Slashdot Mirror


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.

23 of 755 comments (clear)

  1. Go On Post, Say all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're Watching.

  2. Scientology not a Cult? by Esteban · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's an article in which it's argued that Scientology is not a cult: http://www.slate.com/id/2171416/

    It doesn't so much make Scientology look better, as make other religions look bad...

    1. Re:Scientology not a Cult? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      All religions are basically cults with a large number of followers.

      Oh really? If you want to learn what Baptists believe, go into a Baptist church and ask. They'll give you a Bible and as much denomination-specific literature as you care to leave with. You won't have to give your name, although they might ask for it. You won't have to join. You won't have to pay them anything. You won't have to sign a non-disclosure statement. And should you decide that you like it and wish to join that particular church, you're free to leave at any time. In fact, church membership isn't a requirement of their belief system at all (although it's recommended so that you can continue to learn about it and hang out with like-minded people). No one will tell you where to work or where to live or which doctor to go to or who you can be friends with.

      And that, to me, is the difference between a religion and a cult. You may completely disagree with what Baptists believe, but they'll tell you the entire story in advance and let you decide for yourself. The same goes for pretty much every other mainstream religion. On the other hand, if a group requires a donation or commitment before they'll even tell you what you're joining, run screaming. There are enough Open Source religions around that there's not much point in joining a proprietary sect.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  3. Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!! by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 5, Informative
    Probably because the Church of Scientology managed to royally piss off a good chunk of the USENET community (remember USENET? Cool, wasn't it?) back in the day by abusing the cancellation system, spamming, and generally making a set of newsgroups more or less unusable.

    Geeks have long memories.

    Plus, add in the "Scientology uses Technology" angle (debatable, at best...outright laughable more realizstically), and yeah, there's some geek.interest.to.be.had.

  4. Re:Who is next? by ajs · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am not defending the scientologists, but.... You could state many of these things for numerous religons.

    Sue the Pope? Good luck with that. You can't sue the Pope. As the Bush administration rightly pointed out (and you have no idea how rare it is for me to agree with that administration), in the U.S. the Pope is considered a foreign head-of-state, with all of the legal protections that that entails. We could invade the Vatican and bomb the Pope, but we could not sue him in a U.S. court of law any more than we could the Prime Minister of the U.K.

    That said, Scientology's accused of: "extortion, fraud, unfair trading, violation of privacy laws, and unlawfully practicing medicine." I'm not sure that you can accuse Roman Catholicism (as a whole, discounting fringe groups that aren't practicing core doctrine) of most of those.
  5. Re:Why Is This On Slashdot??!!! by VJ42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  6. Not officially recognized as a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The US government does not officially recognize any organization as a religion. There is the definition of church under section 501(c)(3) of the US tax code as a simplified tax exempt body. But religious organizations themselves are not regarded as tax exempt, just the complicated definition of church as a non profit body. But there are no officially recognized religions in the US.

  7. European headquarters here too. by bmcage · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  8. Re:All churches are guilty of that by Selfbain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Well, it has never been successfully tested.
  9. Fucking Scientologists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged".

    His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants.

    When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert. The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development.

    One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time.

    In December 1967 I knew someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but only that given here is needful.

    One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body.

    One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I. It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing. You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small.

    Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error. Good luck.

    1. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by David+Hume · · Score: 5, Informative

      Scientology is so bizarre that I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.
      He's not. See:

      Xenu - Wikipedia
      OT III Scholarship Page
      Fishman Affidavit - OT3, summary and comments
      DMCA complaint
    2. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hes' not. That's part of OT III, the OT's are the official scriptures of the Church (/spit) of Scientology. They became public in the US as part of the Fishman affidavits. The files have been closed in the US, Scientology is a sue-happy bunch, but they're completely legal in the Netherlands, our highest court has allready ruled on the matter.

      And they've starred in more than one legal case, here's to it starring in another one :)

    3. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by VENONA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    4. Re:Fucking Scientologists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > 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.

  10. Re:belgium and freedom of religion by lbbros · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a Catholic but I deeply dislike the Opus Dei. I happened to be in a school where most staff had unofficial connections with them, and it was hardly bearable, mostly due to their overzealous and fanatical views on religious and related matters.

    --
    A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
  11. Scientology is so 20th century by Arcturax · · Score: 5, Funny

    No you want a REAL religion, you should be subscribing to Sciencolonogy.

