship what they want.

There is nothing to think about.

If you had bothered to read the article instead of typing out your whingy sh*te then you might understand that this has nothing to do with what people should be allowed to worship.

They are being charged as a criminal organisation for the following...

"charges of extortion, fraud, privacy breaches, and the illegal practice of medicine."

...about time!

Pottler

books4sale wrote: »

There is nothing to think about.

If you had bothered to read the article instead of typing out your whingy sh*te then you might understand that this has nothing to do with what people should be allowed to worship.

They are being charged as a criminal organisation for the following...

"charges of extortion, fraud, privacy breaches, and the illegal practice of medicine."

...about time!

Tom Cruise is supposedly doing their next Belgian PR campaign, it's being provisionally called "Mission Impossible 7 ; Defending the indefensible".

Chuck Stone

Will any country have the balls to outlaw hacking the foreskin of baby boys?
yeah balls

nocoverart

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Will any country have the balls to outlaw hacking the foreskin of baby boys?
yeah balls

Speaking of balls, Belgium have a great football team too!

philologos

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Another reason to love this much under rated nation:



http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/12/belgium-scientology-charges/60398/

I disagree with banning any religion its highly illiberal. If profits are made it should be taxed but impeding religious freedom is in violation with human rights law, I can imagine this easily going to the European Court of Human Rights if passed.

Pottler

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Will any country have the balls to outlaw hacking the foreskin of baby boys?
yeah balls

Doubtful, people will always find some way to circumcise the ban.

JonathanAnon

Does this mean that anybody caught jumping on a couch will be arrested?

ColeTrain

philologos wrote: »

I disagree with banning any religion its highly illiberal. If profits are made it should be taxed but impeding religious freedom is in violation with human rights law, I can imagine this easily going to the European Court of Human Rights if passed.

Admit it, you want Scientology fully legalised because it makes Christianity look half decent in comparison.

Pottler

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Does this mean that anybody caught jumping on a couch will be arrested?

Oprah time will tell.

philologos

ColeTrain wrote: »

Admit it, you want Scientology fully legalised because it makes Christianity look half decent in comparison.

I support the freedom of conscience whether that is for believers or non-believers in society.

Cienciano

Well done Belgium, would love if other EU countries did the same.

Pottler

philologos wrote: »

I support the freedom of conscience whether that is for believers or non-believers in society.

So now. No arguing with that, is there. Ah well, and we were having such fun. Anything good on the telly?

Shryke

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Will any country have the balls to outlaw hacking the foreskin of baby boys?
yeah balls

I doubt Germany will be falling over themselves.

Biggins

Just out of curiosity philologos - and I ask this of you because of your clear admirable strong faith, not as an attempt to have a go at you on any way, shape of form - how do you feel about Scientology hi-jacking the cross of Jesus symbol and incorporating it into their symbolism as to try portraying themselves further as a religion?

Myself, even as an atheist, I consider their act despicable and does no justice to the true believers of the Catholic faith or those that have it genuinely incorporated into their religion based on actual usage by the god they follow.

Pottler

Shryke wrote: »

I doubt Germany will be falling over themselves.

Well, they used to think they had a final solution to the issue, but they've gone a bit quiet lately. Which is probably for the best. It wasn't their(or anyones)finest moment first time round.

Biggins, I know the thread is about commercialised religions, but calling it the "Catholic Fair" is pushing it too far. Although the Vatican bank might agree with you.

Duck Soup

All this, and Eden Hazard. Helluva nation.

Biggins

Pottler wrote: »

...Biggins, I know the thread is about commercialised religions, but calling it the "Catholic Fair" is pushing it too far. Although the Vatican bank might agree with you.

I apologise for an above error.

The above post contained a typing error which is now changed to reflect a genuine question.

Adyx

philologos wrote: »

I disagree with banning any religion its highly illiberal. If profits are made it should be taxed but impeding religious freedom is in violation with human rights law, I can imagine this easily going to the European Court of Human Rights if passed.

But it's not a religion in Belgium (or most other European countries) so no religious freedom is being impeded.

Pottler

Biggins wrote: »

I apologise for an above error.

The above post contained a typing error which is now changed to reflect a genuine question.

