Germany is seeking to ban Scientology

Hardly a first for you but you're wrong:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health...-effective.html

no it wouldn't. Then people would just find another excuse to 'fight'. It's not the religions, it's the people that are the problem - ban all people is what I say!!!

Sure, but my point was in regards to the church's position on the well being of children, and whether the well being of children takes a back seat compared to ideology. If you would like to debate this, instead of being pedantic, that would be welcome.

On second thought, no it wouldn’t… I really doubt you’ll be convinced one way or another. I encourage you to research for yourself whether children perform well when raised in a loving same-sex couple environment. If you decide it still shouldn’t be allowed, and that children should be in orphanages or shuffled around through foster care based on your personal biases, fine. You are welcome to try to create whatever society suits your vision.

And of course, women who want to prevent pregnancy in case of rape should...

Uh , listen pal , you're a bigotted one-eyed presumtious idiot. The evidence is as above. Kindly keep your "pedantic" accusations along with the rest of your presumptions.

If you wish to refute this - then kindly post proof of this personal bias.

So you can conduct a complex analysis matching up dates and times of a woman's cycle and a calender, but to simply stick a bit of latex on your cock to be sure about it is forbidden.

That just highlights a complete lack of logic that religion is renowned for. Either allow contraception or don't. Why allow one way and ban another? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, you'll find that the rhythm method is not going to stop the spread of STD's

And of course, women who want to prevent rape in bars should... stay out of bars???

Next stop , Saudi Arabia.

STDs are only for gays and unmarried people, it's god's punishment don't you know. If people followed the bible, there would be no STDs

I agree completely.

Religion is the root of all evil.

Oh please.

And who is behind those religions?? PEOPLE. If it's not that, it will be something else...you can be sure of that. People will always find a reason to do bad things. Religion is not the cause of it, it is one of a number of excuses used by PEOPLE wanting to start wars, judge others/think of themselves as better, possess power over others, steal, kill, etc. etc. etc.

Actually all of the things that religion is against.

True, It not the actual religion that is evil, but sectors (lobbies) within the religious Institutions and the individuals who hijack religion for there own personal gain/ideology.

Back on Topic. I agree with the German Ruling that Scientology should not be banned. If people want to enrol in any Sect/Religion etc ,then thats their choice. However, where the Law does need to come in very very strongly is when people are prevented from leaving said institution, or intimidated in anyway that interferes with their freedom of choice. Then the Authorities should have the power to throw the book at them. For me, this is where the real issue is, and one that is continuously overlooked and ignored. We say that people have the right to enter any organisation... yet it seeams to be the other way round if they try to leave

But somehow get forgotten when the other people practice a different flavour.

Like those people who want to leave the church and stop paying church tax to actually have to pay a fee for doing so and then get nasty letters from the local parishiner with threats of hell...

Well, I was trying to turn a common phrase on its ear, to make a joke, but I guess you don't get my subtle humour.

Of course people are the source of these things, including god(s), and religion is an excuse.

However, do you think that there would even be jihadists if some Muslims were not taught that all non-Muslim are infidels, and that suicidal killings of infidels are a sure way to heaven and martyrdom? What are your thoughts about Christianity: does it need to be brought to the pagans, so that they may be saved from buring in hell, as many Christians believe?

Sure, people created these cults, which became these religions. And some people will try to do bad/evil things (I'll leave the definition of bad or evil up to the reader). But banning religion outright would, in my opinion, bring a level of peace to the world which us humans have never seen before.

Ok, in your last sentence, I really don't know what the "this" is I should be refuting. Again, I clearly made my point that the church puts the well being of children as a lower priority below its current ideology. This is in response to a post where you pointed out that dual parent households, as have been advocated by the church, are the best for children. My point is, maybe so, but lets not pretend that is why they area advocating them, because they also advocate things which are known to be bad for children (namely, preventing adoption into loving same sex households)


You’re missing my point, which was that your recommendation fails miserably when applied to the situation of rape. And the ideology has no answers there other than “too bad for you, deal with it�.