    It's the hottest new religion and all the big name Hollywood stars are taking part!

    You see, 1,000,000 Jillion years ago, the evil alien overlord Xanus ruled the galaxy and a horrible plague of dysentery broke out among all of the populated planets. To eradicate the plague, he rounded up all sufferers of the plague and piled them into huge toilet bowl shaped vessels (see the Ori from Stargate, they stole the design from us and we will sue in internet court!!) and then dumped them into a huge septic tank he dug here on Earth. They died a horrible death in that pit and their souls came out and now cling to everyone elses souls on earth are all backed up leaving our spirits all gassy and bloated.

    But have no fear... Sciencolonogy is here!

    With our cutting edge soul plunging tech we can easily measure the brain to bowel flow of the bodies energies. By reading the life changing book Diarrhetics, written by our esteemed founder Elron Chubbard, you will learn how we can help you plunge your soul clear of these obstructive souls and allow your energies to flow freely. For a small fee of course. Your initiation will come with the first five pages of the book free and a free half roll of our patented toilet paper. If you run out, the free pages of the book should tide you over until you can get to one of our study centers to buy some more. Our study centers are fully stocked with everything you need, including newpapers, magazines and books, all for a nominal fee. Act now because we are having a special deal! You can get one hour in a stall with a door for the price of the ones that come without! Hurry, this offer won't last!

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  12. Gonna have a Clam Bake! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You might just want to know what all the noise is about.

    Scientology is the 20th Century production of pseudo-religious scientificism in America - much as the LDS church was it's 19th century production. I expect Scientology to be at least as virulent - and ultimately compromised into the mainstream - as its Mormon predecessor. It will even gain them "martyrs" as LDS fallaciously claim for Joseph Smith - beaten to death by a mob he defrauded.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  13. Re:Co$ abuses the legal system by narcc · · Score: 5, Informative
    An informative post, with the exception of this:

    The official definition of a cult is an organization that rejects Jesus Christ, uses their own "scriptures" as superior to the King James Bible, discourages their members from reading the Bible, and then poses as a religion.


    I don't know who made this particular definition "official" but I'd reject any such definition that classifies EVERY non-christian religion as a "cult". Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. ALL meet your #1 criteria; they reject Jesus Christ.

    Why is "cult" in quotes? Only because you use it in the vulgar (common) sense. Follow this link for a better understanding.

    For future reference: Double-check anything else your church/pastor tells you. SEE Matthew 24:11, 2 Peter 2:1, Isaiah 9:16, 1 John 4:1
  14. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  15. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?
  16. No, the Co$ has some well-established company by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 5, Informative
    The Muslims have been known to attack and kill people who convert out of Islam. This is straight out of the Hadith of Bukhari:

    Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
    This is not just the work of vigilantes, this is the law in many Islamic countries (for instance, in Malaysia, ethnic Malays are considered Muslims by birth and conversion out is not allowed by law).

    Of course, it is very un-PC to point this out. Watch the replies to this comment for gratuitous attacks.

    Scientology is a racket, but they have a ways to go before they catch up to "mainstream" religion.
  17. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by Kyojin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is actually a lot simpler than going through the book with a highlighter. As you have pointed out, there are a number of writing styles in use by the various authors of the Old and New Testaments, sometimes the same author may use different writing styles for different books. In general, however, each book is self-consistent.

    For instance, the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the Old Testament, are written in a number of styles. Genesis and Exodus are largely prose narrative with many figures of speech. Leviticus is largely a book of law. Numbers is intended as a historical account of the beginnings of the Jewish civilisation in Israel. The emphasis in Deuteronomy is of a more spiritual nature, outlining the love relationship of the Lord with his people.

    Likewise, in the New Testament, we have the Gospel according to Luke, a doctor, which begins:

    "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophillus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

    and we have the Gospel according to John, which focuses on signs of Jesus' identity and mission, presenting the facts as he saw them, and explaining further the meanings behind what occurred. Also by John (generally accepted as the same John, but potentially John the Presbyter), we have the book of Revelation, which is the only book in the Christian bible to be composed of entirely apocalyptic literature.

    What I am trying to show is that there are sound reasons for not taking every word of the Bible literally. The authors did not intend each book to be taken literally and the writing styles show this. For more information, many recent publications of the Bible include introductions to each book, and some "study" Bibles offer commentaries from biblical scholars. Zondervan publishing usually include such introductions at the beginning of each book, especially in the New International Version (NIV) translation.