I'll go back and edit mine, which contained traces of complete messing.

philologos

Biggins wrote: »

Just out of curiosity philologos - and I ask this of you because of your clear admirable strong faith, not as an attempt to have a go at you on any way, shape of form - how do you feel about Scientology hi-jacking the cross of Jesus symbol and incorporating it into their symbolism as to try portraying themselves further as a religion?

Myself, even as an atheist, I consider their act despicable and does no justice to the true believers of the Catholic faith or those that have it genuinely incorporated into their religion based on actual usage by the god they follow.

Scientology isn't a threat to the cross. There's no formal copyright in respect to the cross. There's historical evidence in terms of Jesus being crucified. That's why we use it.

I recognise that people have the fundamental right to believe whatever they like or disbelieve whatever they like. I might think that a lot of what other people believe is false but that doesn't detract from their fundamental liberties to freedom of conscience.

philologos

Adyx wrote: »

But it's not a religion in Belgium (or most other European countries) so no religious freedom is being impeded.

The freedom of people to believe in Scientology at a European level could be argued to be in violation of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. It doesn't matter if Belgium doesn't recognise it. If Ireland refused to recognise Judaism and banned the existence of synagogues that would be about as illiberal.

Biggins

philologos wrote: »

Scientology isn't a threat to the cross. There's no formal copyright in respect to the cross. There's historical evidence in terms of Jesus being crucified. That's why we use it.

I recognise that people have the fundamental right to believe whatever they like or disbelieve whatever they like. I might think that a lot of what other people believe is false but that doesn't detract from their fundamental liberties to freedom of conscience.

I recognise that people have the fundamental right to believe whatever they like or disbelieve too.

I don't consider Scientology a threat to your faith either ...but I was just wondering how one as your (being strong in faith) good-self feels about others stealing the symbol of Jesus crucifix for possible fraudulent and/or misleading means?

Pottler

philologos wrote: »

The freedom of people to believe in Scientology at a European level could be argued to be in violation of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. It doesn't matter if Belgium doesn't recognise it. If Ireland refused to recognise Judaism and banned the existence of synagogues that would be about as illiberal.

if we're going to be all serious, you might want to re-phrase that.:)

philologos

Pottler wrote: »

if we're going to be all serious, you might want to re-phrase that.:)

Ok. According to European Union standards Belgium could still get a slap on the wrist irrespective of what religion it doesn't recognise

Adyx

philologos wrote: »

The freedom of people to believe in Scientology at a European level could be argued to be in violation of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. It doesn't matter if Belgium doesn't recognise it. If Ireland refused to recognise Judaism and banned the existence of synagogues that would be about as illiberal.

Nothing stopping people believing in it at any level. It's just not afforded the ridiculous financial and legal liberties other organised religions are.

philologos

Pottler wrote: »

if we're going to be all serious, you might want to re-phrase that.:)

Ok. According to European Union standards Belgium could still get a slap on the wrist irrespective of what religion it doesn't recognise

philologos

Adyx wrote: »

Nothing stopping people believing in it at any level. It's just not afforded the ridiculous financial and legal liberties other organised religions are.

I have no issue with taxing religions that clearly profit, rather than using their donations to further their beliefs or through other charitable efforts.

I also don't think the State has any role in prohibiting the construction of buildings for worship of any kind. Prohibiting people meeting together for religious or philosophical purposes is in my view wrong.

Pottler

philologos wrote: »

Ok. According to European Union standards Belgium could still get a slap on the wrist irrespective of what religion it doesn't recognise

We've done that. I got it the first time, and what you originally posted. You left out the word "denial", which changed the meaning of what you posted totally.

Also, you're wasting your time trying to convince me, I've a lifelong friend who is a chief theologian for the vatican and one of its foremost experts on Canon law, (he's even a facebook friend how funny is that)and I still prefer KFC and "Love, Hate" than arguing crap on religion.

More time is wasted arguing bullsh1t theology, believe whatever you want, so will I, and I wont make you believe anything you don't want to, leave me believe what I want. Unless it has anything got to do with Scientology, because that's just a HUGE scam for the gullible, and someone has to look out for gullible Belgians(and others).:) Also, total cop out on the "tax" front there mate, pull the other one, I might be a messer, but I'm not a dummie. "Charitable" - go on.