This is the common thread among the two points, if you haven’t noticed. For those who are ‘lucky’ everything is happy and fine… but for the percentage of people who get a bad set of cards (not being adopted, being raped, etc)…. Life isn’t so great.

I disagree JB, because I don't think that those reasons are ever really the actual motivation behind those actions, I think it's used as a justification, something humans do a lot - I may have hurt xyz but they are a bad person so it's ok, they hurt me first etc. etc.

The end of religion would not see a more loving, accepting human race (if it did, I would be the first to embrace it), because the motivation within each of those people who choose to act in such a way hasn't been taken away. It tends to stem from other things and fundamentalism (within any type of religion) or a certain person (priest, imam, take your pick of any) comes and gives them an outlet, an excuse. Religion is the excuse, not the reason. The reasons need to be dealt with. If it we took away the excuse, there would be another - race, caste, regional differences.

I highlighted it in bold because like any bigot , you somehow profess deafness and blindness when faced with the obviousness of your bigotry. Go back to post #55 and try reading it again. Use your finger to point at the words if neccessary.

The difference is religion allows people to abstain from responsibility for their actions as they are doing them for a third party who will support them in their afterlife.

Man fighting man. Each one with God on his side.

There would always be power and resource conflicts.

yes.

What if I knew that eating rice kills you, should I not tell you?

Should I put a gun on you and force you to believe it? NO.
Should I tell you and leave the decision up to you? YES.

Believing is up to you. Be saved from burning hell! and be saved from the Wrath of God!

Truth & Peace.

Then you've never been to something like a public sporting event - where the mob mentality comes into play, and fans of one side openly berate and sometimes fight with the opposing side, all for the sake of "their team."

Organized religion provides the fertile soil in which fundamentalism grows. Remove the soil.

Excuse me, I just wet myself...

Ah, ok, I went back. I missed that you put a part in bold…. So what I gather is that you are mad because I did presume you do not support same sex couples adopting children? I admit it was a presumption, but I don’t think it is a wild enough stretch to be warranted as ‘bigotry’ It mainly stems from the fact that I’ve always seen you rabidly defend the church, and from this quote..

Which I mistook for the common debate ‘technique’ of “I don’t believe it, so I’m going to throw up a series of hurdles until you give up from having to research each position�

So your opinion is that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children? What is the Church’s? If the two are conflicted, do you believe the Church is wrong?

It's impossible to remove the soil - as religion is only one part of it. You'd have to remove any type of group, differences etc. etc. to remove the soil...until we all look, act, think and live the same people will find differences and excuses to fight, hate etc.

It wouldn't work. I think you'd be luckier in trying to spread understanding, empathy, tolerance etc. in the same way as the 'bad feelings' are being spread. Just trying to 'remove' something that we disagree with doesn't work and is essentially the same as what they believe they are trying to do.

First up , kudos to you for admitting your mistake , despite me highlighting it in bold. I withdraw my "bigot" accusation.

If you perceive me as "rabidly" defending the Church , perhaps that is because of your own bias.

I don't necccessarily think sexuality should be an infringement to adoption of children... if fitness can be proven on other levels... I believe in the fallibility of the Church , just as I believe in the fallibility of the State.

Completely correct.

Once understanding, empaoothy and tolerance have been spread then people would start to question why is it I believe this when those other people are taught something else and religion disappears anyway. There are reasons why groups like the Taliban try and restrict education and information.

They're not a religion, they're a cult, and why shouldn't they pay taxes just because they joined some crazy cult? They are still residents of this country.

I'm totally siding with Germany on this one.

That doesn't mean that single parents aren't religious though, or that religious people don't neglect their children. I think a good chunk of the white trash people in the US and Canada are highly religious.

Well clearly you're not supposed to have sex before you are married and you will always have that one partner. Because that has ALWAYS worked, throughout history, and syphillus was god's way of punishing the wicked.

