1
   

Tom Cruise, Cults, Germany

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 09:55 pm
old europe wrote:
How far did you get, edgar? Are you a clear?


I didn't begin that process.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 09:56 pm
This means that John Travolta is also banned?
0 Replies
 
HokieBird
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 09:59 pm
Roberta wrote:
HokieBird wrote:
I think Cruise was only prevented from filming on government property (i.e. military bases), for the reasons given. They haven't banned him (or the film crew) from Germany because of his 'religion'.


Yes, but if he weren't a Scientologist, would the film company have been permitted to film on government property? If the answer is yes, then the issue is the same.


Could have been worse. He could have been a Lutheran minister who spoke out against abortion and landed in jail for a year.

Could be we haven't quite convinced them of the value of free speech yet.
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 12:04 am
Okey dokey. Thanks for the info, HokieBird.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 12:06 am
The significance of this Tom Cruise incident is that "freedom" is always relative to context. The Germany which has emerged from WW2 is understandably wary of belligerent cults like Scientology. What might be seen as a paranoid reaction by Germany by others is in their eyes an attempt to undermine the spread of well funded pernicious assault on established social "rationalities". Following the disaster of Nazism, the fear amongst themselves is perhaps that "the German psyche" is potentially fertile ground for "cultish movements",and some in the West might concur !
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 05:34 am
Roberta wrote:
I still don't get.

I don't care about the beliefs of Scientologists. I don't see that they're relevant to the issue. The issue is that a film company was prevented from filming because a member of the cast has beliefs that are unacceptable.



No, it's not that his beliefs are unacceptable. He has the right to believe in the Ruler of the Galaxy, and that all humans are infested with the souls of dead space aliens (called "thetans"). That's not the issue.

Nor are the film company or Tom Cruise banned from entering or filming in Germany.

This issue is that the Benderblock memorial, which is said to be the primary location (and where where von Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators were executed) is located within Berlin's Defense Ministry headquarters.
I doubt that very many film crews would be allowed to shoot at that location at all, or shoot a movie that portrays an important part of Germany's history "on location".

But given that Tom Cruise is a spokesman for an organisation which is seen as a brainwashing cult, I find the decision understandable.

Along the same lines: would you be upset if a film crew was to shoot a movie about, say, the Civil War, on location in the White House, and was banned from it because the main actor was a public spokesperson for the KKK? Would you think that it was the government's right to make that kind of decision, or would you think that it was discriminatory of the KKK?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 05:47 am
edgarblythe wrote:
old europe wrote:
How far did you get, edgar? Are you a clear?


I didn't begin that process.


So you just did some basic Dianetics and Auditing?

From what I know, I wouldn't say that the Church of Scientology encourages the practice of Scientology outside of the organisation. There are people who left the CoS and established an organisation (called the "Free Zone") in order to practice their belief without having to pay the huge amount money ("donations") that the Church of Scientology charges to move you up "the Brigde" and without having to follow CoS "dogma".

These people have repeatedly been sued by the CoS for copyright and trademark infringements and for publishing trade secrets (The OT III material which talks about Xenu, the Evil Ruler of the Galaxy, is kept secret by the CoS, because only people who are "clear" and have mastered OT I and OT II can be "trusted" with this dangerous material. And because people pay about $200.000 to get to that level, so it would be really annoying to have the material out in the open...) and instructions on how to build an E-Meter, which is currently sold by the CoS for $4,650 apiece, for something like $50.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 06:01 am
old europe wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
old europe wrote:
How far did you get, edgar? Are you a clear?


I didn't begin that process.


So you just did some basic Dianetics and Auditing?

From what I know, I wouldn't say that the Church of Scientology encourages the practice of Scientology outside of the organisation. There are people who left the CoS and established an organisation (called the "Free Zone") in order to practice their belief without having to pay the huge amount money ("donations") that the Church of Scientology charges to move you up "the Brigde" and without having to follow CoS "dogma".

These people have repeatedly been sued by the CoS for copyright and trademark infringements and for publishing trade secrets (The OT III material which talks about Xenu, the Evil Ruler of the Galaxy, is kept secret by the CoS, because only people who are "clear" and have mastered OT I and OT II can be "trusted" with this dangerous material. And because people pay about $200.000 to get to that level, so it would be really annoying to have the material out in the open...) and instructions on how to build an E-Meter, which is currently sold by the CoS for $4,650 apiece, for something like $50.


I didn't get that involved, to know of such details. I do know that nobody I associated with asked me for money, except to help with donations (in Long Beach) to help keep the coffee pot supplied. A dollar or so every few months was ample.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 06:03 am
HokieBird wrote:
Could have been worse. He could have been a Lutheran minister who spoke out against abortion and landed in jail for a year.

Could be we haven't quite convinced them of the value of free speech yet.


Well, not only Germany but a couple of other European countries have laws which criminise incitement of the people/sedition.

This old neo-Nazi just is a Lutheran pastor by profession.

The one-year prison sums up from previous convictions (dating back more than 10 years).

And: Lerle is a theologian, but no priest at all.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 06:09 am
Certainly, a film by Scientolists made in the Dederal Ministry of Defense would be a quasi-acceptence of the Scientologists.

On the other hand, I've my doubts if many films were and are produced in any war-/defense ministry at all.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 06:09 am
Roberta wrote:
I don't care about the beliefs of Scientologists. I don't see that they're relevant to the issue. The issue is that a film company was prevented from filming because a member of the cast has beliefs that are unacceptable.

The film company was not prevented from filming. It was prevented from filming at one particular facility owned by the federal government. This facility is dedicated to the memory of the July 20th 1944 coup against Hitler.