Biggins

philologos wrote: »

...Prohibiting people meeting together for religious or philosophical purposes is in my view wrong.

...And I agree.

Scientology however sadly is trying to either portray itself as a religion while also trying to portray itself as expert practitioners in medical science as well.
...All this while directly dipping into your pocket by serious pressure selling too by either countless endless levels, always continuously updated books and treatments that they espouse that you always need.

Question to the Scientology cult:

Are ye all a religion?
A book club?
An education establishment?
A medical service?
An army?
A navy?
An investigation unit?
A massive bunch of lawyers?

Pottler

philologos wrote: »

I have no issue with taxing religions that clearly profit, rather than using their donations to further their beliefs or through other charitable efforts.

I also don't think the State has any role in prohibiting the construction of buildings for worship of any kind. Prohibiting people meeting together for religious or philosophical purposes is in my view wrong.

Also, if you really want me to tear you a new one on the "Catholic Church, its business practices, finances, associates, history and teachings, loose interpretation of the bible, treatment of women and humanity", I will, gladly. You might be sorry though.:)

philologos

Pottler wrote: »

We've done that. I got it the first time, and what you originally posted. You left out the word "denial", which changed the meaning of what you posted totally.

Also, you're wasting your time trying to convince me, I've a lifelong friend who is a chief theologian for the vatican and one of its foremost experts on Canon law, (he's even a facebook friend how funny is that)and I still prefer KFC and "Love, Hate" than arguing crap on religion.

More time is wasted arguing bullsh1t theology, believe whatever you want, so will I, and I wont make you believe anything you don't want to, leave me believe what I want. Unless it has anything got to do with Scientology, because that's just a HUGE scam for the gullible, and someone has to look out for gullible Belgians(and others).:) Also, total cop out on the "tax" front there mate, pull the other one, I might be a messer, but I'm not a dummie. "Charitable" - go on.

It's great that you've got a mate who is a smart theologian, but my point is about the human right to freedom of religion irrespective of how ludicrous I find it.

That includes for Scientology. There should be no exception to the freedom of conscience in society.

philologos

Pottler wrote: »

Also, if you really want me to tear you a new one on the "Catholic Church, its business practices, finances, associates, history and teachings, loose interpretation of the bible, treatment of women and humanity", I will, gladly. You might be sorry though.:)

Why would you tear a non-Catholic "a new one" over the Catholic Church?

By the by that's hardly language that has a place in a civil discussion.

amadain17

philologos wrote: »

There's historical evidence in terms of Jesus being crucified. That's why we use it. .

No there isn't. If there is then produce the evidence. Its not documented in any official documents and is only present in the gospels that Constantine agreed to be part of his theocracy. These gospels were written anonymously decades after the alleged event and are contradicted by the totally different 'Jesus is not god and did no miracles and did not die on a cross' gnostic gospels

Biggins

Just for clarity folks, I post the following.
It was from a Sunday Times article on the 20th of December, 2012.
Source: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3636076.ece

It might provide clarity as to thats more genuine than what cults might wish to portray themselves as for the sake of money raking...

A judge has refused a member of the Church of Scientology the right to marry in a Scientology chapel because it is not a place of “religious worship” and the movement is “a philosophy concerned with man”.
Louisa Hodkin, 23, had challenged a refusal by the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in England and Wales to register the chapel in Queen Victoria Street, Central London, for weddings.

Mr Justice Ouseley, at the High Court in London, backed the registrar’s decision and dismissed the challenge but referred the matter to the Supreme Court for a final judgment.

"...“a philosophy concerned with man” - not with a a god/spiritual being.

Ms Hodkin and her fiancé wanted similarly to celebrate their marriage through a legally recognised Scientology wedding in London, surrounded by their families and fellow church volunteers, he said. But a casework manager for the registrar said that such a wedding could not be recognised because of a 1970 case, Segerdal, in the Court of Appeal.

Judges in that case ruled that another Scientology chapel was not a meeting place for religious worship because its services involved “instructions in the tenets of a philosophy concerned with man” and were not concerned with religious worship.

Pottler

philologos wrote: »

Why would you tear a non-Catholic "a new one" over the Catholic Church?

By the by that's hardly language that has a place in a civil discussion.

Who ever claimed to be "civil"? I'm barely allowed in the house unless they put down newspaper.