For the record, I'm being sarcastic.

Otherwise known as a religion that hasn't yet picked up that many followers.

Religions are just a bunch of cults.

As an organisation they have to pay taxes is what chipbag is referring to, not the members of the organisation

This isn't restricted to Roman Catholics: I can think of examples from the UK where systematic abuse was perpetrated in care homes run by local authorities, sometimes for decades. It is inconceivable that senior people didn't play a part in covering up, but they stayed in their jobs for the most part.


Fundamentalism isn't exclusive to religion: animal rights groups are one example, and some of the deep green ecologists are nearly as bad. Humans are just prone to this kind of thing, whether the excuse given is religion, politics or whatever.

This is stupid to ban Scientology! I do not like Scientology but that doesn't make me ban it. I believe in a democratic country where people are ALLOWED to believe what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Muslims, Catholics, Christians, Jews, etc, etc.. who cares! Let them practice what they want, but don't push it on me and don't tell me that something horrible will happen to me if I do not subscribe to your religion - using fear tactics to get me to join. I hate that!

They can "practice" it all they want. But when they start to congregate and have establishments for it, that's when Germany wants to be paid. Every other religion is paying, so if they want Scientology to be a religion they have to pay to.

I'm all for freedom of religion and all that cra... stuff. Practice what you want, leave me out of it. There is no difference between Jehova's Witness' going door to door, Hari Krishnas at the airports, or some Scientology "celebrity figure" trying to push it on TV. I can ignore each one, but they are all an attempt to get me to follow their way.

I would disagree with that, and I'm not religious.

Cults take your money (usually quite a high percentage of your income), tend to exclude others not in the cult and have very strict belief systems that limit your thinking and ability to live any sort of average life. While there are strict sects of a lot of religions I don't agree with, a lot of churches aren't very fanatical at all and I think having a belief system doesn't make you part of a cult.

Der Kirchensteuersatz beträgt derzeit (2007) in Bayern und Baden-Württemberg 8 %, in den übrigen Bundesländern 9 %.
Catholics and Protestants lose almost 10% of their gross income to the "official religions".


"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth: I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me…" (Matthew 10:34-37)


Jewish law is hardly conducive to "normal life".

You sure about that?

woof.

Not quite ... it´s actually 8% to 9% of their income tax:

Der Kirchensteuersatz beträgt derzeit (2007) in Bayern und Baden-Württemberg 8 %, in den übrigen Bundesländern 9 %. Bemessungsgrundlage ist die festgesetzte Einkommensteuer.

I stand corrected. It's an improvement over earlier taxes based on gross. More importantly it's money wasted which could much better serve all interests instead of those of a select group of people who wish to believe in fairy stories.

woof.

In my opinion, and opinions are like arsesholes (we all have one) the thought of dishing out nearly 10% of my hard earned wages is total sh*t. It represents what I would spend on my Holidays and my beer voucher allowance would be greatly depleted...I prefer to spend my money on myself and love ones
as a ps
...giving to charity I do... but I choose who and the amount...religious institutions are way down on the list

Edit
at 40% income tax at 10% would be about 4%...but I still have no desire to dish out my money to them

The church tax is by all means a voluntary contribution ... based on the principle of "negative freedom of religion" members are free to leave their church and thus end their duty to pay church tax.

But they are also "free" not to enjoy a whole range of publi services that are provided by the churches.
I know a fair few people working in soial fields who have NO time for the church but are FORCED to stay in the churches to have employment prospects.

I saw a job advertised last week for a streetworker in Munich.
Funded by the council, so MY money.
It was a re-advertisement so they obviously could fill the job first time.

The job involves working with male prostitutes in Munich.
So they are asking for social work qualifications, expereince of streetwork, experiene of prostitution issues, drug issues, health issues for men who have sex with men and preferably east European language skills. But here comes the hammer: You have to be a Christian! beasue even though the post is funded by the council, the actual provider of the social services in the protestant church!

Bizarre!

