German historian likens Cruise speech to Nazi propagandist, Goebbels

[Pawn Power]

· Footage of actor 'recalls notorious speech'
· Critics say Scientology is anti-constitutional


The long-standing antagonism between Germany and the Church of Scientology escalated over the weekend when a high-profile historian compared Tom Cruise's performance in a Scientology video with the style of the Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels.Guido Knopp, who has written a number of books on Hitler and his inner circle, said the video, which surfaced on YouTube last week, "inevitably" recalled Goebbels' speech in a Berlin sports stadium when he asked "Do you want total war?" and the crowd thundered "Yes!"
The Scientology footage shows Cruise, wearing a large medallion and speaking from a podium. "So what do you say, we gonna clean this place up?" he asks. He is greeted by zealous cheers.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2244151,00.html

[RedAnarchist]

I dislike Scientology a lot. Not only is it even more idiotic and cultish than more mainstream religions, its a load of crap created by a science fiction writer. If they believe in Scientology, then why not believe in stuff from other sci-fi literature and films?

[lvatt]

I dislike Scientology a lot. Not only is it even more idiotic and cultish than more mainstream religions, its a load of crap created by a science fiction writer. If they believe in Scientology, then why not believe in stuff from other sci-fi literature and films?

In my mind, I see scientology more as a danger than an idiotic cult. There are many terrifying stories of brainwashing and even kidnapping that have been spreading around.

If you've got the stomach for it, look up Roxanne Friend for a gut-wrenching tale from a woman who later died from untreated cancer. Her court affidavits describing her ordeal are all over the net.

I don't think I can blame someone for being taken in this stuff. In my mind, they are victims of a ruthless capitalistic enterprise.

[pusher robot]

· Footage of actor 'recalls notorious speech'
· Critics say Scientology is anti-constitutional


http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2244151,00.html

Scientoligists are idiots, but they have the right to be idiots if they want to.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Scientoligists are idiots, but they have the right to be idiots if they want to.
One right they certainly do not have, however, is to be a commercial business and a religion at the same time. Religious organizations should not have the right to charge money for their services.

[Dean]

This reminds me of the ADL and their double-standard with holocaust references. When the holocaust is brought up to defend Zionist militism or in comparison to anti-Israeli terrorism, it is considered acceptable, whereas other comparisons are considered to "belittle" the tragedy. It seems that anything that doesn't further a racist, pro-Israeli stance, in the eyes of the so-called ADL, has no right to call upon Nazism or the Holocaust as a point of reference.

[pusher robot]

One right they certainly do not have, however, is to be a commercial business and a religion at the same time. Religious organizations should not have the right to charge money for their services.

Why not?

[Demogorgon]

Why not?

Watch them in action. They want to be a religion for tax purposes and a corporation for intellectual property and other reasons. Persoanlly I don;t think religions should get tax exempt status and obviusly don't think corporations should get the multiple priviidges they do. But we do not live in such a world. When you see scientology's ability to ruin people'slives for disagreeing with what they do, any sane person is going to have to include there is a problem somewhere along the line

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why not?
Well, being a communist and all, I don't think any private businesses should exist, so obviously religions shouldn't be able to act like private businesses.

But I suspect you were looking for a more specific answer than that. Very well. First, as Demogorgon pointed out, Scientology is trying to have its cake and eat it too - it tries to be a legal hybrid, claiming to be a religion for the purpose of getting tax exemptions and the protection of freedom of worship laws, while acting like a for-profit corporation and virulently enforcing its copyrights. Basically it tries to get the benefits of being a non-profit charity and a for-profit company at the same time.

Second, and more broadly, the legitimacy of a religious organization is derived solely from its claims to bring enlightenment to the world as a gesture of altruism. No doubt you've heard many of our militant atheists here on revleft argue that various religions exist only for the purpose of accumulating power and wealth. That is a very real concern, and religions should be held accountable if they are too interested in wealth and power. A truly legitimate religion must not be concerned with accumulating power and wealth; a religion's legitimacy is directly proportional to its willingness to renounce such worldly matters. The more a religious organization gets involved in politics and finance, the more suspicious its motives and the stronger the case that its activities should be regulated.

[Publius]

Why not?

Well, to be honest, I don't think any distinction should be made -- tax churches.

If they have a charity wing, don't tax that, but tax the other stuff.

