I've been drinking, so "beer" with me here
:
TSE, I'm going to have to actually go against you on this one.
<hires people to stalk you>
All kidding aside, I like it when folks disagree with me. This gives all of us a chance to discuss issues which we may not have completely developed opinions about. I like disagreements, as long as the person disagreeing isn't as smart as me, in which case we ban them.
Banning Scientology isn't actually removing individual freedoms, if the reports and the accusations against the "church" are even remotely accurate.
I think it's quite obvious that the accusations are true.
My perspective however is that those conducting the 'fair game' attacks against the dissenters should be the ones punished, not the entirety of the 'church'. People are entitled to believe whatever they wish to believe, no matter how retarded it is. Removing a group of people's right to worship is a dangerous path to travel down.
Granted, being a member of their [cult] is voluntary, initially, leaving them apparently does not result in a clean break.
Aye, you won't see me signing up anytime soon, but you must admit using a convicted sex offender as a source wasn't the brightest idea on the BBC's part. I think that they were hip to the idea it would piss off the
Scientologists and provoke a reaction.
They voluntarily joined and after voluntarily departing, they should be allowed certain legal protections from harassment. These protections shouldn't (in my mind) amount to "banning" anything except harassing private citizens.
And as far as the 'Church' of
Scientology committing 'fair game' attacks, it seems like bad business on their part. Anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together knows that if they would shut the hell up and keep their heads down, they wouldn't be constantly subjected to questions about their authenticity as a 'church'. The fact that they harassed a BBC journalist as they did shows in my opinion just how deep their psychosis goes.
Furthermore, sacrifices must be made in order to even become a Scientologist, which includes the surrender of some freedoms. By Germany banning their [cult] the government is merely securing the freedom of its people by preventing individual voluntary relinquishing of freedoms.
Right, those freedoms are surrendered willingly however. Individuals may chose to take them back or not at any moment.
To make an example: You have a right to drink if you like (presuming you are of age in the States). However once you drink enough to have a blood alcohol content of 0.08, you surrender your right to drive. You voluntarily surrendered your freedom to operate a vehicle, that does not mean that the government has the right to take away your alcohol to insure you don't drink and drive.
However, what would you do if a public [cult] known to harrass and cause problems were trying to secure a foothold on your land?
What would I do? To give a short answer to a long question: Nothing.
As long as the objective of the 'church' isn't to commit illegal acts, it would be an acceptable institution in "Edgelandia". Considering the cause of the previous BBC documentary was the 'church' seeking tax exempt status, my long term answer would be give no religious institution tax exempt status.
Perhaps an expansion of harassment laws would also be in order, but beyond that I don't see what actions could be taken to maximize individual freedom. People will believe what they want to believe, who are you, myself, or Germany to say what an acceptable belief is? If I know anything it's that country's can't effectively control much of anything, I wouldn't trust them with my religion.
my $0.02