You must pay a fee to leave. To the church you don't believe in. Solely because your parents did (or at least pretended to) believe in the silliness they claim.

woof.

Not in Germany ...

The disafiliation from your church has to be formally declared in the local court (Amtsgericht) or the Standesamt (depending on the respective Bundesland) and is accordingly charged with a fee by those institutions ... NOT by the church in question:

Zuständige Behörde

Der Austritt muss in Deutschland je nach Bundesland entweder vor dem Amtsgericht (in Berlin, Brandenburg, Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen und in Thüringen) oder vor dem Standesamt (andere Bundesländer) erklärt werden

Equating Hassidism with Judaism makes about as much sense as equating the Amish with Christians. Besides, Judaism is not a missionary religion, so I fail to see what your problem is with a bunch of people believing in whatever they like, taking money from the people in their own group to do whatever they feel like? Sounds more or less like what any political/ideological organization does. Hell, it even shares a lot with non-pro sports clubs. And it's about free choice. As long as they don't meddle with your rights (and it stops pretty abruptly right there), why not let them do what they think is right?

Sure, there are a lot of religious organizations that are everything you mention and more, but I'm sure you know there are many religious organizations that put their efforts into undertakings even you would consider as positive contributions to society. In which case, what do you care what they believe in? It's a pretty arrogant and exclusionary point of view, to think that if you believe something is wrong, especially pertaining to a lifestyle someone chooses, then it should be banned.

I'm just saying - don't paint all religious activities and people with such a broad brush. Live and let live.

Specifically in the church's office at the Standesamt. I went through this already when my ex- wasn't yet my ex- and had to get the RK off her card. The church collects on your leaving.


There are a whole hell of a lot more Hassidim as a percentage of the religion than there are Mennonites. Nevertheless both are factions of the major religions.

Try getting a cheeseburger in Israel on a Saturday afternoon. Or a beer in Pakistan. Or a replacement hard drive here in Germany on a Sunday.

woof:

mmmm... gotta be Agadir Burger Bar on Nakhlat Binyamin. Kick ass burgers, choose from about 30 toppings including various cheeses, srhimps, even bacon. Shit my mouth is watering.

Things have changed loads in the last 20 years or so. But you're right, it took a lot of fighting and there are still issues in which I find religious meddling in public affairs enraging, on the verge of criminal. Like, you can't take a bus to Agadir on a Saturday afternoon. But that's what I meant with

BTW I actually as a science fiction fan read a few L Ron Hubards (maybe dodgy spelling) what total junk...and people pay money to his so called church...amazes me

Replacement hard drives are the spawn of The Devil.

Seriously though BD, I'm not sure that Sunday closing is all to do with religion and more to do with worker's rights. I'm not an expert on these things (because I'm always fuggin' workin' on a Sunday anyway), but maybe shops being closed on a Monday would be more logical... coz the rest of the country (should) be at work anyway.

Seriously also (that's two whole 'seriously's in one day, you realise) I don't think they should ban Scientology. I think the tax system here is all up the shoot and that any religion organised should be taxed, rather than individuals being taxed to pay into the coffers of a couple of the religions. If they taxed the church instead of taxing the populus for the church then it might help the ancient mumbo-jumbo to die a natural death without infringing on anybody's rights. Maybe some of the monies raised could go into education to teach children reality, rather than all the witchdoctor wooga-wooga stuff.

Well, Sin, who says we can't agree on anything, aye me old chap?

_{please don't take that last expression too much to heart}

I am. The Ladenschlußgesetz was the subject of my thesis in Germanistik and you're welcome to read it if you like. It started in 1377 in the UK under King James as a market closing for the "Lord's Day" and was imported here. It was also used as worker protection, but the basis was and remains religious.


Then you don't know about Scientology, a cult which uses lawsuits to silence their critics. A cult which attacks anyone leaving it. A cult which kills its members. A cult so paranoid it censors its members from access to the outside world.

Their purpose is to make money:


woof.

Not in Germany ...