[Don't Change Your Name]

The real problem with scientology is that it has behaved as some kind of criminal organization in the past. If you consider this, then this discussion would be irrelevant when it comes to scientology because it shouldn't be allowed to do anything! In fact a lot of people refuses to consider scientology be a religion.

[Tower of Bebel]

Guido Knopp is a well known and good historian. Tom Cruise is shit. Scientology is forbidden in belgium since 2007.

[Phalanx]

Well, at least Europe is standing up to the lunatics.

Then again, Tom Cruise is only an actor, and being notoriously stupid, he can't do too much damage.

[Dean]

Well, at least Europe is standing up to the lunatics.

Then again, Tom Cruise is only an actor, and being notoriously stupid, he can't do too much damage.

He's considered a very powerful member of the "church" of scientology. I think he can do damage, especially if the common people respect him & his "religion."

[Lenin II]

His religion is no more nonsensical than one that believes in talking snakes and magic cursed apples. If people may be fooled into believing that, then there is a true and present danger from Scientology. The Church long ago established itself as a firmly aristocratic criminal organization that embraces the usually exploitive “tithe-crazy” Catholicist mindset ten-fold to become an unscrupulous organization that harasses and exploits all its masochistic members to the fullest. The seduction of religion is one of the most poignant of all, and they continue to promote themselves through their wealthy members in Hollywood. The fact is that the masses may begin to stop taking antidepressants and much-needed medication and begin paying hundreds to thousands of dollars for snake oil tests for alien spirits clinging to their consciousness that make them unhappy. Combine this threat with an obsessive hatred of science and intolerant anti-intellectualism not seen since the days of Pol Pot and the Spanish Inquisition and you have a genuine danger to the working class.

[pusher robot]

Second, and more broadly, the legitimacy of a religious organization is derived solely from its claims to bring enlightenment to the world as a gesture of altruism. No doubt you've heard many of our militant atheists here on revleft argue that various religions exist only for the purpose of accumulating power and wealth. That is a very real concern, and religions should be held accountable if they are too interested in wealth and power. A truly legitimate religion must not be concerned with accumulating power and wealth; a religion's legitimacy is directly proportional to its willingness to renounce such worldly matters. The more a religious organization gets involved in politics and finance, the more suspicious its motives and the stronger the case that its activities should be regulated.

All true. However, we've already established that churchgoers - by the very fact of their religiosity - eschew rationality. If they aren't concerned about any of these facets of their religion, what business is it of anyone else's? I personally don't care if their church exploits the shit out of them; they're free to choose differently if it bothers them.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

All true. However, we've already established that churchgoers - by the very fact of their religiosity - eschew rationality.
As a rational Christian, I beg to differ. We have established nothing of the sort. Perhaps you'd care to debate your point.


If they aren't concerned about any of these facets of their religion, what business is it of anyone else's? I personally don't care if their church exploits the shit out of them; they're free to choose differently if it bothers them.
There is no such thing as a freedom to choose to be exploited any more than there is a freedom to sell oneself into slavery.

Apparently you don't care about the exploitation and oppression of others as long as it doesn't affect you personally. Now I know why you are a capitalist.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

And here's another Cruise Scientology video: http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress

I can't believe this crap was actually made by Scientology itself for the purpose of being distributed among its members. Cruise makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I love the psychotic laugh though.

[pusher robot]

[quote=Edric O;1059914]As a rational Christian, I beg to differ. We have established nothing of the sort. Perhaps you'd care to debate your point.

The heart of any religion is "faith" in the unknown or - more often - the unknowable. This is not rational. Even worse is faith in the counterfactual.


There is no such thing as a freedom to choose to be exploited any more than there is a freedom to sell oneself into slavery.

I'd agree about slavery, because that's clearly a logical impossibility - the definition of a "slave" is precisely one who has no choice. But there's nothing inherent in the definition of exploitation that precludes exploitation from being the result of personal choices.



Apparently you don't care about the exploitation and oppression of others as long as it doesn't affect you personally. Now I know why you are a capitalist.
I don't care so long as it's the result of personal choice, because personal choice is more important to me.

[lvatt]

All true. However, we've already established that churchgoers - by the very fact of their religiosity - eschew rationality. If they aren't concerned about any of these facets of their religion, what business is it of anyone else's? I personally don't care if their church exploits the shit out of them; they're free to choose differently if it bothers them.