And it's not about Cruise's beliefs per se. It's about the fact that Scientology has a program that aims, among other things, to abolish Germany's democratic, human-rights-based system of government. The federal government of Germany does not support such organizations by letting prominent members use its facilities. It would have acted the same way if Cruise had been a prominent member Neo-Nazi, a Stalinist, a fundamentalist Muslim -- or of any other group that aims to abolish German democracy. Whether the group calls itself a religion or not makes no difference in terms of this policy.

Suppose somebody made a film about the holocaust. Starring the movie is a prominent member of the National Socialist Party of America. The crew applies for permission to film inside the Washington Holocaust museum. The director of the museum denies the permission, citing the star's Nazi credentials. Would you have a problem with this?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 06:17 am
edgarblythe wrote:
I didn't get that involved, to know of such details. I do know that nobody I associated with asked me for money, except to help with donations (in Long Beach) to help keep the coffee pot supplied. A dollar or so every few months was ample.


Ah, I see.

Well, I'd also like to say that some of the initial "Auditing" Scientology offers does really work for people. In Auditing (where you are holding the E-Meter thingies), you are made to go back to a traumatic experience in your past, and go over it again and again. The theory is that you still suffer from the subconscious effects of such a past trauma.

This is pretty much the same thing that's done in Regression Therapy. It doesn't necessarily work for each and every person, but I would say that it can be a valid approach.

What the CoS doesn't tell "pre-clears" though is that in Scientology, this is not seen as Regression Therapy. In Scientology, the reason for past traumata is that they are caused by thetans, the spirits of the aliens which were dropped on Earth 75,000,000 years ago and annihilated by hydrogen bombs. These thetans aren't aware of themselves. So a Scientologist has to find them (using the E-Meter), address them and "clear" his body of them.

So what sounds like a scientifically sound method in the beginning leads pretty fast to some weird kind of science fiction based brainwashing indoctrination. (Scientology is also known to keep the files of these Auditing sessions, where people confessed the most traumatic events of their lives, to blackmail higher-level Scientologists and prevent them from leaving the organisation and spilling the "secrets".)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 06:23 am
The Scientoligists have about 12,000 members (according to the Federal (and various State offices) Office for the Protection of the Constitution between 5,000 - 7,000) in Germany, btw.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 06:29 am
Roberta wrote:
Yes, but if he weren't a Scientologist, would the film company have been permitted to film on government property? If the answer is yes, then the issue is the same.

The answer to your question appears to be "yes". According to several sources I found through a Google News search, Harald Kammerbauer, a speaker of the Ministry of Defense, declared that "filming on German military bases is not possible if Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, an avowed Scientologist."

This is constitutional in Germany because our constitution's non-establishment clause is much narrower than yours. Germany has no government-established church; but the state can prefer religion over irreligion, and even (within limits) some kinds of churches over other kinds of churches.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 06:44 am
According to Kammerbauer (quoted two housr ago by Vanity Affair, German edition) no-one asked until now for a permittance t make the film in the Defense Ministry (Bendler Block).

(That report is a bit different to what Thomas quoted above: so according to Vanity Affair, Krauthammer didn't made such a remark about Cruise<>Sciontolgy: he had a personal opinion, he said according to this source, but that wasn't thaught to be spoken out in public.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 06:47 am
Thomas wrote:
.... but the state can prefer religion over irreligion, and even (within limits) some kinds of churches over other kinds of churches.


But this only due to treaties/concordats (re "one chucrh above the other").
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 06:47 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The Scientoligists have about 12,000 members (according to the Federal (and various State offices) Office for the Protection of the Constitution between 5,000 - 7,000) in Germany, btw.


The number of Scientologists (and the CoS claims of being the most rapidly growing "religion") is quite suspect as well.

The Church of Scientology claims that it has more than 8 million members worldwide. Yet, whenever they get into a situation where these claims could be verified by non-CoS institutions, they absolutely avoid getting hard numbers.

In Norway, Scientology would have had to report the exact number of Scientologists to the Norwegian government in order to be recognized as a church. Scientology didn't apply for church status.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 06:50 am
Source for that number ... a really interesting reference site, btw (only in German)!
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 07:05 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Source for that number ... a really interesting reference site, btw (only in German)!


Oh, I don't doubt the number you gave, Walter. In contrast, the numbers of members (not just adherents) the "Scientology Kirche Deutschland" claimed to have have usually been in the range of 30,0000...

On a lighter note, here is how South Park illustrates the core beliefs of the Church of Scientology, as they are described in OT III (OT stands for "Operating Thetan", which is what you'll become when you manage to clear your body of the "Body Thetans"):

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xDPkn9LX0rU


It's an almost exact depiction of the description L. Ron gave - except that he wrote that the frozen aliens were dumped near volcanoes around the Earth (known in the Galactic Federation as "Teegeeack") and then blown up with hydrogen bombs instead...........
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2007 07:14 am
edgarblythe wrote:
(I consider it a religion, at least for him, if he totally believes it, regardless of the origin and some of the practices. No different in essence from the origins of other religious beliefs, no more fantastic).


To me, this is the crux of the biscuit. Scientology is no loonier than any of the imaginary friend superstitions, and if the leadership are trying to milk the public, the most that can be said is that they exhibit more honesty and zeal about their desire to control the "flock" to their own advantage.

That being noted, Germany has the right to make these decisions, and one can reasonably assume that the decision is not odious to any substantial body of German voters, or it would have been overturned.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/30/2024 at 04:36:39