Slashdot Mirror


Scientology On Trial In Belgium

dgharmon sends this news from the Atlantic Wire: "After a years-long legal battle, federal prosecutors in Belgium now believe their investigation is complete enough to charge the Church of Scientology and its leaders as a criminal organization on charges of extortion, fraud, privacy breaches, and the illegal practice of medicine. ... Multiple reports and the group's legal history point to one key factor here: The Belgian government won't charge Scientology for being a cult — authorities are focusing on prosecuting it as a criminal organization. Which is a new twist, as most of the group's many court battles over the years have focused on establishing its legitimacy as a religion. ... The Church of Scientology houses its European headquarters in Brussels, so a ban in Belgium could be crippling to the group — and authorities there seem to know it."

13 of 540 comments (clear)

  1. it was by etash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    about time this happened. It should be banned EU-wide.

    1. Re:it was by jkrise · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Atleast in the EU, there is some evidence that intelligent life exists, and rational debate is encouraged.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    2. Re:it was by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why only EU?

      Its just a EU court. Only the US empire considers the whole world its jurisdiction.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  2. Matters of degree by scotts13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to offend anyone (or, sorry that I WILL) basically every organized religion is wacky. Since they're all based on things that have to be taken on faith, the only difference is how much disbelief the adherents are willing to suspend. Granted, to THIS observer, Scientology (and Mormonism, close behind) are at the far end of the spectrum, but it's a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. Now, practically, the Scientologists appear to present an ongoing danger to society; the Mormons no longer appear harmful.

  3. Re:Here it comes... by Sperbels · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i don't know alot of mormonism, but scientology has been known to harass, abuse, threaten ex-members, people who disagree with them etc. etc

    This is true. Mormonism seems to run the same way as other churches. Scientology seems to operate like the US government.

  4. Re:Terribly naive, I know... by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because the key word "religion" has been a hot issue for so long that it's built into many laws. Employers discriminating against a religion is outlawed, but forbidding membership in a non-religious group may be fine (and the reverse as well... employers often can't only hire one religion, but can mandate union membership). Church property may be exempt from police searches under age-old sanctuary laws. Of course, those taxes you mentioned can also mean a difference of 20-50% in a church budget.

    Much of law is based on categorizing entities. Some categories are governed by this particular set of laws, other categories by a different set. Trying to work entities in to or out of any particular category is therefore a big part of a lawyer's job, and where lawyers get such a reputation for being dishonest.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  5. Re:One is a religion, the other a con scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the Church of Latter Day Saints, a significant religious denomination whose members perform millions of hours of community service and give generously to communities around the globe.

    That community service's whole purpose is to convert folks to their cult.

    And building a church hardly counts as community service.

    To me community service is helping people with no strings attached. No need to hear a sermon, convert, or do something that in the end helps said religious organization.

    There are always strings attached when it comes to the Mormons.

  6. Re:One is a religion, the other a con scam by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "[Pablo] Escobar was a brilliant criminal, and he knew that he would be safer if the common people of Medellín loved him. Therefore, he spent millions on parks, schools, stadiums, churches and even housing for the poorest of Medellín’s inhabitants. His strategy worked: Escobar was beloved by the common people, who saw him as a local boy who had done well and was giving back to his community."

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Catholicism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Catholic Church is responsible for the greatest genocide in human history - that of wiping out an estimated 120 million people in Central and South America, destroying countless cultures and plundering all of their wealth. The residential schools that decimated the cultural heritage of North American First Nations peoples were also run by Catholics. Even if you ignore the millions of acts of rape and pedophelia carried out by clergy in the modern era, the Catholic Church has been engaged in the most depraved, genocidal, racist, sexist evil deeds that humanity has ever committed for over 1,000 years.

    I hope some day that 'freedom of religion' is replaced with 'freedom from religion' as a fundamental human right.

  8. Re:One is a religion, the other a con scam by tdelaney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By those criteria, just using recent news stories:

    Catholicism is a cult.
    Church of England is a cult.
    Islam is a cult.

    To make my position clear, I have no hard feelings towards people who are religious (any religion) so long as their religion does not impact me or those I care about. Anyone who tries to proselytise to me is greeted with my standard response of "I'm sorry, but I'm quite secure in my lack of faith".

    BTW, an example of a religious organisation that does not use its community service to convert people is the Salvation Army in Australia (can't say for anywhere else). Yes - a significant number of people who they help do join the Salvos, but as a policy they do not discuss religion with the people they're helping unless they're specifically asked about it.

  9. Re:One is a religion, the other a con scam by sudon't · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. He was a horrible person who did all that giving for selfish reasons. I've watched multiple candid documentaries about him. He was a fucking terrible, evil piece of shit.

    Prohibition creates the situation where the only way to enforce business transactions, or deal with unfair competition, is through violence. This is just how capitalism operates when placed outside the law. Escobar was likely no less ethical than any other CEO. Think Andrew Carnegie. It's just that most businesses operate with the benefits, and restraints, of regulation. We see this everytime a black market is created, or whenever capitalism is allowed to run amok. Why do you think business hates regulation? They'd all love to be operating in the US the way they do in China, for instance.

    I would guess that the vast majority of charity from very wealthy businessmen is given for entirely selfish reasons.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  10. Re:Here it comes... by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe this is just me, but making fun of Mormon underwear seems to me just as dumb as making fun of the hijab, yarmulke, Sikh turban, or pocket protector.

    OK, I've never worn a pocket protector, but you get my point I hope.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  11. Re:Here it comes... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A sometimes more useful way to contrast religions is to look at where they each look for authority.

    Christianity and Islam both place a lot of Authority in the written word. Some sects more than others, but all sects to some degree.

    Judaism places authority in the spoken word (the written texts must be read aloud to be understood, because it is the spoken word that has Authority; the written stuff is merely a mnemonic aid). This is a significant difference: the Authority is there only as the words are spoken; there is no absolute "This was once written therefore it shall forever be this way" dictatorial attitude about it. It is more a "Tell me again, right now," thing, with the inherent recognition that even though I may have heard this a thousand times before, maybe this time I will more clearly understand some meaning that I never really heard before.

    Zen, Tao, and Buddhism state that the Authority has nothing to do with words, that it is found through wordless states like meditation. Zennist practice goes so far as to use koans to so twist up the language that the usefulness of words is momentarily broken, which provides an opportunity for the trained seeker to experience the wordless authority. The core written teaching about the Tao is: "The Tao that you read about is not the Tao".

    In contemporary neopagan practice, authority is sought through directed visualizations augmented by chanting, drumming, dance, and ritual.

    And so on. Something that is interesting here is that the religions that rely on the written word for their authority are historically the least tolerant and most war-like. They definitely score highest on the "holier-than-thou" scale.

    I know nothing about the internals of Scientology. But what little I know of it suggests that it wants it adherents to put more faith into its written words than any other religion has ever done.

    --
    Will