I don't feel like getting in a piss fight with you, but I have to comment on the bolded part of your post. By the way, this post is not directed toward you personally, its just that your post made me want to say something. Maybe you're beyond that and maybe I misunderstood your point, but if I did, then this post is intended for the people who believe what I think it is you meant by your post.

Saying that people brainwashed by some cult (I consider any religious movement a cult, but that's just my opinion) are just free to get out is a fantasy. More often than not, they aren't free to get out. Sometimes, like in Scientology, because they're going to be harrassed to death if they do (and because the damage auditing does on their brain). But sometimes, like in Christianity, its because of the archaic ideas they get imprinted on their brain.

Now, you ask... what business is it of ours if those people have weird ideas such as "homosexuality is a sin and must be cured for salvation?" Of course, not all christians believe that, but those who don't are usually one step away from becoming atheists anyway. But for those who actually do believe those things... I mean, after all, it's just their opinion, right?

Wrong.

Those people don't live in cages. They participate in society. And more importantly, they have children. What happens if one of those kids is gay? Even if the parents don't know the kid is gay, just by constantly warning him against the dangers of homosexuality, they will make him feel like an outcast. They are going to make him feel like he is a failure, a malfunction, that somehow there is "something wrong with thim." Children are extremely sensible and very easy to hurt. This kind of situation can be absolutely devastating.

If he lives through to adulthood (which, sometimes, they don't), he's going to have to deal with years (and sometimes a lifetime) of emotional problems, social anxiety, etc. This is a life that was taken away from someone, right there. And sometimes, the parents don't even realize what they've done, because of their idiotic beliefs.

People's opinions have an effect on everyone. Innocent lives are victimized because of it.

I'm going to give you an example you've probably heard of (because it happened many times, but I'll tell you about one particular incident). Some years ago, there was a case in the Superior Court of Montreal (which is a federal common law court) where parents were being charged with manslaughter. If you want the reference number of the case I could find it for you if I look in my files, although I believe the text of the judge's decision is only in french.

Anyway, they were religious parents. Very christians. Fundamentalists, even. Now, their kid had diabetes, and needed insulin for the rest of his life. That's a tough blow to accept. Very tough for parents who love their kids (because its possible to hurt a kid even if you love him/her).

So they they begin the kid's insulin treatment. All goes well until, one night, the mother dreams of jesus talking to her. In her dream, jesus says that with her prayers, he will cure their kid and he will never have to take insulin again. You can guess what happened next. The mother was convinced that prayer, not insulin, would heal her kid.

So she stopped giving him the insulin. Very soon after, the kid feel extremely sick, and the parents took him to the hospital. The doctor was furious and made the mother promise that she will never, ever take her kid away from the insulin even if Jesus appears to her or whatever. The mother promised

So they went back home, and the kid was given his insulin again. He gradually began getting better, until, at some point, the mother had another dream of jesus telling her that only prayer will heal her son.

You can guess what happened. The mother, for a second time, stopped the insulin treatment. This time, the kid died.

You can say that the mother had a psychiatric disorder. That's a possibility, but its not an excuse for religious beliefs of parents harming their kids. What about Jehovah's witnesses who refuse blood transfusions? They not only refuse them for themselves, but for their kids as well. And we're not talking about morons here, they can be rational and intelligent people. There's just a problem - they're religious. And their religiousness ends up hurting the people around them, sometimes costing the lives of those who depend on them.

Sorry for the long post, but... what I mean is... it does matter what people believe. It does matter if the world is filled with people who take the bible literally. It's a freaking tragedy, that's what it is.

[pusher robot]

Sorry for the long post, but... what I mean is... it does matter what people believe. It does matter if the world is filled with people who take the bible literally. It's a freaking tragedy, that's what it is.

I don't think we really disagree; except maybe that I am willing to tolerate the tragedy for the benefit of the freedom to retain that prerogative for myself.

[Dean]

I don't think we really disagree; except maybe that I am willing to tolerate the tragedy for the benefit of the freedom to retain that prerogative for myself.

being free to be a part of self-destructive mentalities, or allowing such freedoms, is different than taking measures against them. Recognizing that thought patterns do in fact help mold society when it comes to important social rights issues doesn't mean that you want to prohibit thought patterns. Seeking and end to something doesn't mean forcing individuals from participating in it.