Belgium May Prosecute the Church of Scientology

sheean.nl writes "A Belgian prosecutor recommended after a 10-year investigation that the government prosecute the church of Scientology. The church is accused of being a criminal organization involved in extortion, fraud, unfair trading, violation of privacy laws, and unlawfully practicing medicine. Both the Belgian and the European branches of the church should be brought to court, according to the authorities. The investigation was started in 1997 after former Scientologists complained about intimidation and extortion by the church. Other European countries such as Germany have problems with Scientology, but in the US it is officially recognized as a religion. Scientology has 10 million members including high-profile followers such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta." Scientology has long used heavy-handed legal and other tactics to suppress opposition on the Net.

Comments

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[VJ42]

It might be something to do with this. Scientologists issued a DCMA takedown notice against /. after part of OT III was posted on here by a random user.

European headquarters here too.

[bmcage]

What is interesting in this is that the European headquarters are also in Belgium, Brussels to be exact. So some very high ranking scientologists can be sued.

In 1998 or so they where already being cataloged as a sect, not a church, which is important here (state money and benefits I suppose). It is estimated that Belgium has 8000 Scientologists, which is pretty lousy on 10 million, but still, with the headquarters, it could be painful for them.

Re:All churches are guilty of that

[Selfbain]

I was raised in an extremely Christian environment and when I grew up I stopped going to church and rejected their belief system. However, I never once received death threats from the church and for the most part, I believe their intentions were good however misguided I believe them to be. To put it simply, the church I was forced to attend in my childhood never scared me. These people do.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[VENONA]

OK. I visited your links. Now I have to wonder if he's a fifth-columnist, in which case I'd have to say, "Nicely done!"

But see posts later in the discussion, regarding a Slate post that CoS isn't any weirder than others, just newer.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171416/

At some level, religion of any stripe disturbs me, as I see it all as both irrational and irrelevant. That said, at least some religions seem able to at least maintain a bit of dignity in their celebrations, and not *completely* insult the intelligence of their followers. I thought lost tribes of Israel present in central America (contrary to genetic evidence, but then we're not speaking of people who would believe in genetics), and wearing underwear that seems to serve the function of a wearable Post It note was a bit odd.

Now I'm trying to quantify the limits of weird, thinking of how reincarnation would rate, etc. At some point, my head will explode. Have you seen Tim Burton's _Mars Attacks_? Yeah, like that.

Re:Fucking Scientologists.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Doesn't sound any more bizarre than Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't charge $360,000 for it, nor do they sue people who hand out copies of their scriptures.

It's not the doctrines, it's the ensuing lawsuits, that mark the difference between a religion and a racketeering operation. Why does God need a starship? Same reason he needs a team of copyright lawyers: he doesn't, and anyone claiming he does is a fraud.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[Dun Malg]

That's the thing isn't it? Scientology is bizarre and ridiculous, and yet how can one criticize it without casting doubt on all religions? How can one say that stories about volcanoes, space ships, and H bombs are silly, but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not? The way I see it, absurd mythology invented by bronze age children surviving into the present day due to the inertia of tradition is religion. Absurd mythology invented 50-odd years ago by a greedy asshole third-rate science fiction writer and compulsive liar with delusions of grandeur in order to enrich himself and elevate him to the position of "prophet", well, in my eyes that's fraud. Most examples of the former were created with the best of intentions. Scientology was not.

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[rumblin'rabbit]

Most examples of the former were created with the best of intentions.

I accept your point about scientology, but how do you know that traditional religions were created with the best of intentions? How do you know that Christ or Mohammad were not con men of the first caliber, the Hubbards of their age?

And at any rate, what does it matter? If one accepts that knowing the truth is a good thing, belief in an absurd mythology is bad no matter where it came from.

I'm going to hell for these postings, aren't I?

Re:Reductio ad absurdum

[rumblin'rabbit]

If the tale of Jonah isn't literally true, what else in the Bible isn't true? Perhaps someone could go through with a yellow highlighter and mark off those parts I should believe, and those parts I can dismiss as mythology. Given that the world's largest religion is based on it, I think knowing which bits are true would be rather important.

My point being that if the Bible is the infallible word of God then there is no room to pick and choose. If the tale of Jonah is a myth then the gospels are suspect as well.

I have no such problem with The Iliad because no one is basing a religion on it. It's just a rip-roaring action adventure and the truth of it matters little.